Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive449

User:Fisc
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)

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. He has been warned by others that this behavior was inappropriate 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. . He then left a borderline harassing message on my talk page. He also accused me of vandalism, and shortly after fought with me over the removal of a comment left by an IP vandal

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. 

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. .

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 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. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    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 [] '' 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. 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.    .  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  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
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. I removed a final bit of copyvio, then tagged the article for notability for failing to meet WP:BK.. Mbabane then disappeared from the article, and another new user User:Plannedobesity appeared and removed the notability tag. User:NawlinWiki tagged it for needing non-primary sources, and Plannedobesity removed that tag and added a source. I put back the notability tag and added a refimprove tag.. Enter Nutsheller, third new editor. He removed both tags and added a new paragraph with two references. 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. 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." He accused me of being on a crusade to remove information on the pygmy tribe from Wikipedia.. 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.. The reviewing admin suggested I just AfD the article, so I did.. Nutsheller responded by asking for a 30, claiming I was "tagging maliciously" (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."

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. 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, 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.".

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. -- Collectonian  (talk · 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. Glass Cobra  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. -- Collectonian  (talk · 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...-- Collectonian  (talk · 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? -- Collectonian  (talk · 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. &mdash; MaggotSyn 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 -- Collectonian  (talk · 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
blocked 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. 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. .  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 is ✅ to be a sock of Internodeuser/Blissyu2 -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


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


 * and, as before - A l is o n  ❤ 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 - A l is o n  ❤ 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)

Blatant Personal Attack
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:Ginascrew
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. <font color="0000FF">Glass <font color="0000FF">Cobra  18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals and personal attacks
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. 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 : *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=prev&oldid=225473828 ''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.


 * 
 * 
 * 

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)

Was my account deleted?
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: Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. <font color="0000FF">Glass <font color="0000FF">Cobra  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

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? &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">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. &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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. -->Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7 <font face="Gill Sans MT"> B G  7even   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. <font face="Gill Sans MT"> B G  7even   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. &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">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. &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">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. <font face="Gill Sans MT"> B G  7even   16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Were Kodster and I right?--<font color="0070FF">Xp54321 (<font color="4CBB17">Hello! • <font color="4CBB17">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 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, 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:

[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, who isn't. 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:

[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. <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 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. <font face="Gill Sans MT"> B G  7even   16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IP addresses can change....--<font color="0070FF">Xp54321 (<font color="4CBB17">Hello! • <font color="4CBB17">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 .  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)

Single Purpose IP Account?
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. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">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. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">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
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)

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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple recreation of speedied spam page
User 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  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)

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:   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. What is the course of action for him? -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 12:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! I forgot! He also created a bot and put the tag. It is located at User:Corebot. --  ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --  ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He raises his editcount by copying other people's userpages and adding it to his userpage. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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: --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) [+]► ▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌  12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey its in archive did you see that--
 * 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:. And I seriously dont know why he wanted to add the flag here:. 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? -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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)

[+]► ▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌  13:20, 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 ... -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> TinuCherian  (Chat?) - 12:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this idea... We should restrict his access to tools. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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? -- gp pande  «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?
 * 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. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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 ... -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> TinuCherian  (Chat?) - 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know.. Looks like the poor boy's account is used by his 'friends' :( -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> 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! 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. -- gp pande  «talk»  19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw poll: Should this user's monobook.js be deleted and salted? -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! 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 -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, i will supervise him. If he does make mistakes again, i'll contact a admin to do some restrictions. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I.P. user going on revert war
I posted a 3RR violation for an anonymous user (currently using the I.P. address ) 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. =)                 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)


 * Are you familiar with "grain of common sense"? When a report on AN/I gets ignored due to it belonging at 3RRV, and the 3RRV gets removed due to some utterly fucking retarded beaucratic reason (it evidently "wasn't clear" to whichever admin "handled" (term used loosely) it what the I.P. was reverting to, despite four diffs, each one of them the exact same basic reversion, and the fact that checking the page history would take five minutes, tops, and that's if the admin had to read each edit summary aloud to himself in a deeply pondersome, reflective manner), and a second 3RRV gets put on the backburner for eight hours for no evident fucking reason, and a second AN/I is basically ignored (with all due respect to Mr. Beam) while later threads (such as the one immediately below this) are quickly resolved, I was just under the impression that it was due to lack of diffs! Whoever could blame me for such an innocent mistake? Playing whack-a-mole with clearly-dynamic I.P. addresses and throwing out pp-semis seems counter-productive - a /16 rangeblock, with account creation enabled, would be much better, methinks. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User Space
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)


 * I've deleted it again, for the same reasons mentioned above, and left a note.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:58, 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 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.  Mango juice 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)
 * I endorse Mangojuice's extension of the block to indefinite. This teenager is just not learning from his past, refuses to accept any sort of critique of his (this possessive is debatable given his contributions to date) work, and refuses to change anything. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes yet again
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * ''The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.

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. 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. OhNo itsJamie 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)
 * So what would I... i mean SOMEONE have to do to chase you off. Step by step and detail please. Beam 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would take a serious personal attack... such as being called a vile name... like "upstart". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring only to that page; I may not like you much, but you work hard for the betterment of this project 90% of the time. the rest of thetime, you're arguing with me, and you're wrong. So I don't want to see you leaving any time soon. ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! That means I'm right at least 90% of the time. That's a pretty good average. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Rollo hasn't actually disrupted again yet. If he pulls that the/The crap again in regards to The CW, I hope the admins come down hard.  But so far, he's only threatened to do so.. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 &middot;(t)&middot;(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.  --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's gone beyond that now...one of 'em filed an SSP on the other Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie arghh LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

expand a range block?
Please could someone expand a range block or something, a few days ago we had Special:Contributions/93.107.68.59, now there's Special:Contributions/93.107.72.250 -his range must've changed enough for him to be free of the previous range block. The first IP from a few days ago was confirmed by Alison as User:Gold heart. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah it's ok, I hear WMConnolley has done it, thanks WMC.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious...
I'm not sure if this is the place to bring it up, but...

I seem to have picked up yet another spoof troll account. There is a new account User:Adolphin79, which was recently created (2008-07-08T12:49:09). After looking into the logs and contributions, I believe this is a sockpuppet of User:PPduo. The new account was created after I had reverted some of PPduo's vandalism at Pete Knight High School, and had given PPduo 2 warnings... The new account's only edits so far have been to the same Pete Knight High School, and 2 other articles that I had edited around the same time... Without having access to checkuser, I have no way of confirming that this new account is PPduo. But, I have a 'gut instinct' that it is, and I believe the new account was created to mock my username... Is there anyway someone with checkuser abilities could check on this for me, and possibly block the sock account for me, before he/she/it causes harm? If possible, I would then like to usurp the account as I have with my other spoof troll (I know this part of it would be an issue to take up with WP:CHU/U)... I'm asking here instead of posting a report at WP:SSP because without the checkuser I don't have any hard evidence, and I don't care if PPduo is blocked or not, I just want the spoof account taken care of... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some diffs for use as visual aids, my revert of PPduo's vandalism, Adolphin79's creation, PPduo's contribs, Adolphin79's contribs, Piano rock, Ed Begley, Jr.... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, you don't need RFCU evidence to file an SSP. – xeno  ( talk ) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So should I just transclude this and file a report at SSP, cross my fingers that one day the sock gets blocked, and then after that file a report at CHU/U as I did for my first troll? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment I'm inclined to let this slide; you've presented enough evidence to convince me it's fairly likely they're the same person, but they're not doing anything that appears to be urgently and inherently abusive at this time. If they start up vandalizing, or continue to follow you from article to article, that may be actionable. As far as usurping imitators, I have to admit I don't see the point. I'd file this in the "do something if it gets worse" category, personally. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can categories be speedy-deleted as reposted deleted content?
Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography was recently deleted as a result of this CfD. However, has now created the essentially identical Category:Non-LGBT people in lesbian pornography and begun populating it with articles previously in the deleted category. Should this category be speedied as recreated deleted content? Kelly hi! 03:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CSD is a general CSD so it can be used on a category.  MBisanz  talk 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, this category should not be deleted because it is different in that people like Nina Hartley who identify as LGBT are excluded from it.--Conc782 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a POV-fork'minded end run around the deletion; little doubt a 'LGBT people in lesbian pornography' category will show up soon. Delete as POINT-y, and remind the editor there's a great big internet out there, he can find all the lesbian porno he wants out there, and leave WP behind. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking this one to CfD to better gauge consensus. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:35, 16 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)
 * I'm very sorry, I didn't know that. Please excuse me wasting your time :(.
 * WP:ATHLETE contains the relevant guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to BBC, ITV programme and related biography articles
An anonymous editor (various IPs starting 76.* and 75.*, for example:, , , , ) has been making multiple changes over the last couple of weeks to a number of broadcasting related articles, for example: BBC News at Ten, BBC Nine O'Clock News, ITV Lunchtime News, ITV Evening News, Trevor McDonald, Alastair Stewart, and others. These appear to be lots of minor changes or addition of un-sourced and poorly written comments. These edits never have edit summaries and as their IP keeps changing it is difficult to discuss anything with them; no response has been made to requests on article talk pages. Each IP makes about a dozen edits (usually confined to one evening) before it changes. Can anything can be done to prevent these edits from happening?

I've been reverting ones that appear to be definitely vandalism, as have several other editors, but the anon editor seems insistent on making changes. If these edits are confirmed as vandalism, it would seem to be appropriate to semi-protect some of the articles in question. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not really a heavy vandalism load. I would also note edits from the 78.* range making suspicious changes to dates. We don't block large IP ranges except in extreme emergencies, and we normally don't s-protect articles unless they are being vandalized many times a day. Maybe another admin will be willing to s-protect the articles, but I don't see the need yet. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I understand your argument, but I guess that the anon IP wins then, because I haven't got the time to spend half an hour every day reverting the edits from a changing IP who is unavailable and unwilling to enter into any constructive discussion about their edits.  Whereas he or she appears to have plenty of spare time to make these edits every day.  Perhaps someone with the "mop & bucket" could sort this out?  I've lost track of what the last "good" text for these articles was anyway.  This is not the first instance of an anon IP appearing to "win" a dispute simply because they refuse to discuss edits and cannot be blocked.  In my mind, it forms a good argument for preventing anon IPs from editing (although I know that's a big discussion which has been done to death elsewhere).  Regards. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you known, the community feels that the value of allowing people to edit without having to log in outweighs the vandalism performed by anon IPs. If vandals are IP hopping, we can't do much to block them, as blocking large ranges of IPs causes unacceptable disruption to good-faith IP contributors. It is also consensus that we don't protect articles unless the vandalism load has become heavy (generally, that means at least several times a day on a regular basis), or there are important concerns about attacks on living persons. I recognize the problem you cite; I have a number of seldom visited pages on my watchlist, and I often seem to be the only one to notice vandalism on them, but giving anon IP vandals their opening is the price we pay for having an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which is the premise under which Wikipedia was founded). -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Santhosh George Kulangara and Saint Thomas Christians
Just wanted to bring the attention to edit wars seen on Santhosh George Kulangara. See see this -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Two edits since June 20? Certainly not any edit war now. What were you looking for us to do? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The last edit was today. Not a daily edit war. Looks like two established editors have moved to IP address reverting each others' edits. Another case in Saint Thomas Christians . See this -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in either article that merits admin intervention. For content disputes, you should first try to discuss the issues on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work, try soliciting input from other editors by posting to the projects listed on the talk page. In the case of Santhosh George Kulangara, if you feel that the policy on biographies of living persons is being violated, you can list the article at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Issues that cannot be resolved on the talk pages should be taken to Dispute resolution. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:El_C
Can a sysop please sanction this one for being disruptive?

This so-called admin continues to assume ownership of the WQA page (see page-history-here). The entire purpose of that page is to gain third party input, and we don't archive disputes just because one admin thinks it's okay. We have a clear history of trying to reasonably resolve disputes within the minds of the parties, and if one third party disagrees with another in how it's being handled, we don't close it. Non-sysops have been handling these disputes reasonably in the recent past.

Yet, User:El_C has persistently been trying to archive disputes prematurely (IMO), edit-warring on the page, and using his position as an administrator to state "I am more than qualified to handle those" - that has nothing to do with it. He has also been removing comments from other people's talk pages.

Further to this, he has also had a recent record for making a smear campaign against me personally on WP:AN. I wouldn't be surprised the only reason he's come there in the last day or 2 is to be disruptive, knowing my active participation there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also note that he's been using revert-warring as a technique, and despite my reopening of a WQA report that I'd closed, he continually recloses it.  Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe El C mentioned that dispute resolution was taking place elsewhere regarding the same issue or person, which if I understand it correctly means there's no point in doubling up reports. Why not just let it be archived and dealt with elsewhere? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 04:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He failed to acknowledge certain points relevant to the dispute (imo), and I have been personally engaging with one of the parties to try to have it reasonably resolved. It wasn't resolved. (I'm not talking about the WQA report where a User-conduct RFC was occurring - I agreed with the closure of that one and reformatted it. I'm talking about the other WQA complaints.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm experienced enough to deal with those reports. I am already engaged with them at the respective pages, so there was no reason for Ncmvocalist to unarchive them. Especially seeing our somewhat negative interaction, where he termed my comments "disruptive trolling" and now goes on to mischaracterize as a smear campaign (i.e. all the more reason not to overturn my reports). El_C 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would you term your comments? No, what would a third party term those vindictive comments? It's all the more reason you stay away and stop trying to cause trouble. '''How often have you been handling WQA reports btw? Can someone please look into the history, even prior to July 1?''' Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing "(Undid revision 226170173 by El C (talk)) (undo)" on the history, and a less-than-collegial comment or two on ElC's talk. I'm not seeing any need for this to be brought here, as what adminstrator-ly action is required? - brenneman  04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When there's no consensus to close, you don't just close by pointing out you have had a mop for a while. That has no relevance to the handling of WQA during WP:DR. He needs to cease being disruptive, and stop assuming ownership of the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "'I wouldn't be surprised the only reason he's come there in the last day or 2 is to be disruptive, knowing my active participation there'"


 * Bad faith assumption. My last edit to WQA before yesterday was on July 1. I've been away from Wikipedia, from July 1 till yesterday. El_C 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See reply above - it's hard to assume good faith when you make comments like which you did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also looking at that diff, you clearly see there are 3 third party views being expressed - we've never prematurely closed them when 1 does not agree with another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have those reports under control, just go do something else, unrelated to myself. El_C 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given contributions like this, I don't think so. You do not own the page, and the dispute is not resolved (and therefore it should not be closed in the absence of consensus to the contrary), period. If you want to continually be personal, that's your choice - but please do not intervene where genuine attempts are being made to actually resolve disputes, rather than marking them when they aren't. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so, wouldn't you, having insulted me yesterday, is even more reason not to undo my actions today? Again, I have those reports under control, just go do something else. El_C 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Need I remind you that Wikipedia is about consensus-based editing? Insisting that you have them under control is not consensus-building. Please cease being disruptive and undo your edit. Even if it's a habit for you to edit-war, I don't want to have any part in it. I'm also discussing it with one of the filing parties and they have not indicated you have it under control. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A single admin can get good results in these instances and has the tools to do so (especially in this case, involving edit warring between the ip and the two other editors), especially when s/he isn't being purposefully undermined by longwinded disruption for pointy purposes. El_C 04:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A single admin does not have tools to deal with sockpuppetry on their own. And btw, WQA does not deal with edit-warring in case you didn't realise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider the edit warring at that article to be more pressing than the WQT issues; and I could protect that article or block disruptive parties, if need be. But all that is rather besides the point. El_C 04:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say don't deal with the edit-warring issues - I think it's great that you are. But I don't think you understand that your monitoring of the edit-warring (if any at all) is not related to the closing of the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is very much related. I aim to reduce tension on all fronts: at WQA where I found out about that dispute, and all the way to the edit war which is its impetus. El_C 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. It still does not justify your blanking a newcomer's welcome on a talk page, which is where we encourage IPs to get a username. Or why you'd rearchive something that I personally archived, but then reopened (The Stepshep one). Please also look at formatting - we don't want parts of sections hanging around when archived. So please look carefully at edits before reverting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

→One step at a time. The ip has blanked the talk page a few times and I'd like to give them some space from clutter — which is difficult when folks keep restoring the templates (they can be bit overwhelming to a newcomer). As for the Stepshep report, I don't recall touching that one. Anyway, I agree with Fut. about you having ownership issues with WQA, so I find your claim in a thread on my talk page which you titled "ownership" to be extremely deflective (I, for example, never been accused of ownership issues at AN3 or AE, where I've been more active). El_C 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at what the IP blanked, it was a message by that editor. Looking at his previous contributions, he's had a problem with that editor. It doesn't mean welcome messages shouldn't be put on his talk page or that he despises them like the other messages. I do agree it can be overwhelming, but at least they have the links.
 * You did touch the Stepshep one, if you look at the edits you made.
 * I call it ownership due to the lack of discussion before closing. And if it's been reopened, logically, you wouldn't just close it right away - you'd discuss the differences and come to a consensus, usually on that page itself by assuming good faith and asking why it has been reopened (rather than repeatedly edit-warring and insisting you're the only answer). I'm not a party to any of those disputes, so it's pretty likely I'm not going to revert because I want to insist someone begs and apologizes for the grave unjust comment someone made in another's dispute. And then before I can point out my concerns, you've reverted it again anyway. If you get that, we're done here and I won't need a different completely uninvolved sysop to explain it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I find that unresponsive and longwinded. If you have future concerns, maybe ask Fut. or Aaron, or SlimVirgin's for input. El_C 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. You don't even acknowledge you've touched the Stepshep dispute so I think it's crystal clear who's being utterly unresponsive. Like I said, if you don't understand the bold revert discuss cycle, then I can get an uninvolved sysop to explain it to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't do it yourself. Three uninvolved admins have already expressed their views here, which reflects poorly on you. El_C 07:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you still don't get it. Bold, revert discuss. It's not bold revert revert. And you're not exempt from it. Hopefully you'll get it this time and I won't need diffs to show it in the next spot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts speak for themselves. I'm done here. El_C 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, WQA is not your fiefdom. I attend to reports at AN3 at AE, et cetera, and, yes, also WQA. Just give me my space and all will be well. El_C 04:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just don't involve yourself in reports I'm actively engaged in, that's just common sense cosidering the levels of your hostility toward myself. El_C 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem here seems indeed to be WP:OWNership of WQA by Ncmvocalist. I've briefly looked at a few cases and find the closings by El C entirely reasonable, and the source of the revert-warring clearly on Ncmvocalist's side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I find this thread rather shocking. There is no basis whatsoever to ask for sanctions against User:El C.  This noticeboard is not for dispute resolution, either.  Whatever your disagreements may be, Ncmvocalist, this is not at all the way to resolve them. Jehochman Talk 07:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist, you're going to need a lot of ANI space if you intend to call for "sanctions for being disruptive" against everybody who criticized your actions in the notorious "Giano" thread on WP:AN yesterday, because such criticism seems to be El C's main crime in your eyes. Please use WP:ANI for matters that require administrator assistance, not for airing your grudges. Take a deep breath and try assuming at least a tiny, microscopic bit of good faith from fellow editors even where they don't agree with you. Wikipedia is a place for collegiate editing. Stop nursing your umbrage, please. I would actually advise you to stop removing negative comments from your userpage, too. As I wrote in my most recent post there (now deleted): while removing  good-faith posts from your talkpage is  allowed, not everything that's allowed is a good idea. To treat fellow Wikipedians so confrontationally is unlikely to improve your relations with them.  Bishonen | talk 08:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I saw the header and the editor against whom the request was made and assumed that this was a generic rouge admin abuse allegation by some rebuffed POV-pushing n00b. I'm frankly amazed that Ncmvocalist would make such an ill-judged request.  Really.  For Bob's sake, El_C has been around for nearly four years and is well known and liked around the place, what's wrong with talking nicely to him or maybe just walking away this time?  Guy (Help!) 12:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear... Why the fighting amongst friends? We are all on the same team here! Surely there is a better way to work this out.

To put a little context around this, sometimes weeks go by where myself and Ncmvocalist are collectively responding to like 90+% of the Wikiquette Alerts, so I suppose it's inevitable that he and I develop a little bit of WP:OWN issues. I've found myself doing it a little bit too, at least linguistically (e.g. referring to WP:WQA as "we" rather than "this page"/"this noticeboard -- I try not to do it, but it slips out now and then).

And I'll admit that sometimes I see another editor come along and respond whom I don't particularly trust (I am not referring to El C, it was a previous issue) and I feel a twinge of "Hey, buddy, this is my department!" But I remind myself I don't own that page, and try to allow both the other person and myself to respond constructively in our own way. It's really hard sometimes, especially if I disagree with how that person is handling things -- and perhaps someday I'll slip up and respond antagonistically, just as Ncm did here.

While I am disappointed that Ncmvocalist let his pride in his usually excellent work at WQA get the better of him, I am also just a little disappointed with El C for his reversions -- as we all know, it takes two to tango when it comes to edit warring. In general, if somebody unarchives an archived discussion on WQA, I would be inclined to reply saying, "Hey, what further discussion do you think we need here?" rather than immediately revert. (There could be cases where I would revert the unarchiving on sight, if a discussion was getting really nasty, but I did not see that to be the case here) It is quite understandable that El C would be antagonized by Ncmv's multiple reversions of his edits, but he didn't respond in the most constructive way possible either.

Regarding the specific case, I agree with most of El C's closures. I am not 100% sure about the Stepshep thing -- it initially looked to be a "nothing to see here, move along folks" type of report, but then Stepshep did a weird thing with the date parameter on a couple of missing fair use tags, and while I'm sure his intentions were quite good, I'm not sure that action was appropriate. Don't worry, I know Stepshep is a tireless and excellent contributor and as I stated on his talk page, I have no intention of making this a witch hunt -- but I would probably have mentioned prior to closing the thread that I thought his pre-dating of the tags was a Bad Idea. The rest of the closures seem uncontroversial, though.

It makes me sad to see two excellent good faith editors in a squabble over something like this... Speaking of archiving threads, perhaps it is time to archive this one? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly - thanks for the understanding. Appreciate it, Jaysweet.
 * I also know what you mean Guy - it's not like I haven't been able to deal with it that way before. I think in the last week, I've had a much different (lower?) level of tolerance than usual, and I've probably made unrealistic allowances, trying to push it both higher and lower to bring it back to the usual tolerance level. As a result, this week, my judgement outside-of-WQA (at the very least) hasn't often met the standard I expect it to be at, and has suffered. I do think things will get better (back to normal hopefully) once I'm no longer coughing out the icky-stuff, and got rid of the sore throat and headache (which have been a massive pain of their own), but yeah.... In any case, cheers folks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam via edit summaries
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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">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)


 * Same deal. S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did it re-occur? This is ✅ 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)
 * Unlink backlinks takes the result for Special:Whatlinkshere/whateverPageYou'reOn and lets you mass-remove the links. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:49, 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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">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? -- Collectonian  (talk · 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)
 * Yep, it's possible to use something like Greasemonkey to run a copied source of the script. Nothing you can do about it but block the user :( Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC)There back Bidgee (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink!Teen
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. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">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&#39;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... [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20 px]] Maxim&#39;s JS test account (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Twinkle is a javascript app. All anyone has to do is copy it to their userspace and remove any changes you make.  For this strategy to work, we would have to block new users from editing any javascript files. --Selket Talk 17:34, 16 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? Миша 13 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. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(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. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also possible that this "Avril troll" is copying Grawp. What difference does it make? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's quite possible, anyway. Grawp has numerous socks, and it's fair to say that his *on.nimp.org trick, albeit not original, is his modus operandi, and it's a safe bet the Av troll is Grawp himself. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Avril troll is one of grawps copycats. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * .on.nimp.org is a standard shock site. I wouldn't consider two trolls the same person if they both linked to goatse, so I don't see why two trolls both linking to nimp.org have to be the same person. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor would I, except he's the only other vandal known to link to it. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on things I've seen on ED, I'd guess no, they're different people. Either way, it doesn't matter: they're both losers. RBI them until they come up with a new trick, then block the new trick and move on with more RBI. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot
I have added a heuristic to ClueBot that should catch this if it should happen again. If ClueBot is not catching it, or if another serial vandal comes along that ClueBot doesn't catch, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. -- Cobi(t 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean we can get unlink back, then? Steve  T • C 09:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Someone requested a link to the checkuser but I didn't notice anyone post one. In case anyone is still looking, it's here Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide notice

 * Archiving this to stop weirdos like Jaysweet from waxing philosophical on AN/I. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel at all qualified to deal with this, so I bring it here for wider attention. A user has posted a suicide announcement (for July 22nd) on his userpage. I have no idea if this is serious or not, but it doesn't look like simple testing or joking. Fram (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is anything to do. People that post that kind of thing are usually crying out for love and attention, and frankly, Wikipedia can't provide it for him anyway. Wikipedia is not therapy. In all serious, tell him to find a girlfriend. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't do that. Suicide notes must be taken seriously, because a human life very well could be on the line. You can't just ignore it and assume they're just calling out for attention; even if that is the case, it's not worth risking a human life. By the way, the notice on the user talk page states that the person is already dead. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to take it seriously. He seemed a regular if somewhat misguided editor (he got blocked a few times), then he just stopped editing and focused on making his page myspacey and shrine-like. He's just an 18-year old kid who recently finished high-school. I've no reason to doubt what he says here. If anyone wants to followup, I have his ISP details here and can maybe do something to help. He's where he says he is, BTW, and his account is not compromised - A l is o n  ❤ 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a little confusing: the notice on the talk page says he is already dead, yet his most recent edit to the page was NOT to add that note, which would seem to imply that he is not dead. (Dead men don't edit?) I'm not exactly sure what we could do, but if there's anything I can, be sure to let me know, Allison, I hate to see stuff like this. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  08:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that he plans on following through next week. Although, even if this is a cry for attention/help, we should try to contact the authorities in Bucharest, if we can find someone willing to call the Romanian Police.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any cry for help is not be taken lightly especially a death threat to self. Notifying the appropriate people places this matter into the hands of people who can actually intervene. —<span style="color:#000000; font-family:monospace, monospace; cursor:crosshair;"> Ѕandahl  16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to make light of what could be a serious situation, but I'm leaning towards a well prepared Wikipedian, or a joke, since he has constantly changed the date several times during his Wiki-career...

                 

- Adolphus79 (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (after ecs)I would be inclined not to overreact in this case. He's been adding "death" text for about a year now. On July 1 it said that he committed suicide on July 4 and for a long time his userpage said "still alive, as well as dead". Back in August and September last year it said he died in August (1 August and September 07 (5 Sept), changing as we went into each month. Sarah 09:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ufff! Just some joker so, I guess. Only it's not funny - A l is o n  ❤ 09:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I saw going back through the edit history of his page, I'm going to assume it's like when I call my grandmother. Every time I talk to her, she makes some kind of a comment about 'her not being around much longer'... I figure after a year of threats/warnings, we (the community) can stop taking it seriously. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't looked at the history. Not the best of jokes... Fram (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, maybe we should eliminate his medium for conveying this constant message?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, removing his outlet could be the thing that flips that trigger, I'd say just make a note somewhere that this user is not necessarily serious about the death date... - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd say just let him be, and move on. He's not doing any harm, I guess, and once the community is aware of the situation and knows how to react - A l is o n  ❤ 09:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and neither of these were proper on the page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continually posting things which look like suicide notices seems pretty harmful to me. WP:NOT Emospace and all that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone cleverer than me with templates should really play with those sort of templates to make them not appear if transcluded outside of article space. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On 2007-03-23, a man named Kevin Whitrick, committed cyber suicide using his own webcam from his home live on the internet in front of viewers in a chat room website supporting webcam use. Sorry, I just had to add that. I think stuff like this is pretty serious. If he wants to take his life it's his prerogative but I don't think it ought to be allowed to be posted here. It can surely be counted as counter productive? Just my views anyway. Regards, --Cameron* 09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read above - he's been continually updating the date for the past year. It's just emokid stuff. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with Neil, I've gone and noted the user of this (excessively long) discussion. <font color=#660000>weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it is just Emo kiddie stuff, we should not allow him to abuse wikipedia in this way. I deleted his userpage.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's going a bit far Theresa. Ryulong had already removed this notice and the editor in question has not even received a warning for his behavior. You should undelete his page. --The High Commander (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As I said, let's go easy on the guy. Remove the questionable content, sure, but leave the rest - A l is o n  ❤ 10:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In cases like this, we usually go by Threats of violence, seen as it seems to be a threat of self harm. And we follow the directions that essay gives us. Not that easy now Theresa Knott has deleted the page. I agree with High Commander. Undelete the page and act according to the essay. Anything like this should be taken seriously, even though it may well turn out to be a hoax. Better be safe than sorry. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 10:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted he never threatened suicide, but said he had died, or was going to. For all we know he could have terminal cancer and be expecting to die and simply predicting the date. Unlikely, but look at it from different angles. --The High Commander (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes he did. "He committed suicide in midsummer of 2008 due to an unrequited love." Fram (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are completely correct my apologies. --The High Commander (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll undelete, but I still think deletion send a stronger message about accepatable userpage use than editing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a simple warning or word of advice gets him to stop, then you have achieved the desired outcome without really peeving him off by deleting his page. --The High Commander (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting his page will only serve to make the writer more frustrated probably. And, yes, I didn't know the suicide was in past tense terms, because, well, the page went... <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the whole userpage doesn't need to be deleted, though I think the death information should be removed, but I disagree with saying we have to or should follow TOV. The community rejected TOV as a policy, and I prefer seeing people use basic common sense myself. Sarah 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well TOV certainly wasn't rejected a few recent cases I've found myself discussing. I once held your view, in that people should use common sense, but other people weren't having any of it. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TOV did not gain consensus to become policy, although it appears to be a well thought out essay. I didn't take part in the discussions, but I suggest a good reason for it not being policy is because it is unwise to legislate the superseding of common sense. While common sense may be in short supply, it should remain the standard tool in dealing with situations such as this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think WP:TOV mostly failed to become policy due to unenforceability, and to become a guideline due to reasons similar to those you mention. I think most people are still using it per WP:COMMONSENSE.  :-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WOW, C'MON PEOPLE!!! I'm so young...stop this terrible disscution, please (that was only a joke) !!!Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but threats of suicide are not a joke. Please don't do that, and bear in mind that we have people on here who's families have been affected by suicide - A l is o n  ❤ 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank God. Well, Wikipedia is NOT a place for jokes anyway...Btw we just wanted to see a fellow Wikipedian to be safe and fine...Btw Please.. No more jokes like these :) -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Threats like these must be taken seriously. You may have thought it is funny, but do remember... in many jurisdictions, if a person claims intent of suicide, it becomes the legal responsibility of observers to take reasonable action prevent it, which can include notifying medical or police authorities.  -- <font color="midnightblue">Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In what jurisdictions does "it becomes the legal responsibility of observers to take reasonable action prevent it". I've never heard of that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A few specific areas have laws directly regarding this, but most often it appears to be classified within statutes that require bystanders to provide aid in emergencies (see Duty to rescue.-- <font color="midnightblue">Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but let's just be clear here. As far as anyone is concerned on Wikipedia, there is no legal reason compelling anyone to respond. We need to be careful in implying editors have to do something for legal reasons. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ. Local jurisdictions frequently hold people responsible for actions that occur over the internet.  It is highly unlikely in a case like this, but clearly possible, that someone could have been legally faulted, either civilly or criminally, for failing to act had it been a serious issue with the obvious consequences instead of a poorly humored hoax.  Honestly it is up to a person to know the law as it applies to them specifically, but it would be wrong and misleading to simply discount the possibility.-- <font color="midnightblue">Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty stupid. If someone wants to kill themselves, that's there endgame. Unless it's a murder/suicide threat, or a Jap-style chemical suicide that affects the whole neighborhood it should honestly be none of our business. What a crappy jurisdiction would that be to make you interfere with someone's personal choice and personal right to kill themselves. Now if you want to assist people in killing themselves, that's different. Beam 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please - it would never happen - if we are going to get in that level of parnoid thought we might as well close the project down. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the possibility of legal liability is virtually nil. However, we have a clear ethical responsibility to report credible threats.  And we also have a responsibility to the project and to the community to quash unfunny "jokes".  (I'm not saying that nobody can ever have humor in regards to suicide and depression; I mean, if we stopped being able to see the humor in things, even in the most horrible things, then the crushing emptiness and brutality of human life would surely overwhelm us all...  But announcing your own death by suicide at a future data is not funny.)  ---Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the crushing emptiness and brutality of human life? Take it easy, Jay! It's not that bad, is it? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote the acclaimed tiger/philosopher Hobbes, "[T]he life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Or, as a high school English teacher of mine once said, "It is likely that, quantitatively, most of you will have much more pain than joy in your lives.  Hopefully the reverse will be true qualitatively." (I have to paraphrase slightly, as I can't recall exactly what she said)  It's the nature of a machine that has been designed by randomly tweaking a number of copies, exposing them to extremely harsh conditions, and then seeing which designs are more likely to die before they can reproduce.  Death and suffering is an inherent part of how we became the beautiful machines that we are, and we are still very much rooted in an existence of death and suffering.  Through transcendent and uniquely human means of expression like art, humor, love, and quality beer, we can for brief moments rise above find personal meaning -- but we shouldn't be surprised when most of our lives is spent slogging it out as one nondescript member in a sea of angry monkeys.  (I think I'm being optimistic, here, actually...) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Such an uplifting talk! Jay sweet indeed. ;-)  Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TO ALL can we close this. I don't think we need to go down this road any further. padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer deleting pages in my user space without permission
Earlier today 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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> 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. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> 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. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">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. &mdash; 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* - A l is o n  ❤ 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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   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)
 * Actually, Jeff "came out of hiding" a three months ago to comment on something. I suspect you may share my opinion: I disagreed with him quite a bit but I miss having him around. — Satori Son 18:48, 16 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 &#124;  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)
 * Only 870 mainspace, out of 3518 total? I suggest the point of Bstone is 870/3517 more than the point of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The moral of this tale: "courtesy blankings" in user space should always be preceded by a polite request to the user. No matter how well justified the deletion might be, without the "courtesy" bit, you just end up looking like a blanker.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible IP vios?
I've looking at a couple of articles and I'm a bit hazy on the legalities of them - List of Nursing Homes and Group Medical Practice. Isn't the verbatim copying of lists that are the IP of another organisation considered to be copyright violations? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea about the legalities, but what is the point of these lists anyway? Doesn't seem too encylopedic. I note that list of nursing homes has already been deleted. The group medical practice was prodded, and the prod removed, with discussion, but I can't see any encyclopedic merit for such a list. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The content of a list is not copyrighted in the U.S. per Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Only the presentation can be copyrighted. --Selket Talk 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right and reading that article - if you just straight left the presentation and the criteria used by the original author for selection and order, you've breached copyright - which is what this article seems to do. I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV --Allemandtando (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have not examined the source, I cannot say whether or not it is copyvio. If the actual list is merely a sort of table of contents to the analysis that is usually the bulk of such reports, then the list itself is probably not copyvio--it can be seen as informative about the copyrighted report. I note that these articles were originally suggested for deletion as an advertisement for the company. But I do not see why this discussion is taking place here--the copyright question should be asked at the appropriate place, and the undeleted article can be discussed at AfD. Not every problem in Wikipedia needs to be discussed at AN/I.  DGG (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'll point out here that while the first citation in the article is merely worthless - taking us to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/, the home page of an online dictionary - the second takes us to http://www.skainfo.com/ , a site requiring registration and in violation of WP:EL as far as I know. --CliffC (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes it unsuitable as an EL, but not as a reference. DGG (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review of my actions
Please see this AFD debate for a summary of the situation. Basically an article on a (IMHO) notable (at least marginally) situation in the UK has exploded onto the project. The article in question is currently at AFD, and has had inappropriate edits from both sides of the situation, highly POV edits from one of the real life participants, and repeated re-addition of speedy deletion templates by the other. I was already debating with myself whether to protect the page until the end of the AFD in order to stop the POV edits, and the repeated CSD template addition today tipped the scales. So I have fully protected the page for 5 days to allow the AFD debate to play out one way or another. This is not a normal use of protection, so I would like to toss my actions up for review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate, given the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of precedent for doing what you did, TA. I've even seen the AFD itself protected (semi) for IP abuse/sock-/meat-puppeting.  No problems here. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no protected template on the page yet. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have done the right thing here. By fully protecting the article you pretty much ensure that it cannot be improved during the deletion debate. If people are making POV edits then blocking would have been my first resort rather than protection. Theresa Knott | The otter sank
 * (ec) The disadvantage of preventing improvement to the page seems to be outweighed by the disruption prevented by protection. As an alternative I might have considered warning and if necessary blocking the editors causing the disruption instead, but this would prevent them contribution to the AfD discussion. EyeSerene talk 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They will probably have to both be blocked anyway as they are feuding on the talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, looks like semi-protection isn't an option as some of the problem is coming from auto-confirmed editors. GRBerry 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the anon seems to be editing from a stable IP, so a short block is feasible. Only one of them has been warned though. EyeSerene talk 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Oink (water buffalo) needs undeletion. --NE2 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see at least one person disagrees with my protection. If anyone feels I should be reversed, please go ahead.  I will not reinstate it nor will I be particularly upset.  I brought this here for review, and part of doing so means I have to be prepared for opinions to be against me.  As for blocking, I was hesitant to do so, from an instinct that such might inflame the situation rather than calm it.  I felt that freezing the focus of the dispute in time long enough for it's existance to be peoperly debated would be a less inflamitory action.
 * On a related subject, on my talk page the article's creator is severely questioning my decline of G7 speedy of the article. He says he wants to report me for this, but, since I have this related issue already here, let me report myself.  Is my judgement in declining the G7 speedy deletion of this page correct, as detailed on the bottom of my talk page? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a previous, similar, conversation with the author on my talk page. Fribbler (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not inclined to unprotect just yet. Let's wait and see if things calm down on the talk pages etc first. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible. I'm not criticising your solution, btw, TexasAndroid... just noting that other avenues exist ;) There's perhaps no best answer though - it could be that, with passions running so high, blocks would just have led to socking. Re the G7 speedy decline, I agree; once another editor has added meaningful content, author requests no longer apply. EyeSerene talk 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Particularly in Diggly's case, we have, not a project editor but a human being impacted by the article.  Block him, and his logical next step might have very well been to start socking.  So my thought process was, why drive someone to socking when I could (I hoped) freeze the flashpoint out of the equasion long enough for the AFD to complete?  I'm pretty sure that, baring any more twists in this saga, the AFD will result in delete and WP's part in the saga will be over.  So that's the logic that I was using.  I fully realize that there were other courses of action, but between not wanting to drive Diggly to socking, and feeling somewhat simpathetic to Webbo2005's situation, I did not feel that blocking either was the best course of action at the time.  Others may, of course, disagree. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole point of having WP:CSD is to provide clear safeguards that limit when and why an article can be speedily deleted. An article should only be speedied if we can expect no reasonable objection to its deletion. If editors are arguing at AfD about whether CSD applies, and if that AfD contains both Keep and Delete contributions, I think it's safe to say that the article is not suitable for speedy deletion. Disclaimer: I've been wrong before. Please tell me if you disagree.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with your contributions, but if you say you have been wrong before then that is good enough for me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unindent. I strongly suggest unprotecting. Part of the point of an AFD process is to allow constructive improvement to an article by editors in order to avoid deletion or removing inappropiate content and seeing if what's left warrants an article. Protecting an article during AFD disrupts part of the reason for the AFD process. It can also lead to accusations of bias against the protecting admin (usually a WP:The Wrong Version argument but still can look bad for the admin/project). Unprotect and if any editors abuse editing priviliges in relation to the article/talk/AFD then sanction THEM. There seems to be a ongoing problem on Wikipedia where bona fide editors get locked out of editing due to the disruptive actions on others. The correct response to a rise in bandit activity is to slaughter the bandits, not restrict law-abiding citizens! Exxolon (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unprotection requested. Exxolon (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that approach is that it becomes far too easy for IP users to reset their modem (or disconnect) and resume again with a new IP address. When the signal-to-noise ratio becomes too low (few or no useful edits, lots of vandalism), protection becomes appropriate.  Horologium  (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what Semi-Protection is for. Full protection is not appropiate. Exxolon (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that, and agree with dropping the blockhammer on registered editors who edit-war.  Horologium  (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95's personal attacks and POV pushing

 * his sock ip confirmed by checkuser.
 * his sock ip confirmed by checkuser.

This is what I heard from him today. I don't think I have to put up with such insults as the mention of my mother. Logitech95 habitually resorts to personal attacks when his edit was challenged by editors who consider his edits biased and violating NPOV. Instead of willing to discuss disputes with opponents, the user just pushes his own view to others. Such examples can be shown on Korea under Japanese rule, Sea of Japan, Jiandao‎, Gando Special Force], Talk:Korean war crimes.

The editor edit wars with editors, and even used sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR violation, so that he was blocked for his 5RR. The user poured personal attacks and even falsely accused me of wiki-stalking him why don't you quit stalking my edits on wikipedia and join the beef riots in Korea. However, his wiki-stalking of me was warned by an administrator. Because the editor followed my step and blindly reverted articles and got warnings[], some of which he never edited and seem to be far from his interests.

Logitech95 does not seem to learn a lesson by his past and keeps such the disruptive attitude. He also inserted false information to South Korea, so I pointed out, his way of communication is like this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=224981734 can you read maps? i question your cognitive abilities]you use the English language on my page constitutes both cultural and intellectual vandalism Even he inserted bogus inline citations to justify his own POV. The user also has serious ownership issue This comment sounds to me racist attack. So please take a look at this. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This user also inserted original research to Mike Honda and falsified death toll at Japanese war crimes without reason.

I notified the user. Caspian blue, for future reference, you should notify the person you're complaining about. Beam 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however, he used to follow me and said he would be out of Wikpedia for dinner, so I assume he would find here as quick as he logs in again.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has been blocked by Fuf.Perf. for his 3RR violation. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Longterm nonconstructive editor...
User:Cantikadam has around 150 edits on WP. Only two of them are to anything other than a userpage or talk page. He started a problem quite literally years ago (2006) on Masonic conspiracy theories that never resulted in an edit, but did result in this diff on my talk page. He went away for 18 months, and then came back in June 2008, with this being the result of some of his activity, again with no actual edit made to the article. He went away again, and today he posted this on my talk page, and this added as a reply to a thread from 2006 on his talk, and this on RiffiKojian's talk. All cantikadam has done is start arguments that go nowhere, and he has contributed nothing of substance to WP in over two years, as contribs clearly indicate. His behavior is immature and disruptive, and I would request that he be blocked as a nuisance editor. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have notified the user in question about this thread. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec-gdmnit) Cross posting this from the pump, eh? Firstly make sure to always notify the person you are complaining about on his talk page. Secondly there is no rule against only making posts on talk pages and what not. Thirdly, blocks are not punitive. I suggest that an uninvolved 'pedian drops a note on his talk page explaining the purpose of the 'pedia and suggesting him things to contribute.

On a personal note, most of my contribs are not in the mainspace but are discussing policy and dispute resolution on talk pages. Want to block me too? Beam 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually we have blocked people for doing nothing besides writing into user space, etc. WP:NOTFORUM.  But is Cantikadam adding anything to the article discussions?  If so, I'd lean towards not blocking.  MSJapan, the diffs you gave seem to be all comments that could have been ignored just as easily.  They seem a bit odd but not paritcularly uncivil.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Beam, there exists a difference between your non-mainspace edits and Cantikadam's edits, other than Cantikadam's edits being quite bizzarre. Your edits attempt to build consensus and clear up muddy waters whereas Cantikadam's edits seem to lack any kind of a clear purpose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Replies to years-old threads and making unconstructive comments to editors simply don't strike me as proper use of WP. As far as Cantikadam's edits go, he has not added anything of substance, and has produced nothing in th way of sources to support any of his comments at any point during a discussion; he's simply making noise on topics he doesn't agree with for whatever reason. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we have much more important things than this to worry about? Bstone (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cantikadam seems to have a clear and open antipathy to Masonic stuff, and those who are (really or in his mind) a part of that culture. He's antagonizing and accusing editors, and doing so in a manner which comes off as bizarre because his grasp of English is poor at best. Unless he's willing to start working constructively 'toot sweet', a block ought to be imposed per NOTFORUM. ThuranX (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left him a warning of sorts. Hopefully he will get the message and pursue something more constructive here.  Otherwise, there's a good chance that he'll need to pursue something more constructive at some other site.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, really.
Having placed a warning on this user's page, I was treated to the following (perfectly civil, yet compellingly trollish) reply on my own userpage: I think failure to show this individual the door would send the wrong message, don't you think?Gladys J Cortez 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The user clearly says that they will clearly continue disruptive editing. I think a block may be in order here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * has really done nothing but vandalism, mainspace testing and unneccessay moves of pages or making suggestions that these moves be made. These non-constructive edits have been done at a very low rate so that warnings left on his talk page never really went past level 1 or 2. He's contributing nothing of value rather he's having some fun at Wikipedia's expense which is fairly harmeless but annoying nevertheless. I feel that an indef block is appropriate in this case since this account is created for the sole purpose of disruption. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Block hammer deployed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct decision. I support indef block. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of Block by Yasis
(already suspected of sockpuppetry), was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for edit warring, along with one of his IP socks. 8 hours later showed up from the same range of IPs as the other socks, making the same edits, including, which had been the basis for the block in the first place. This editor has been around since 2004, so they know exactly what they are doing. NJGW (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for block evasion. Kevin (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and blocked Yasis for block evasion per WP:DUCK. Tiptoety  talk 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yasis is now using IP to continue the exact same edits, and has even acknowledged the block on his talk page.
 * Blocked this one. I'm thinking of rangeblocking 218.186.64.0/22 for the duration of the block. Any thoughts? Kevin (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Tiptoety  talk 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Yasis has used 218.186.12, .64, .65, .66, .67, and .68 in the past month. These resolve to an ISP in Singapore which holds 218.186.0-255   NJGW (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

←Done. Hopefully noone else will be caught up in it. Kevin (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Poking around a bit I noticed that one of Yasis's socks was blocked for edit warring at Carroll Quigley on June 25th, after which Yasis himself decided to log back in to edit the same article before the block had expired. Thus this is not the first time Yasis has been blocked for 3rr and then evaded the block, he just didn't get caught last time. NJGW (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Very strange non-english article
Le Duc Nha appears to be written in Vietnamese or something, and has been tagged for not-english and three different types of speedies. But the page is frequently edited and the not-english and speedy tags removed by an unusual number of distinct IPs. Now I can't actually read Veitnamese, but it doesn't look like it would be remotely encyclopedic even if translated. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 17 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, and. 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? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: "everything he's ever edited": that's my exact point. Lobot made it his business to revert EVERYTHING I EDITED. This is exactly why I'm saying I was targeted, then his fellow admins, who collude with one another so that they can fake the appearance of consensus by backing up each other's abusive harassment, all gang reverted anything I edited over the last 3 weeks. I did NOT add trivia: I added "Cultural References" that are just as valid as the existing references. If you actually look at what is left and what they deleted, its ridiculous. A reference to a song in the episode I make is deleted, a pre-existing one, with no reference, is left. I call it harassment and targeted abuse. 71.100.11.23 (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By making wholesale reverts from a variety of IP addresses (and promising to make more), you're pretty much taking away any chance for editors to have good faith in you and driving editors to assume you're vandalizing. Your personal atacks here also don't help.


 * I didn't come in on this one until after the first round of reverts, but I can tell you some of your contributions were OR. If you think they weren't, pick one and discuss it on the talk page and show why it's not. That's how we gain consensus, not by just edit warring and name calling. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, perhaps "Some" of them were. But don't you think its odd dozens and dozens of contributions are summarily deleted, with no comment or argument by Lobot. Isn't it equally incumbent upon him to give a reason to delete literally hundreds of my contributions? Doesn't this smack of targeting and harassment for one admin to delete so many contributions by one user? And the insults and incivility began with him. He posted insults and incivil language when he DID bother to leave a reason, saying things like "this summary seems to have been written by a child" or "Seems to have been written by someone who does not speak english" etc. etc. Also, I find it insulting and judgmental to call a contribution "cruft": this is inexact and derogatory language and should have no place in an admin's explanation of why something is disallowed. The sheer number of contentious articles he is reverting should set off an alarm that he is stalking my contributions and abusively harassing me by deleting virtually anything I post. You other admins chiming in and reverting without even looking at the article make it worse and cloud the issue. In several cases, I fixed spelling and it was reverted, showing that I'm being targeted for ANYTHING I write.e 71.100.11.23 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, pick one and show how it's not OR. You're admitting at least some of them were, so why the righteous indignation at getting them removed?


 * As for stalking you, your actions over the past couple of days have led to several editors stalking you, since you've promised to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. I'd say the best thing to do would be just calm down, and start slowly, civilly with one article. Then, if you can't get fair treatment, bring it to ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't "admit" some of them were, I allow its possible some of them were, my point is that it beggars belief every single one of them were. And I only became angry when everytihng I did was reverted with no review at all. Of course you lemmings automatically assume that a fellow admin can do no wrong so you reflexively revert anything one of you does. This is idiotic behaviour. and a lot of the problems I see on this very page are due to that mindless behaviour. I'll "calm down" when everything I do is not reverted or deleted. hell, I attempt a dialog and another moronic admin, badgerdrink deletes THAT. and you wonder why people get bitter and act out negatively. You need a better class of admins. Too many of them are just socio-pathic or anal-retentive, one. In badgerdrink's case, I think he is deleting everything I write as payback for arguing with him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.23 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a perfect example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Haw-Hawed_Couple&diff=226152568&oldid=226151163

compare those deleted to those left: the ones he DIDN'T delete are not sourced. They concern music used in the episode and other trivia, just as the ones he deleted do. The difference? The only ones deleted are the ones I added. And those left are the ones posted by others. I _did_ argue my point, he still deleted it, calling it "cruft"- I asked for a real reason and in another edit he said "ok, its bullshit, does that clarify it for you" (I can't find the article at this minute). This is basically repeated in almost every edit I did. Of course, you didn't take the time to look at this, you just reverted it automatically. What the hell is wrong with you people? You claim to want to improve Wiki but it seems you only want to enforce your will on it at the expense of any non-admins. Its disgusting and makes me furious. 71.100.11.23 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: I removed a disallowed link, badgerdrink reverts my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wife_Aquatic&diff=226150938&oldid=226150568

I fix extraneous language, I get reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Boys_of_Bummer&diff=226150459&oldid=226133668

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.23 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You made that edit after you declared an edit war. At that point, you're already a blocked editor who had promised to revert, regardless of the content. As I said above, you doing that pretty much takes away any assumption of good faith. Making one good edit in the middle of an edit war across multiple pages and pointing to it later as evidence of your good faith doesn't help. You've already announced your intentions to disrupt. Dayewalker (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well, I'm trying to discuss this civilly and all I'm getting from you seems to be personal attacks. I don't know exactly what you want here. You were injecting original research into multiple articles, and responded to your work being removed by ripping off an edit war using threats and multiple IPs. I've advised you on a way to talk this over, and to discuss this and show your contributions belong on wikipedia and are not OR, and you respond by saying you won't calm down. I tried. Dayewalker (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By your logic, every single simpsons article should be deleted. There is no reference noted for ANY of the plots. They were obviously contructed by OR: Someone watching the episode and posting the plot, or doing it from memory. Practically, of course the music, cultural references and plot are almost always OR. How else did they get there? They contain no references, none of them do except some very old ones that use simpsons capsules. The inconsistency is what is pissing me off. Lobot never touched one of those articles until I started editing them, then he starts deleting my stuff and ONLY my stuff, which is not demonstrably different from what is already there. He would even leave a reference to a song in the episode and delete mine. THis is all a waste of time. I'll just want until they are unlocked and reinsert the info after his attention is elsewhere, or use a proxy to do it so he doesn't know its me and perhaps it will then stand. Logic or discussion makes no impression on obsessive fanatics like you guys. 71.100.3.97 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Plot summaries are allowed as primary research, we've been through this in various discussions here before. What you just did was announce your intention to edit war. Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 08:50, 17 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)

I did attempt to "discuss it civilly" I as summarily rejected and EVERYTHING I'D ADDED IN 3 weeks of viewing Simpsons episodes and adding material consistent with what is already posted. Then after mass reverting literally hundreds of articles to which I contributed, Lobot and his buddies laugh it up over their abuse with their "great simpsons research panic" post. Real funny to abuse good faith editors, misuse your admin powers and imperiously force your will on any and all, then laugh it up about it. I've been FORCED into 3rr to battle numerous admins working in concert with each other to harass and attack me and any of my contributions, MOST of which I feel are valid. There is no point "discussing" anything because asinine admins just overrule and revert what they please. They delete material up for many months and revert other stuff calling it "stable" depending on their whim. "Consensus" means "what they think is valid". you force people into inappropriate behaviour because they feel powerless when you revert, delete and lock arbitrarily and at your own whim. Well, users like me will retaliate the only way we can. And you have no one to blame but your own failure to "moderate", which is what you are supposed to be doing. You have no moderation and no skills at administration. Locking threads is an admission of failure and diminishes the wiki by limiting its freedom of information. So, you've failed quite a bit this week, as usual. You suck at what you do. Congrats on keeping up the reputation of asininity by wiki admins. 71.100.11.23 (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is blockable behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are the treats he left me, . 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 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)
 * Exactly what Evil Spartan said. You are familiar with "account creation enabled", right, Kral? --Badger Drink (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand this ... every post you and others have made regarding this issue to AIV, ANI, and AN3RR has been either declined or ignored completely by virtually every admin but me. Yet when I do not handle the issue exactly the way you want, I get berated, belittled, insulted, and accused of being counter-productive.  And you really wonder why other admins are not tripping over themselves to lend a helping hand?  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Give Kralizec a break, guys. Range blocking is a last resort. I've blocked a 5 more IPs, and 2 or 3 more have been picked up by other admins. As long as there are admins who are aware of the situation, and online, this won't be much of a problem, just a game of whack a mole. If it becomes necessary, a few pages can be protected, but there's no reason to block 65,000 IPs to stop this guy. He'll get bored eventually. Parsecboy (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just now noticing this thread -- I put down a three-hour, anon-only, account-creation-enabled range block on 71.100.0.0/20, since that was the range used to harass L0b0t on his talk page. I only noticed this since I was watching recent changes and spotted some harassment going on.  If you don't like the range block you can change it, but I find that short range blocks often work in cases like this since trolls get bored easily.  Looking at the last 5000 anonymous edits in recent changes, which cover three hours exactly, there are NO edits from 71.100 besides ones from this person, so the probability of collateral damage is quite small.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And he's back again. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At least he's not leaving edit summaries. How is an IP able to edit when the article is protected?  L0b0t (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the article protection which Kral enacted in lieu of a range-block expired on the 16th. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now at Special:Contributions/71.100.8.20, Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm posting notice here that I'm rolling back on sight, as per WP:RBI. If anyone has any problems with that, please let me know. Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.9.239. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, a range-block might inconvienence a hypothetical good editor who was too stubborn to make an account. Certainly it's much better to fob off the work to regular editors such as you or I. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.13.229. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm implementing Kralizec's suggestion of semiprot. Have applied semi across a number of pages, will look for any I've missed. Keep reporting any further disruption -- the more eyes and ears, the better. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Luna. L0b0t (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just semiprotected your talk page, as you probably noticed. I didn't want to lay down even a short range block since there are currently two other active editors within the /16, and he just switches to open proxies then anyway.  RBI works pretty well in these cases.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, he's now at Special:Contributions/71.100.13.229. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now at Special:Contributions/71.100.11.23. L0b0t (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was also using an open proxy at (already blocked). Appears to be following L0b0t's contribs? –  Luna Santin  (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, he's accused me of some kind of racist cyber-stalking. He has said that when he had an account, I could tell he was black from his username and that I used to follow him around oppressing him because he is a minority (which is kind of funny considering my dusky hue). Stuff and nonsense. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a "dusky hue" does not inoculate you from being called on racist behaviour. I also call bullshit, because no black person would describe themselves as being "dusky": are you so stupid or so racist you don't know that's a derogatory term for a black person, "dusky"? Also, what black person would be unaware that the white supremacist symbol of the confederate battle flag is offensive? Why do you think its no longer flown at state capitols? Why do you think we've demanded it be removed from state flags? I call bullshit, you are trying to claim you cannot be racist because you have a tan? Is that it? You've made outright racist comments, in a "joking" fashion the last time you targeted me and started deleting anything I posted. As noted above, _everything_ I post is being reverted, first by you, then aided and abetted by your fellow admins, in a "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of behaviour you use to validate your abuses. You fake consensus by using collusion. Then, after suffering massive abuse, I am forced to use other IPs and 3rrs because I have no other recourse when you dictatorally delete anything and everything I do. I am getting a kick out of the hate and pettiness evident even in this thread. You all act like children, why are you surprised when, out of frustration and anger at our treatment, the victims of your pettiness resort to breaking the rules in our aggravation? You reap what you sow. 71.100.11.23 (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence whatsoeverfor your claim "You've made outright racist comments, in a "joking" fashion the last time you targeted me and started deleting anything I posted."? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, please provide diffs.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming that because you, a person of black African color, think a certain way, all people of black African color do, is the root of a classic fallacy. There's pettiness on both sides, as is evidenced by your mindless reverting of other people's edits. But, moreover, I believe it has been explained to you that just because articles x, y, and z are a certain way, it does not follow that articles a, b, and c should be the same. In the case of your campaign, the policies outlined in WP:TRIVIA and WP:PLOT pretty much explain why several established editors all disagreed with your edits. I understand that it's easy to be confused over the purpose and intent of Wikipedia, but it would have gone a lot better had you taken a moment to realize that you were, in fact, in the wrong, and carried yourself in a more mature manner - just as I'm sure it would have gone a lot better had these policies been explained more clearly to you. Not to lecture, but you seem to be demanding a lot of deference, while your actions don't exactly invite said level. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist
A few days ago I filed a request to have a site added to the blacklist. I can't seem to get anyone there to give me a yes or a no about adding it. I managed to elicit a comment from someone agreeing that the site is clearly being repeatedly added by a SPA with a conflict of interest, but no answer.

The URLs are (all identical content):

These sites contain gems like this:

STOP EVERYTHING AND DOWNLOAD THE ORTHODOX JEWISH BIBLE EXACTLY AS IT IS IF YOU GET THE PAPER VERSION FROM AMAZON OR BARNES AND NOBLE ONLY THIS FULLY SEARCHABLE PDF FILE IS FREE! (screaming caps and bolding as found in the original)

The autoconfirmed user repeatedly spamming this site is

.

Fredee identifies himself and reveals his clear conflict of interest here. His arguments for repeatedly spamming his link include the reasoning that since the "killer cult", Jehovah's witnesses is mentioned on Wikipedia, fairness demands that we link to the site for his non-notable Messianic Bible translation. (I am not making this up. ) He has also used several IP's to repeatedly add this link. He has never made an argument that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and seems to hold them in disdain. I asked for the blacklisting because the site clearly has no value or legitimate place on Wikipedia and it seemed the least disruptive approach (compared to blocking someone). The blacklist page says that any administrator can add a site to the blacklist. May I please have a decision from someone one way or the other? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not very experienced with handling the blacklist, but I've given a short warning block to the user for a start. Will block much longer if he resumes spamming afterwards. Further input about the blacklisting would be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's relevant, I don't know if that version is even of much help for sourcing; it seems that its main distinctive feature is having footnotes and glosses inserted intertextually, and apparently some commentary between certain chapters. I don't believe, based on this short examination, that it provides much unique material for sourcing purposes (even the Brit Chadasha in Yiddish isn't new).  So I think we're OK on that score, and of course we can always refer to the hardcopy if we really need to source something to it, I guess.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cbsite, BetaCommand and NFCC. Block review/block request.
I'm afraid it won't surprise many but and  have started to edit war about NFCC tagging of various images. I have just blocked Cbsite for edit-warring. I won't block Betacommand because I've just interacted with him on his talk page and consider myself as an "involved admin". Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Betacommand is still resorting to edit summaries that he was told many, many times not to use and that he is improperly tagging images for speedy deletion (   among many others) when he knows full well that failing NFCC#8 is not a rationale for on-the-spot speedy deletion. (See point 7 of CSD for a reminder). It is also clear that he's engaging in edit-warring about the tagging ( again, many other examples) even after  and I tried to discuss the issue with him in what I think is a completely reasonable manner. I also find it particularly unwise for Betacommand to continue tagging the NFCC#8 images aggressively while the whole debate about the wording and interpretation of the policy continues. In any case, I submit my short block of Cbsite for review as well as a request for the block of Betacommand (especially in light of the "Sam Korn solution"). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the block was unnecessary. After I warned him to stop, he did.  He was allowed to remove those speedy tags, and he should not have been reverted for that.  But, removing the image listings on IFD was inappropriate, but, as I said, he had already stopped doing that.  As for Beta, the only reverts he made were re-adding the IFD discussions listings removed by Cbsite.  Betacommands other edits were tagging images for speedy deletion, and I think he is allowed to do that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you are mistaken on both counts. If you look at the time stamps, your request for Cbsite to stop is at 21:10 but you still have diffs like  as well as edit warring (that I mistakenly thought was related) on Chris Barnes (actor)‎. As for Betacommand, he is allowed to tag images with the appropriate templates such as di-disputed fair use rationale of course. But he certainly shouldn't invent his own speedy-deletion processes (see diffs above) and he certainly was edit-warring about these images and using inappropriate "revert trolling" edit summaries to boot. Note also the problematic escalation: when people removed the di-disputed fair use rationale thinking (often in good faith) that the problem was resolved, Betacommand did not simply re-insert the template as you seem to think. He replied by using the db template with the comment "fails NFCC#8" which, as I noted earlier, is in clear contradiction with the accepted deletion process for images whose fair-use status is disputed. Betacommand, of all people, knows exactly what the correct image deletion process is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand, of all people, does exactly what he wants to do, and doesn't care what anybody else thinks about it... as he has made clear in other recent entries on this page. He gets blocked for a day or two now and then. Big deal. It just gives him a chance to rest up and plan more stunts like this. Get used to it, people. He's untouchable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per WP:CSD clearly states that images that fail WP:NFCC will be deleted. deleting on the grounds that an image fails a NFCC criteria is clearly within policy. βcommand 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on Beta, don't act as if you don't know what I'm talking about. You know full well that images whose fair-use is disputed are not tagged with db, they are tagged with di-disputed fair use rationale and sit there for 48 hours after the uploader has been notified. That delay is there precisely to leave time for debate. Can you tell me with a straight face that you simply "forgot"? Well, maybe you can but to anyone else it is clear that you let your frustration take over when your original di-disputed fair use rationale were removed by (and I think that has some importance) several different users. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like to add more evidence of Betacommand's very recent and very dubious handling of the tagging process (again, I am not disputing the tagging itself, just the way it's being handled). Look at the history of Image:Alex-TonjaWalker-1990.jpg . Beta tags the image, uploader removes tag with edit summary "(Illustrating a character is acceptable use)", Beta reverts, without explanation, uploader says "Image is in use" and reverts again, Beta then identifies the revert as vandalism and leaves a vandalism warning at User talk:TAnthony. That vandalism warning is the sole attempt Beta makes at communicating with the uploader. This is precisely the kind of aggressive behaviour that Beta has been asked time and again to change. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * removing deletion templates without addressing the issue is vandalism. how the hell is "Image is in use" a valid reason for removing a deletion notice about significance, it was not tagged as orphaned. βcommand 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that this is your answer. Why in the world would you be so bity? You made no attempt whatsoever to contact this user! Oh and as you may perhaps remember, countless previous ANI threads have concluded with a distinct request for you to stop using automated "vandalism reverts" in cases which are not unmistakable vandalism and in particular in cases of reverts of image tagging. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And what incentive does he have to change his ways? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While failure of the NFCC is a speedy deletion criteria, it does not, has never done, and will never apply to NFCC#8. The rule is very subjective and there's a whole range of opinions (very very few select cases, e.g. Iwo Jima, to liberal usage) on its interpretation within the admin community alone. I've also closed the IFDs because the nominations were empty (there is no explanation why it fails NFCC#8, nor is it self-evident enough to warrant non-explanation). Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Betacommand for one week. He has just come off a 48-hour block for disruptive editing over NFC images, and is subject to an arbitration remedy (Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2). Failing a this fair use criteria is not grounds for speedy deletion; Betacommand knows this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are speedyable (WP:CSD), but for obvious reasons I've just enumerated, it doesn't apply to criterion 8. Sceptre (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. My oversight - I didn't explain myself very well there (changed "a" to "this").  Block added to Arbitration enforcement log. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kudos Neil. You're gonna take some flack for this but it is the correct decision and Betacommand's unrepentant response above just strengthens the case for a long block. Also, I sort of expect that the "but this is a punitive block" argument will appear here in a couple of minutes. It is not a punitive block: it is there to prevent the recurring ANI threads which are the direct result of Betacommand's behaviour. Note that I said "behaviour", not "tagging". I don't mind the tagging. I mind the attitude, the unresponsiveness, the incivility, the contempt for process in areas as sensitive as NFCC. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the block to 72 hours, as I have just realised that the CSD NFC Criterion 8 exemption was only just added. However, the edit-warring over NFC images is still apparent, which is what Betacommand was told to stop doing last time. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone cares at this point but with or without this exception, images failing criterion 8 should not be speedy-deleted on the spot which is precisely what Betacommand started requesting once his tagging was challenged. See for example the very telling history of Image:Gurps4e.jpg. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am now being accused of harassment by Betacommand (see User talk:Betacommand. I really would appreciate a few people letting me know whether I am doing so, as it's a disconcerting thought.  Harassment is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but I've never been accused of it before .  Is applying an Arbitration enforcement harassment?  There are few admins willing to take any action over Betacommand; is he simply making sure the pool is reduced by one in future?  Or am I actually harassing him? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors, when blocked, are expected to fill out an unblock request the conventional way. Being as how Betacommnad is a self-styled stickler for rules and policies, maybe all discussion should cease until he actually fills out an unblock request. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He did; MZMcbride removed it (or deactivated it, or tlx'd it, whatever the word is) . <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Every day, this place makes less and less sense. :\ When I hear others casually mention wikipedia, I wonder if they have any clue about the constant soap operas that go on here? Much of it, ironically, in good faith - that everyone thinks he's "got it right". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pascal. These constant edit wars over images are getting really old. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's too crazy: I ask for protection for a page that's being bulldozed, and the admin doesn't see "enough" edit warring to justify protection. I revert based on consensus - that there is no clear policy on images in lists and that NFCC need to be much more clear - and I get blocked.  Someone starts a section with my user name on it, and I can't join the discussion for three hours because of the block.  And still there's talk of not only not banning Betacommand, but unblocking him as well.  Cbsite (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by the original short block to stop the bleeding but I did forget to unblock you despite what I wrote on your talk page. Wholly unintended, so all apologies. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we all agree, at least, that Neil previously having blocked Betacommand does not make him "involved" and somehow ineligible to block him in the future? My take on all of this is that Neil has acted appropriately, communicated clearly, and has in absolutely no way engaged in any harassment. Do others agree? Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. - brenneman  03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be entirely obvious. I don't believe any admin aware of the Sam Korn agreement would have acted otherwise. I don't have any history of conflict with Betacommand and although I did run into problems today, I think it's fair to say that 12 hours ago I was uninvolved. I wouldn't have hesitated to similarly block Betacommand had I simply been a passive witness to the events of the past 48 hours or so. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes to this point. I frankly don't want to get further involved in this before a vacation, so I previously declined my opportunity to decline the unblock template.  But an admin enforcing arbitration or community sanctions is not thereby involved.  GRBerry 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have defended Betacommand more than once in the past, but I guess I'm not going to this time. I had hoped that all the controversy would have encouraged Beta to apply his admirable energy, talent, and passion to another, less controversial area (maybe something like Commons moves, or other types of badly-needed image cleanup). Alas, it was not to be. I would, in fact, encourage anyone else working WP:NFCC enforcement to simply stop doing it - call it a strike, if you like. The Foundation is not serious about enforcing its licensing resolution, and neither is the English Wikipedia community serious about enforcing WP:NFCC's "minimal use" provisions. The community provides little to no support for people doing copyright work. I think it will take some kind of lawsuit or legal action to happen before the Foundation does anything. The King is dead; long live the King. Kelly  hi! 03:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I do agree that the messy NFCC battles are ultimately the Foundation's responsibility: they chose to issue some vague, watered-down, legalistic junk like wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which solved nothing because they avoided the shitstorm that severe, precisely defined restriitions would have created. And I very much sympathize with the people doing the thankless image work: it would already be thankless if the policy was clear cut (say: "no non-free images period") and it's even more exhausting when there is so much room for interpretation. Yet many are able to do this work without getting into edit wars, templating anyone in their way with vandalism warnings, being unnecessarily rude, contemptuous, unwilling to recognize what is and what isn't considered as a standard interpretation of current policies and so on. As a matter of fact, I don't see you getting into trouble (oh wait :-) ... nah, that doesn't count because you were truly unfairly targeted). Sorry for repeating myself but the problem is not that Betacommand is enforcing unpopular policy. It's that he can't do it without crossing just about every line that we've asked him time and again not to cross. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users aren't usually subject to the taunts and abuse that Betacommand has seen recently on his talk page. But it does serve to illustrate the saying: "The love you take is equal to the love you make." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without commenting on the need for blocking BC (I think it's rather pointless), I tend to think that there have been enough block interactions between BC and Neil that he should refrain from performing any blocks himself and request another admin perform any needed actions involving that user. Three blocks by the same user in less than two weeks should justify this, I'd think. Regardless of any prior involvement, it simply looks rather awkward to me. We've got over 1500 admins, surely someone else can do it? Kylu (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, we need a definition of "involved" to avoid the potential for wheel wars. I don't consider Neil "involved".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. Kylu's advice is sensible, and Betacommand clearly feels like I have harassed him, even if nobody else does.  With this in mind, I will refrain from any administrative action regarding Betacommand in future - should anything come up, let's hope it doesn't - and will instead post to AN or ANI for another admin to review. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   08:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is different. I think after a certain number of blocks by the same admin of the same user over the same issue, and failure for any resolution or consensus at AN or ANI, it is a classic case of a need for arbitration. Then, after the arbitration case is finished, rejected, or whatever, then it should be clearer whether that same admin can continue to enforce with respect to that user. About NFCC#8, I would again urge everyone to read through WP:NFCC-8 - some good points were made there about how to move this forward, but we need someone to find the time to write (for instance) the extended guideline and tutorial for best practice in this area. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that at the moment, an RFARB might result in Beta being given a temporary immunity from blocks if the case is accepted. I would, perhaps, suggest a somewhat less drastic step in the dispute resolution procedure be taken. Perhaps the involved parties would agree to formal mediation? Kylu (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a particular user that I've seen make rather drastic suggestions regarding Betacommand in threads here and on ANI. I might suggest that perhaps you're the incorrect person to sound a call for civility to blocked users. It would, in fact, be more civil were you to refrain from discussions regarding him, considering many of your past statements. Diffs can be provided upon request, but I sincerely doubt that others will fail to see what I refer to. Kylu (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of my typical comments are right above, lined out. I don't care at all for the incredibly arrogant way that guy operates, but my primary objection is when he does something offensive and gets blocked, and then one of his pals unblocks him due to his alleged "value to the project", which is supposed to be irrelevant to enforcement of the rules. This time, the block stuck, so I lined out the comments. I can just delete them outright, if you'd prefer that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, I agree with what this editor said: And the point being, as I stated on his page, if someone has a complaint they should make it here. The user has a long history of irritating everyone (I and many others have never had a good encounter with that guy), and grievances should be aired on this incident page. Putting complaints on his talk page serves no useful purpose, as it only engenders sympathy (even from the likes of me) and only lengthens his enemies list for when his block ends. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, one more thing. Another pattern I've seen here is that anyone who criticizes that guy is subjected to threats and attempts at intimidation by his pals - ranging from the significant, such as continued pressure to reverse concerned admins from blocking him; to the trivial, such as your patronizing comment. You are free to ignore my opinions, but you are not free to tell me I cannot express them. I am never "uncivil". But I am outspoken and I intend to continue to be, when I see what I perceive to be wrongdoing or injustice. And that includes both the arrogant behavior of a user, and excessive "kicking him when he's down" by other users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bugs: That's actually part of it. You're making an assumption of bad faith on his part and his "admin friends". Edits like that and these two tend to tell me that this is an emotional response to an issue. Beta, from what I understand (I don't talk to him much, even though I see him on IRC often) sees his work as trying to minimize the potentially legal consequences of fair use claims on Wikipedia. He's got a point: I've spoken to a lawyer friend (they're not all bad!) who said that our use of fair use in "Lists" is shaky. We have worse uses, and the WMF's a potentially vulnerable target. His work is useful to both the project and the foundation, but the problem occurs when someone disagrees with his enforcement of our policies: He's of a mind that while we're in a legally tenuous situation, there's no time to discuss the facts. He'd prefer to have Wikipedia compliant and on firm ground as soon as possible, but in a community atmosphere that doesn't work. Honestly, while I understand the complaints of those who disagree with his methods (I disagree with his approach to dealing with other users, sadly) I think the best thing we as fellow editors can do is to try to assist him by smoothing over the conflicts and doing a better job at clarifying the appropriate policies and calming down the inevitable complaints that occur when he does this job. I'd encourage you to, instead of attacking him for "not caring about what other people think", to see it as a weakness that one of your fellow editors has and to try to assist him in overcoming it. It doesn't hurt to have him here, it's the conflicts themselves and Beta that need our assistance: I might suggest DefendEachOther as a useful read. Kylu (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I might allow emotions to cloud good judgment sometimes. I don't question the theory that Betacommand is absolutely convinced that he's right. That would be an assumption of "good faith". Meanwhile, I'm watching the debate over Sidaway, with a bunch of admins yelling at each other, and I start to wonder if anarchy has set in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I get the general feeling that Beta doesn't feel he needs assistance, he certainly isn't taking any attempts at assistance from me (and is in fact claiming I'm "banned" from his talk page). It's curious that he flaunts the very things that gets him blocked (mislabeled edit summaries) while the block is still in effect. It demonstrates, to me anyways, that he has no intention of complying with the wishes of the community-at-large (IIRC one of the aspects of the Sam Korn discussion was that he shouldn't be using these types of provocative edit summaries where he reverts edits which are clearly not vandalism with summaries like "rvv" or "rvt troll"). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide an example of where he's reverted a non-vandalism edit as "rvt troll" ? Also, your reposting of your comment on his talkpage (and stating that it was not a revert) might be somewhat more believable if, perhaps, you would've taken the time to edit the timestamp... it still carries the original. (See also, WP:HUSH, which is policy). Kylu (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "rvt troll" is an older one, the "rvv" one he actually just used today. You'll note on my second edit that I added an additional question (asking about my "ban" from his talk page), so it was not a simple revert (but my second question loses its context without the presence of the first). Are you noting the edit summaries he's using? First I'm a vandal, next I'm "banned" from his user talk page? These things are clearly provocative. If he simply doesn't wish to communicate, he would be better served by using something that didn't invite additional discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The block is already more than 1/3 over. What I don't get is all this whining over a short-term block. A block is done for a reason. The blockee should take it like a man. Take a short break and reflect on the reason the block was done. It's not the end of the world, it's just 3 days. And there will be plenty more stuff to mark for delete when he gets back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCU
Based on several other concerns I have opened Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Betacommand.  MBisanz  talk 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, why has the RFCU been deleted? There is nothing in either the WP:RFCU instructions nor in the procedures sub-page which says that cases are deleted for privacy. It says that editors are welcome to take their concerns to Rebecca if they feel their privacy has been violated. If other editors have their cases in the light of day, so should he. If he is engaging in abusive socking again, the community deserves to know as it is a patent violation of the Sam Korn solution. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain why the page was deleted - but the first deletion was valid under WP:CSD because it was deleted by the only contributor of substantial content. Stifle then undeleted, added a single line himeself and redeleted.  Arguably still fits G7 because nobody who added content didn't delete it.  Continued cycling will just fuel drama, so should be discouraged.  GRBerry 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After I created the RFCU, Betacommand posted an explanation to his userpage citing personal data that he couldn't disclose, he then approached me in an IRC channel and asked me to delete the RFCU, since I don't have access to privacy data, and I know his IP block exempt right was granted previously with an email to an arb, I figured it was better safe than sorry to delete it, since anyone who needs the info in it (checkusers, clerks, etc) can still view it. I still believe Betacommand committed sockpuppetry of some sort yesterday, but with the removal of his IP block exempt flag last night, the RFCU can not proceed, since the no fishing rules are back in force (People with IPBE tacitly agree that their accounts may be checkusered to monitor for abuse) and my other evidence probably is not strong enough on its own to warrant a checkuser.   MBisanz  talk 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey I must object to this. I for one would certainly like to contribute to an RFC on this user. If there is private data, can't this be moved into a subpage of the RFC and deleted from there? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TES; WP:RFC/U != WP:RFCU.  MBisanz  talk 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IPBE applies only to the account that has the flag. It can not be misused to allow a sockpuppet to avoid an autoblock. That is simply not technically possible. Thatcher 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Epiphany: After witnessing the extremely catty exchange amongst various admins that I had previously held in high esteem, I'm done complaining about Betacommand. If I ever speak another word against him, remind me of this. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)