Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive465

Dameware


The Dameware article was tagged db-spam (which was valid, the article having been rewritten in vapid marketing speak by the user Dameware). I have reverted to the marginally less spammy version prior to this editor's involvement, and blocked the editor per WP:USERNAME and because this and the prior WP:SPA on that article (likely the same person) show no understanding of WP:NPOV. Others are free to undo any or all of these actions, but I don't think the article should be deleted as it is very widely used software. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with the widely used software bit. Also popular with hackers because it can push a VNC server.  Pretty neato. --mboverload @  23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added references to reliable sources - two CERT/Homeland Security advisories concerning major security defects in the product, and a MITRE list of lesser vulnerabilities. Removed "advertising" and "verify" tags.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job, all. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd AfD behavior
I created an AfD and user Roadstaa then listed several other AfDs and pointed them at my AfD. Although a couple of them I was considering listing if the first passed, I didn't want to bundle them all together. He also added the line "The AFD also comprises of ..." and listed the other articles he listed under my original AfD reason statement. Is this okay? Shouldn't the other AfD's get their own discussions? I would think if he wants them bundled then he should bundle them in his own AfD. The odd thing is that Roadstaa was the creator of most those articles he listed, so I'm wondering if either he is trying to make it seem like the debate is including more borderline cases to try to push it towards a "keep all" conclusion. Anyway, here are the related links... Discussion: Articles for deletion/Sport utility coupe. Articles: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility convertible, Sport utility truck, Sport utility sedan, Sport utility wagon. Thanks. swa q  22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I madea a move for a procedural close there, and was the second to do so. This needs to be clsoed down and then reopened as either a bundle or in separate AfDs. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

✅ Closed and relisted without the other articles, left a note for User:Roadstaa. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! swa  q  21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal information troll has returned...
Resolved. Ok... it was quiet for a while (a couple weeks since he last pulled this shit), but my personal information troll has returned... just created an account, and has made 2 posts using my name and business phone number... I've given up on trying to hide the information, I just want this crap to stop... I got 2 "private caller" phone calls back to back just now, then suddenly the new account was created and he started editing... no help in the past to make it stop, or find out who it is that is doing it, and now it starts again... this is getting very annoying... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the edits in question and contacted a Oversight. Tiptoety  talk 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, could you check if is also blocked, that was his last incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not blocked, the single contrib for that account is in its user space. I want to help you but can you show us any diffs to go by here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He's been doing this for about a month now, it started with using my real name and phone number as usernames, then came, which is my company... and now the most recent , which actually added my name and phone number to the text of pages... this latest name makes me feel that this is all the work of (SSP report here)... the other three usernames with my personal information have already been blocked and oversighted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, since there was only one contrib from almost two weeks ago (and that was a user page message which does not grow lots of trust) I've blocked and will watch the talk page to see if anything shows up there. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per CU, ✅ that MitchellWinery is Superbabyleer.  that these are Learjetsuperkingairmechanic, but Texhausballa certainly is, and is blocked.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an office note, Learjetsuperkingairmechanic was a sock himself... of ... Lear was just the last confirmed incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's already back...
For those that were involved in my personal information troll situation yesterday, he's already created a new username... ... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's blocked, and the edits are being deleted. Tiptoety and I were stumbling over each other both trying to clear out the edits, so I'm stepping back and letting him finish that part up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OO! Oops, oh well, the revision has been removed a email sent to oversight. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you both... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also protected the page(s). Tiptoety  talk 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin buddies
found this on mfd. I think admins should check it out as it seems to be a good proposal.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the MFD will answer that. Tiptoety  talk 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - wait until WR gets a hold of this. Er, there is no cabal. --mboverload @ 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My buddy / My buddy / Whoever he blocks, I block / My buddy and meeeee!  caknuck °  is not used to being the voice of reason  17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Block 'em all / Block 'em all / The long, and the short, and the tall. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Disruptive" article creation?
Could someone take a look at the large number of articles created by - see  and click on any of the "N" articles. At last count, there are now ~75 articles consisting of nothing more than a MMAstatsbox and sometimes an infobox.

These athletes may be notable - I don't understand wrestling, so I don't know what's a professional league, etc. But mass-creating articles with only their competition stats and no further information seems to violate some combination of WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, requesting info from the user was ineffective - articles are still being created.

Should all those articles be deleted? Should the user be blocked for being disruptive? Or should the situation be left alone, with nearly a hundred vaguely useless articles sitting around? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pro wrestling is a humbug, so whether it's "notable" or not might be debated. But I don't see how creating these articles would be disruptive. It's just information, not an attack of some kind. And you should see the zillions of articles that have started in the major league baseball realm, for example, making this pale by comparison. Meanwhile, have you asked the editor about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All contributions to JoeMcKim's talkpage are inbound - no responses. I think SatryTN alluded to same in the above report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did; I missed that part somehow. Well, nominating them for deletion might get his attention, provided that notice is also posted on his page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts is PROD the lot of them. Writing a lede sentence would be simple enough, if anyone could be bothered to do it, but a statsbox and/or infobox doesn't at all show notability.  If necessary a mass AfD nom.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was another editor creating a lot of very similar articles not so long ago, same format table, and same linking to a dab page Georgia instead of the Georgia (U.S. state). Can't remember his name offhand, will have a look at my watchlist to see if I can work out who it was. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't recognize them on my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be best to equire to WP:MMA about this. D.M.N. (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pinged them. lifebaka++ 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That kind of article qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD and WP:CSD. A table of data is not an assertion of notability, and it lacks any meaningful context.  Sandstein   13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Yesterday I nominated all of them for speedy deletion, but and  denied them. -- aktsu  (t / c) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have informed the editor concerned of this thread at User talk:JoeMcKim. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this editor is simply taking any event article for a notable event, looking for redlinked names, looking them up on Sherdog, and creating an article. By a strict reading of WP:ATHLETE, these people are all presumed notable (they have "competed in a fully professional league".) However, consensus on that is not clear, and that doesn't mean creating articles is a good idea. I tried to salvage a few, such as Neil Wain but I suspect that reliable sources for anything other than the actual fight record will be difficult for some. gnfnrf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Lee Gifford article Ban due to Edit Warring
Hello,

The Wikipedia article on Kathie Lee Gifford has been the target of whitewashing, users have attempted to remove the controversy section of the article, claiming that it in POV and biased. When I edited the section to add more references and NPOV statements, the user at IP 68.45.133.234 reverted it, as well as my Talk page edit explaining my actions. I have left information reguarding this on the user page of the IP, but I believe that the user will continue to revert without suffecient explination. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see "dispute resolution" for some suggestions for how to handle such situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gave the article a cleanup. shockingly, there's almost nothing about the sweatshop mess. Must be asian 11 year olds in a warehouse doing the whitewashing. ThuranX (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be. That also describes my company's current development staff pretty closely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistent blanking at Talk:Circumcision
Seven SPA accounts have been blocked for blanking this page and replacing the content with "Happysouth" or something similar. I've sprotected the page for a short duration, but it would help to have some other eyes here. (If anyone wants to unprotect, that's fine, but I won't be able to monitor it much longer). OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it. -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Block request: please suspend my WP user account indefinitely
I'd like to ask the admins to block my WP user account indefinitely. That would be great. My user page is here. Thank you. —Eickenberg (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-requested blocks are generally refused per the blocking policy. You may want to consider WikiBreak Enforcer as an alternative. --Onorem♠Dil 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to block - blocking you just creates a hassle if you ever want to come back. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Need for deletion and potential oversight on the contributions of User:Nenetcurry
The contributions of this account have been to create userpages that contain personally identifying information about minors, as well as some slightly racy pictures of minors as well. This needs dealt with speedily, in my view. S. D. Jameson 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This user should be blocked indefinitley, no questions asked. Citedcover (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker deleted the pages, I sent an email off to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick action, everyone. Perhaps an indef block for the above user would be best now, until they realize this kind of thing is not okay. S.  D. Jameson 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued spamming by a range of IPs
Several different IPs keep adding back a section on the Gannon University article about a non-notable on-campus organization. All of the IPs that are involved are registered to Gannon University. There were two user accounts initially (User:Sidrous & User:Maxtalbot), but they haven't been used in a while. The article was semi-protected on July 21 for a period of 3 days. It was quiet for a couple weeks afterwards, with it starting again on August 8. I've provided the list of the IPs:
 * 206.180.215.55
 * 206.180.215.43
 * 206.180.214.49
 * 206.180.215.16
 * 206.180.216.46
 * 206.180.214.100
 * 206.180.214.97

Not sure of what to do (I didn't think protecting the article again would solve the problem, just pause it for while). Not sure if blocking would work, either. I figured I'd bring it here. I apoligize if I'm not doing this right, as this is the first time I've encountered something other than small-time vandals. --​​​​D.B. talk •contribs 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of blocking a large section of Gannon University's access (although they only seem to have 4096 IP's allocated in this range), I have semi-protected the article for a while. That should cut down on the vandalism for now. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyzlee
seems to be a incivility-only account used to bait/troll/annoy User:Fyslee. It probably should be checked as a sockpuppet (for whom? I have no idea.), and it certainly should be blocked by an admin. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Imitating with the name is blockable anyway. Sticky Parkin</b> 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Already blocked indefinitely. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say a troll this obvious could be reported to WP:AIV, if they keep up with any similar accounts (if there's some need for discussion I'm missing, then by all means continue here). – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same user as and  (another harassment impersonator). Thatcher 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Constant Changes
Resolved.

I already responded to this at WP:AN. I have issued a civility warning to User:Trip Johnson.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  is not used to being the voice of reason  18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the reliable sources noticeboard. 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

User:Trip Johnson, who also uses User talk:82.28.237.200, is continuing to make edits that favor the British in military history. He has been blocked for this before, and I have asked him many times(he blanks his talk page)to stop doing this, or at least add a source. He never does. Here are some of his more recent changes.







At least there was an edit summary for this one











These are just a few of many, many, many thigns he has done. I hope you understand, I am quite tired of asking him to source things, and reverting his edits. He does not listen to anyone, admins or non-admins, has called everyone on this site a "dickhead" and told me I'm an "asshole". I am not the only editor who has experienced problems with him, you may ask these two, who I know have had some experiences with him.

User:Tanthalas39 User:Tirronan

I simply do not know what to do anymore. I really don't know what can be done, as he is not really doing anything that can get him blocked, but anyways, I figured I'd see what can be done.Red4tribe (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A new one.



Red4tribe (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one, telling me to "shut up".

 Red4tribe (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface?
Resolved. The page isn't coming up on my PC, is anyone having the same problem? --Cameron* 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Worked fine for me. What browser are you using?  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm using this link, has it moved or something? PS: I'm using internet explorer but I always use IE and haven't had problems before. --Cameron* 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've got a login, try this link. I believe that's the one.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! : S --Cameron* 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf
As noted here, user was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Has returned today using IP 99.141.34.37, again making same reversions, in defiance of blocks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and semi-protected Michael Johnson (athlete) and NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Eutony, an anon and page protection
Eutony has been disruptively tagged over the last three days by a floating IP anon (190.20.217.86 to 190.20.255.31) who seems to have a grudge against Eutony and or/ its creator, Gerda Alexander. After I twice declined to speedily delete because the thing passed an AFD and recommended listing for another AFD, the serial multi-issue tagging started. Attempts to engage in dialogue have failed. See User_talk:Dlohcierekim and User_talk:190.20.246.42 and Talk:Eutony. I have semi-protected for now because about twenty of the last twenty-five edits have been the anon's edits and their reversals. Bringing it here for advice. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the 190.20.x.x user is being tendentious, in this situation. I can't see any option more viable than semiprot at this point (which may need to be extended, but we can cross that bridge when we get there). Gerda Alexander seems okay, for now. They also edited Paulo Coelho at one point, but that doesn't seem to need admin attention yet. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should User:Aldrich Hanssen's block be extended?
This user was blocked for 72 hours about 2 days ago for several personal attacks. . I had gone to his page to suggest he stay on topic in another discussion and I noticed he evidentally thought it a good idea to respond to being informed of the block with another personal attack (on one of the editors he was blocked for attacking, not the admin who blocked him) (3 edits basically just refining his comment). While no one has called him up on it, since it's been over 2 days and he has edited his talk page in the mean time, he has had an opportunity to withdraw his comment when he calmed down if it was just a 'heat of the moment' response. I know it's fairly normal for an editor to respond to a block with an attack on the admin and this is usually I believe ignored (heat of the moment and all that) but I feel given he was continuing his attack for which he was blocked for in the first place (which suggests he unfortunately didn't learn his lesson) and the attack was rather offensive, the block should be extended. Anyone else agree? P.S. I've informed him of this discussion and suggested he respond on his talk page if he has anything to say so any admin extending the block should check it out first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Block ineffective - I was disappointed to see him continue to edit and enhance his attacks against Sticky Parkin. He used his block time to continue his personal attacks and as he worked on them they became more personal and gender based. He has made a little story now to rationalize the attacks, as if Sticky had been making advances toward him that he rebuffed and so anything she does now is out of anger from rejection. It's a disturbing and sad turn of events that illustrates the block has not made an impression on him. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well of course I will agree with this, as it's me he's called a "sticky hobag", or perhaps saying women as a whole are such, as he says "wishes all the sticky hobags would leave him alone." amongst other things. He also accused other, male editors who warned him numerous times about his personal attacks of doing it just to try and 'pull' me,, though I've never edited alongside them before for them not to be objective, and makes comments that those men who dislike the seduction community obviously haven't tried it or they'd be 'out banging chicks' rather than disagreeing with it. His attitude is deeply misogynistic of a type I've never seen this explicitly on wiki, calling women 'hobag', and interestingly it's mainly a woman he targets, along with saying I am a low ranking on the scale of attractiveness, though he's never seen a pic of me to judge.:) If he was calling a black people racist names, along with the numerous other comments showing his atitude that he's made, he'd receive a long block. He should receive the same for hate speech against women. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel it is unfair to specifically say that the sticky comment was a personal attack against yourself, you are not explicitly mentioned. Though I do see how it is perfectly understandable for you to assume he is meaning yourself. Mathmo Talk 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say preceding 'hobag' with 'sticky' is a blatantly obvious personal attack on User Sticky Parkin. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just his exploits around the time of his previous block, I've not seen what he's been upto since his block expired as I was out, but I'm loathe to look as his comments are very unpleasant if they're along the lines of the 'hobag' one. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to extend his block to "indef pending withdrawl of comments" in a couple of minutes unless I hear a good reason not to.  MBisanz  talk 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two, two, two spies in one. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Rob Banzai (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! (slaps forehead) Rob Banzai (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've extended his block to indef, pending withdrawl of his offensive comments.  MBisanz  talk 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good block to me. I'd investigate further through the user's contribs, but I already feel like I need to wash my hands. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per  and his interest in the Timothy McVeigh article, I think this person has far deeper and more disturbing problems than just enjoying making comments against other editors. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed those two things, particularly the Neg deletion debate comments were what made me visit his talk page to post a comment only to notice not only had he been blocked for the personal attacks, but that he was continouing them, so I brought it here for action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He says "Ironically, the reason for the block extension was a supposed continuation of attack, yet it does not, of course, prevent further comments from being written to the talk page, which was the venue of the issue at hand." . Could someone please protect his talk page if he comes back and writes more on it? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - fair 'nuff - A l is o n  ❤ 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison has already removed the protection at the request of two editors who see Aldrich as a misled newbie. I am disappointed at what is basically admin support of Aldrich's exceptionally bad behavior. Not only did Aldrich continue to add to his attacks after his initial warnings and block but when given an indefinite block he made a point of adding more parting shots to show exactly how little regard he has for Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Aldrich's behavior went far beyond that of an annoyed new editor who felt under siege. His attacks were personal, gender-base and included a disturbing element of fantasy. This is the wrong person to be bending over backward for and I can't see how he could have made that any clearer than by his persistent and unrepentant efforts. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on this comment, the user is using Wikipedia for a deliberate social experiment, and is not a misguided newbie.   Acroterion  (talk)  14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The response so far seems reasonable at first glance; if abuse continues on the talk page, it's easy enough to revisit the issue of protection. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Copied response from my talk page earlier) As an admin, though I loathe what the guy has said and done here, I cannot leave his talk page protected for too long. It's not right and it makes unblock requests difficult. See this log for another extreme example of an abusive editor where I had to repeatedly protect and unprotect the page. Rewarded?? He's indefinitely blocked and highly likely to stay that way. I've been asked by two editors in good standing to unprotect so they can try to reason with the guy, so I complied. Any further funny business and it goes back on permanently. I personally dislike the guy and what he stands for but as an admin, I'm obliged to be dispassionate here - A l is o n  ❤ 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support block; and support unprotection of talk page. The user's contribs show a generally pointy approach; it's unlikely based on behavior so far, that the user will show a better attitude anytime soon. However, unless there are significant privacy or disruption issues, it does not seem necessary to stop the user from communicating on their talk page or using that page as a way of indicating a willingness to reform and join the community. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harrasement.
After i busted User:RRaunak and his army of sockpuppets after a Checkuser at Requests for checkuser/Case/Rnkroy, each day, i get vandalized by his IP's. I keep IP sock tagging them and requesting them to be blocked, but he keeps doing it. Evidence is situated in my userpage and my talk page. What should i do? -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Request indefinite semi-protection. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a few days, i need to analyze his Ip range so there can be a proper Ip range block. -- ɔɹǝɐ <font color="#000080">ɯ <font color= "#808000">ʎ! Talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone considered e-mailing the person to try and talk sense into them? Email is enabled on the RRaunak account. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little chance of a rangeblock, as the IPs are from 59.64.0.0/10, which contains over 4 million IPs. User:Blnguyen noted at Requests for checkuser/Case/RRaunak that this range had many users who would be affected. Semi-protection is the best answer here. Kevin (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.143.206
Not sure if this requires any action or not but the edits of this user seem, well, confusing at best. I'm not sure if this is just a minor ripple not worthy of attention or part of some crafty way of disguising inappropriate behavior. Could an admin take a look and see if any action is required? Some of the edits are just filling in details on the templates of long banned users and others seem to be removing sock templates previously added by IPs from the same range. -- SiobhanHansa 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits by this guy are long-term (but probably not anything "crafty", just him having fun/being useful); Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. See also the section below. --NE2 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked a checkuser if it would be practical to anonblock 75.47.127.0/17 for an extended period. If that can't be done, do admins have the ability to see all recent changes by IP editors from a specific range? It might be feasible to undo all his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is (with respect to roads) he makes a lot of edits, some good and some bad. --NE2 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Very concerning behavior by Elkman
I am very concerned regarding 's behavior to this IP. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:NPA. Also, policy clearly allows for someone to blank their userpage. Might someone be able to intervene? Bstone (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The administrator in question is currently off-line, but I notice Daniel has left a note, at this stage, any further action is both un-necessary and considering the admin in question appears to be off-line, frankly impossible. If the issue remains unresolved, then reporting back here would be fine, but at the moment, reporting this administrator to ANI when they've not had the chance to respond to a couple of messages left on their talk page is rather premature. An amicable resolution might well be reached on the administrators talk page. I'm marking this resolved for the time being. Nick (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP's talk page should be unprotected. Any objections? – xeno  ( talk ) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, and have just requested unprotection at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I undid the report because it's redundant to this thread, anyhow, ✅. No prejudice to reprotection if he begins abusing unblock templates, etc. – xeno  ( talk ) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Overreaction to the user described in Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. This guy is a problem but Elkman lost it. --NE2 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI
, a new editor, seems intent on undoing all of my edits. For a newcomer (account started six weeks ago, started editing enthusiastically two weeks ago), he is very familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and (ab)uses WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP to justify his edits, all of which seem to favor current Republican talking points. If contradicted, he edit wars immediately and at length. He has already been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. I don't want to edit war with him, but having well-sourced edits undone because of unspecified violations of policy is getting monotonous. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very rich coming from goethean, who is a blatant Democratic activist, such hypocrisy screams to the heavens.76.217.103.251 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at recent history on The Obama Nation, I've blocked for 24 hours and  for 48 (not their only recent problem with edit warring). Any objections? –  Luna Santin  (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Tiptoety  talk 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. User:CENSEI should also be given a stern warning on his/her talk page that continued edit-warring may result in longer blocks. Has anyone brought up WP:DR to them? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been handled appropriately. CENSEI needs a block template notice on his talk page, though. Could an admin do that, please? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just finished leaving a note for each user, regarding their respective blocks. As I may be occupied unpredictably over the next day or two, I'll trust to the community should any unblock requests come up (no need to consult me, in other words). – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have decline his unblock request. Tiptoety  talk 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The word is incensed, not "inceseid" also, I removed the personal attack atack by Mr Baseball Bugs He should learn to behave better.76.217.103.251 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked this IP; they seem to be interested only in stirring up drama. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I spelled it "incenseid", and only because it looked like a punning situation. And of course I'm a "Juvenile edtior" (sic) - I'm only 13 1/2 years old. Or at least that's what my user page claims. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Marriage
Would a rangeblock be appropriate here? If so, would someone with experience implementing rangeblocks care to do the honors? Thanks. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Page has been semi'd. Half  Shadow  03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism edits
User, a new user, is going around making comments and removing many CSD tags inluding a clear G12 with no explanation. I prefer not to deal with this on my own opinion and would like 'backup' --triwbe (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe a page they created was speedily deleted, and their current behavior stems from frustration. Many of the pages they untagged have been deleted; I see Ned Scott's left them a note asking for an explanation of some sort. Will try to keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing this up. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually just blocked the user feel free to reverse if you feel the need. Knowledge Of Self  &#124;  talk  06:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1
I just came across User:SLJCOAAATR 1 in a ani case filed a few days ago, and, me being the curious person I am, I clicked onto his userpage, and found that he had a lot of personal information on it, His age, location and other things, usually this wouldn't be a problem but this user isn't even 15 yet, so I am requesting a second opinion on this. Another thing which came to my attention was the behemothic ammount of userboxes and quite a rude statement on the top of his userpage. Citedcover (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notified him of this thread. I'll write him a message about the userpage a little later.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the message at the top of his page is remarkably restrained considering how he was "welcomed" by certain "trusted and respected" editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about restraint, it is incivil, considering he got blocked indefinitley and then unblocked within hours, he has no reason to display such a message. Citedcover (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if anyone here is aware, but we just had an extended discussion of this user here regarding the indefinite WP:MYSPACE block. Many of the personal-information and MySpace-y userboxes were partially restored, on the condition they not be created again as usable templates. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, in that case, why does he still have a freinds list? Surely that must be a breach of his unblock? Citedcover (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, he should have remained blocked, and I'm not convinced the unblock did any good at all. He's been offered mentoring, and turned it down, and I'm not seeing too much improvement. I, and a couple other admins I believe, are keeping an eye on things. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in the news, that editor is currently blocked for WP:3RR, as per here. I've always felt that when someone is blocked and then unblocked with no repurcussions, they don't learn anything productive. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll keep an eye on him as well, and I will report any continuation of bad behavior here. Citedcover (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the edit that got him blocked. As you can see he was trying to get rid of duplicate information. And I think this should be noted.  Someone warned SLJ that Gwen would block him the second she found an opportunity. Sounds like Gwen is no stranger to a bit of stalking.<font color="#FF2400">Fair <font color="#FFA500">field <font color="#FF2400">fencer  <font color="#FF2400">F <font color="#FFA500">F <font color="#FF2400">F  08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is to do with the continued misuse of wikipedia by certain editors, not stalking, and I fully support Gwen on this. Citedcover (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Agree with Citedcover. SLC knew what he was doing, and edit warred on the Cory in the House page making four reverts in less than three hours, and never bothered to explain or post on the talk page for the article even once. He didn't discuss or try and seek consensus, which is what wikipedia is all about. You're making groundless accusations against an admin, here. Please read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose and inappropriate editing behaviour
User:Avineshjose has two proven cases of sockpuppetry behind him1 and 2. He has some WP:OWN and WP:COI articles which he wants to be the way they prefer. He removes tags without discussion and editwars on them. Santhosh George Kulangara (and several other articles related to the subject's business ventures like Sancharam, Labour India, Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, etc.  are his chief area of interest. See his recent editwarring [|here] and [here]. He has a history of recreating these advertorial articles  He has also accused me of vandalism  for putting maintenance tags on the article owing to its being replete with nonsensical sentences as I have shown on its talk page.. I am a banned user, but those who know me know that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala. You don't need to shoot the messenger.Uzhuthiran (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created many articles as you can see in my contributions. I personally feel proud of creating Government of Kerala along with many others (check my user page, it is listed all). User:Uzhuthiran accusation seems that I'm primarily interested in Labour India's promotion. It was earlier deleted and DRV'd later. About my sock cases are already discussed and I provided my rationale at my talk page. Let me come to the point that, User:Uzhuthiran is engaged in vandalizing Santhosh George Kulangara and Labour India, that are created by me. I already posted my rationale of reverting User:Uzhuthiran’s edit at article’s talk page. Additionally, please see these edits also by User:Uzhuthiran i.e 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. You could see that his edits were reverted by many users. Whenever his edits are being reverted by somebody he calls it as my sock puppets and engaged in an edit war. Santhosh George Kulangara was edited by many editors as can be seen at articles history. And he is primarily interested in targeting my edits and creating nn article's by using this sock id, as can be seen from his contributions. -- Avinesh Jose <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;"> T  08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too many lies and too much ignorance. Nobody other than some IPs has reverted me on the page in question. The guy doesn't (or pretends not to) know that what vandalism. If anybody vandalises on that page it is User:Avineshjose. See the diff. . I would call it vandalism not because it is stupid, but since the stupid additions came due to his deliberate attempt to preserve his own preferred version. Se this nonsense his reversion has brought back. " He is also writing a book on the space voyage hoping space closer to people." With this understanding of English language coupled with unabashed eagerness to revert, it would be hardly of any use to talk sense to this user. If some admin would step in this problem user could be curbed from denigrating Wikipedia. With such stupid sentences in the article, should tis article shed cleanup, grammar tags to please this guy? I wouldn't care further because I know that there is a retard's part for Wikipedia. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is you who (claimed to be a banned user) are lying. First of all, your sock id, i.e User:Uzhuthiran is primarily used for attacking my edits and creating unimportant nn articles. Your intention itself is wrong as only interested in adding those templates into the article that was already edited by many editors. Where are your contributions in Kerala related cleanups? What is your original id? How can an editor claim that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala though he has hardly 50 edits? I also raised this issue into SSP also. -- Avinesh Jose <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;font-family:Verdana;"> T  08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User with a WP:OWN issue.
keeps reverting an image which I uploaded from Flickr on Commons since it's a better photo (I don't own the photo I've just been using Flickr to find better images for articles) then the one used within the article however the user keeps reverting, back to an image that they took which is a lower res and not on commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bringing it here seems a tad premature, after only one comment each regarding the photograph on the article's talkpage, and no violation of WP:3RR. See how the editor responds to your reply at Talk:Embraer E-Jets first, see if you two can't work it out. Failing that, a request for comment or a request for an independent opinion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft might be the better bet. Hope this helps, Steve  T • C 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it here as I thought it would have turned to an edit war. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It takes two to have an edit war; as long as you don't participate, one shouldn't occur. It doesn't matter which image remains in the article in the meantime; no-one will come to harm should the "wrong" image be left in until this is resolved. I urge both of you to refrain from replacing the image until you can thrash this out on the talk page, or with help from independent editors from WP:AIRCRAFT. Steve  T • C 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's probably being protective because it's his own photo. How about including both of them in the article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's an issue over having more than enough images in the article already. I say we solve the problem by offering to cut the photos in half so they can use both. Oh wait... that's something else. Steve  T • C 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe splice the two photos together so it looks like one is taking off over top of the other. You can practically hear the screams. And that's just from the pilots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Too many pics and it still can't beat airliners.net. Time for a cleanup? NVO (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Infact not only does it need a photo cull but it also needs some work done to the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. They're the same image when I look at the pages. Boths send me to the same image. What's going on over there? ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing them both as the same image. One is Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg, and the other is Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg. --Onorem♠Dil 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg is what I added and Ahunt Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg revert twice but now this (Image:Air-Canada-Embraer-190-YVR.jpg) image has replace both. Bidgee (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, isn't this a content issue that should have stayed on the talk pages. I encourage Bidgee to use the appropriate venues first. "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith
Could someone please stop Arcayne from bullying? Is this kind of personal attack really necessary? There is no foundation to his attack - and I'll be happy to dredge up all his baseless and unproven previous attacks against me if necessary - but seeking to ostracize a fellow editor as a "Proven Troll" is a new low even for him. His relentless style is neither civil nor acting in good faith. Period. And should not be considered acceptable by any neutral party. Thank you for your time. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, here. I don't see that Arcayne moved your post (rather, it looks like they posted immediately above it, which on a diff may look like they "moved" it)... but even if they're offended by your accusation, their response seems a bit harsh. Cup of tea or wikiquette alert might settle things down, unless this is a pattern of behavior? – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although my complaint here is with the false and decidedly uncivil slander, the text itself was moved by him more than once, dropped down to the bottom with several spaces between it and the discussion. He's actually done that to me and others several times before, it's kind of his own personal way of "blocking", so to speak, other editors that get in his way.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I see is an edit war going on on the talk page and an accusation that the IP is a troll. Tell me, 75., have you taken the liberty of informing Arcayne about this thread? Nevermind, Luna did so. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské  <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne has been informed of this thread by Luna Santin, I saw it when I went to his page to inform him myself.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Luna. Sorry, I chose not to post anything that could be considered a reply to the IP anon, who has used at least fifteen different IP addresses since April to evade admin oversight, and has been blocked repeatedly for both that evasion and personal attacks. I chose not to feed him, aside from asking him to behave. My reply was not to him, but to the others involved in the discussion.
 * The comment prompting the troll descriptive was the anon's continued sniping at my educational background. The anon does this every few weeks and each time, he is told to either grow a thicker skin or a smaller mouth. Were any further posts to recur, I would have probably consulted an admin regarding this IP-farmer. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne please show some "diffs" for your unfounded and uncited allegation that I have evaded administrative oversight or been blocked for such. That you have made many ATTEMPTS to have me blocked for having a dynamic IP is known- but I have always claimed my posts and abided by the rules of WIkipedia. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your claim to be 'warning other users' that I was a "Proven Troll" is uncivil slander and decidedly NOT in "Good Faith".75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, if I'm following your reasoning - Can any Wiki editor use your Wiki block log of TEN blocks to publicly tag you as a Troll during discussion, or is this just a special privilege (The personal application of Scarlet Letters by Arcayne) you reserve for yourself?75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange interpretation there Sceptre. I said that Ibiza was not itself an autonomous community of Spain and made referance to the citation. Arcayne dismissed the citation reverting myself and others several times and then moved my comments while calling me a "Proven Troll". Yet he's a saint and I'm the bad guy? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your unexplained finding and unilateral termination of the complaint without consensus. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I want you to remember that you asked me to provide that proof, anon. I suspect that attention (even negative attention) is what you crave, and I am loathe to provide it to you, I am tired of your repetitive and baseless fishing trip ANI's (this is ANI #7 OR 8), If an admin or someone else wishes to see that proof, I will take the time to pull up the blocks for the following IP addresses:
 * counseled to stop the personal attacks and wikistalking
 * blocked for disruptive and disputative editing by JzG
 * blocked by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by Mastcell for PA and harassment (of me)
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion
 * blocked by JzG for block Evasion


 * Of course, these are just the IPs I know about and have watchlisted (they are listed in numerical and not chronological order) them as they pop up. I haven't detailed all the RfCu's and ANI's and wikiquette complaints he's raged at. Good faith doesn't mean my overlooking the anon's disruptive - and especially repetitive - bad behavior.
 * Now, Ricky and others have encouraged me to just ignore the anon (in whatever IP address he uses) and, apart from asking him to be civil when he pops up, I have done so. The last time this situation came up, I asked for a range ban for this user. As the personal attacks, sniping annoyances and multiple, baseless ANI's don't seem to be ending (and have in fact led to some real world issues, which I will detail via pmail to an inquiring admin), perhaps a stronger message needs to be sent than the responses he has received in the past at RfCU, Wikiquette, SSP and ANI. While I am by no means perfect, I don't really need my own 'Grawp'. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of dynamic IP's all claimed by me is not evidence of evasion AND ARCAYNE has been told this repeatably! Here is the supposed "Block Evasion", for which as always I respected the proceedings of Wikipedia: Hi, I seem to have been blocked'' for making this AN/I report. I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post to an Administrators attention is a Blocking Offense. I was completely unaware of this block as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after ThuranX's post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April. My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned. I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns. Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with is troubling.'' 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am not comfortable with your baseless and empty accusation of "Real World" issues to be detailed privately. I am certainly not comfortable with McCarthite accusations being handled by a star chamber. Please outline your charges.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you say his real world issues are "baseless and empty accusation," when he hasn't given any details on them? My advice here is to register a wikipedia account, so you have a reliable and tracable history. As it stands now, you're just a number without any legitmate contributions and no history, other than a hatred of a long-time editor. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't hate him, I wouldn't even think of him other than when he attacks me, baits me or others or ramrods indefensible edits. If this Wiki is just for insiders and facts and citations don't matter, and civility is only a one way street, I'd be disappointed.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec') Comment 1': As you claimed that you hadn't been blocked for block evasion, I pointed out where you were wrong. I am sorry you are unhappy with that, but you must expect that if you are going to target me every few weeks for an AN/I or some other sort of frippery, and pointedly slip between IP addresses so you can claim to have not seen any talk page history, warnings of blocks, you sacrifice most good faith. As I see it, you simply come here to attack me. Sad, but your last four AN/I's used IPs with no other edits behind them.
 * Comment 2: No. I will do so privately, as real world considerations are on point. There isn't a star chamber, and if it is just a coincidence, you should be fine. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of my axioms as regards this type of editor: "Why are you messing with this guy?" The IP is an obvious troublemaker, belligerent from the first edit, and clearly no stranger to wikipedia. Yet he remains unblocked. This discussion does have entertainment value, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I am just supposed to ignore the anon for the eighth time? Sigh. Okay. Maybe when number nine rolls around, someone will piupe up and say, hey, hasn't this anon popped up before? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia (and the Controversy Section)
On the article RSPCA Australia a section call Controversy keeps getting added to the article and removed due to it being a Unsourced POV paragraph. Peachey88 (Talk Page 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Some now see the support of the RSPCA for breed specific legislation and the killing of animals due to looks and in the name of good management as being a betrayal of it's founding fathers and principles. Their support for policies which increase the kill rate and the seizure and killing of innocent pets certainly makes the current organisation seem distant and unrelated to it's origins. Many believe the organisation would be unrecognisable to it's founders who sprang from the Enlightenment.
 * Paragraph in Question:


 * Instances of it being added:
 * (cur) (last) 17:40, July 30, 2008 70.38.11.43 (Revision Link)
 * (cur) (last) 13:49, August 12, 2008 Alexcan99 (Revision Link)
 * (cur) (last) 19:27, August 12, 2008 User:202.61.215.43 (Revision Link)


 * I've reverted the section based on that it fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I like to see a Controversy Section that is POV free and sourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the edit histories, it all looks like the work of a single editor (1st IP is a blocked proxy) with a POV issue about dangerous dog breeds. The named account was blocked a while back for edit-warring, so I'd guess the IP editing is to get round 3RR. EyeSerene talk 11:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 76.186.64.155 - 2nd offence
A few weeks ago, he was banned for abusing me. Now he's jumped on the racist bandwagon and chucked a hissy at me again, for no reason. He's also previously used the username: Special:Contributions/Mr. FixIt902 (talk). I don't really know what extent you guys can take this to whether permanent is plausable (please!!!), all he has done on wiki (looking at his contributions and talk page) has been ignore warnings, rules and changed things with personal opinion and POV. I tell him no, he abuses me calling me a "fucking faggot" etc etc. Attacks me with racists remarks about me being Australia (for some reason he thinks that's a problem? I feel sorry for those of you Americans with half of a brain!!!!). IP in question: 76.186.64.155 (talk). First offence here (report). Latest offence here: (in Genre and 3rd single..). Hope you do the right thing by me and get rid of him. Thanks. kiac (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gave the IP a uw-npa4, hopefully it won't happen again. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bjrothschild7: racist gibberish
Please see all contributions for anti-semitic attacks.--Gregalton (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given out a uw-npov2, if it continues issue some more. The editing is clearly POV of some sort.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 11:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems more serious, is agross breach of blp. Have given user specific warning, but isn't that grounds for indef?--Bsnowball (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I turned him in to WP:AIV. Basically a vandal with a specific agenda. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That took all of 3 or 4 minutes. User now indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible banned user back under a new account.
It looks like that is back as. Not only did the username look suspect, I looked at the contributions and has edited articles of singers which XxJoshuaxX use to do. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe WP:SSP would be good for this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going too but I'm a bit confused about how to do the report. Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can request a checkuser also if you have hard evidence.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I've dealt with 98E from time to time, before. Will take a second look at this one in a day or two, see how things look by then. – Luna Santin  (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quack. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Issues with the Chupacabra page
I've noticed that the Chupacabra page has had it's page protection deleted. I would like to tell Caribbean H.Q. about this little mistake seeing his editing actions deleted the PP tag, but after I warned him and another editor that their editing actions might be a 3RR violation, he told me to "get knotted" and will ignore any attempt I make to communicate with him, feasible or not. Will an Admin look into this? (The page protection part is the main issue right now; the 3RR is not a priority for me unless someone else thinks it is a priority and will direct me to the Three-revert rule page)--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, couldn't you just add the tag back yourself?  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought only an Admin was allowed to do that? And the chances of me being an admin....I'd have better luck bagging some Bollywood Star like Shilpa Shetty. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as the page really is protected when it gets tagged, I wouldn't see a problem. :) Looks like the tag itself might have been tangental to the reverting (which appears to have stopped). – Luna Santin  (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The protection thing is a non-issue. Removal of the tag doesn't remove the protection.  No comment on any 3RR violations by anyone, as I haven't looked into it.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60
This user was first reported for a 3RR violation on Gemstone IV, and at the same time began to vandalize my user talk page. He received a 24-hour temp block for the vandalization and incivilities, and as soon as the block expired, heavily and obscenely vandalized my user page, claimed that he was "going to gut this article" on the Gemstone article, and has hit other user talk pages with WP:CIVIL violations, as per these diffs:,. It seems a 24-hour block didn't get his attention.  RGTraynor  15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has he made any useful contributions at all, or is it all disruption? If the latter, you could try posting it at WP:AIV. They can't indef-block an IP, but they can do a lengthy block if needed, provided they take the case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's made constructive, good-faith edits in his time; this is not a vandalism-only account. There may also be another account in play: Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 shares recent edits to the Gemstone article, to Ray Carver (darts player) and to Superman (film series), including WP:BLP violations to the Carver article.  Another admin put a 72-hour block on the 65.216.70.60 account, but I bet this guy isn't going to just take his medicine gracefully.    RGTraynor  15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Following Ed's block, I think we can wait for any further incidents and take action from there if needed. Probably report it here if disruption continues. – Luna Santin  (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping; no doubt I'll see it if it does. Thanks for the help, folks.    RGTraynor  16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring at 2008 South Ossetia war
The recent edit history from 14:30 UTC time until now, see appears to suggest an edit war is brewing. Admin intervention/full protection may be required. D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Watching, for the time being. – Luna Santin  (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by Folantin
Folantin persists in trying to create trouble by reverting my talkpage to questions which I do not wish to answer and which have nothing to do with my editing this encyclopedia. He's done this [here] and again [here]. This account is not banned, is not a sock puppet of anyone and is currently engaged in adding information about the Prix de Rome winners which are missing. Please tell this person to stop stalking me. Gretab (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this user is well-known to all of us here, and at Wikipedia Review. It is a sock of the Wikipedia Review editor, the fieryangel, User:Musikfabrik, aka User:Batshitinsanedoofusfromhell on Encyclopedia Dramatica, who has used it to circumvent the ArbCom ruling against him.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What David said. Per the ArbCom, "accounts associated with MusikFabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog". "Gretab" has also indulged in other trolling. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the user does not wish to answer the question, she doesn't have to. This is not the place for accusations, either. Gretab removed the text, leave it gone. Repeatedly adding it, even if you are correct in your assumptions, is harassment. So stop it. If you have evidence to back up a claim, take it to WP:SPP or request a checkuser. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe a checkuser was run on them awhile back, and confirmed it a Musik Fabrik account, which makes sense since two articles that "Gretab" takes credit for, "La bonne d'enfant" and "Jacques Leguerney" are Musik Fabrik products. Strange how they have called for the death of Wikipedia, and spread scurrilous pedophilia rumors about Wikimedia staff, yet here he is again...trying to use it for his own gain, in violation of ArbCom.  That's principles for you!  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is and I am not editing disruptively (unless you think that updating the list of winners of the French Prix de Rome is disruptive). When I am editing disruptively, I hope that people will let me know. Until then, please stop harassing me. Gretab (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem. You aren't supposed to be editing those articles.  That's why you have an ArbCom ruling against you.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, stop it. Unless you have proof, which should be filed elsewhere, stop making accusations against other users.  This is not the place for it, and you are becoming disruptive.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought ANI was the place to make accusations against other users ("Please tell this person to stop stalking me"). Get a grip and do some basic research before you start picking sides. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the place for accusations, Lifebaka; what exactly do you think is the point of ANI? Fact is, this person has libeled and harassed Wikipedia editors to an enormous degree.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point. This is a place for accusations, but not baseless ones.  There's no evidence that the two users are the same, other than tangential items and a load of data on the blocked user.  So, unless there is some hard and fast evidence the two are the same (which I've yet to see), I highly suggest you stop.  Thank you.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The quality of the adminning round here seems to have gone downhill recently. The last person calling for my head on ANI turned out to be a sock of a banned neo-fascist troll who was allowed to harrass me with impunity for over 24 hours, no thanks to our keystone cops admins. Start doing some research before you talk about "baseless" accusations. Read the ArbCom, read User:MusikFabrik's edit history then read User:Gretab's, including "her" contributions to the now deleted article on Paul Wehage. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh - Lifebaka is making a baseless accusation that we are making a baseless accusation. I've alerted some more experienced admins as to the issue.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I welcome more eyes, but I'm still not seeing at all that the accounts are connected. All I've seen is that Gretab likes to edit articles about music.  And it appears that User:Musikfabrik is blocked, not banned, and for reasons which wouldn't (in my mind) preclude a new account by a single editor.  Gretab is not being disruptive from what I've seen (please provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to dispute this) and is not doing any of the things which resulted in the ArbCom proceedings for User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau.  So, I'm not seeing at all how you're connecting the two.  As the accusations do not appear to have proof, they appear to be baseless.  And, before you bring it back up, the business with Paul Wehage appears to be a good faith attempt to find sources.  Given the edits on the (now deleted) talk page, I would find it hard to believe that Gretab was very knowledgeable about the subject before those edits were made.  Thank you.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm not an admin, but I have to agree with Lifebaka to some extent here. It seems to me, if there is evidence Gretab is a sock then this evidence should be taken to the appropriate forum, be that here, WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. If it's decided Gretab is a sock an is violating policy or an arbcom ruling, then an appropriate punishment enforced (e.g. a block). I don't particularly get how trying to force the preservation of a 3 month old question on Gretab's user page helps particularly when our policy on user pages has been that users have wide latitude, basically more or less full discretion over their talk pages and may removal warnings, legitimate or otherwise. The removal of a warning is taken as a sign that the user has read it but unless I'm mistaken edit warring to preserve a warring is disallowed and liable to get the person trying to preserve the warning blocked. There may be some exceptions I'm not fully aware of, e.g. block notices, SSP templates, unblock requests but I'm pretty sure the kind of comment that Folantin is trying to preserve is not covered anywehre. Now I'm not against Folantin, Shankbone, or anyone starting a thread here about Gretab's alleged sockpuppetry (although I agree with LB here it seems WP:RFCU or WP:SSP would be a better place) but surely this should be covered in it's own thread or at least a seperate subheading and is any case unrelated to Gretab's complaint which if you haven't realised already, I think is legitimate. Whoever Gretab may be, and whatever he or she may have done, there is no reason to violate policy and try to force the preservation of a message he/she doesn't want on his/her talk page. To put it a different way, it seems to me a lot of wikipedians energy would have been saved, if users who suspect Gretab is a sockpuppet go through the proper channels to get it addressed rather then trying to preserve a 3 month old talk page comment which isn't going to achieve anything and then when Gretab complains, bringing those allegations into the discussion when they are largely irrelevant... (In any case Alison's comment may help clear things up, LifeBaka has already asked her to clarify if she know's who Gretab is. It would also be helpful if Gretab is willing to say precisely who he/she is but it is his/herright to remain anonymous provided he/she isn't violating policy) Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "She" is violating an ArbCom finding. Try asking some useful admins: User:Moreschi, User:Antandrus, User:JzG and User:Makemi. They'll have more idea of what's going on here. --Folantin (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've misunderstood my and I believe LifeBaka's point? To be clear I have no idea what she is doing. But if she is violating an ArbCom ruling then she should be blocked ASAP. There are probably various ways this could be achieved but preserving a 3 month old comment on her talk page against her wishes isn't one of them. Bring the issue up into an unrelated discussion also isn't one of them. Bringing this issue to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU is one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Try asking those admins what they know. Sorry, I don't have time for this at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, since Alison knows who this is, even though they have never corresponded on-wiki before today (how does she know?) then she should be enforcing the Arbcom Ruling. That is what Alison does, correct?  So why go through WP:SSP when we have a high-ranking Wikipedian charged with doing exactly that who should enforce things, right?  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Likely, if Gretab was skirting any sort of ArbCom ruling, Alison would have already blocked her. Again, without specific evidence, please stop making accusations against other users.  Thank you.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could someone protect my talk page and userpage, please, to prevent further stalking by these people? Thank you. Gretab (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need; they haven't edited your talk since you came here. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your help, then. Gretab (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is abusive sock puppetry going on, file a report at WP:SSP and leave a link on my talk page. If there is evidence enough, I will block any accounts. This procedure will minimize drama, and provide a clean record that future administrators can refer to if there are future incidents. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely by saying this "A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is"- the user admits it is a new/alternate account of someone, and doesn't have a problem with people knowing that. S/he just says s/he is not editing disruptively. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki Whistle, the ruling is clear. "users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article."  It doesn't also say unless they profess to edit productively or we like what they do.  We have already shown that Gretab has added Musik Fabrik products to Wikipedia, and continues to edit articles that deal with those products, including just today.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would consider the Musikfabrik accounts banned, and I am also persuaded that this is a sock out of the same drawer. There is some inflammatory language above, but not without justification: Jean-Thierry Boisseau was extremely disruptive, and the attacks on various individuals were vitriolic in the extreme.  A checkuser is unliekly to be productive due to the length of time since Boisseau / Musikfabrik edited.  Guy (Help!) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think there is a larger issue here, which is why these kinds of shenanigans are going on over at the Wikipedia Review, yet we have two admins, one who is a checkuser and oversighter, not enforcing our rulings and policies. This damages the community and makes a mockery of our procedures.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a tad too paranoid for me, David, but the article focus of Gretab is very specific and Musikfabrik-like, these are not what I would call mainstream music subjects. I think there is a problem, it would be interesting to hear what Alison has to say here. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, the issue to me is whether the people entrusted to enforce our community's decisions are going to uphold their end of the bargain. If not, then that needs to be addressed.  Gretab has already confessed to being on Wikipedia Review, where the two admins who apparently know who he is (I guess Paul could also be considered transgendered) have seen it.  There are too many games being played. --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped it wouldn't happen, but there's spillover at Alison's talk page. Please keep the discussion here, for visibility. Thank you. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has User:MusikFabrik been unblocked, if not I'm afraid they're not 'allowed' to edit are they? :( Unless we're going to agree to unblock s/he? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MusikFabrik was blocked as a role account; this in itself does not prohibit people who had been using the role account from editing on their own. However, if Gretab is one of the MusikFabrik editors and is editing articles relating to their sales catalog, clicks in, and the enforcement provision allows for blocks up to a week. However, given that User:Gretab has also created accounts for harassment -- among others, User:Vanish, Dead Knob, User:His Banned Vodka, User:Invokes Bad Hand -- one might think this would be grounds for stronger measures. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed an edit from David Shankbone outing another editor. David, cut it out NOW or you will be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Gretab is certainly associated with Musik Fabrik and is subject to the editing restrictions imposed at Arbcom. The right to vanish and the right to privacy do not create an invisibility cloak guaranteed to protect someone who continues to edit in a recognizable way.  (Although for the sake of that privacy, let's avoid using the real name and stick to the account name.)  Best to refer the matter to WP:AE with diffs of edits that violate the arbcom ruling and let the experienced editors there make a decision. Thatcher 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Josh and Thatcher have stated above, User:Gretab had created three dubiously-named accounts with obvious connections to David Shankbone. These three accounts only ever made one edit between them; to remove the PROD notice that David Shankbone had placed on the now-deleted Paul Weihage article. These accounts have all now been blocked indefinitely. To enable this situation to be taken to WP:AE for evaluation, we are declaring to be  related to the accounts mentioned in the Musik Fabrik case. None of us, though, are au fait enough with the ArbCom case to determine if there has been a breach of Arbcom remedies here, nor is it within the remit of checkuser. To all, I'd ask people to respect the privacy of other editors and refrain from using RL names and identifying information. It's not appropriate. Nor is speculating about the gender identity of other editors -  A l is o n  ❤ 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I second Alison's comment that derisive comments about another editor's gender or sexual orientation are grossly inappropriate and unacceptable. Not commenting on any other issue at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi just to say that I don't mean any allegation of gender queerness by saying s/he, I just mean that I don't make any assumptions about the person. From some people we can expect nothing less than such talk.  And if DS is accusing someone of libel etc, isn't that a violation of WP:NLT?  Or is it the sort of "libel" allegation that one sees bandied around all the time on the internet? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SP. It was actually a reference to this comment, really and nothing you said! - A l is o n  ❤ 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

has now been blocked for 24 hours for "creating harassment accounts that were anagrams of David Shankbone". I guess a WP:AE case may yet follow - A l is o n  ❤ 07:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the MusicFabric case but 24h for creation of a farm of abusive socks appears to be to lenient. I propose to extend the block up to 1..2 weeks. I am not sure about the violation of the Arbcom Ruling. If it is only adding non-controversial info to a list of prize winners (among a lot of other work without COI) I would tend to limit the punishment by a stern warning (or add 24h to the block or sockpuppeting). Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very lenient for a block-evading sockpuppeteering harassment account. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine Moreschi will reveal all when he turns up. But this account has violated the ArbCom ruling on WP:COI on several articles (including, of course, the now deleted Paul Wehage) as well as indulging in other trolling and time-wasting (details later). This person (under the name "Fiery Angel" on Wikipedia Review) has also harrassed several editors involved in the MusikFabrik ArbCom (myself, Moreschi, Makemi, Guy and "Vanished User") as well as carried on a vendetta against David Shankbone. --Folantin (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The block was placed by Thatcher for the socking discovered by checkuser, so it's probably best to take it up with him. I guess it's up to the community to figure out where to go from here but WP:AE can probably handle the Arb remedy allegations - A l is o n  ❤ 08:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the link between User:MusikFabrik and the "Fiery Angel" refers back to this edit in the article which led to the ArbCom . --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Gretab indef. Reasoning has been left at AE. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support a fixed time block for setting up the sock puppets, which clearly are harassing, the user should have known better. 1 day maybe is too lenient, 2 weeks maybe too much, but that can be sorted. I'm not so sure about the indef. I've asked for info on which edits are COI at the AE page... the rationale for indef seems to hang on that. Perhaps further discussion needs to be there? I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 10:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People can't just happily come back after a block, completely ignoring it, even after they've create three accounts to wind up another user, and still be welcome here. Some things mean that you can't come back as an accepted contributor.  And I say that as someone who really likes TFA/MusikFabrik.  This doesn't need arbcom/AE, as Guy says, it's just block evasion.  If we're really going to unblock MusikFabrik there should be a discussion about it.  Alison, say someone made three accounts based on one of your nicknames or something, would you want people to go "oh they didn't use them much so that's ok?", especially as that person was not an editor in good standing who's just had an 'off' day and done that, but someone who's blocked anyway? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up re:Folantin and David Shankbone
As much as I would like this whole thing to go away, I would like to bring up an issue with these two users.

Folantin inserted a thinly-veiled personal attack on his user page, mocking the user who's been blocked above. I have removed that section and cautioned him against readding any further gloating there, or elsewhere. (At risk of spreading his harassment further, here's the diff of what I removed, so you can judge for yourself.

David Shankbone is complaining that Lar and myself are "harassing him", complaining that we are somehow complicit in the issues he has with the blocked editor above, when we basically cautioned him to stop carelessly identifying another user's real name, and responding flippantly to Newyorkbrad's request to stop casually mocking another editor's sexual identity. Since David has threatened to bring this to ANI, I figured I would preempt it, and do it for him. SirFozzie (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. Wehage/Boisseau/perhaps others and co have spammed us relentlessly for yonks now, and have been complicit themselves is real harassment on Wikipedia Review, ED, and elsewhere. If we can't mock these pathetic types, who can we mock? They're banned, let's just say goodbye to them, have a drink to celebrate, and move on. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't have a problem with banning, saying so long, and whatever, but the policy isn't WP: No personal Attacks, unless we don't like them, Moreschi, and especially in David's case, where he continued on, after being asked not to by myself, Lar, and Newyorkbrad. Wikipedia is not in the business of revenge. SirFozzie (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, again, please. You have no problem with me calling someone a troll when they deserve it, yes? So what's the problem with a hilarious piece of satire (which almost no one will understand anyway) describing Wehage's spamming and lies? How is that a personal attack? This is just over-enforcement of civility again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, there's a difference between, "X is a troll" and a 25 line, 1K+ character mocking of the user (again, using his RL name, and calling that editor's sexual identity to the forefront), designed specifically to gloat that the target of his ire is blocked from Wikipedia. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. It's not "over-enforcement of civility", it's enforcing Wikipedia's policies, fairly and honestly. SirFozzie (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did Folantin go on about Wehage's sexuality? Or, for that, use his real name? He didn't. Moreschi

(talk) (debate) 13:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this on your user page. The Perils of Paul (falsetto) Pauline? Or the one that Virdae corrected earlier? One second while I dig that edit up for you. Ah, here we go. (It sucks that I have to spread this crap further just to prove my point. SirFozzie (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's just sheerest hypocrisy. I'm using slimeball Wehage's real name right now, and have done in previous posts, and while Shankbone gets threatened with a block, I don't? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it deserves a block, myself, but there's no way in heck I'd be the one to do it, considering, I'm by any definition possible involved in this issue. Come on Moreschi, ratchet it back, you're letting your temper rule your brain here. SirFozzie (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's code for angry, well yes. I'm furious that you can spend two years fucking around with Wikipedia, bitching incessantly on WR, and at the final end of it all (here), there can be no consequences. Not even an innocuous piece of satire on someone's userpage. That's just plain immoral. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "We have met the enemy, and we are him", more like. Moreschi, the thing that gives us the high ground in dealing with folks who are here to cause trouble is that we DON'T lower ourselves to their level. Stop digging your way out of the high ground. SirFozzie (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's like a gang pileup. Perhaps SirFozzie, if you started with this rather than this nonconstructive commentary, you would have received a more pleasing response. It's no shock just where you pull from SF, and your bias in this case gives only further credence that you should remain uninvolved. Just sayin'... <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, Seicer. I told him not to out another editor, and if he did it again, he'd be blocked per WP policies. Which was immediately backed up by multiple experienced editors (both administrator and otherwise). And your badsite innuendo is noted, but ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who have conflict of interests and should also remain uninvolved. If in doubt, get someone who is truly disinvested in the whole discussion. Not saying both of you are poor administrators or any of that crap. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Durova has a conflict? User:Newyorkbrad has a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, I disagree with what you just said. SirFozzie (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, SirFozzie, but I believe both you and Lar belong to Wikipedia Review, and SirFozzie, and is this another SirFozzie at MyWikiBiz (terrible name), the site of Jon Awbrey and Greg Kohs? Durova and Newyorkbrad chimed in, and then were done with it.  You and Lar, both Wikipedia Reviewers, continue to badger me after I said "I get it" ages ago, both on my Talk page and at ANI.  It isn't Durova or Newyorkbrad hitting my talk page three times, and coming here.  In the end, you are over-enforcing, as Moreschi said.  Our polices and guidelines don't exist to be used as weapons against us, which is the entire point of WP:GAME.  When you don't see through the BS of a serial harasser and defamer off-site when they come here to promote their business, and instead take task Wikipedia editors, you come across as a faceless bureaucrat who looks at the letter, not the spirit, of the law.  That's problematic.  Privacy is there to protect, not to shield people like serial sockpuppeters and self-promoters like Greg Kohs, Musik Fabrik or Jon Awbrey.  The Wikipedia Review crowd specialize in gaming our polices and guidelines to use them against us, and then cry foul when we call them on it.  It's little surprise that the people who frequent the site, and sit around listening to its carp and dim view of humanity, come here and act with their fallacious opinions in mind.  I'm jus' sayin'....--<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * David, you have a long running grudge with some of the people you brought up above (and again, I really wish you'd cut it out with the real names.) That's well known. Brad asked you to cut it out. You basically mocked him on your talk page. If I was some overly officious bureaucrat that you seem to think I am, I would have come up with some reason to block you, something like "WP:JUSTWONTGETIT", and called it a day, instaed, I asked you to stop pouring gasoline on the fire. You went off on me, and on Lar.. and then threatened to take Lar and I to ANI. So is it any surprise that I took you up on your offer?


 * You're misusing WP:GAME, by the way, I'd like to see how the person behind the blocked account blocked Folantin to write what he did on his user page. You can't hide behind WP:GAME to excuse petty, gloating, misbehavior like that. That's not the letter of the law, nor the spirit.


 * And as for your first paragraph, yes, that is me. i was writing up reviews of Iron Chef episodes. Hardly WP stuff, wouldn't you think? Especially because I think my writings broke WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and several other rules I can't be arsed to type now. I posted them to various places on the net (couple boards I hang out at), and one of them was WR's "Not Wikipedia related forum". MyWikiBiz asked me if I wouldn't mind posting them on MWB. I saw no harm in it, so I posted.. what four episode reviews? Nothing to worry about.


 * And as for your last statement about people who frequent the site, and sit around listening to its carp and dim view of humanity, come here and act with their fallacious opinions in mind. I'm jus' sayin You know what my most recent discussion has been about over there? Busty Heart. Although after seeing the clip of her on NBC, I can understand where the "dim view of humanity" part comes about *shudders* SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fozzie, I only read your first paragraph, but you need to learn our privacy policy, which is not "No real name shall ever be used." Seriously.  Greg Kohs ran for the Board of Trustees, so get real.  Jon Awbrey also has never hidden who he is.  You are arguing for something that is not policy, but is policy-gone-amuck.  The ENTIRE point of anonymity is to protect people who feel they need to be protected, not to say "You used a real name!" as you are doing.  You are the one who keeps pairing yourself with LAR, and I think you should also read WP:KETTLE with WP:JUSTWONTGETIT.  Also, you continue to assume bad faith, and you are now harassing both myself and User:Folantin on this page.  Now, back to your essay...  Well, there's nothing more worth commenting on.  Your opinion is registered Sirfozzie, but unless you are raising a policy violation, why are you here?  Make your case, cite to policy, and state how I and Folantin broke it.  "He made a joke I didn't read as a joke" and "He explains it, but it's not bad faith to continually tell him that his explanation is a lie" are not policies, so stop using them.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, that's enough Colons to fill my quota for the week, lets start over, shall we?). No, it states that you shouldn't use another editor's personal information to harass them, which Folantin was doing (even Moreschi admitted it was aimed at the user, although he called it "harmless satire"). I brought it up here, because I removed Folantin's sack dance aimed at the blocked user in question, and figured to bring it up to try to get more attention on it.On my watchlist was you telling Lar "Go away or I'll tell ANI on you", basically. So I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone, and bring it up while I was here. And how is answering your questions harassing you, by the way? SirFozzie (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What personal info? Apart from the first name, which without the surname is meaningless to almost everyone? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The problem many Wikipedia editors have, including me, is that they allow critics to affect them. Most of us have no hidden agenda or conspire to control information via Wikipedia. The root of every cabal conspiracy theory is the fear that a group of people are working together to paint a false reality in order to advance an agenda." Well, except for Lar and SirFozzie - they're evil WR people working together to advance an agenda! ;-) ATren (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look everyone, it's ATren, the guy who never contributes content, but always inserts himself in arguments, thus inflaming them and prolonging them. ATren, don't you have one of your "Why Wikipedia Sucks" user page essays to write?  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now this is what I was talking about by taking a fire and pouring gasoline on it, David. Come on, man.. do you really think you're making any points by coming out like this? SirFozzie (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but you're making mine, SirFozzie, by focusing on me again, and not focusing on ATren (who has told Guy he will stop interacting with me since he has followed me around for a year. You're actually proving my point.  How was ATren not inflaming the situation, and why did you not feel the need to say something to him?  Perhaps because he was defending you?  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * David, this is a noticeboard; I hardly think this qualifies as "following you around". And anyway, this post is not exactly what I would call "disengaging" on your part. ATren (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, ATren, this is a noticeboard for policy violations that require admin notice, and neither you, nor SirFozzie, are raising any. You are here doing what you do: which is sit around on Talk pages and argue.  That's simply what you do on Wikipedia, insert yourself in arguments; we all get it.  As to following me around, that's why you are now here on this thread, despite saying "you will never seen me interact with DS again" to Guy, and it is why you are reading my blog and quoting from it, despite its inapplicability.  I will give you the last word, since you always demand it.  I wouldn't want you to, you know, build an encyclopedia or anything else that takes away from your time arguing.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * David Shankbone: You need to knock it off. Seriously. You are casting aspersions fast and furiously. Every time some other issue with your behaviour is brought up, you cast aspersions at that person, or some unrelated third party. I think your behaviour is disruptive and if you don't stop, I think the wiki could do without your contributions for a while. You wanted this brought to ANI? Here it is. Stop this disruption. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, de-indenting again) Well, three reasons actually. 1) Unfortunately, despite my requesting Santa Claus for Omniscience five years running, I'm not knowledgeable in every conflict between users on Wikipedia. Unlike highschool, knowing "Person A likes person B but hates person C" isn't as useful on Wikipedia (Plus there's rather more people on WP, then there was in my high school). 2) The difference between his and yours, is at least he's borderline, using humor, where you come out, with fangs bared and fists a-swinging. 3) (I only came across this after your diff), that was.. what 10 months ago? SirFozzie (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is bigger than high school; so it's amazing that it's always people from Wikipedia Review who land on my talk page. Look at you here, now, continuing to assume bad faith, making personal attacks ("you come out with fangs bared and fists a-swinging" is not pouring gasoline, SirFozzie? Oh really?!), and you continue to argue on here against...what?  You don't like my jokes?  I don't "get" that you don't like my jokes?  Fine.  Move on, unless there is something in this morass you have created that is a violation requiring admin attention.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I "landed" on your talk page because you outed another editor on ANI, and I told you not to, and was backed up by multiple other editors. You felt that because the other person was a "bad guy", you and Folantin had full rights to mock them and make fun of them. You don't. And as for "Show me the policy violation?" Well, that's what started this whole topic, David.. yours and Folantin's violations of Wikipedia's rules on WP:NPA. Somehow, it got sidetracked into "OMG, BADSITES" and personal attacks. Wonder how that happened? SirFozzie (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, please don't call a living person a slimeball again. It doesn't matter what you think of them. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as exceedingly good advice. I think a lot of people would benefit from some reviewing how to bring up issues without hurling invective. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been harrassed and stalked by this account for almost two years now simply for the crime of editing Wikipedia (by the way, I've never used this encyclopaedia to promote myself). Finally, I respond with a bit of humour rather than vitriol with a user page joke I was planning to take down at the end of the day. Nobody not already in the know would have worked out who the target of the squib was. For this, I get jumped all over by one of Wikipedia's inhouse Civility Police who comes here to turn it into a Big Drama. The suspicion that off-wiki friendships are playing a role in this is rather strong given the places where I've seen some of the admins here commenting. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Personally, I think that too much time spend wittering at WR has caused some people here to lose perspective. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I get the feeling it's that being here has caused people to lose perspective. Too much drahmahz.  So, here's my take on these things.  Folantin, don't do it again and it should be cool.  David, I suggest you drop whatever issues you have, and stop making personal attacks.  Yes, some of what you've said is personal attacks, and yes, likely some of them are justified.  But we don't have a policy that says justified personal attacks are okay.  As long as you stop, no action needs to be taken.  Continuing is disruptive, however.  And to everyone: stop the freakin' arguing.  It's pointless, doesn't go anywhere, and just gives trolls things to feed off of (not saying anyone here is a troll).  If no one else does anything against policy, we likely don't need to keep doing this.  Okay?  Okay.  Cheers, everyone.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What Lifebaka said. They said it better then I could ;) SirFozzie (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting from Moreschi. And Folantin seems to be suggesting admins who have a WR account are the New Cabal. Are all such admins being unfairly tarred with the same brush? I'd normally discuss such things at WR, but I don't want to twitter and lose perspective - that's what IRC is for. Wait - is WR the new IRC? Does that mean Giano has gone to the Dark Side? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, maybe. Really, if we all just did our stuff here, life would be a lot easier. Applies to both IRC (which is fine for discussing Jordan's breast size and Eurovision, but not much else), and WR. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this discussion is devolving. I'm outta here.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I only know the names of some of the admins here from their off-wiki activities so they should start to think about that. None of them intervened at ANI when I wanted edits which violated boring old policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV looking at. Didn't see them here to defend me against harrassment by the sock puppet of a banned neo-fascist troll who was genuinely violating WP:BLP on this very noticeboard. Of course, it's a different matter if somebody has hurt a troll's feelings. But we all know this is now more of a social networking site than an encyclopaedia, so let's get our priorities right. --Folantin (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason why we should be aiming invective, biting humour or whatever else at other people. We should do exactly what we need to do to get rid of troublemakers and stop there.  We should not be crowing over defeating others, even if we have "defeated them" and even if they really, really deserve it.  We aim at a higher standard of behaviour than that.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Spät kommt Ihr, doch Ihr kommt. Here's another one who wasn't around to enforce the boring old policies I mentioned above but feels entitled to deliver a lecture on being nice to stalkers. "We aim at a higher standard of behaviour than that". Because this is a Finishing School for Young Ladies not an encyclopaedia. If it were the latter our admins would be a bit more concerned about aiming at a higher standard for our articles. --Folantin (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Folantin, please stay civil. I can understand if you are angry, but generally insulting the project and making heated remarks is not going to help your cause.  The editor has been taken care of, and there is no need to continue this.  Thank you.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Folantin, if you ask me nicely to look into something, I will. Just turn up on my talk page and give me a pointer. I don't watch every noticeboard, nor does anyone else. But what I'm seeing here is disruption. Not one sided, there's some to go around, but it seems like things are escalating. Don't answer disruption with more disruption. That seems fairly straightforward to me. Collegial, even. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism is "disruption" now, is it? As I've said, I've really no idea who you are apart from your off-wiki activities so I'd hardly be heading for your talk page. The "escalation" occurred because SirFozzie reported a problem which had already been fixed to ANI. If the admins who initially assumed bad faith on this "Stalking" thread and took the actual stalker's side before "she" was busted want to issue an apology to David and me, I'll accept that as a demonstration of civility by example. Otherwise, no more lectures. If any social networking admins' egos have been bruised they can massage them in the usual way by issuing each other with the requisite barnstars for "sterling work". Now, unless anyone has something to say, I think we're done here. --Folantin (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, instead of continually responding, why don't you act like an admin and let it go? Disruption is not defined as "you do what I say, or I will block your ass" and that attitude is a good way to have your admin status questioned.  You only have the tools because we allow you to have them, so stop power tripping.  Then above you are answering disruption with more disruption. The only reason I am posting is to point out the hilarity that here we have Gretab, who created three accounts that were anagrams of my name, only using them to remove a PROD from an article about...Gretab.  Gretab on-wiki has violated the terms of "her" ArbCom (you question how over at WP:AE, even though it's obvious) with almost all of "her" edits.  Off-wiki, we have Gretab over at the Wikipedia Review calling for Wikipedia's destruction; ridiculing people who "she" thinks self-promote (!!); writing letters to people off-wiki spreading rumors; and spreading unsubstantiated rumors on WR.  Let's not forget that according to Gretab, "Wikipedia will never, ever get EU cultural funding because of me!!!"  Then Folantin makes a very covert joke about this serial Wikipedia abuser (both on and off wiki) and the main people here who are continually feeding this are...people from Wikipedia Review; the same site where the head of it shares IP addresses with Daniel Brandt of those who go there.  That's all well and fine, Lar, but you need to disengage instead of puffing out your chest like an internet tough guy demanding people listen to you or else, as you have done here in this thread.  That's not the way you admin, and I doubt you'll find support for your "You better listen to me!" bullying language.  Tone it down, and leave it alone.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All of you just need to let this drop. Wikipedia is not about second-guessing every action of every editor. That's not how we get work done. Most of this discussion amounts to a waste of Wikipedia's resources, and is an embarrassment to the project. I'd like to request that everybody involved just let the matter drop for 24 hours, and take a look again in 24 hours, with particular attention to your OWN actions and how they reflect on YOU. The possibility of sock puppets and ArbCom violations is legitimate, and should be pursued diligently and WITH DISCRETION; all else is wasted pixels, and wasted volunteer hours. -Pete (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly, can't we just close these threads? 'Gretab' has been blocked, no-one has covered themselves in glory to a great extent by their conduct. Let's just have business as usual; everyone taking down this thread to use in evidence against the others next time they annoy you, and other than that let's move on. No-one else is going to get blocked this time IMHO, but of course also no-one on the respective silly sides of the debate will forget but instead will file it for future reference.:) End of. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There, closed this one. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be another sub-page here for this kind of discussion: "Food fight du jour". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlists
Hello, currently my watchlist is not updating. It is shows the current edit to this page was made at 10:52am EST. Is this a new issue or is it being fixed? - NeutralHomer  •  Talk  18:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise. It just arose a couple of minutes ago, I think. 14:52 UTC or 9:52 CDST. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User contribs are also affected. --Kbdank71 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The IRC fairies are working on it. Thatcher 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they appreciate that characterization. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie...I will keep an eye on the recent changes pages for the time being. Thanks...  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a recovery of some kind is going on. The watchlist is slowly catching up to current time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 12653 seconds down from just under 14000 seconds. - NeutralHomer  •  Talk  18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I was going crazy, seeing all my days work disappear from my contribs, slowly it's coming back. — Realist  2  19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It got down to about 2800, but now it's going up again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on a 3700 second delay. Pacific Coast Highway <font color="#34b21d">{talk • contribs} 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every edit we make delays the servers' ability to sync up...oops Thatcher 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, done. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at the Village Pump technical section. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with 90.199.99.31
This user won't reason and shows no regard towards other editors, even after I've tried warning him several times. The user has done some good and valid edits, but also keeps reverting edits, deleting information, adding unsourced controversial material, keeps pushing his view etc, on several articles related to each other. I've proven several of his edits wrong aswell, citing official sources, but he keeps reverting them. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffs please? Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of them. this is one of the major ones that he's trying to push, and he has redone it atleast 4 times now. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable image uploads
is uploading a number of images from what appears to be a Russian news website, claiming the images are free and providing a link to a copyright page. However, the page is all in Russian, which I can't read. I want to assume good faith, but I'm worried that the uploads are copyvios and/or that the license in the copyright notice is actually incompatible. It seems unlikely that a news service would allow their photos to be used commercially and adapted. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, several of them seem to be Kremlin photos, but the last couple are from news services. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Photos from the Kremlin cannot be accepted as free images for our purposes, since the Kremlin doesn't explicitly permit commercial reuse and also unlimited modifications, so they should be speedy deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though we specifically have a kremlin.ru free license tag?

The ones I'm most worried about are these, ,. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will rectify that. I'll look at the other images and perhaps ask other Russian speakers to get involved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. If you're gonna kill the license tag it should probably be removed from the list too . Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * License killed, along with several images. The only ones I kept were from the Osettian conflict, so if people want to try and claim fair use on those. I will remove the template from the free license category. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean this page, it reads: "Запрещается любое использование фото, графических, информационно-графических, видео, аудио и иных размещенных на сайтах материалов, принадлежащих Агентству и иным лицам." -- Any use of pictures, graphics, video, audio and other stuff that appear on the site and belong to the agency or other persons is prohibited. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy per copyvio. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation and identities template move/merge by Cooljuno411
I don't participate in the normal editing of this template, I am an outside observer. I have noticed how volatile the templates have been recently, and there seems to have recently been an edit war on the content. Template Talk:Sexual orientation and identities

After two days discussion (or less), one editor merged two templates, "Sexual orientation" and "Sexual identities". Perhaps it is a good idea, perhaps not, I don't have an opinion. I do know that the article moved from edit war to article merge within a few hours. Discussion on the talk page does not seem to indicate any consensus for a merge, but instead, action by one editor.

I am of the opinion that templates, more than articles, need to be changed very selectively and with sensitivity. I don't think great care has been taken in this case. Atom (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as I read this, I knew who it was. This is CoolJuno411 again. He's been up here a number of times inthe past weeks for the same damn agenda pushing. He needs a long block for his persistent disruption. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And so reading a refernece litterly is "agenda pushing", i think by saying, for example, autosexual is not a sexual orientation when it clearly fit under the reference provided by American Psychological Association is "agenda pushing" . So i guess i am going to have to file a couple of these little complaints about other users who are "agenda pushing" by constantly reverting the template. And if one were to look at the template talk page, they could clearly see i am the only one trying to make an effort, because to my knowledge i having been the only one referencing thing or trying to do something other then claiming "original research" when i am clearly referencing things.  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * Again... can we get an admin to look into this? It's well into WP:TE over there. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall merging two templates.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm involved in the discussion, so won't be taking any administrative action in this case, either way. I do feel Cooljuno is being a bit tendentious, here, but the template is currently protected and discussion is ongoing; this incident alone doesn't appear to call for a block at this time, unless I'm unaware of some nasty skeletons in the closet. Maybe an RfC, but I at least am still comfortable seeing how this plays out... though I should clarify that I don't recall dealing closely with Cooljuno, previously, and may not have the full history. More eyes and comments might be helpful, though. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they'll refrain from renewing the bold changes they've made in the past to the template which brought us here before. The RfC, IMHO, was malformed as it did escalate comments but wasn't directive enough to draw concrete outcomes. My hunch is that most folks weren't up for prolonged debate. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Heterosexual-homosexual continuum was started by the user. AfD seems to have been closed early but I doubt this would have been deleted anyway. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a continuation of the time-space continuum. It's a fact, proven with geometric logic, that the straighter you are, the less space you take, but the more time you take. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 and User:StealthyVlad
Thread merged from below Tiptoety  talk

can someone look at these two users and tell me if this constitutes sockpuppetry? StealthyVlad's only contributions to wikipedia ever was to show support for CoolJuno's problematic edits on template:Sexual_orientation, here, and CoolJuno immediately came back to correct a signature error for StealthyVlad, here. I thought s/he could be reasoned with, but if s/he's stooping to amateur sockpuppetry then I think it may need to be handled administratively... :-( -- Ludwigs 2  06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty obvious to me, and seeing as has already been pretty disruptive I would not oppose a block.  Tiptoety  talk 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section above. ThuranX (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I am blind, but what thread would that be? Tiptoety  talk 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * this one. there ya go. ThuranX (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also I have protected the template due to WP:TE along with edit warring. Tiptoety  talk 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that CoolJuno, after not editing for 41 minutes, fixed StealthyVlad's sig 2 minutes after he places it as his first and only edit? ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, the best place for this discussion the be held is probably over at Sock-mart. Tiptoety  talk 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So fixing someones signature that is in the wrong place is an issue? I would hope you would do it for me it ended up in an incorrect spot. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you all want me to help you with your conundrum, he is a friend of mine, who as you can tell, has similar views to me. I asked for his input on the talk page. He has had wikipedia for over a year. If you take a look at his talk page you can tell he has made activity it the past on a deleted article, which would not appear uder his history. But i understand, anyone who goes against your views MUST be a clone worker of the enemy.... And i'm still waiting for your input on the template talk page. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * That's a violation of WP:CANVAS and/or WP:MEAT. Either way, Cooljuno needs to stop agitating. ThuranX (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Allen
This person has recently died, upon reading the article I discovered that there was Plagiarism on the article. Several sections appeared to be directly copied from an Associated Press report published on foxnews.com.

I left the following message in the talk section of the article.

Plagiarism

There are parts of this article that are 'Plagiarized!!

read the article written by the Associated Press at http://www.foxnews.com

This article should be fixed so there are no Plagiarism issues. --Subman758 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The link of the article is here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402741,00.html

Please take appropriate action.--Subman758 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article's been edited heavily, since you posted; is this still a problem? I poked around a bit, but couldn't find anything highly obvious. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed a paragraph that was lifted from the AP release; I didn't see anything else. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There no longer seems to be a problem with the article. I just didn't want to see some AP Writer jump up and call out Wikipedia.  There are some users on this site that give it a bad name, and that is a shame.--Subman758 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job -- though I'll admit my first reaction to seeing the text was to check and see if AP was lifting from Wikipedia as opposed to the other way around. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism from news articles is all too common; just quietly remove or rewrite any examples you find. Everyking (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks
gonna take a guess that this guy needs blocking as a category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ron liebman --Jac16888 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's at least his second one today. He's been busy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked him on the username alone as an impersonator of . -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. One of me is more than enough. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this the proper place to bring this for an immediate block, couldn't think of anywhere else, WP:AIV isn't right and [WP:SSP is too much of a long-winded process--Jac16888 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When we're talking about ban or block-evading users where there's incontrovertible proof, yes. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually notify User:Wknight94, who's kind of the shepherd on this long-term abuser Liebman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * figured as much, cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I was the first admin to start working the problem - Wknight94 is usually faster to respond these days and should probably be the first contacted admin, but if you can't get ahold of him, go ahead and let me know about it and I'll thunder on down... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That accounts for why he posted to your page. He also posted to No Guru's page today. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in Wild Arms articles
Talk:Wild Arms (series)

In the past two or three days, these two have been edit warring nonstop in every Wild Arms game article. My watchlist at the moment is just an enormous wall of them reverting eachother and breaking article links, well over 200 edits between them have been made. The cause of this is whether the games should be referred to as Wild Arms or Wild ARMs. It's really stupid and incredibly disruptive, I'm not sure what's called for here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My brane melted within six seconds on linking to the above... can you provide some specific diffs of them reverting each other, and either requests to stop or actual warnings issued so us sensitive admins can agree that 3RR or something is violated and we can then act? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to do such things, seeing as how User:Mr T (based) aka IP 88.something has also been making dozens of nonstop miscellaneous edits on every page too. Here's a small instance of my watchlist that should adequetly prove my point. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... I'm not Mr. T. My account here is "Erigu" (I rarely use it as I get logged out all the time for some reason).
 * By the way, you may have recognized her already, but you've already dealt with Fragments of Jade a few months ago, Norse Am Legend. She was using the IP 24.3.180.166. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT my IP-please ignore 88's baseless accusations, as she's been harassing me for quite some time now. To clarify, Mr. T came along and removed/incorrectly altered huge amounts of information, incorrectly altered the title of the game, and removed references to other games simply because he had not played them. I assumed good faith and visited his talk page to inform him of how his edits were kind of causing trouble, but that I believed he had good intentions. He wanted no part in discussing anything, saying he could do whatever he wanted, and was generally rude and mocking towards me. I tried everything from reporting him to trying to reason with him, but nothing worked. The minute he was unblocked, he immediately went back to editting, despite being aware that there was a discussion going on. On top of that, he joined with some other uers on his talk page to insult me, much like 88 has been doing for quite some time. 88 admits to only having BARELY played ONE of these games. She has been watching my talk page and contributions, and whenever I make an edit, she immediately pops up to undo or contest it, without fail, despite never having and strong or non-contradictory arguments.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is NOT my IP
 * It was, back then. Now, your IP is 76.120.173.40 (as confirmed by Thatcher here), despite your claims to the contrary. I'm afraid your "style" is unmistakable. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not, nor has it every been my IP. Stop it already.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkuser is almost never wrong. Claiming otherwise should only be done with very strong evidence. That being said, I think both users could stand to be whacked with a 72 hour block to cool off. Jtrainor (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser never proved anything, though. And I don't need to "cool off". I'm sick of being blocked because of how others treat me. She is the one who keeps coming after me. Look at our contribution histories.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Checkuser never proved anything, though.
 * I posted the link just above, Jade. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please block repeat copyvio uploader
has uploaded the same image again that was already deleted once as a blatant copyvio. It's time to block this person. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, someone with sysop powers should keep an eye on 2008 South Ossetia war. I keep finding blatant copyvio images there, at least one of them was previously deleted and then reuploaded by the original uploader. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you just warned him, let's see if he does it again. John Reaves 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment
My problem is mainly in regards to IP User User talk:88.161.129.43. A while back, me, her, and a few others were involved in a long-lasting dispute over an article, that was never properly resolved. During this time, I was subjected to quite a lot at the hands of this girl and her friends who helped argue her point. In particular, she made sock puppet accusations against me and anyone who supported my argument as opposed to hers. She also attempted to stalk me on the internet, but luckily mistook someone else for me. She then proceeded to track down this person's real name and location and post them here. She taunted me with this information, calling me by this "real name", which she believed to be mine. Naturally, I found this creepy. It was only by a strike of luck that the person she found was not actually me, but it's still not normal to try and end an article dispute by posting personal information, and I found it very off-putting when she posted how many sites she had followed this individual she mistook for me to and all she had learned about them. She also seems to be watching my contributions, because whenever I edit any article or get involved in any dispute, she will always pop up and try to involve herself. This, at first, happened once, during the above-mentioned dispute.

I'm generally not active on Wiki, and when the issue faded into obscurity, I did not make any edits here for a while, until fairly recently, when I noticed someone was making a bunch of generally disruptive edits on a series of articles I had put a lot of work into, along with many other people. The other user was unwilling to discuss it, and an edit war ocurred, resulting in both of us being blocked for a day. Naturally, user 88 stuck her nose in and made a bunch of irritating comments on my talk page over and over again, despite this situation having nothing to do with her. She then got involved in the dispute by arguing for the other editor's changed on these articles, despite herself admitting she has just barely played one of the games. This dispute is getting as aggravating as the first one, and she is completely contradicing her own stance in that previous argument. She still follows me to every article I post on, and it's getting irritating, not to mention seriously disturbing. I'm not sure if anything can be done, but an admin suggested I post the issue here. At the very least, I hope someone can get her to stop following me around Wiki and posting her insults. I've tried everything I can, but nothing works. Arguing for the sake of arguing because you have personal issues with someone is pretty lame, in my opinion, and she is really not contributing anything to these incidents she gets involved in, aside from stuff to turn them into all-out wars.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got any diffs to illustrate this saga? Inserting them inline above would be helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Diffs?Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Diffs Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh.
 * Some corrections...
 * A while back, me, her, and a few others were involved in a long-lasting dispute over an article
 * I'm a man. I told you that several times already.
 * I was subjected to quite a lot at the hands of this girl and her friends who helped argue her point.
 * They weren't "helping arguing my point", we were simply agreeing. In fact, everybody in that discussion was in agreement, except for you, Jade.
 * And it would be nice if you could be a bit more specific... "Sujected to quite a lot"? In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the "hostilities" began when you accused me of "name-calling" and "racism" for no reason. I asked you several times to explain yourself, and you never did. Anybody can check how things really went down there.
 * she made sock puppet accusations against me and anyone who supported my argument as opposed to hers.
 * I did, but not because you were disagreeing with me. Because "you three" were highly suspicious. I filed a sock puppetry case with my evidence.
 * Thatcher, an admin, eventually confirmed that I was right on the money. Unfortunately, by that point, the sock puppetry case was already closed for "lack of manpower." Lucky you.
 * She also attempted to stalk me on the internet, but luckily mistook someone else for me.
 * Oh, I'm pretty sure I didn't.
 * I explained how I found out about that other identity of yours and how it is relevant to the sock puppetry case here.
 * She then proceeded to track down this person's real name and location and post them here.
 * I only posted initials, actually (I wouldn't post your full name). Funny how you got confused about that. 'Guess you recognized them after all.
 * And my point was that if you care about your privacy, you shouldn't play such games. It's easy to find your personal information on the net (you posted it), and your disruptive behavior really is the only reason I looked into it in the first place. I have better things to do with my time, trust me.
 * But you keep denying everything, even after an admin confirmed the sock puppetry... No lesson learned, I guess...
 * when I noticed someone was making a bunch of generally disruptive edits on a series of articles I had put a lot of work into
 * Not as "Fragments of Jade." You can't argue that you put a lot of work into these article without admitting that you're in fact 24.3.180.166... and that is why you shouldn't lie.
 * user 88 stuck her nose in and made a bunch of irritating comments on my talk page over and over again
 * Those were (good) advices. Advices you kept deleting. Good thing I'm the "rude" one, here.
 * She then got involved in the dispute by arguing for the other editor's changed on these articles, despite herself admitting she has just barely played one of the games.
 * That doesn't make my points any less relevant, Jade.
 * Arguing for the sake of arguing
 * ... isn't what I'm doing: I honestly disagree with you.
 * But yes, I'm also fed up with your disruptive attitude. On top of all the bad faith, lies and baseless accusations I (and others) have had to deal with, I didn't want to create an account but finally opted to in order to submit the sock puppetry case and settle this affair once and for all... but that went nowhere, despite Thatcher's confirmation. And now you're at it again. So yes, I'm a bit pissed. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See? My point has just been proved.  The minute I posted here, she came and in her rude way, proceeded to post more lies.  Someone needs to put a stop to this, because it is clear she's stalking me.  You honestly want me to believe that it's just by coincidence that she appears to undo my edits to pages she has no history of editing before, right after I make them?  She's disruptive, hostile, predatory, and downright creepy.  I want her to stop editting my talk page, stop stalking me to every Wikipedia page I visit, and stop badmouthing me.  Any other user gets in trouble when they do those things, and she needs to too.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The minute I posted here, she came and in her rude way, proceeded to post more lies.
 * 'Simply defending myself against yours... And I posted some links to back up my claims. You never do that, for some reason... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I need an admin to step in and do something. She's already got arguments started on so many different pages because of her following and badmouthing me, and this will just turn into another.  I have the right to edit on Wiki without having to be followed around and harassed by her.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that we share no similiar interests. Our paths only cross because she keeps following me to articles just to start trouble. If she'd quit doing this and quit talking about me, then everyone could be happy, but she is unwilling to stop.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jade, if you'd like an Admin to help, they are going to need to see proof of this harassment in some sort of diffs though. At this point it's just hearsay. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I can't speak for everyone here, but for me, nothing on ANI is more annoying than two people having an argument, bringing it here, and continuing to have the same argument with each other, just with a bigger audience, filling the page up with more and more and more crap. Both of you stop talking to each other here; if you must argue, go do it somewhere else. Another internet forum would be fantastic.

Fragments of Jade, seriously: no one is going to do anything to help you if you can't be bothered to supply diffs backing up your allegations. If it isn't worth your time to make it easier for us to investigate, it isn't worth our time to investigate. For example, 88... has provided some diffs, and they certainly appear at first glance to disprove some of your allegations. It doesn't work if you make 10 allegations, 5 of which are true, in the hopes of bolstering your case; people will notice the 5 untrue allegations, and won't bother to look at the other 5.

88..., seriously: Stop following her around (actually, FoJ hasn't demonstrated that yet, no idea if it's true or not), and definitely stop trying to link her with accounts on other websites. In the MedCab case I saw you both involved in, you seemed to have made your point well; don't undercut yourself by doing something that will get you blocked if you ever do it again.

Both of you: For some reason, I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where the guy from the postive universe was stuck in the room with his mortal enemy from the negative universe, fighting for eternity about really, really, stupid stuff. Can't figure out why that springs to mind... --barneca (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, . Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * if you must argue
 * I'd rather not, really...
 *  Stop following her around (actually, FoJ hasn't demonstrated that yet, no idea if it's true or not) 
 * I do admit I've been checking her edits, just in case she started trouble again...
 * In the MedCab case I saw you both involved in, you seemed to have made your point well; don't undercut yourself by doing something that will get you blocked if you ever do it again.
 * Well, I wasn't even trying to link her with other websites, I just stumbled upon her (under another username, but considering the timing and contents of her posts, the whole thing was quite obvious) as I was looking for the UK forum she referred to here (I kinda had to, as she wouldn't give us the URL, for some reason).
 * For some reason, I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where the guy from the postive universe was stuck in the room with his mortal enemy from the negative universe, fighting for eternity about really, really, stupid stuff.
 * You know, I think I wouldn't want to be arguing over important matters on Wikipedia, actually. I find the idea quite depressing... ^_^; 88.161.129.43 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fragments of Jade blocked for a week
I have blocked for a week for disruption - despite their claims of innocence, there's credible evidence including CU statements that they've been sockpuppeting for some time, and they are clearly editing disruptively.

AGF fails at this point.

I hope that they cooperate and stop denying things and can return to constructive editing.

This is not a conclusion that the 88. IP user is not also causing problems. I don't see any that stand up in evidence now, and haven't acted at this time, but other admins may want to review both sides in more depth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragemanchoo - not getting enough attention?
has a habit of leaving inappropriate comments on article talk pages (some recent samples   ), sometimes reverting when other editors remove them. I've pointed them at WP:TALK at least twice, to no avail. Now they seem to be leaving uncivil messages such as and. Can someone give them a stern talking to, please? On a completely unrelated matter, I recall that there is a recidivist sockpuppeteer interested in German ships, but their name escapes me. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Toddst1 and myself have left them a note about this. Can't comment for or against any possibility of sockpuppetry, personally. Here's hoping the situation improves. – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. My sockmaster question actually was meant as a question, not a veiled accusation, although it was inspired by one of this user's contributions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the reasons for editing. Unconstructive stalking and things like the title of this section do you NO favors. BTW -- follow EvilDeathMath, he has his own crap you apparently haven't addressed. When you delete without actual reason (i.e. EvilDeathMath), don't be stunned if you get a bitchy message. Dr. Warren quote was relevant. Charlize Theron question was, too, whether you like it or not. You're not paying attention. The Greg Oden question was honest. Answer it and I'll get rid of it. Oh, and by the way, somebody was spamming my discussion board with bizarre crap the other day. And since everything is transparent here, I erased it but you can read it for yourself. QUESTION (yes, I'm asking a question, too bad): How does one ban a user from commenting on their discussion board? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For anyone who missed it, while adding the above he also removed some content from the initial post, which is typically against the rules: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This captain is also uncivil to me when I am just trying to get him some of Ray Bradbury. King of the Fondue (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0
I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here and here. His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this. Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Libro0 is at it again with his ongoing campaing of lies and passive aggression. He is now beating the dead horse again at Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd). Something is very wrong with this user. Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Libro0 is insane. He is no Admiral Ackbar and falls into the traps set for him to scream sockpuppet. Again for the second time he says I am a sockpuppet. He is dangerous and crazy. Look at Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd) to see him go on like a crazy person who thinks the world is out to get him I have set traps for him so he can dig his own hole. Please get rid of him! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistant misuse of the minor edit flag
This user is persistantly marking edits as minor in breach of Help:Minor_edit. I warned them when I discovered they had removed a contested sentance from one of my watchlisted articles and they have removed the conversation with the comment "This whole conversation is achieving nothing, if I had removed 10,000k and marked it as minor then fair play, but a 117k edit is minor by any standard, as it didn't affect the content of the article." indicating that they're judging it by the size of the edit.

Since this they have changed the movie box office taking here as a minor edit indicating that they are going to continue their abuse.

I'm now sick of this. Why should people making an effort to comply continue to do so ? Do Wikipedia rules stand for anything or not ? Are there any sanctions that you can apply ? -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 16:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely comfortable with a user seeming to mark their every last edit minor, but I don't recall ever seeing this become a big issue, before; I'd hesitate to take any action without prior discussion, either here with strong support or via a user conduct request for comment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This comes up now and then. I think marking all edits as minor, if all the edits are not minor, can be misleading and disruptive. Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard. Hopefully, one day we'll have a community consensus on whether or not the meta-help pages on edit summaries can be taken as policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is a little too obvious but it seems like the editor in question thinks "minor" has to do with the size of the edit, rather than the actual content. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you tried patiently explaining the difference between major and minor edits? I'll do that now. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (3 ec's) If the editor, for instance made a huge copy-edits to the article, and marked them as minor, then in my view there would be a problem. However, the editor is only making small changes which do not affect the overall standard of the article. While I do agree that he shouldn't mark every edit minor, I don't think a RfC should be started. The editor does try and have an edit summary on most of his edits, I think it would be more troublesome if he went on and ignoring the edit summary block. This edit I think was a good thing, as it was removing unsourced material that was violating WP:BLP from an article. I also didn't like the fact that Daytona templated him, which goes against WP:DTTR, I think a civil message could of solved this instead of bringing it to ANI. If I'm to be honest, I think the templated message caused more trouble than what it's worth. D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see no need for an RFC over this. I too have left a note for the user. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all. Darren hasn't edited in over an hour, currently, so at this point we're probably best served waiting for some response or a return to editing. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * . User links added for ease of navigation. <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I see that while I have been off wiki this seems to have blown up a little. Here is my take, I see Minor edits as edits that don't change anything in a major way. On my watchlist I tend to ignore minor edits, and had assumed this was how most operated. If I post a talk message, or amend my own user space I don't see these as edits to the main space, so they are minor. Reverts of vandalism don't make an accumulated change so I see them as minor. Voting in Xfd is not making a major change to the encyclopedia so it's minor.
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding what people consider a major contribution, but I didn't see any transgression in removing an unsourced sentence for BLP reasons as a major change to the article in question. On the second issue, I didn't appreciate the template, and I didn't appreciate the lecture. As for the Will Smith edit, all that changed were a couple of numbers, I personally didn't see it as a massive edit as the overall contribution on a watchlist would have been (0). Clearly Daytona2 has a problem with this but I don't see that a problem exists materially, but maybe there a slightly different interpretations over what people feel is major and minor. To take the first edit which started this, I don't like leaving fact templates on Bios when the information is essentially gossip, since that edit there has been another  which looks like vandalism, but hasn't yet been reverted, now I ask myself should I revert it? Or is that going to cause problems?
 * Obviously Daytona2 feels that somehow I have caused him a grievance (although to my understanding it is within a user's rights to remove any material from their own talkpage), so I would like for that to be resolved. To sum up I would say that obviously there is a problem in hiding a major edit with a minor edit, I don't feel that I have been doing that, but if others feel that this is the case then I am open to discussion.
 * Of course the question arises how should I mark this? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not as a minor edit. I see you've stopped marking all your edits as minor, thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with User:Luna Santin's comment on User talk:Darrenhusted "I'm not happy with the adversarial way this has been handled, so far" nor with "I agree with Luna that John has been far too confrontational with you" by User:SCZenz. Please detail your objections and the policy/guidelines behind them. Neither am I happy that ANI has been used as a venue by User:Darrenhusted to attack me. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no personal attack here, but perhaps if you can point it out that'd help clarify. All I see is User:Darrenhusted responding with a justification for his editing behaviour in response to your lodging a complaint here; now that he has, it's apparent where he's coming from and now that attention has been drawn to it then it's likely the problem will dissipate. So, in short: perhaps people can move on? Coldmachine Talk 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm being attacked for 'lecturing' him. Until the issues I raised are addressed, this is ongoing. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of what's "minor" might be influenced by the default settings for user preferences. I have accidentally marked non-minor edits as "minor" because I had the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting in my preferences. I think that is one of the default settings for preferences (but I cannot find documentation of the defaults). --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An edit that is possibly controversial should never be marked minor. Because some editors set their Watchlists to not show minor edits, editors who'd need to know about it might miss it, and so it could be considered an attempt to conceal an important change. As a vandal, I'd be sure to mark all my edits minor.... but also as a POV-pusher who didn't care about consensus and the appearance it would create. And, of course, also someone who doesn't understand the implications. It has nothing to do with size, it has to do with possible controversy. I will normally mark spelling and grammar and formatting and other clearly non-controversial changes as minor. But changing one word to, say, remove a POV bias, in my opinion, could be controversial, so I'll leave it major. I don't understand why we even have the option to mark all edits minor be default, seems like a bad idea to me. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sandstein closing AfDs against consensus or reality of sources apparently to oppose me
I'm pretty sure that we have said everything that needs to be said here. Spartaz Humbug! 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Extended discussion
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.' ''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

I am noticing a trend of singling out my arguments inaccurately and dishonestly in a number of AfD closes and therefore ignoring the consensus of others just to apparently oppose my stance. For example:


 * Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction - I cannot see how there was a consensus there
 * Articles for deletion/Commander Dante - article was in active process of dramatic rewrite to acknowledge a major historical figures most commonly used by that name, deleting the article deleted a good basis for an article on the historical figure and was done immediately after it was listed under the relevant real world deletion sorting pages; calling my arguments boilerplate is dishonest when I made numerous posts throughout the discussion and hypocritical when some of the deletes are copy and paste style across multiple AfDs as well; plus, why single me out when others argued to merge?
 * Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) - could have easily been "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness) - again, close rationale focuses on me, when others argued to keep
 * Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind - could have easily been "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Force lightning - could have easily been "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) - could have easily been "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (third nomination) - could have easily been "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Khorne - again dishonest focus on my arguments when I made multiple posts throughout and when a number of the deletes are copy and paste across multiple AfDs
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination) - could have closed as "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths (2nd nomination) - another should have been "no consensus"
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination) - fortunately a DRV overturned this one
 * Articles for deletion/Nom Anor - possible "no consensus"
 * Articles for deletion/Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers - focus in close yet again on me
 * Articles for deletion/Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture - consensus was to merge
 * Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) - no consensus to delete
 * Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination) - no consensus to delete
 * Articles for deletion/Supertall - no consensus to delete
 * Articles for deletion/Time and fate deities in popular culture - no consensus to delete
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama - consensus was to keep
 * Articles for deletion/United Airlines in popular culture - could have been no consensus
 * Articles for deletion/World Eaters - again focus in close on me with the falsehood boilerplate comment when I made posts throughout the discussion and when deletes were copy and pasted across multiple afds

Now by contrast to the above, I have had some pleasant enough interactions with Sandstein and he has made some good closes, and I really really hate to ever comment on anyone at ANI, but talk page discussions seem to not go anywhere lately or even become hostile, and the trend of closing against consensus and particularly focusing on my arguments in the closes rather than the other keep arguments is a bit disconcerting and suggests influence on perhaps dislike of me in the closes or hypocrisy in focusing on one inclusionist's posts as "boilerplate", while not applying that same standard to deletion posts that are just that. Therefore, I propose that the above be relisted and that this admin recuse himself from closing (not commenting it, which is fine, but just closing) on the fence AfDs I am in to avoid any appearance of bias. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not examine each and every one of these closes, but the random sample I looked at seemed like perfectly reasonable closes. The appropriate way to challenge deletions is to raise the issue at WP:DRV.  If there is a consistent pattern of Sandstein's closes being overturned at DRV, then some sort of further action might make sense.  But I don't see any reason for him to recuse himself from closing AfDs that you have participated in just because you don't agree with his assessment of the consensus.  Nandesuka (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the closes disregard the reality of existence of sources or active efforts to improve the article, or make it a point to make false and hypocritical claims about one particular editor in the closing rationale, i.e. he seems to be closing them as delete even if that's not the actual consensus or even if source exist just to oppose a particular editor or out of a personal bias against these sorts of articles. It's not a mere matter of disagreement with his assessment of consensus, it is concern over making a biased assessment of consensus. The Commander Dante and Sonic Shower ones have me most baffled.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that I wasn't clear, so I'll try again. I looked at some of the closes, above, that you characterize as "no consensus to delete", and I completely disagree.  In the samples I checked, I see a clear consensus to delete.  If you believe that Sandstein is getting it wrong, the thing to do is to bring the contested closes to DRV.  Accusing him of making these closes out of personal bias is a terribly serious accusation, and I sincerely hope you have more evidence for that than the above list of AfDs, because they are a terribly thin plank on which to place such a heavy accusation.  Nandesuka (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the ones that I indicate above as should be no consensus there was no clear consensus to delete. An unbiased or neutral closer would see that there was no decisive arguments that should have made these outright deletes.  It's not merely getting it wrong it's making it a point to single me out in some of the closing statements and make false comments about my argument that could be applied to some of the deletes or to close prematurely when some significant revision was made or to ignore sources presented during the discussions.  I and others have tried to discuss with him (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), so I am not alone in my concerns with some of these closes and as you can see it seems as if are disagreements are escalating, where I see no harm in recusing oneself from ones that are close.  If say I was the only keep or something, then okay, but I don't as a non-admin and I wouldn't as an admin close any discussion in which I would give of any even remotely hint of bias and nor would I make it a point to single out any one dissenting opinion in multiple closes.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong there. AfD is not a vote, and Sandstein gave good rationales where there was a discrepancy between the vote count and the consensus which is represented by policy. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If went with policy, they'd be closed as no consensus. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Sandstein does appear a bit irritable, but most of those closes are good.  Sonic shower (currently at DRV on the August 13th log page), for instance, was a reasonable close for the state of the discussion, and only sources found afterwards are changing that.  So, Sandstein, do you need a break?  I and other closers can take over at AfD if you do.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Lifebaka. I don't think I need a break and I don't intend to recuse myself from any process. If I appear irritable, that may be because the lengthy and highly unpersuasive arguments made by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles here, at DRV and on my talk page have become repetitive to such a degree that I view them as frivolous, bordering on disruption. That's why I generally don't bother to reply to them in depth any more (for a previous extended discussion, see here), and I wouldn't fault others for doing likewise. Contrary to what Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles may believe, I am not in the habit of closing AfDs based on any opinions that I may hold about the participants. If I mention particular opinions that I have discounted in my AfD closures, it is generally because I consider this to be necessary to explain the outcome of the AfD.  Sandstein   21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, I find many of these AfDs frivolous and disruptive which is why I challenge them. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the amount of information being presented is so large and nuanced that you ought to consider filing an RfC if you really have a concern, since ANI is not well suited to these disputes. That said, I don't see Sandstein's actions running outside of normal discretion.  MBisanz  talk 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not here to "get Sandstein in trouble" and really don't want to cause as much headache for him as a request for comment would. When all is said and done, I hope that we can both get along and if anything find ways to work constructively.  All I am really seeking is that someone who obviously currently has animosity with any particular editor in AfDs take a step back from closing those discussions as it seems blinding from the reality of some of these discussions, i.e. calling one person's arguments boilerplate while ignoring others' that are so, closing a discussion while a serious reworking of an article is underway with a rationale that a real world article can be created but deleting the start of what could be that real world article, etc.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These closes look within bounds to me. I would agree the place for this is either DRV or an RFC (I suggest the former, not the latter, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with DRVs is that at least one other user makes it a point to go to all my DRVs in opposition to me (see here, yes, this is actually a list kept by another editor of only DRVs that I started...). --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * puuuuuuuuulleeeeze. This is getting really tiring. Your "dramatic rewrite" of Commander Dante is a total red herring, because rewriting an article to add material on a completely different subject is perfectly acceptable post-deletion; you don't need the history of a Space Marine character to do so. This is really the opposite of deliberate targetting - you've proven yourself to be a non-useful gauge of community feeling on AfDs, so closing admins are simply ignoring your comments entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can be bold and dramatically rewrite articles during AfDs, which is what I began to do with the Commander Dante article. There's no harm in having the Space Marine edit history preserved.  In fact, there's a benefit of it being merged elsewhere.  I don't know why you and some others are so uncompromisingly and irrationally bent on deleting stuff without keeping an openmind.  As such, no one should take your comments here or in AfDs seriously as they are to be blunt increasingly dishonest as well.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason is that I am initimitely familiar (prize-winningly familiar) with the source material, and am in an excellent position to gauge its real-world importance. Another part is that my comments have all reflected the current wording and spirit of our notability guidelines. Yet another is that it would be truly irrational for me to be so bent on removing valuable content on Wikipedia that I would go to the bother of writing things just to delete them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed part of Chris Cunningham's comment about Kurt. It's not necessary here at all.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kurt's position is perfectly apt here - he sticks by it, he has his reasons, it never really has an effect on the result of an RfA, and yet that doesn't mean that he is being "targeted" by closing admins where by the numbers he might be a swing !vote. It's a perfectly cromulent analogy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a valid analogy, I just objected (and still do object) to the method in which it was made. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do crats close RfAs based on Kurt? Here, I'm talking about someone specifically mentioning me in his closes. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to get involved in this, but I have to say "hear, hear" to Chris Cunnigham's comments above. Why would Le Grand Roi think that his comments are being ignored?  Probably because of his knee-jerk reaction to vote keep on every single AfD he participates in without any policy to back him up, and his contentious argumentation whenever anybody opposes his viewpoint?  <font face="Comic sans"> Corvus cornix  talk  20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that I have argued or nominated to delete over fifty times now; many of those on the delete side can't say the same for what if any they have argued to keep. So, as usual, I suppose the hypocritical "knee-jerk" deletes that are not based on policy are okay, then?  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, what we have here is an echo of the ever-lingering inclusionist/deletionist debate. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, in my experience, is a meta-inclusionist, which is ok, but consensus doesn't support his take any more than consensus is likely to always support anyone's keen take on inclusion/deletion. I don't think this is the place to try swaying consensus on deletion policy and I don't think Sandstein closed those AfDs out of spite towards Citrouilles. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider Articles for deletion/World Eaters, I made multiple posts, which is hardly "boilerplate" and by contrast a few of those who posted to delete copied and pasted their posts across multiple AfDs, but why not comment on that? Articles for deletion/Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers, why comment only to me?  Articles for deletion/Khorne, again with the "boilerplate" accusation when I posted several times throughout the discussion and those on the deletion side themselves copied and pasted across multiple AfDs.  Articles for deletion/Commander Dante, why if you think a real article can be written would you delete the basis for such an article, and yet again the dishonest "boilerplate" claim when I made all sorts of posts unique to that discussion throughout and that guy is known as Commander Dante and not his real name a lot like how Stalin is not known by his actual last name.  And yes, again, we had some copy and paste deletes that aren't mentioned in the close.  Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness), of the two keeps, I am the one commented to.  Etc.  I naturally expect as I see from some of the posts above that any thread I start such as this one has a good chance of being derailed by the diehard deletionists (I am not of course calling Gwen one) from these discussions, but I have to do what I believe is right whether I am hopefully of getting somewhere or not. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness), of the two keeps, I am the one commented to." Incorrect.  Look again, I didn't reply to your post, I replied to the one following your post.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)  Oops, I thought you were referring to my comment, whereas I'm now guessing you are referring to the closer's comments.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't say I'm a "diehard deletionist," though I likely had that coming for calling you a "meta-inclusionist." :) However they got there, I see an overwhelming consensus to delete at Articles for deletion/World Eaters. Again, if you think the discussion was oddly bent somehow, please do take it to DRV. FDR called him Uncle Joe, by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I said, I am NOT calling you a diehard deletionist. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look like good closes to me. Most of those ought to have been deleted. Shouting 'Five Pillars' over and over makes you look like a deranged Doric architect, and it seems that others have caught on to that, and disregard it as you rarely specify how any given article fits that directly. At best you throw a link to google up, as if people are too stupid to do so for themselves. Consider each articles merits based not upon inclusionist philosophy, but on the article's quality, and relevance. Read the sources your google search pops up too. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they were all bad closes that disregarded the sources and policy reasons given for keeping and in many cases were in AfDs with people just shouting "nnontable" without any actual basis. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've said that enough times. I think everyone here understands that you think they were bad closes. Liek you've been advised, take ones you disagree with to DRV, the appropriate forum for your concerns. FWIW, you've probably lost a lot of clout with AfD concerns based on your blind judgment of RfA candidates for a few AfDs you disagree with. Tan      39  21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See reply below. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is so clear, then obviously taking the closes to DRV will result in them being reversed. In the meantime, I don't see any indication that administrative action of any kind is required here. Nandesuka (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem there is as indicated above, a couple oppose my DRVs regardless of merit. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire argument is a non-starter. There is nothing to indicate that these closes have any kind of "vendetta" element to them, and I don't see any egregious issues with any of the closes. As has been stated, the proper way to handle a disagreement over a closure is at DRV - if it was a bad close, it'll get overturned. There is absolutely nothing here requiring administrative intervention. That an editor does not see eye to eye with you is not a reason for a report. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply absurd. This admin is not seeking you out and closing to spite you.  He is just being more verbose than others.  Your arguments in most AfD's ARE at variance with policy and are largely boilerplate--two good reasons to discount them.  He is TRYING, just as other editors have, to tell you that you will face strong diminishing returns on arguments that are ineffective.  Rather than accepting this advice you are attempting to punish him for giving it.  Perhaps....just perhaps it isn't masses of editors opposing your without merit.  PERHAPS there is merit in the opposing viewpoint and you don't se it. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the arguments aren't direct copy-and-pastes, they're pretty meaningless. "Keep per the 5 pillars" is basically like saying "Keep per policy." Most policies aren't even inclusion criteria. The second and third pillars are completely irrelevant to inclusion. To use a random example, on Articles for deletion/World Eaters, the nomination was based on a lack of reliable secondary sources, lack of notability, and verifiability issues. I fail to see how the 5 pillars even applied there, the article was almost entirely unsourced. After the first question, you deemed the nomination incoherent (I might be offended if I were the nominator, but that's just me). Later, after basically citing every policy in your initial keep reason, and claiming that the article is notable (using entirely different criteria from WP:N, which is linked to in the 5 pillars by the way) you argue to keep based on IAR. I hate to say things like this, but any problems other editors have with your AFD/DRV participation are probably in large part your own doing. If people complain about your comments, continuing to make them, then complaining here to have them stay away from you, is not a good course of action. I think if you have an unpopular opinion, being prepared to deal with things like this should be a prerequisite. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! exactly what I said, but maybe longer and nicer. thank you Z man. ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD and DRV behavior as Disruptive
Well, I thought this conversation was finished, and then I nipped over to DRV to see if any of these had been raised yet, and I found this. As near as I can tell, Le Grand Roi's argument goes like this: There was an article about Person A that was on the verge of deletion. As part of contesting the AfD, Le Grand Roi found some sources discussing a completely unrelated Person B who had the same name. Therefore, the deletion should not have happened / must be reversed, because of the necessity of an article about Person B. To be blunt, I view this argument as being so clearly specious and post-facto that it is practically insulting. Rather than focusing on Sandstein's closes, I'd like to solicit opinions about whether this sort of behavior rises to the level of disruption. Contesting AfDs vigorously is one thing -- emotions run high, and I think we all cut people on both sides of a deletion debate a little slack. But making this sort of plainly specious argument the crux of a DRV requires, in my opinion, a certain sort of calm deliberation gone completely wrong that goes beyond merely hitting the commit button a bit too fast. Your thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the DRV list he links to, he has a success rate of about 1 in 20 DRVs, that seems so far on the low side as to require further scrutiny.  MBisanz  talk 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LGRC has of late filled the role of perhaps the most strident inclusionism crusader on AfD/DRV. This is not a bad thing, in and of itself.  He may be prone to the use of generic boilerplate in discussions and he may be prone to contesting deletions on what we might deem as specious arguments, but again, these things are not in and of themselves problematic.  It is neither pointy nor disruptive.  Whether or not LGRC's strident defense of virtually all material on Wikipedia is well-considered or rational is something that only the individual can decide for themselves, but these ideas and arguments are his opinion and he is welcome to have and express them.  There is nothing wrong with having a lopsided opinion and there is nothing wrong with having a poor record of success at DRV.  <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that repeatedly using specious arguments to contest deletions, when those aruments have been shown to be specious in previous cases, could well be considered both pointy and disruptive. There's no reason why users should have to waste time refuting LGRdC's limited stock of ploys over and over again. I'm sure he hopes that he will eventually prevail by simply wearing everyone else down, but I take issue with the opinion that there's nothing wrong with it. Deor (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree in principle - it's just that in my opinion I've considered LGRC's efforts to be misguided, not disruptive. However, in light of some of the links/diffs that are being presented below I'm beginning to question my original assessment of the situation.  It's one thing to repeatedly use silly arguments, but it is another to continue to do so even after it has been demonstrated that said behavior is creating a drain on the community, and it appears he's been told so.  So, yes, I am reconsidering my position. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the third time he's tried this tactic: see Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) and Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind. Response on each occasion has been universally negative. As far as "disruptive" means "wasting a disproportionate amount of other editors' time", I'd certainly regard it as disruptive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would generally have to agree here with Nandesuka. There was another (fourth) AfD here in which something similar happened.  That article started out all about a fictional tribe in World of Warcraft (with no independent sources to demonstrate notability).  Over the course of the AfD, this was transformed from the non-notable article it was to the one that currently demonstrates notability about the completely unrelated Arathi religion.  (Note:  I even argued to keep the *newly created* article that didn't have any of the WoW stuff in it.)  Despite the fact that I argued to keep the new (now notable  yet unrelated) article, I do not wish that episode to start a precedent, but it has already been pointed to as one.  I agree that arguing to keep an article in the fashion you mention, i.e. find something completely unrelated to the current subject of the article and try to shoe-horn it into the article in question is a Bad IdeaTM.  If, in the course of searching for references for subject A, references are found for subject B, a *new* article should (or, at the least, could) be started, and, if needed a disambiguation page can be created.  Otherwise, we might end up with coatracks which include a lot of miscellaneous, generally non-notable, indiscriminate information, possibly masquerading behind an otherwise notable topic.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fifth AfD (still running): Articles for deletion/Kamino, where the information he added to the article in an effort to "rescue" it was laughably irrelevant. Deor (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (3x edit conflict) ) The other type of DRV filings he started doing excessively was that "nominator was a sockpuppet, overturn the AfD" after the AfDs had already been closed with a clear consensus to be deleted. He did this after being rebuked in several of these DRVs that the opinion of the nominator was irrelevant in light of the overall consensus, and the consensus was more or less a fait accompli. It's one thing to do it for one or two DRVs and then be told that it didn't affect the overall consensus, but to do so after that is tendentious. That and his conduct in the AfDs themselves should be a subject of scrutiny. It's one thing to have a very inclusionist deletion philosophy. I don't have a problem with that (as seriously as a !vote citing WP:5P can be taken in an AfD). I have a problem with commenting on others !votes with specious and almost trivial reasons (i.e. WP:PERNOM to every "per nom" delete !vote - but never to a keep !vote, WP:JNN to any delete !vote mentioning notability, even if it explains the reasons the article is non-notable, and perhaps the most egregious, WP:ITSCRUFT to even the mention of the word "cruft" in discussion). Again, I don't care about his inclusion philosophy. His conduct in AfDs has gotten to the point where editors simply don't bother to respond to him because it leads to an argument sunk in verbose nonsense and leads to WP:TE very quickly. I've asked him on several times to change the manner in which he presents his arguments to other users, but he's never heeded anything I've said. I consider myself a calm individual, but the manner in which he discusses in AfDs approaches such a point that I've lost my temper at certain points. <font face="Verdana"> sephiroth bcr ( converse ) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did begin drafting a proposal for a DRV topic ban on Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles a few days ago on account of his repeated frivolous DRV nominations. I then decided it wasn't worth the bother, but it appears several other editors here share my concern. I personally feel it's not that much of a problem on AfD, because there one may simply ignore him.  Sandstein   22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd personally oppose a topic ban, just because sometimes he's right. Yes, I'm aware this was a time I agreed with him, but if there's even a chance of his stance being the correct one, I believe that we need to give him the chance.  Because, simply, it's no OK to delete articles if there isn't actually a consensus for it, regardless of inclusionist/deletionist leanings.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As they say even a broken clock is right twice a day. There is a question of trade off between the amount of disruption when wrong against the positives of being right (factoring that other may nominate the same article for DRV in his absence). Regardless this seems like a RFC issue in the first issue to allow some self behaviour modification if appropriate before more formal action. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would never respect a request for comment filed by hypocritical and incivil extreme deletionists. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If LGRdC can create an entire new article about the things/people which happens to share the same name, as I effectively did with Macaroni soup, but with starting the article afresh, of course he can recreate them. But we don't need it to go to DRV for that, though he might like to make them in user space first and get someone to take a look. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem arises more from him creating bizarre quasi-disambiguation pages during AfDs that contain information on both the original, nominated fictional character as well as the alternate subject he's found. Your work on Macaroni soup was more akin to converting a non-notable description of a subject into a notable one, as opposed to combining non-notable and notable in one confusing article. I certainly have no objection to him creating a new article on a new, notable subject. ~ mazca  t 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find Le Grand's keep arguments sensible only in 8th-dimension MC Escher-space, yes, but generally he's not disruptive. The only exception I can find -- and it's recent, and I suspect an outlier -- is cutting content actively under discussion for deletion and indiscriminately pasting it into a (probably appropriate) other place; what remained at the article actually open for deletion was a dab. page of sorts, although including a dubiously notable real-world person. (It was the above comment about a fictional Dante/real Dante overlap that even sparked this recollection.) In my mind, it was a cheap way to preserve cruft; but, in my mind I also believed he was just trying to preserve content and avoid a redlink. We had a back-and-forth over it over edit summaries and a deleted talk-page comment, but he eventually settled with the status quo. The whole time, though, I assumed (annoying) good faith. --EEMIV (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to concur that LGRC's behaviour in DRV has risen to the level of disruptive. When he's told on August 13 that he can request that a deleted article can be userfied upon request and then on August 14 starts another DRV instead of asking for userfication opens yet another spurious DRV, he needs to be reigned in. Whether that rises to the level of a topic ban, I don't know, but at the very least his DRVs should be held to strict scrutiny and admins should have the power to speedily close them if they are patent nonsense. As for his behaviour in AFD, I so dread the idea of dealing with him there that I have for all intents and purposes abandoned participation. When one editor's behaviour rises to the level of actively discouraging other editors from participating, that editor's behaviour needs to be addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to see Otto4711's behavior in AfDs has risen to the level of disruption as he keeps renominating articles for deletion that closed as unambiguous keeps. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: ban on certain tactics
It's not the inclusionism that's annoying, it's the lameness. An agreement simply to refrain from certain guaranteed annoyances which never influence anyone would be nice:


 * 1) The WP:5P boilerplate crap has to stop.
 * 2) The "there's an entirely unrelated subject also called X, so we should make this an article about both" argument should be banned.
 * 3) The persistent WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT spamming of every single user who uses the keyword "notable" or "cruft" on an AfD has to go.

That would be fine for me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be satisfied if he were (1) restricted to a single !vote statement (supported by any rationale he chooses) plus one additional comment in any AfD or DRV discussion and (2) banned from nominating, for a specified time, at DRV. (Note that in the DRV referred to above by Lifebaka as an instance of LGRdC's being right, he was not the nominator.) Deor (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can support all of these proposals. Can we also make him delete "happy editing!" from his signature? Because that is seriously annoying. Otto4711 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you guys really doing this? Really? You're actually trying to punish someone because they actively oppose Wikipedia's recent trend of mass deletionism? Consensus? More like cancerous mob rule. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be equating objections to a particular editor's methods with an overall trend of mass deletionism. That said, I don't personally see a need for a topic or action ban on LGRdC at this time, although I personally think he should tone down the doomed DRVs. ~ mazca  t 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worthwhile to say "You are in grave danger of having your ability to comment on AfD's and DRV's curtailed. Please use more discretion about which articles you'd like to keep." Then monitor the situation. I'd be reluctant to have any sort of ban without a formal warning and a chance to change behavior. Fair? IronDuke  23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go for that. He's a congenial editor and willing to discuss things, even if it hasn't changed the way he responds to AfDs in the past month of trying. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)There has been a definite trend of mass deletionism on fiction-related English Wiki articles for about two years now, actually. LGRdC's methods could be toned down, but then agin he's one of the ten or less serious Wikipedians I've seen opposing this sort of thing. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the number of articles in en-wp has shrunk noticeably in the last two years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm..huh? is that true or are you being tongue-in-cheek? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that was intended to be sarcastic. <font face="Verdana"> sephiroth bcr ( converse ) 00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tongue in cheek. I think it's fair to say that the deletionist cabal is doing a pretty crappy job of destroying Wikipedia from within. It's fortunate that there isn't a relegation zone in the Cabal League, to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's for real. It's a little known fact that for every article created, two are deleted, for efficiency's sake. According to my calculations, at the current rate of attrition wikipedia will be the null-set by March 31, 2077. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose any attempt to impose any form of restriction of Le Grand Roi. He is perfectly civil, reasonable, and works hard to address problems. It is hard to believe there is any motive here other than a feeling that he is obstructing the elimination of content that some people feel is "cruft". Everyking (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not reasonable to continue to advance arguments which have been repeatedly rejected in the vain hope that those arguments will slip by unnoticed. The arguments that LGRC continues to advance have been roundly rejected at AFD and DRV and his insistence on advancincing them suggests that he will continue as he has been, regardless of waht aguments are advanced agaunst him. Otto4711 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: ban of Otto4711, Deor, and Thumperward on certain tactics
Everything above comes from hypocrisy of these extreme deletionists and everythuing they allege against me can be spun back at them even more fold. These editors:


 * 1) The non-notable boilerplate crap has to stop.
 * 2) The other dishonest dismissal of reliable sources argument should be banned.
 * 3) The persistent spamming of every single user who argues to keep or excessive use "cruft" on an AfD has to go.

And Deor needs to be restricted to one comment per AfD. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that this is exactly why people consider you aggravating? We don't care about your inclusion philosophy. We care about ridiculous actions like this that make interaction with you impossible. <font face="Verdana"> sephiroth bcr ( converse ) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to take seriously a collection of extreme deletionists assuming bad faith and lying and all jumping on the bandwagon of wikidrama and disruption. No good faith non-extreme deletionist editor has any issues with me.  And if those who only argue to delete, make frivolous nominations, make boilerplate delete votes, make it a point to harass those who argue to keep, want to jump on this nonsensical pile on, well, let's see how well they can defend their own actions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful, LGRC - the counter-proposal here comes across as being somewhat pointy and disruptive and only serves to reinforce some of the arguments that are being made against you. It also seems a bit out of character, generally you have always struck me as being, at the very least, genial and good-natured and not the sort to do this kind of thing. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I see some logic there and while I could post a tremendous amount of diffs that would expose them for the hypocrites that they are, in fact every reasonable editor knows that the only ones making the proposals against me are in fact extreme deletionists making them in bad faith, so from this post on I am going to ignore this thread and any other nonsense they start and if they want to go own fawning over themselves, well, that's time they aren't spending trying to delete other editors' volunteer work. Have a nice night!   --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to calm down. I know you didn't mean to directly accuse every editor who has raised a comment on your behaviour here as a bad, faith, extreme deletionist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Entering in before wall of text argument. They're just going to defend their actions by saying "our radical boilerplate arguments and etc are well founded in Wikipedia policy yours are not.". nothing good will come of this battle. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Although we often disagree on AfDs, I wouldn't support a broad topic ban. Moreover, I think it's ok and even helpful for an inclusionist to steadily participate in AfDs. Hopefully, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles will take this thread to heart, coming to understand that some of his tactics have been disruptive and either way, are likely dampening support for what he's trying to do, rather than stirring editors into notions of wider inclusion. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I asked about this editor on AN, i was pretty much brushed off. When I mentioned the problem to the editor directly, I received nonsense in response. When I asked him to stop, I again received nonsense. I would also like to point out the disturbing way that this editor canvassed for votes in this particular discussion, User_talk:222.107.186.139, User talk:76.235.177.69, User talk:75.41.120.83, User talk:86.140.169.104, User talk:76.178.195.38, and User talk:65.94.137.55. All of these edits were disguised as "Welcome!" messages. This action isn't confused or "enthusiastic", it is deliberate. The "if you don't like it, don't respond" argument doesn't work, because he just keeps on going, and some editors may not realize that all of the "polices" he references and the argyuments he makes are actually nonsense. This is gaming the system at it's worst and most confusing. ~ <font color="#206080">JohnnyMrNinja  01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So that I truly inderstand where he is coming from, I need to know if an accurate translation of his name is "The Large King of Pumpkins" as Babel Fish machine translation tells me. Edison (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to archiving this whole discussion before someone seriously loses their temper?
Any objection to archiving this whole discussion before someone seriously loses their temper? This is going nowhere, most AfDs and DRVs are going according to consensus, which may change and if it does, then it does..Its just hte same old trench warfare at AfD (yawn) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection. At least the conversation's been had somewhere other than user talk and on random AfDs for once. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection.  I have warned Le Grand Roi specifically against using the "bait and switch" argument at DRV again, since consensus seemed unanimous that this is an unacceptable waste of DRV's time.  Nandesuka (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.' ''
 * }
 * }