Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture

I want to bring attention to the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture that degenerated from subject article into editor bashing. The editor/admin dab, who was already warned against pushing his POV, assails this editor for using term "Türkic", adopted in the UN publications, instead of his preference for semantically dissimilar "Turkic", falsely accuses this editor in sockpuppeteering, and threatens with banishment for my contributions. The editor/admin dab consistently avoids subject discussions, and instead uses forceful enforcement of his opinions without a need to back them up with any references. Instead of heeding the POV warning, and obstain from the field where he holds strong views, dab is systematically engaging in removing referenced materials, pertinent illustrations, and whole articles, impoverishing WP in Türkic-related class of subjects, and aggressively discouraging contributing editors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefact (talk • contribs)

This has been raised below. Hopefully dating this sig will prompt archiving. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Save humanity

Adding

Unresolved

though

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours --Allemandtando (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Save humanity (talk · contribs) is conducting some disturbing behaviour at the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena‎ article, introducing bloggish/spammish/soapboxish commentary (like posting contact phone number of the party), breaching 3rr, creating a fork article and not responding to the various warnings posted at his talk page. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User has been notified, please notify the Subject of AN complaints in the future. Also, I recommend you file a 3RR report by going here and filing a complaint. Beam 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone delete the very clear POV folk that is Maharashtra Navnirmaaa Sena (MNS) --Allemandtando (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this user seems to have copied my user page. I came to know of this as one of the fellow editor with whom I regularly interact left me the message. Check this - User_talk:Gppande#Question & User:Save_humanity. I would request Admins to be help me by deleting his/her user page. I have never ever got involved with this user earlier. Looks like he/she is making improper use of my name. --gppande «talk» 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing is why does Save humanity assume Klopto (talk · contribs · count) to be Gppande whom 'he' (Save humanity is a male as per his userpage declaration) refers to as Dear Klopto (Gppande) in a message at Klopto's talkpage?! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the first thing to be done is to clean the message coz I am definitely not Klopto. I would prefer admins doing this as I hesitate to wipe off discussion threads on others talkpage. BTW, my userpage got vandalized had to get it semi-protected. Something fishy is going on. --gppande «talk» 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Save humanity has now reappeared as an anon user, 66.255.99.91 (talk · contribs), still breaking 3RR, still adding nonsense material, still creating fork articles. I'll post a sock tag and 3rr report. --Soman (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RRaunak

User:RRaunak has started editing wikipedia on July 12 using this account: User:Rnkroy and gave it up. I busted him doing suspicious activities with User:Infraud and he said that was "his friend" because they were both editing their talk pages and copying. But now, User:RRaunak is trying to get himself more popular and it seems he activated the WP:Twinkle and the WP:Friendly gadgets on his preferences. After careful observation of his contributions, he made quite a lot of mistakes by putting inappropriate CSD or tagging in established articles. I have reverted his mistakes and warned him a few times. Edits such as this: [1] [2] [3] actually shows how unexperienced he is with the tools but what is blatantly wrong is that he put a inappropriate block template as a warning on a user page. [4] What is the course of action for him? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot! He also created a bot and put the {{Bot|RRaunak}} tag. It is located at User:Corebot. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bot" usernameblocked. Looking at the user's recent edits, it really seems as though he's enthusiastically doing everything wrong that can be done wrong (such as nominating articles for CfD). Per WP:BITE, though, I think he just needs good advice, not admin intervention at this stage. Contact me or another admin if there's excessive misuse of automated tools.  Sandstein  13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do immediately. He's on close watch. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle hints have failed and I'd rather avoid screaming at him, so could somebody ask him nicely to choose a less obnoxious sig block? Thanks in advance. — CharlotteWebb 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to check his two half complete portals, finish them or delete them. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did CSD'd his unused portals. They were empty. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He raises his editcount by copying other people's userpages and adding it to his userpage. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasnt been already noticed, RRaunak has selectively deleted this ANI message on his talk page: [5] --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey its in archive did you see that--
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit was done by you for the purpose of removing a message and making it llook like it was something else; ot for archiving. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I have noticed is that he is too eager to do major edits and play around with templates, even if he does not have any editing experience. This hoax tag was totally uncalled for:[6]. And I seriously dont know why he wanted to add the flag here: [7]. From what I feel, he is tring to experiment with designs, scripts , bots and templates without understanding the consequences first. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet he continues adding AfD templates instead of CSD templates thus giving us more work. Should any admin intervene? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel a temporary block, now matter if it seems unjustifed; may be necessary. Maybe if he hits a wall then he will take some time to think about his actions. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest restricting his access to tools until he can demonstrate that he knows what he is doing with them? --Allemandtando (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey , dont block him now.. I have given him some advices and hopefully I can help him out with the tools and our policies ... -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 12:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea... We should restrict his access to tools. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why did user:Infraud his "friend" vandalize user:Gppande's userpage by blanking it? I feel RRaunak(roy) should atleast explain what he and his friend (now blocked indefinitely) were trying to do? Unless they do this I don't feel its very wise to pardon them.-- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking my userpage was nothing but pure vandalism. He also seemed to continue his experiments on some major articles like India. Check this version of India page. Why would a good faith user try these? --gppande «talk» 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I found that.The fellow is a bastard.I know him.He stays in my nextroom.but block wont do.he made something eaero today. as told to me.even his father doesnt care him .he is 16.wanna more info?
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even I have tried putting the India flag behind the Wikipedia logo, BUT on my Userpage. Please use the WP:SANDBOX for experimening or make a Userpage like User:RRaunak/Sandbox to try these things. Also please don't insult User:Infraud, atleast not on Wikipedia. -- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! so you already have a /Sandbox subpage. Realized this after seeing my "saved" comment (don't use the preview button much!). So you know a lot about editing and stuff and your sig is another proof to it. I suggest you should channelize this "knowledge" in improving Wikipedia, responsibly. You have the skills. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also i feel like reposting the suspected sockpuppet tag on both of his old accounts. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that he is just a school kid with lots of Enthusiasm who didnt understand the seriousness of what he is doing. He has stopped his edits now Special:Contributions/RRaunak. I am giving a last try to help him and correct him ... -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know.. Looks like the poor boy's account is used by his 'friends' :( -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If thats the case this is a clear case of "comprimising of user account". --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should these edits be deleted (especially the second one)?  Frank  |  talk  13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw! Come on! Do you seriously believe the room-mate story???? Ive heard it before[8]! And Im sure an IPcheck will find out if this roomate may actually be the same person.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a case revealing real-life identity. Shall I delete that from userpage? But it will still remain in history. --gppande «talk» 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should this user's monobook.js be deleted and salted? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 02:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait and watch: I am tempted to vote yes, because I was among the first to warn him about sockpuppetry but he went ahead and created a third account. He has ignored other warnings too. If TinuCherian's efforts yeild fruit, it wont be necessary. If he gets back to it within 3-4 days, blocking his access to tools(temporarily at first) will be the only option. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Deepak D'Souza, let us wait and watch. But please watch for any similar editing patterns by any new users and let me know if any. I hope RRaunak doesnt make the same mistakes again. Gpande, delete 'the stuff' from userpage. I dont really think anybody will go to you page and check history in future -- Tinu Cherian - 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and tenditious editing on Tucker Max

Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view. User's posts have been in the past tenditious. Initially engaged in personal attacks, he was the subject of a wikiquiette alert and the personal attacks have to his credit ended, however, the tenditiousness has not.

While I admit that this is borderline between AN/I worthy and a content dispute resolution, I'll explain why I think this is an AN/I issue.

Despite being a newly registered user, Theserialcomma has enough Wikipedia experience that he was able to go into the history of the Tucker Max article and retrieve a "criticism" section that was deleted repeatedly as a egegrious violation of WP:BLP. Theserialcomma's position through the entire incident is that the criticism is so important that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP [9]. He has been warned by others that this behavior was inappropriate [10] but has continued.

Within this section of the article, Theserialcomma was quite insistant on the inclusion of an interview that was again both a BLP violation, and a violation of WP:UNDUE as well. [11]. He then left a borderline harassing message on my talk page [12]. He also accused me of vandalism [13], and shortly after fought with me over the removal of a comment left by an IP vandal [14]

After myself and TheRegicider disagreed on whether the section should be included at all, we agreed to post it with a "neutrality" template and file an RfC on it.

However, theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section - most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [15] [16]

He is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. [17] [18] [19].

The reason I consider this an AN/I incident rather than a conduct dispute is because of theserialcomma's disregard for wikipedia policy and extreme tenditiousness. McJeff (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a SPA with a purpose. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have one of his comments a {{subst:spa|username}} tag. Hopefuly that will be suitable chastisement to aends his awful behavieur. Smith Jones (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most accounts start off as single purpose, I know I did. This seems like a content dispute. Also, I read diff 42 and it wasn't harassment, I don't even think borderline. I recommend dispute resolution. If he does attack you, and not your content, bring it back here. This is of course just my opinion. It couldn't hurt to suggest for him to edit other articles. Oh, and that is sort of supsicious about knowing enough to dig through the history. If anyone notices that his behavior matches a banned or known feetcover master, than say something. Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and anyone who supports the serial comma can't be ALL bad. ;) Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it looks bad enough. He's just not listening. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

however tedious this may be, (and for this, i apologise), i must respond to mcjeff's allegations on a point by point basis, because i think he has misrepresented the facts of the situation.

1. "Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view." response: this is blatantly false. you can easily check my history to see the other articles i've edited. to say i've 'exclusively' edited the tucker max article is a lie.

2. i edit with "a clear non-favorable point of view." response: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. the fact is, he is controversial, and he deserves a controversy section. that is what i am trying to do. for over 3 weeks of a consensus that there should be a controversy section, mcjeff would not allow it. just because i disagree with him, and because i think the article is balanced in favor of a person contrary to the facts, doesn't mean i am interested in only non-favorable points.

3. mcjeff claims i engaged in personal and harassing attacks on his talkpage. his evidence is [[20]] response: i don't believe this to be harassment or a personal attack. but i do believe that falsely claiming harassment, personal attacks, and WP violations is a form of harassment. please view this yourself and decide if it's a legitimate complaint.

4. mcjeff claims that my position is that, "the criticism (section) is so important (to me) that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP. this is another misrepresentation of what actually has happened. if you check the discussion page, you'll see that i talked about my edits first, and solicited ideas from others as to how to make it neutral. some ideas were offered from mcjeff, they were incorporated into the addition of the criticism section, and then mcjeff continually reverted every attempt i made to add it. even though we agreed a criticism section should be there, he still reverted every attempt i made at adding it, instead of trying to edit the changes to make it more acceptable.

5. "theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section -most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [21] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Max&diff=225470745&oldid=225427936] response: please view the diffs and decide if the intent and context are truly changed. this is a matter of opinion, but i think mcjeff just enjoys reverting any changes i make, and i don't think my edits changed the context or intent.

6. "(theserialcomma) is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. response: the sources are clearly invalid and the claim that he gets 1 million unique hits is clearly dubious, and it is not really up for debate if you check the discussion page where i cite the evidence. however, mcjeff responded that he shall revert any edit i make, regardless of the evidence. this is one of mcjeff's most egregious and obvious blunders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the problem is that Theserialcomma has got certain ideas in his head that he refuses to let go of.

For starters, the accusation that I don't want a criticism section. This is wrong - I was reverting out an improperly done criticism section per WP:BLP. I actually did want one all along, and I was the initiator of attempting to rewrite the section, as I will demonstrate with difs. [22] [23] [24]. His other accusations against my conduct also fail to take into account that as per WP:BLP they were to my underestanding the correct actions. (I have at various times offered that if an administrator tells me otherwise I'll cease and try to make amends.)

In regards to the "false harassment" charge, I find it harassing to have people speculating my motives, and I feel that it violates both AGF and CIVIL. But even if it violates neither of those, it doesn't support wikipedia's policy of "Address the edit not the editor".

In regards to the claim that he was editing exclusively on the Tucker Max article, I see that he has made a few edits outside that article since the last time I checked his contribution history. Still, it would be safe to say that the vast majority of the edits he made were to Tucker Max and the corresponding talk page, with most of the rest in individual talk pages.

As far as the idea that he is POV-pushing, I feel that in his very rebuttal to the AN/I, he has confirmed his POV, as he stated his intent: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. With the sourced criticism section added (which is undergoing an RfC at this time) I see no lack of balance.

Finally in regards to the controversy over the sources section - I do not think it's unreasonable to require extra opinions before allowing a long term tenditious editor to make controversial changes to an article.

McJeff (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think McJeff's characterization of TSC's comment on his talk page as "harassment" is a little over-the-top, but it was definitely a failure to WP:AGF, and I have advised/warned TSC accordingly. Unless the behavior repeats, I consider that aspect of the matter to be closed.

There is definitely a slow-burn edit war going on at Tucker Max. Early this morning/late last night, an RfC was filed. I think this is an appropriate way forward, since it is not abundantly clear whether there is a consensus or not. Until the RfC is completed, I would caution both editors to avoid edit-warring over the section in question.

I am not sure if there are WP:BLP concerns with the criticism section... I don't know enough about this topic to know if there are WP:UNDUE weight problems. If an uninvolved editor wanted to comment out the section until the RfC is closed, I would not have a problem with that. However, I would again caution both TSC and McJeff from further editing the section until the RfC process is complete.

Does this address both editors' concerns for now? If the edit warring continues during or after the RfC, then I could see administrative action being required; for now, though, I think we should just let the RfC play out and try to do a better job to assume good faith. Agreed? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, sorry. This is not a content dispute, this is over Theserialcomma's general tenditiousness. In fact, this would be a content disagreement rather than a content dispute if Theserialcomma weren't so pushy. In the mean time, the tenditiousness continues. Theserialcomma continues to call me out by name in talk page topics, in more rambling posts replete with accusations [25] and if that's not enough, he then copypastes these posts onto my talk page. Again, this is not a content dispute, this is one user being tenditious. McJeff (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The diff you link to is tedious, but there is nothing to stop you from ignoring it. My recommendation would be to stop responding to TSC and wait for the RfC to play out.

Failing that, what admin action are you specifically looking for here? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Theserialcomma continues to call me out by name and he posts his accusations against me in boldface type. This is difficult to ignore. The administrative action I'd like to see taken is for him to be sternly warned about BLP and CIVIL violations, and punished appropriately if they continue. McJeff (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nutsheller and Incivility

Resolved

 – Talking took place. Beam 12:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nutsheller is continuing to be insulting towards other editors, particularly me, for the last several days despite being warned about it. He has made personal attacks in the talk page of the article Pygmy Kitabu, which I originally visited due to a CorenBot alert and tagged for CSD for being a copyright violation. For some background: Pygmy Kitabu was created by User:Mbabane, who immediately removed the CSD tag and rewrote the article some[26]. I removed a final bit of copyvio, then tagged the article for notability for failing to meet WP:BK.[27]. Mbabane then disappeared from the article, and another new user User:Plannedobesity appeared and removed the notability tag[28]. User:NawlinWiki tagged it for needing non-primary sources, and Plannedobesity removed that tag and added a source[29]. I put back the notability tag and added a refimprove tag.[30]. Enter Nutsheller, third new editor. He removed both tags and added a new paragraph with two references[31]. There is an open sockpuppet case to see if these three are all the same, as all three edited the same three articles, with no simultaneous work and one picking up the edits of another seemlessly, etc.

In talk page discussions began "defending" the article by making personal attacks against me[32]. He implied I questioned the article's notability because I was racist saying: "There is already an extreme amount of prejudice against the Efe and other pygmy tribes of Africa (such as the Twa of neighboring Rwanda). Please disclose any prejudice you also may harbor."[33] He accused me of being on a crusade to remove information on the pygmy tribe from Wikipedia.[34]. Out of concerns of the seeming sockpuppetry going on, I attempted to request page protection, which he responded to by accusing me of "abusing an editorial position to assert my unsupported stance" that the book isn't notable.[35]. The reviewing admin suggested I just AfD the article, so I did.[36]. Nutsheller responded by asking for a 30, claiming I was "tagging maliciously"[37] (3O denied as there was an active AfD). In the AfD, Nutsheller continued the personal insults, accusing me of creating false facts and acting unethically. User:HouseOfScandal suggested a merge and offered some advice to Nutsheller on how to save the article and change his mind, but Nutsheller attacked him as well, ending by accusing him of making "it personal and involved your ego."[38]

Lengthy history done, for the most part I've been ignoring his insults though I did remind him a few times of WP:CIVIL and that his false accusations were inappropriate and I gave him one warning.[39] I figured he'd just be blocked once the sockpuppet case was done, as I am fairly confident they are socks. However, I'm not inclined to continue ignoring it when he plasters personal insults on his user page as well. First, in response to the sockpuppetry[40], saying I was "specious and small-minded". Then today, he changed it to say I "made this accusation just because [he] wouldn't use the letter c, the silly bunt."[41].

As we have been clashing for days, I didn't think it would be appropriate (or even useful) to warn him again or ask him to remove the comment. Posting here instead for some assistance. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that isn't really uncivil. That's my personal opinion, I'm not really one to consider any negative comment uncivil. Of course, this has made me an enemy in the past, check my block log. So yeah, I'm going to give him a warning, as a disinterested third party, as well as link him to his discussion. Beam 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he's being a bit tendentious, but incivility is not strictly a blockable offense, and what you label as his personal attacks are rather borderline to me. The AfD seems to have been resolved, so to be totally honest, Collectonian, I'm not sure what admin assistance you require here. GlassCobra 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most is borderline, but the user page attack goes over the line to me. I'd like a warning and it removed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I talked to him, he hasn't responded. I also notified him as should have been done by you. Beam 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, sorry...I meant to do it when I post and got distracted. :( Long long week...-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard read user page comments read. Low key intervention appreciated. Collectonion is insulted by comments on my user page (not hers)? Oy vay.Nutsheller (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't considered this resolved as the insult still stands. Or is the end result that we are alloewd to insult other editors on our user pages? Am I allowed to turn around and add my views of the editors I have a disagreement with on my talk page as well? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all sir. If he continues than an admin action will be warranted. The first step in any perceived incivility is talking. This has occurred. It is simply resolved for now. Again, if he insults you further, and it's not borderline, admin action will be warranted. Beam 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam... Collectonian is a fem. — _Maggot^Syn 17:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like the 5000th time someone has gotten that wrong, so she's probably used to it :p. As for the issue, come back if the incivility continues. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, indeed I have. :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know, how would I? And since I didn't know, I default to he, like the world use to back in the good old non PC days. memmmooorrrriiiieeeesssss Beam 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Viridae's ban of User:Dyinghappy as sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Accounts were confirmed by checkuser as sockpuppets of indef-blocked editor - Viridae's block is supported by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Dyinghappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for being a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Internodeuser. I don't know if User:Dyinghappy is User:Internodeuser as I am not familiar with Internodeuser or why he was banned but Viridae hasn't filed a sockpuppet notice or RFCU or responded adequately for evidence [42]. He hasn't posted a block notice on the users talk page or tagged the user page with a sockpuppet notice. It's not not obvious to me that he's a sockpuppet and it appears unseemly as they were both engaged in editing Wikipedia Review. I am concerned that Viridae may have turned a content dispute into an opportunity to block this user. In any event, Viridae should post his evidence, leave block notices on users talk page and template sockpuppets. The community needs to be able review his accusation of sockpuppeting and see if it has merit or whether Viridae was too hasty with the ban button on a relative newcomer. Dyinghappy doesn't appear to have edited improperly. Relevant discussions are on Viridae and Dyinhappy's talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you linked this thread from Viridae's page, but have you actually tried talking to Viridae about this? Seriously, all we can do is talk to Viridae for you, so why not just do that first and then perhaps you will not need further input(perhaps you will). _{1 != 2} 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read his talk page and Dyinghappy's talk page, you will see that the discussion has occured with a very dismissive comment. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on some of the edits made by Dyinghappy, I can see where there may be grounds for concern; there may be additional evidence that Viridae is not in a position to post publicly. It would be best if you discussed it directly with Viridae; he may or may not be willing to give you a full accounting, depending on the circumstances. Risker (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am very familiar with Internodeuser given that he is Blissyu2 (think i have the spelling correct), a former admin of WR. Blissyu2 was somehow (forcibly or not) removed from his admin position at WR and sitebanned. I don't know the details, and I don't care. I very rarely enforce bans, because I am very rarely sure that the new person is the same as the old. In this case I am sure. Dyinghappy and Internodeuser share similar editing interests (see in paticular Port arthur massacre). The strongest evidence is that Dyinghappy added a link to the new version of wikipedia review, that blissyu2 started after he (blissyu2) was banned from Wikipedia Review - fair enough except that that forum has only 2 posts to it that aren't by Blissyu2 himself. Given that: similar editing interests (including knowledge of and interest in the founding of wikipedia review, adding a link to the new forum Blissyu2 is the almost exclusive poster to, interest in the port arthur massacres) and the tone of writing that is not incompatible with being internodeuser (not saying definite - just saying they are similar) i am pretty damn sure that is who I blocked him as. As to the charge of a content dispute - what content dispute? There is no content dispute - by and large I was pretty happy with Dyinghappy's changes to Wikipedia Review, until he posted the link to his forum and tipped me off about who he was. Banned templates are not required to be posted, I personally prefer not to label accounts with the sockpuppet and banned templates - at least until user and user talk pages are added to robots.txt - and there is no policy to force me to do so. The user knows why he was banned - it says so in the block log (which comes up in the message displayed when blocked). It also clearly states in the block log why the block was performed. I have been in contact with Dyinghappy via email, he has questioned his block, I have told him I know exactly who he is (and he hasn't actually denied it) I have also suggested that he can (as Internodeuser, Zordrac, Bissyu2 or Dyinghappy - the four accounts known to be used) appeal to arbcom or the community to get the ban overturned if he wishes to be productive - however he was given a year long block as a result of the arbcom case originally, which was extended to indef (and a ban) following sockpuppetry and legal threats. Finally (and I think I am going to get an edit conflict - this is a long comment) why wasn't this information requested on my talk page first? (incidentally I considered buzzing alison for a RFCU but the accounts are far too stale) Viridae^Talk 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was requested on your talk page. You blew it off. [43]. It's rather presumptive to think that it was Blissyu2. Anyone reading the WR thread would have been pointed here which would have lead them to the link that you seem to think is the smoking gun. Considering the edits were productive, the lack of AGF is somewhat disturbing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What WR thread/look at the edit history of that article. Viridae^Talk 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got on-line here. Given the nature of the case, the fact that he's already blocked, and the evidence provided, I ran a check on the account mentioned and can state that Dyinghappy (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be a sock of Internodeuser/Blissyu2 - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Internodeuser/Blissyu2

1. Myrrideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Akmereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Nova63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and  IP blocked, as before - Alison ^❤ 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. Can you please email me a bit of info about how that works - I thought those accounts were far too stale to be CU'd? Viridae^Talk 12:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for DHeyward's acknowledgement (and thanks) for Viridae's correct and prompt identification and blocking of sockpuppet of indef blocked account LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, perhaps you should consider allowing others to challenge Viridae's admin actions on noticeboards in the future. Given just the state of this page over the last few days its clear you have a long running dispute with Viridae (as does MONGO), and I think we'd all appreciate it if you both refrained from bringing every action you can argue to AN/I. Avruch 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've only brought this single action to AN/I when I've personally experienced at least two others and have witnessed many more. Viridae seems to have a lot of questionable admin actions so even the good ones cloud the bad. Viridae claims we don't have a dispute. As long as Viridae claims the right to use the admin tools in articles that I am involved with, I think it's only reasonable that ANI is available to editors to report his abuse. Remember that all Viridae had to do was post his evidence but instead he said "go away" when another uninvolved editor asked him for his reasoning. --DHeyward (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)1. the editor didn't ask for evidence, he asked me to respond to Dyinghappy - which I did, by email. Had he asked for evidence I would have provided what I did above. 2. The other admin actions you have recently experienced are this protection, in which half a dozen people were edit warring over some wording (and if, as you claim, I am following you around I'm not very good at it - you hadn't edited that article for two days) the protection of this article, in which there was edit warring between you and and 2 IPs. You claimed that was Giovanni33 who had just been banned, but didn't provide any evidence to that effect (apparently I am supposed to be psychic?). I told you that if you have evidence, take it to RFCU, if that is a proven sock then the article protection will be removed and the sock banned. You responded by accusing me of following you around and looking for an excuse to block you. I told you to assume good faith, and indicated that if that was the case I am once again not very good at it, because I have actually unblocked you in the past. You responded by accusing me of wanting to wheel war with WMC more than I wanted to block you! Now in the case of the first protection, there was a clear edit war. In the second case also an edit war. If you had actually stopped and given me some evidence to evaluate when you questioned the protection instead of accusing me of following you around you might just have found the IPs blocked and the protection lifted... Viridae^Talk 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't even know you had protected this. Just one more for the list. I was talking about Joe Scarborough for the other one. As for evidence of sockpuppetry, I gave it to you on your talk page. Others have commented there how obvious (WP:DUCK) it is. I then asked you to simply take my talk page off your watch list. Please do so. It's a relatively simple thing to do and will prevent you from abusing the tools again in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"prevent you from abusing the tools again in the future" - again?? I wasn't aware that Viridae was abusing the tools - he certainly wasn't in this instance - Alison ^❤ 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Or any of the other protections you are refferring to. DHeyward, I am still lost as to what evidence you provided me with that those Ips were Giovanni? Viridae^Talk 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Exiled Ambition

User:Exiled Ambition (previously known as User:Darin Fidika) seems to be unimpressed by earlier requests not to add material sourced to another wiki, or indeed by later requests. I'm inclined to block him for disruption, but instead I'll let somebody else do this (or of course argue against doing so). -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For just about a year now, I have tried to assume good faith with Exiled Ambition/Darin Fidika. I have tried to gently correct his sometimes near-unintelligible writing, and I have tried to add more source material to his undersourced articles. I have tried to suggest more books he could acquire, I have tried to suggest he change his tone and writing, I have tried many things. After the first discussion that Hoary referenced above, I thought-- hoped-- he'd listen. But all he's done since then is just continue using that other wiki, and continue to defy requests that he stop. Then there's the issue of the non-free images he keeps adding; in this argument, he keeps insisting that uploading video game pictures is not only important, it also doesn't violate copyright. I know there's Fair Use guidelines, but as far as I've seen, copyrighted images or segments of images used under Fair Use seem smaller and not as high-resolution...but I'm getting off-topic. Exiled Ambition has, for a long time now, been very difficult to work with; every time I talk to him I feel like I'm being talked down to. Hoary and I did our best to ask him to stop using Samurai Archives/Samurai Wiki, but he will not listen. We can't keep just asking him; firmer action must be taken. Thank you. -Tadakuni (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous at this very point that you allegedly state I use SamuraiWiki; such controversy has been settled by other administrators long before, and the solution is using multiple references either from respective English sources such as Sturnbull or Japanese sources in addition to Samurai Archives. If you continue to disdain and ignore the evidence that I am using a reference as highly credible as Samurai Archives, as opposed to the unreliable SamuraiWiki, you are only making the circumstances become ridiculous for everyone. I have already taken into consideration many secondary references, so it would be best to assist me in this cause if you want anything beneficial to come out of such one-sided controversy. I would appreciate it. User:Exiled Ambition July 14 2008 (EST)

Ludicrous? You created Toriyao Iwami no kami on 11 July 2008-- Samurai Wiki has [44] this article on him-- your article starts Toriyao Iwami no kami--his given name unclear--was a retainer.... Samurai Wiki's article on him starts Iwami no kami (his given name is unclear) was a senior retainer.... Can you still insist you don't use SamuraiWiki? Be honest with us.-Tadakuni (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of this disruption and the many pleas and warnings this editor has had over the past months, I have blocked 24 hours for disruption. Had the block log not been empty, I would have blocked for much longer (72 hours to indefinite). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (NB while EA's block log is empty, User:Darin Fidika's is not.) In the meantime, I've deleted Toriyao Iwami no kami as a mixture of plagiarism (SamuraiWiki is copyright, not copyleft) and gibberish. -- Hoary (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, these are old enough that they wouldn't have swayed me much. However, altogether, if the disruption carries on after this short block that will likely change, quickly. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to butt in this way, but I'm going to up this to indefinite. Darin Fidika was blocked indefinitely and reappeared on Wikipedia evading the block. Nihonjoe and I discovered this later and ultimately decided not give him a second chance, which he has clearly squandered. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given how this user responded after the block, no worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noted all this on the user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you further for your repeated attempts to make EA aware of a few simple facts -- for example, that if he objects to a block he can post a template presenting his reasoned objection, for consideration by some unrelated admin. Clearly what you were saying failed to sink in. Viewed in the light of Fidika/EA's long history, the failure comes as no surprise. Communication difficulties seem insuperable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluegoblin7

See preceding archived section.

In short a can garuntee that he is NOT a sock puppet of Chris19910 and his block needs to be strongly reconsidered. I would like to know the evidence this so called sock puppetry claim was based on   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this section, he retired. Are we beating a dead horse here? — _Maggot^Syn 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is requesting an unblock now on his user talk, and I've personally questioned using off wiki evidence for blocks. Not to say it shouldnt be done, but rather, it appears that a responding admin doesn't even know what evidence to look at when considering the unblock. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hes been unblocked. — _Maggot^Syn 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't have been unblocked. BG7 was busted on IRC by having the same IP as Chris, then after identifying to services, which means you have to be BG7, he proved that he was not an impersonator. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you further explain the direct link to BG7's wikipedia account? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. When you go on IRC and don't identify (type in your password), your IP is shown. Chris and Bluegoblin had exactly the same IP's. Then, when they both identified to services, they had something known as a wikimedia "cloak", which hides the IP information. For instance, instead of displaying your IP, BG would have had something along the lines of @wikipedia/BlueGoblin7. To get this cloak, you need to prove you are the same person as you are on-wiki, and you don't get one unless you do. So we have evidence that they use the same IP, they're not impersonators because they typed in their IRC passwords and BlueGobin7, after identifying on IRC, therefore confirming it was him, admitted the whole thing - not he denies it????? That's not right, and the unblock certainly isn't with overwhelming evidence (at this stage) that BG7 has undertaken massive sockpuppetry. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I would've liked to have seen some CU (from this wiki) on this case. As for Ryan's evidence; I can't comment not knowing the IPs used by Chris. BG7 has engaged in some strange behaviour but I'm unconvinced regarding sokpuppetry, GDonato (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what my strange behaviour is? Oh, and I filed a RFCU as no-one has yet, despite speculation. -->Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7 BG7even 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly, speaking to me on IRC (it was you since the IPs matched) and then denying it but I could never work out the motive for this, GDonato (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never spoken to you on IRC. I do not know why the IPs matched. Could it be because I have a shield? If required, I can provide evidence from 3 other wikis run by Prom3th3an, above, after a similar investigation. BG7even 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No but you spoke with me directly. I can concur with all of this. He went on and on about he was the sockmaster, and it wasn't Cheminstrygeek, so unblock him please. This smells funny. — _Maggot^Syn 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd life to add that the block was in direct violation of the blocking policy and that I will be taking this up with the blocking admin and arbcom. They are not the same user, i have server logs and my own CU to prove it. Also Ryan Postlethwaite, YOUR A JOKE   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Comments like this will not help your case. — _Maggot^Syn 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not. I swear. I was not online, nor here. If i'm online, i normally edit a wiki. BG7even 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Were Kodster and I right?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Prom3th3an, surely you don't have checkuser rights here so saying you have CU evidence is nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC

Everyone please calm down. I have unblocked Bluegoblin7 and submitted this matter for Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7. Checkusers have the necessary experience to distinguish multiple users on a shared network from a sockfarm. They will sort this out. Meanwhile, if Bluegoblin7 performs any disruptive edits, they can be re-blocked by any uninvolved administrator. I am uncomfortable with IRC channel ops doing the job of checkusers. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) )

It seems unlikely to me that Bluegoblin7 and Chemistrygeek are related. Unfortunately, when it comes to British IPs, there's not always a great degree of certainty. Additionally, I blocked Prom3th3an for three hours for civility issues, and said I would unblock him if he promises to be civil. Given that I'm about to go to the my doctor in twenty minutes and probably won't be back for quite a while, I'd welcome any other administrator unblocking him early if he promises to be more civil. --Deskana (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

(e/c with Deskana) I have no interest in whatever happens to this particular editor, but figured the evidence I used as the basis for my block would be helpful to people reviewing this block.

First, Chemistrygeek, an IRC account linked to blocked user Chemistrygeek (talk · contribs), logged onto #wikipedia-en-unblock from 78.150.24.185 using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and Firefox 2.0.0.15/2008062306 (an outdated and uncommon version). He engaged in some off-topic banter, and requested an unblock which was denied. Later, Bluegoblin7 also logged onto #-unblock from 78.145.147.133 using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and an unknown browser. It's important to note that he didn't log into his account (an on-wiki analogy would be editing anonymously but signing your posts as a registered user), so I thought this was a troll trying to joe-job BG7. Here's the confession they provided wrt running multiple sockpuppets:

click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[04:33:37] <Bluegoblin7_> Just so you all know admins know I framed Chemistrygeek [04:34:59] <Bluegoblin7_> I do in actual fact have two email addresses [04:37:37] <east718|away> Bluegoblin7_ > and? [04:37:47] <Bluegoblin7_> I fooled you all last night [04:38:11] <east718|away> is this about http://tinyurl.com/5b5nmg ? [04:38:47] <Bluegoblin7_> yes [04:38:58] <east718|away> nobody cares about what you do away from wikipedia [04:39:27] <Bluegoblin7_> True but it wasnt Chemistrygeek that created the socks on en.wiki it was me [04:39:47] <east718|away> which socks? [04:40:05] <Bluegoblin7_> all of Chris19910 socks [04:40:49] <Bluegoblin7_> you cant do anything to me because im off the wiki but you can unblock chem for not being a sock [04:41:40] <Bluegoblin7_> Im the sock master not him. [04:41:48] <SynergeticMag> his unblock will not happen without careful consieration [04:41:59] <Bluegoblin7_> it was all me though [04:42:13] <east718|away> more ducktales from you, i just inquired and found out that the checkuser "chain", if you will, stretches all back to the original account [04:42:43] <Bluegoblin7_> ducktales love that word [04:43:40] <Bluegoblin7_> Yes but the original account was mine. [04:44:33] <east718|away> so let me get this straight [04:44:40] <east718|away> you're user:chris19910 on enwiki [04:44:50] <east718|away> and all of their supposed sockpuppets [04:45:53] <Bluegoblin7_> yes [04:46:22] <Bluegoblin7_> Im telling you this becuase I quit from the wiki so might as well. [04:46:24] <east718|away> so who's chemgeek? [04:47:35] <SynergeticMag> and somehow you chose to pm me first? [04:47:46] <Bluegoblin7_> Thats not my account thats Chris who i talk to on msn he helped me set up my other wiki called bionictest [04:47:48] <SynergeticMag> i'd like to know why [04:48:38] <Bluegoblin7_> I was originally in the wikipedia-en and saw you thats why [04:50:29] <Bluegoblin7_> the only reason they thought all of the socks were chems was cause he edits from the same ISP as me. [04:51:08] <SynergeticMag> so your saying your not chem, but all of this socks are yours.... [04:51:10] <SynergeticMag> right [04:51:27] <east718|away> Bluegoblin7_ > last thing [04:51:32] <SynergeticMag> lol [04:51:35] <east718|away> how do we know who you're saying you are? [04:51:42] <Bluegoblin7_> il email you [04:51:49] <east718|away> no, don't [04:51:53] <east718|away> make a trivial edit somewhere on-wiki [04:52:41] <Bluegoblin7_> my account was deleted though [04:52:46] <SynergeticMag> Bluegoblin7_: but tell us before you make the edit [04:52:56] <Bluegoblin7_> ok [04:54:21] <SynergeticMag> Bluegoblin7_: which article will it be? [04:54:40] <Bluegoblin7_> il do you talk page if you want or something to do with chemistry [04:54:51] <SynergeticMag> go for my talk [04:55:10] <SynergeticMag> [[User talk:SynergeticMaggot]] [04:56:40] <Bluegoblin7_> ok [04:57:29] <Bluegoblin7_> dne

This edit was made by Bluegoblin70 (talk · contribs), who isn't Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs). I blocked the former as an impersonation account, then kicked out the BG7 on IRC as for the same reason. Around a minute later, he came back into #-unblock from 78.145.147.133, using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and Firefox 2.0.0.15/2008062306. We then had this conversation:

click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[05:04:38] <Bluegoblin7> Hi east [05:04:38] <east718|away> now identify to nickserv please [05:05:35] <Bluegoblin7> who? [05:05:38] <SynergeticMag> you [05:06:07] <Bluegoblin7> who is nickserv? dont you mean chanserv? [05:06:15] <east718|away> being that you're on the same network as chemgeek and that you haven't identified, i'm inclined to believe that it's you (chemgeek) impersonating bg [05:06:58] <Bluegoblin7> how am i on the same network as chem? [05:07:44] <Bluegoblin7> If you dont believe me who I am ask User:Xp54321 [05:08:08] <east718|away> you are on the same network, use the same browser, and the same IRC client

I kicked them out of the channel again, still thinking it was somebody trying to frame BG7. However, shortly later, BG7 popped into #wikipedia-en from 78.145.167.222, using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and an unknown browser. However, I have tools better than CheckUser at my disposal, and one of them gives me the ability to see when somebody logs in and from what IP address they do so. BG7 then logged into their IRC account (this requires a password). Now having established that the person behind this IRC account is actually who they claimed to be (per this edit), I had somebody who had just confessed to running a sockfarm and remained unblocked. Their IP address and browser version was the same as Chemistrygeek, the user whom they had just claimed to be, so I just went ahead, treated them as the same person, and executed a block. east.718 at 16:48, July 14, 2008

Well, I've just pooped on your lawn then, because my IP is 86.151.50.146. Which is what I have been using since i logged on. I do not know my other IPs, but I have never used 78.145.167.222 - i'm sure my CU will prove this. Therefore, i'm innocent. BG7even 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses can change....--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as you may think. Does BG7 even act like Chris did? Does he have power issues with overuse of tools like Chris did? And why is it so important to you anyway? Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bluegoblin7 is telling the truth that his current IP is 86.151.50.146, which is British Telecom. All of the other IPs mentioned are Opal Telecommunications. Bluegoblin7 has never used Opal. 78.150.24.185 is the last IP used by Chemistrygeek. 78.145.147.133 was used by Bluegoblin70 (talk · contribs). The use of Opal and a particular user agent are common characteristics of sockpuppets of Chris19910. There is a new account created at 78.145.167.222 which is probably the next sockpuppet. There is no checkuser evidence tying Bluegoblin7 to Chris19910. I don't know whether the "real" Bluegoblin7 on IRC used an easily guessed password, or whether the fakes were using clever character substitution, or whether this is some kind of game being played by two people who share passwords, or what else might have happened, but I do not believe the situation is as cut and dried as it seems to East718. Thatcher 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Bluegoblin7 has had the same IP continuously from 21:30 on the 13th through 17:02 today (UTC). The only way he could have identified from 78.145.167.222 is if he has two different broadband ISPs serving his home, or that in between edits on BT as Bluegoblin7 at 13:52 and 14:55, he went to someone else's residence to use their Opal broadband. I think it is far more likely that Bluegoblin7's IRC nick and password was somehow compromised. Whether he is involved in some way in this series of events is beyond my ability to determine, but it seems highly doubtful to be straightforward sockpuppetry by one person. Thatcher 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Thatcher. We will monitor the account and take preventative measures should the need arise. Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NCdave deleting uncomfortable material about Jesse Helms

Myself and another editor, TexasDex (talk · contribs) are having problems with NCdave (talk · contribs) who keeps deleting vast swaths of sourced content on Jesse Helms.[45] [46][47][48]. We seem to be met with circular arguments and sarcasm and have tried to maintain civility and respond to NCdave's concerns, some of which have been helpful. The article itself has greatly improved since Helms' 4 July death but having to deal with this is generally halting constructive dialog on improving the article and working through some challenging material - like Helms' response to the AIDS pandemic, affiliations with foreign political figures and social views on segregation and sexual minorities, etc. NCdave's main line of reasoning - as far as I can tell - is that Helms couldn't have been a racist or segregationist because his political opponents would have used any proof of such in their campaigns. Neither TexasDex nor myself accept that reasoning for including or deleting content. It may be true but we also may never know. Regardless we go by reliable sources which we have provided for everything that has been deleted, repeatedly. Some insight on how to manage this rather sweeping content dispute is appreciated. Banjeboi 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If he continues reverting, send him to 3RR, though if he does a third revert, may also want to request full page protection until the RfC is done to avoid needless edit warring. In discussions, invite him to note specifically which sources he feel do not meet WP:RS, then point out why they are. If he still disagrees, you could ask at the RS noticeboard to see if he is more willing to listen to a larger consensus. As an aside from a North Carolina native, NCDave is living in a fantasy if he doesn't think Helms wasn't a racist (and sexist) *blank blank*. It wasn't a state secret and his political opponents did note both in their campaign ads against him. :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm already on WP:RSN about a source I had some reservations about (fair.org), but I should probably have brought up the other things he's disputing. I'll start new section on RSN once he's made a list of sources he finds unacceptable (with justifications). --TexasDex ★ 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

His issues seem to be more about the content than the sourcing although in an effort to remove the content he insists there is no reliable sourcing for anything he is deleting. Banjeboi 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the user's block log there seems to be a history of edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Personal Attack

Resolved

 – Final warning given. Beam 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

this little gem turned up on my talk page

Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=225628614

personal attack made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fadiga09

block log for above user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fadiga09

I don't object the use of "fucking" but I don't like being called a tosspot or an imbecile. The above seems to be a blatant personal attack from a user who has already been blocked for a month for disruptive editing.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He was given final warnings almost simultaneously by User:Jaysweet and me. Please let me know if it continues; I will block him if necessary. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, okay, after an edit conflict... I was just gonna say, I am not 100% convinced a block is necessary at this time, but I would not fault anyone who did. The diff in question was beyond the pale, and the user's previous block (in early May) was lifted oin the condition he refrain from disriuptive editing. The only reason I am not convinced a block is necessary is because I could not locate any other recent breaches of civility or personal attacks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a tosspot? Is it the same as a chamberpot? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that a tosspot is something that you toss off (masturbate) into. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, ew!! However, no, "tosspot" is slang for a drunkard. Not sure of the etymology though.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Modern Drunkard Magazine Online: "This rather quaint name for a drunkard describes what they called fun: our 16th century brethren tossed back pots (a pot was a type of drinking vessel), much as modern inebriates throw back shots." So there ya go. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I am less offended now - at times I can be a total drunken tosspot. However, the imbecile comment was worthy of a block just on its own. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

em... no it isn't - not in current usage. It's very rarely used in that "quaint sense" - it's similar to "wanker" or dickhead. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you say to him to make him flip kittens? Beam 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was nasty enough to suggest that the goal keeper for Valencia was still listed as a player on the Valencia site, so should not be removed from the list of players on the Valencia article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That got resolved with a warning? Come on folks, we are being far to soft on nasty abusive comments like that. Abusive comments regarding content disputes are especially damaging to NPOV. _{1 != 2} 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the only recent uncivil edit anybody could find. The behavior is not ongoing, so the preventative/punitive issue comes into play here. That said, I reiterate that I am not prejudiced against an immediate block. The comment was egregious enough that it could go either way, and certainly one more slip-up in the near future would clearly result in a lengthy block. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I would really hate for the whole who is the goal keeper debate to be decided because one person decided to go to a website where they did not get abused and the other got their way. _{1 != 2} 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yah, let's stifle any possible future contribution over someone calling another an imbecile, and tosspot ONCE. Beam 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, 1 != 2 didn't necessarily suggest an indef block... in any case, we're all on the same team here, we all agree the comment was out of line and that Fadiga is on a short leash. Let's move on :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Flip kittens"?? Oh, I am SO stealing that!!! Gladys J Cortez 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, for a nominal fee of course... I'll take a barnstar I guess. Anyway, you're not the first one to steal it. I invented it while I was a camp counselor years ago. I was about to say "Flipped the fuck out" in front of 7 year olds, but I stopped myself mid expression and came out with "Flipped Kittens." Of course you can use it as "Flipping kittens" or the above noted "Flip kittens." Beam 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At least he didn't call him an upstart. Them's fightin' words! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black

Resolved

 – In as much as this is the venue for anything to be done about this, I have taken the appropriate action. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He has performed major edits without notification.[49][50] Has deleted important information from articles, despite the fact that dedicated editors were willing to improve. Talk:Princess Sally Acorn#In response to recent edits and all below. Says that all the important in-universe information from the Sonic character articles is pure "crap". And to get a better undersatnding of the characters, (which is what these articles are for), they need this information. And has cut so much sourced information that the only way this information could stay would be if it was merged.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And what specific action are you requesting in this content dispute? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the actions he's done to the Sonic character articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators cannot use their powers to force content, only under very specific circumstances. Have you tried discussing this matter with him or getting a 3rd party to mediate? (by the way, I informed him of this AN/I thread). --Allemandtando (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Again, what do you want us to do with our admin tools? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that both User:Fairfieldfencer and User:A Man In Black are given a final warning about edit warring, a reminder about civility and refrain from editing these articles until the dispute is resolved, both have breached the 3RR and could easily be blocked. This needs to go to dispute resolution not here. As an uninvolved editor, i see nothing controversial about the edits made by User:A Man In Black. --neon white talk 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for AMiB to be warned for anything. he's not deleting, but redirecting articles which are essentially duplications to a central location. The articles in question lack any real world context and read as gigantic plot summaries and fan writing. Fairfielddancer ought to be reminded about WP:NOTE, NOT, and so on, though. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He has done terrible edits to the Sonic character articles which are very unconstructive. I'll stop with the edit warring, but it was done in good-faith.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is against behavioural guidelines so whether it was done 'in good faith' is not really the issue. I agree with ThuranX in that User:A Man In Black's edits appear to me to be construstive merges/redirects on the basis of overlapping info. His/her manner might not be civil at all times but the edits appear to be contructive. If you can provided diffs that are you believe are contrary to that, please do. --neon white talk 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. Article with 38 refs down to 17. [51]Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see AMiB removing 22 references in the edit you provided. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry fixed now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And I don't see him removing 21 refs either. In fact, I only see him getting rid of (at most) three or four in that diff. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with AMIB's actions. I don't think this requires admin intervention.-Wafulz (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there were 17, but TTN got rid of them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alot of the sources (not all) seem poor and some are novel interpretations and primary sources. I recommend discussing the sourcing of this article and using the reliable sources noticeboard for questionable sources. --neon white talk 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of those so called sources were just episodes and such, fueling the aforementioned SYNTH. removing them with their SYNTH material is good, and improves the project. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the edit summaries could be toned down, i.e. [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], etc. If nothing else, there does seem to be some escalation going on regarding some of these articles and I hope that everyone will be able to come down and try harder to work more colloboratively in as friendly and constructive a way as is possible. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I.P. user going on revert war

Resolved

 – Issue resolved for the moment via WP:PROT and WP:RBI. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted a 3RR violation for an anonymous user (currently using the I.P. address 71.100.2.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) at 11:30, 14 July 2008 (and updated it at 17:26, 14 July 2008 and again on 18:42, 14 July 2008). These reports were placed on the "to-do list", seemingly the same "to-do list" that "restore /evidence page to the Homeopathy ArbCOM case" exists on.

Since the time of those reports, the user has made it his (or her!) mission to blindly mass-revert my edits (including the restoration of BLP violations like this), along with a substantial number of edits by L0b0t. Oddly enough, L0b0t made a report to AN/I a few days ago, which was dutifully ignored in favor of more pressing matters.

While it is somewhat disheartening that the amount of cleanup this user has made a need for could have been avoided had he been issued a block, it is my hope that this situation can now be remedied. Please note that this user uses a dynamic I.P. (see 3RR board for exact addresses), so a short anon-only account-creation-enabled rangeblock would probably be in order. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that five days ago I attempted to establish a constructive dialogue with the user in question, who responded - characteristically - with a mess of personal attacks directed at L0b0t. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• an interesting diff. Does anyone want to fucking do anything here? --Badger Drink (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He seems pleasant, I'd suggest Dispute Resolution. Beam 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I'm obviously joking. I'd endorse a rangeblock. Beam 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution without first discussing it on the article talk pages!? Whoa, let's not get irrational here! ; ) But yes, I agree with your second post. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some more diffs of his latest revert-spree. Just in case there's any doubt he's still active. I have no problem with spamming AN/I with every single diff as it occurs from here on out, and in fact I plan to do so until this matter is actually dealt with. =) [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] aaaand that's the most recent campaign, more diffs will be provided as his behavior continues. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:POINT? While I have little doubt that field artillery will stop a rat, I am more than a little hesitant to block 65,000 IP addresses when a sprinkling of WP:PROT and a dash of WP:RBI will do almost as good of a job, but with 99.999% less innocent causalities. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ginascrew

Resolved

 – User Blocked. PhotoKGB needed...but this issue is resolved. Beam 23:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have a vandalism-only account here that should probably be blocked indefinitely, given the myriad warnings. --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Can someone a bit more fluent in image tags take care of Image:Sybgoffdownload.JPG and Image:Day26sybc.jpg? Looks like they have non-free templates, but no source, and improper rationales. GlassCobra 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User Space

Resolved

 – User page deleted, user contacted. Beam 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP has not given me clear guidance on this, so can someone review User:Polly.White? There are two possible issues:

1. She has given a full birthdate, which indicates she is a minor. It was her choice to put it there, but should the full birthdate be removed?
2. The page is obviously full of misinformation about forthcoming film and tv roles. WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Romance_Kiss shows she is aparrently doing this in article space too; this is more clear-cut but in user space. What is the standard here - does it have to be true and can it be challenged?

Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies such as WP:OR don't apply in the userspace and so the user has not violated any policies by putting misinformation on teh user page. Regarding personal details however, such as date of birth, although this is not policy, I would strongly recommend the user to remove such details for the user's own safety online. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As the information is clearly either COI self-promotion or a hoax (or a mix of both) I have blanked the user page pending deletion. There is no need for this. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've deleted the page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Theresa. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've left a note on the user's talk page. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals and personal attacks

Resolved

 – The dynamic IP vandals has been blocked by LessHeard vanU, Wknight94, Alexf. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) VANK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These below Japanese ISP users who have vandalised the articles have claimed that the organizations are terrorist organizations. They falsify information or put unreliable or no sources to articles. One is (e-mobile.ne.jp) and the other is ocn.ne.jp, but the first one edits the page with his or her PDA or mobile phone. The latter with the same ISP was blocked for a past vandalism on VANK.[78] There fore their same appearance and editing style, and bashing and false comments on talk pages, I think these two are the same one. I'm not tolerate at these repeated childish personal attacks : *It's plain and clear no room for lying. Kick out the lier from Wiki.

• Some crazy guy is saying this plain and clear statement made by FBI 'A METAPHER'. Let's kick out lier from the Wiki, in the first place.

• 119.72.23.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.254.216.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.43.39.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[79][80]

I checked on sources and other editors also reverted their vandalism, so the disruptive vandal do not deserve to edit Wikiepedia.[ Due to them (or him/her), Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was protected. Previous warnings given to them are ineffective, so I believe brief block could the articles have a peace from the vandal.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"...lier"? Do they mean lyre? Anyhows, I blocked the one ip that hadn't been got by someone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fisc

Resolved

 – blocked

This seems to be a single purpose account solely being used to add promotional content and spam links. see Special:Contributions/Fisc The username may also be agaisnt username policy as it is the web address of the spam links http://www.fisc.com/ and the acronymn for the company itself. --neon white talk 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Just looks like SPAM. Should be a general revert of all changes. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, user page makes intention clear. I reported to WP:UAA --Jaysweet (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and seems to have had edits reverted. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer deleting pages in my user space without permission

Earlier today Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted a page in my userspace without my permission. I have tried to discuss this with him in IRC but he refuses to restore it. No drama existed before he took this seemingly random action. Now he refuses to restore it and here I am on AN/I asking for it to be restored. For those who say this was an attack page, I simply have to point you to the RFC/U where the formal copy of this is housed. How can it be part of Wikipedia process in one area and an attack page in another? Bstone (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the RFC this was a draft of has been filed, there is no reason to keep a page that consists of accusations about other users in one's userspace. Furthermore, WP:USER clearly says that "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." I initially took the moderate ground of courtesy blanking, in deference to our longstanding tradition of leniency in userspace. When this was rudely rebuffed, complete with warning templates, I went with the perfectly reasonable nuking of an attack page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look, and I cannot see you requesting that Bstone delete the content - citing reasons, etc. such as the one you have given above. Please direct me to it, if I missed it. I had a look at your contributions, and I note that there has been several other "courtesy blankings" - all without any comment to the users (who may not be aware of the matter since they are in the talkpages archives) - performed by you. It isn't something you seem to do frequently, which may explain why you neglected to communicate with the pages account users before acting unilaterally. I see Avruch below makes much the same point.

I am very concerned, however, that you should use your sysop bit to enforce your application of policy. While not talking to the account user before removing content may be neglectful, immediately using the admin buttons to "win" a disputed action goes far beyond carelessness. I think you really ought to consider these actions, and ask if they were performed to the spirit as well as to the letter of WP:ADMIN. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your problem is bstone, you’ve had that page lying there for 2 months. Phil blanked the page today, because it’s not fair to leave a collection of disparaging claims about a user in your userspace. You decided to revert and Phil deleted it. Userpages are used to help the encyclopedia – fair enough, you can use it to collect evidence before filing RfC’s, but you are not going to be filing this in the near future and there’s no need to have it in your userspace. You can keep a copy offline if you really need it for reference purposes, but we don’t keep pages of “evidence” against users in our userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm obviously missing some discussion here because I don't know how you know that bstone is not going to use the content. I'm even more confused as how bstone is going to keep a copy offline, since it appears that it was deleted before anyone said it was going to happen thus allowing it to be copied... for some reason to do with it not being used, apparently. Whilst I am noting all of these admin things that I am having trouble understanding, I would point out that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy - so reacting to having a template placed upon your userpage by misusing the admin mop does seem to be a little curious from a person who is insisting that their actions are only that which is required by the rules. It has to be said that the initial action was not likely to cause an outbreak of peace and harmony, anyway (unless it was discussed and agreed beforehand - but, as I said, I can't find record of this discussion) so, all in all, I feel bstone has a very legitimate complaint with needs to be considered with a great deal more good faith (one of the the pillar policies, and not an essay) than is apparent here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll state the obvious if it's not obvious. 1) There is no need to prove that a given editor will never use material. Only that they are not actively using and have not been for a fair period. 5 months is such a period. 2) BStone can obtain an offline copy by the trivial expense of asking for one to be emailed to him, if an admin is happy to oblige. I think you probably know this latter fact. Your chain of events (template causing deletion as opposed, e.g., to the unblanking that occured momentarily beforehand causing deletion) appears to be the common assumption of bad faith that precedes a plea-via-bluelink for an assumption of good faith. If BStone might have wished for a brief prior discussion, which he might, he and you may be consoled by the fact that the discussion in this section is decisively clear that deletion was reasonable, absent any further facts BStone has not yet, but might, supply. Splash - tk 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicit permission for deletion isn't actually required in all cases, if the deletion rationale is sound. On the other hand, its pretty standard for the deleting admin to ask first and explain second (rather than delete first, and not explain second until AN/I - if thats really how it happened in this case). Pages of that sort get deleted fairly regularly, particularly if they have served their purpose. Avruch ^T 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission? This is a wiki. Your warning was quite ridiculous. Friday (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were still possible (may not be now that its a gadget, I don't know) you could easily have Twinkle disabled for those warning templates. Avruch ^T 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with LessHeard vanU regarding the seemingly inappropriate use of the buttons in this dispute, it strikes me as being rather hypocritical that Bstone would leave issue multiple templated warnings to Phil Sandifer ... when the big red warning box at the top of Bstone`s talk page says "if your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it" (emphasis mine). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BStone, as others including Phil Sandifer have rightly said, you really can't be keeping dirty-laundry lists in userspace indefinitely. Even undeleted upon-a-time-an-article material gets deleted from userspace if held there too long. However, I'm here to observe more widely. You've had several threads on these noticeboards over the past periods of time and few to none of them have had the outcome one presumes you would prefer. This fact may contain some hints about where the community at large sits vis-a-vis where you sit on such questions. A prolonged situation such as that is only going to lead to spiralling discomfiture for you (mainly) so I hope the 'unexpected' feedback you've been provided with is helping.

Finally, I see that oftentimes your first response to such situations is a templated warning. You do not have the power to back up threats of blocks, and threats of blocks in such situations are more than a little preposterous so you might give that habit up. Also, in my general experience, communication with reasonable people is generally more effective when a message tailored to the specifics of a situation is used. The choice instead in these cases to use somewhat mis-aimed templates, whether threatening blocks or not, is reflecting increasingly poorly on the editorial style it implies. Splash - tk 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception amongst newcomers that pages in userspace belong to the person who registered the username. Experienced editors such as bstone are not expected to commit that solecism. --Jenny 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also to know the difference between an essay and a policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't noticed that bstone also went on a templating raid on Phil's page. That was annoying and unnecessary. Saying that "Don't template the regulars" is an essay is beside the point. The operative policy in that case is civility. --Jenny 03:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I may have hoped that Phil ask me or at least leave a message on my talk page informing me that it will be deleting this page in my user space. He did neither and instead simply went ahead and deleted the page of an established, veteran editor of this project. I have seen a lot of admin abuse and this just another example of it. Adminship is a big deal and people like Phil should not have the tools. Please immediately restore this page. Bstone (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of the page. While it is common knowledge that administrators should notify the user of any page deletions, there are exceptions. Mainly that of a dirty laundry list, or for other rationales that should not need explanation. This is a pretty clear cut case of a page that was used only as a receptacle of belittling comments against a user, a page constructed with only that intent and nothing more. Two months without an edit? This should have been wiped at its creation. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the page. If you would have then you would very clearly see that it was not an attack page of any sort, but rather a draft of an RFC/U I was filing on a user. Again, no drama existed before Phil's unilateral action to delete this userpage of mine. Had he simply contacted me and asked then it could have been civilly discussed. Instead, he simply poked through and deleted what he did not want to see, without discussion, and using his admin tools for finality. Bstone (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should perhaps reread Splash's comment at 22:48. While I can surely expect that you would be upset over how the sequence of events went down with the communication mishaps, this is not an abuse of power. It's the continual maintenence and cleaning of the encyclopedia. That includes userspace pages. Friday said, "Permission? This is a wiki." and that is correct. Could this have been more diplomatic? Yes. But really, Phil was doing mopwork that goes unnoticed by most users, sorting through pages and deleting irrelevant ones. Shake hands and make up, you didn't really need the page anymore anyway. Your beef is about process and policy, and it was aptly applied with deteriotive results. Keegan^talk 06:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that page ought to have been blanked or deleted, especially if the RFC has already been filed. We only permit these pages in the first place in order for users to prepare for dispute resolution. I'd be glad to provided a copy of the content to Bstone upon request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. User space is not for laundry lists of grudges. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • lol - *coffs* - Alison ^❤ 08:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any laundry lists of grudges in that list. Care to elaborate? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:JzG/JVM definitely is a laundry list of grudges. User:JzG/temp, and User:JzG/JG aren't laundry lists of grudges, but they are a half-filled RFCs that haven't been edited in months/years about users who aren't active and have not been for a long time. They could probably go (but I'll leave you to decide that yourself, Guy). Maybe User:JzG/sandbox and User:JzG/Gastroturfing also. Neıl ☄ 11:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Or ask Phil Sandifer to go through them, unless that does not have that element of surprise he appears so keen on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Neil, I have nuked them or moved them to better venues (e.g. the Gastroturfing page, which was a log of an abusive whitelistign request for a spammed domain). The Gastrich page was a work up for the arbitration that got him banned, I subsequently nominated Jeff for adminship (as the deletionist's inclusionist) so I guess that was fixed, and the Merkey situation deteriorated beyond fixing. None of them needed to be there any more, although it's easy to forget old pages in user space. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed. Special:PrefixIndex can be helpful, though. Thanks for deleting those. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I would point out, though, that of the three users directly concerned two are banned and continued to abuse the project long afterwards, and one left following an arbitration notable for large numbers of people failing to assume good faith. I suspect Jeff is still around with a different name, I certainly hope so. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Once it's filed, there's no need to keep it in a separate visible place, as it could be interpreted as taunting.. The best thing is to store it on your own PC. In fact, that's where you should have stored it while developing it. Then there's no problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want the subpage? What purpose does it serve? Admittedly, not having a reason to keep is not a reason for deletion, but in this case the subpage could be seen as defamatory so there is a reason for deletion and so far you have not provided a reason for keeping it. While evidence (diffs and the like) is provided, the RFC/U has been filed so there is no need for this subpage which contains only negative info about this one user. If the deletion was not carried out properly but the end result is correct then why reverse it? I do not encourage admins to delete other user's subpages without leaving them a note, but I would also have deleted that page had I come across it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• What on earth is the actual point of User:Bstone? Very few of his edits are productive (see here - only 870 articlespace contributions out of a total of 3518, and a lot of his editing is limited to a few articles (i.e. 114 to Caribbean Medical University including the talkpage). As far as I can see, practically his entire edit history appears to consist of commenting randomly on AN and ANI (364 edits), demanding that various admins be desysopped for the most spurious of reasons (I count at least four of these), and edit-warring and causing drama and disruption over trivia like WP:TOV (194 edits inc. talkpage). Just namespace-ban him from project space and give us all a break. 86.161.51.134 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved user: Is this IP above without an account, or is this a user forgetting to log into their account and thus editing from their IP? D.M.N. (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IP-hopping "cultural references" edit warrior

An IP hopping anon has been edit warring on a number of Simpsons episodes articles over his addition of trivia on the episodes, some of which contain his personal analysis of segments of the show (this one is a good example, which he has reverted to 17 times in the last four days on The Haw-Hawed Couple against four other editors). As far as I can tell, there was some brief exchange of civil comments before he decided everyone who disagreed with him was a vandal and a troll, which you can see for youself in the edits summaries in the links below. Normally I wouldn't bother bringing this here, but he has now promised to act in bad faith, and retaliate by undoing unrelated edits of those reverting him. You can see he certainly made good on that promise at Special:Contributions/71.100.2.45. The other IPs he's used recently are 71.100.6.175 (talk · contribs), 71.100.161.81 (talk · contribs) and 71.100.0.127 (talk · contribs). If you want a list of articles affected, it's very simply everything he's ever edited. I really don't know what to ask for at this point, which is why I'm not bringing this to this board specifically. But I did check his IP range and he only accounts for ~90% of the edits therefrom, so I guess that's not enough for a rangeblock? [81] Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP is currently on a revert streak from 71.100.161.81 Special:Contributions/71.100.161.81. He is getting tiresome. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be clearly vindictive editing, I've rolled back some of the current IP's edits until he starts discussing it civilly, and gets the concept of WP:OR. It still probably could use an admin's attention. Dayewalker (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is blockable behaviour. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the treats he left me [82], [83]. I filed a report at ANI on the 9th but was told it was my fault for using warning templates as new users might find them rude. L0b0t (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that your post on 3RRV was rejected for some retarded breach of beaucratic protocol. Mine has gone un-answered for about eight hours now. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In his 71.100.161.81 incarnation, he's overtopped 3RR at Please Homer, Don't Hammer 'Em‎ and probably at other articles, though I haven't checked in detail. Deor (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone would fucking read my post a few hours above this one, there are several well-formatted 3RRV reports already filed with all the information you could possibly desire. Hope this helps! --Badger Drink (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And Sceptre's AIV report has been removed, since the matter's "already at ANI." Deor (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at 71.100.170.201. Deor (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Back now at 71.100.170.201, still no discussion, just reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the diff you linked to on AIV, because it's getting to be fucking ridiculous. The admins need to stop sperging out over incorrect diffs and start actually doing what needs to be done. See my report on the matter above. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This vandal would appear to be writing the textbook case for why the undo button should be limited to registered editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lots of talking going on, but no blocking! Let's get to it folks! ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the last one; let me if any were overlooked/recurrence. El_C 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. Got another one. Now I think I got em all. El_C 09:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to post to both threads last night. Since the IP-hopping vandal in question has 65,000 addresses available in his or her range, I only bothered to block the ones that had been used in the previous couple of hours. As I noted in the above thread (#I.P. user going on revert war), I suspect that a liberal use of WP:PROT with some WP:RBI on the side will work wonders here. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He is now at Special:Contributions/71.100.0.15 and his talk page[84] is an interesting read, he flat out says he is here for vandalism and every article protected is a victory for him. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would block the entire /16 range AO for a few hours, to cool this guy off; it's better than protecting 20 different pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting a few articles causes a lot less collateral damage than blocking 65,000 addresses. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your definition of a few (20) is a bit different from mine. And no, it's an anonymous only block, and for a range that doesn't appear to be in as much use as a lot of other ranges. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Was my account deleted?

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:HD Beam 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the "aldomedina" username before. But today I tried to login and get a "username doesn't exists" message. I recreated the account. I don't remember my editions, but I believe the "Click Mexicana" article was the last I edited. However, I don't see my username in the history log.

Was my account deleted? Why?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldomedina (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Main discussion on help desk. Please continue any discussion there. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial AfD

Looks like this could probably use more input: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. GlassCobra 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have injected mylsef into this controversy. Hopefuly I will be able to reslve it and hammer out a workable concensus by the time the day is out. wish m Luck!! Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) :D

Single Purpose IP Account?

76.193.81.81 (talk · contribs) has arrived on the seen seemingly just to insert POV-ish wikilinks in various articles' "See also" sections. Please check the user's contributions. I am unsure how this should be handled, if at all. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Edit as if they were a good faith user. Maybe take the opportunity to review the entire see also section for reasonableness and conformance to relevant guidelines (e.g. nothing that is linked in the article text should also be in see also). It might just be someone who forgot to log in or whose remembered login is no longer valid. (If an editor checks the "remember me" box on the log in screen, that memory will lapse after a certain period of timeor if they clear their cookies.) If it becomes a matter of edit warring (and I see they have already reinstated two of their edits), then bring it up for attention again. GRBerry 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the guidance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayub K Ommaya

I Dr.Muhammad Shirani made changes to the page Ayub K Ommaya and placed date of death at the same day.because I was his attending physician,since April 2008 till death.Just for your kind information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonjore (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. There's nothing for administrators to do here, other than to say that we generally prefer secondary sources to confirm information rather than primary sources like yourself. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dicklyon#Psychoacoustics

This post is in all good faith, and I mean nothing to insinuate Dicklyon, but if you see in the post, he I feel that he does not make an effort to look at the reverts he makes. I hope someone will keep an eye on him.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing for administrators to do here: someone made a change, someone changed it back with an edit summary saying why, someone changed it back again, discussion ensued. This is what we call "an ideal state of affairs". ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple recreation of speedied spam page

User Trudif (talk · contribs) has created Young, Gifted and Talented for a third time, after previous versions were speedily deleted (see apparent record) on the basis that they appeared to be blatant advertising. The user has repeatedly removed {{db-spam}} notices despite repeated warnings. Would it be possible for an administrator to examine the actions of this user? I would recommend SALTing the article name(s) and reprimanding and/or blocking the user. If I have reported this in the wrong place, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a notable thing and could be sourced to multiple reliable sources - but that version of it is pure spam. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...Which is why I deleted it before seeing this. Agree that there might be an article there, but that this ain't it. The user has been final warned, and has not edited since. I also note that the editor created both Young gifted and talented and Young, Gifted and Talented, and both should be salted if there's consensus to do so. The fact that there may be some notability has me hesitant to do so, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if this works. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone able to point me in the direction of a good article on government education programmes - this is not an area I normally write in but I'll take a stab while waiting to see if I get a reply. then as the rampant deletionist I am ZOMG! I can AFD my own article when I move it into article space! --Allemandtando (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Education in the United States is a literal Good article - may be useful? EyeSerene^talk 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yes. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam via edit summaries

Time for action (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making trivial edits, all with the edit summary AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ! - Go to www.antimatter.on.nimp.org to shit bricks! - SHE IS IS SO FREAKING HOT!. Hundreds of times.
Kww (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the "Avril troll." Block immediately, and if a CU sees this it might be worth checking for other socks from the same IP. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Second sock in 1/2 an hour, first being Reconfirmer. Avril troll seems active, so keep a look out. D.M.N. (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That page tries to infect your machine with a trojan, so don't be tempted to click... --Allemandtando (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgent!!!

To add to this, something has to be done to prevent something like this from happening again!!!

Look at this. They were vandalizing with Twinkle! Someone should IMMEDIATELY make that function unavailable to non-administrators. That is an insanely dangerous function. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only admins should be permitted to use Twinkle? If so then that is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - way out of proportion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, possibly making it avaible maybe to people with over 5,000 edits maybe? I've brought this up at the Village Pump to see what other people would think about vandalism on Twinkle, and to see what could be done to stop it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they are suggesting that the unlink function should be removed from Twinkle...not that Twinkle should be removed from the masses. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I was saying that the unlink function should not be available to non-admins. I personally do not see how a non-admin would ever have to use it - the only use I can think for it would be after deleting a page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how did the 6-edits-per-minute limitation not kick in? I thought Twinkle was still bound by that...? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(J.delanoy) Why on earth should Twinkle be Admin only? There is no way I could be come a Admin here which would mean that it makes it harder for myself to revert, tag ect. Don't let a few vandals make us pay for something we (non-admins) didn't do. Bidgee (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Pink!Teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Same deal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree about the unlink. Perhaps only make that function available to rollbackers?

I gotta go to a company picnic now, but somebody should hop on IRC and find a CU, to see if a short rangeblock is feasible. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was feasible, it would already have been used. Multiple CUs have been working this case for days. GRBerry 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some links to the CU stuff, please? Thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The remove backlinks function should be removed from non-admins immediately, and I think some kind of native "mass rollback" should be considered for admins to easily fix similar situations in the future. –xeno (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, this is ridiculous. Can an admin blank User:AzaToth/twinkleunlink.js to stop this nonsense until we can find someone to make it so that only admins can use the feature? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did it re-occur? This is  Done by the way. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So whats Unlink backlinks? I'm not game to touch/use it. Bidgee (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No (I was called away from my computer, and came back just as you guys were cleaning up after Pink!Teen), but considering there have been 2 or 3 occurrences within an hour, and considering how few times the unlink function would be legitimately used, I think it would be appropriate to make a preemptive move. There is no reason not to believe that there are more sleeper accounts waiting... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, according to the vandal, he runs the Twinkle script remotely. Guess we'll need another fix. –xeno (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn you for getting here with this before me :-) I saw it too!!!  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, how is that possible? Guessing they grabbed the source and are using some kind of browser add in to run their modified script? No way to block that? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know others know more details than I do, but since it is javascript-based, it runs in the local browser; it doesn't care where the source of the .js file is.  Frank  |  talk  16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)There back OrgasGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink!Teen

Pink!Teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please block this user immediately. He/she is using disruptive edit summaries apparently to solicit hits to a website, and hitting a large number of articles. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. Blocked. I've made this a level 3 header as it's directly related. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries and Twinkle.

This seems not-right to me: contribs of OrgasGirl. Page after page of "Removing backlinks to Computer because "AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ! - Go to www.antimatter.on.nimp.org to shit bricks! - I run the TW script remotely!!"; using TW" Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked while I was composing message. :) Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Four socks in an hour and a half. D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that someone who knows about MediaWiki could implement part of the Abuse Filter extension temporarily as an emergency measure? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• IP hardblocked. Thatcher 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to restrict Twinkle won't work.

It is very easy to use old versions of a script for the purposes of using it maliciously. Trying to restrict TW to rollbackers-only will not help at all. Maxim's JS test account (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've disabled twinkleunlink.js from working in the mainspace, so people won't be tempted to unleash it and remove all the links form the TFA, for instance... Maxim's JS test account (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me?

...for interjecting my lame ass again (I don't seem to be following the technical side of stuff recently). An important issue was raised and lost: how in the world did he make like several hundred edits within one minute? Wasn't there supposed to be some edit throttle in place? Even for autoconfirmed? Миша13 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, there probably isn't an edit throttle... Maxim_(talk) 21:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a 6 rollback-per-minute throttle (except on admins), it ended up adversely affecting Huggle users legitimately rollbacking that fast, so Gurch convinced the devs to raise it to some crazily high number. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone else notice the similarities?

Is anyone else getting the vibe that our Avril Lavigne Troll is Grawp or one of his wethers? Both try to link the same malware site in their edit summaries, both make seemingly-legit edits either during or just before their vandalism rampage, and both attack en masse. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that come up in Checkuser? D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Grawp has used open proxies in the past. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes yet again

Resolved

 – Enough of this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He's unblocked and unrepentent, refusing to remove personal attacks from his talk page, and promising to resume the edit war that got him blocked the last time. [85] Baseball Bugs As you knew he would be. The unblock is a disgrace to the process. ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this up with the unblocking admin. –xeno (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If he starts up on "The CW" crusade again (or similar issues that he's been warned about), I'll block him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rogereeny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He did. I explained that by my reversing my indef block Rollosmokes was being given a chance to redeem himself, and that we should allow him time to do so. I am hopeful that Rollosmokes will remove the contentious material, but I shall do so anyway if he doesn't in the near future. A bunch of good editors have also said they will attempt to guide Rollosmokes in taking a more benign path toward content dispute in future, so I am hoping that the encyclopedia will gain in having Rollosmokes making good edits. I suspect Baseball Bugs, despite his misgivings in this matter, will also continue providing good quality content - so if I get some little flak for my actions which will hopefully result in having two good editors contributing to WP then I think it is an excellent trade. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollo has made but two edits since his return. Neither are disruptive, IMHO. One edit was to remove a comment made by Bugs (that seemed like a baiting comment) and then moving that comment to Bug's talk page and adding a suggestion to find some peace between them. Kingturtle (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit to being irked with that guy's behavior. Enough, Aldretti. Meanwhile, he claims to have "proof" that The CW doesn't have the right to call itself The CW. If he's got such proof, he's free to bring it on, and then I'll leave him be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

bring it on, and then I'll leave him be is language that baits. Just let it rest. Kingturtle (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this already. I am no longer watching his page or his edits. He wins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another case of overly solicitous admins chasing good editors off so bad editors can make messes. I propose that KungTurtle and LessHeard be 100% accountable for all Rollosmokes' actions from now on, since others are clearly discouraged from watching pages which Rollo edits. ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. If an admin unblocks a disruptive editor and refuses to deal with the disruption so that other editors finally wash their hands of the situation, it should be up to the unblocking admin to have to deal with the fallout. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling a little calmer now and have had a reasonable discussion with the two admins mentioned. I have confidence that they will keep an eye on this guy (and me) to try to prevent problems. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, no one's chasing me off wikipedia itself (yet) - just this particular area of interest where our paths unfortunately crossed. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone

Could someone smarter than I am look into this mess? I stumbled on it on NPP when I saw a snarky edit summary...then looked at the history. It appears to be an ongoing edit war over the genre of the singer. I placed 3rr warnings on both parties and reported to 3rr and they denied saying there wasn't anything going on after the warning. When they went back at it after the warning, I went back to 3rr and they cleared it saying it was settled. Well, now it appears that there is IP socking involved and I don't know where else to turn. Help? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks, to stop the edit waring. Try getting them to head to WP:DR in the meantime and let me know if it needs to be extended. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jordanson

I tagged an article he created for Speedy Deletion, as I didn't think the person was notable enough for an article. Georgi Karakanov. He reapetedly removed the tag and continued editing without placing hangon template. I warned him twice, and he refuses to stop.--Islaammaged126 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to excuse his incorrect removal of the template, but the article is about a footballer playing for a team at the highest level in the nation, which is an assertion of notability. It's not a CSD candidate. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)