Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User/Article Problem[edit]

Drugwipe test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Purechi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure where to post this. Another editor asked for editor assistance on EAR here. I and another editor got involved and posted warnings on Purechi's Talk page. He responded on his Talk page and continued to edit the article. As I noted on EAR, the article itself is problematic, but the edit war is also completely unconstructive. I have stopped reverting for that reason. But I don't really know what should be done. What Purechi is doing isn't really vandalism, even though Ian and I called it that (with added explanations). It's the kind of dispute that should be taken to the Talk page. What troubles me even more is the possible conflict of interest on Purechi's part. His only contributions to Wikipedia have been to this article and the Black cocaine article, which links to this article. I'd like some guidance on how to handle this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a POV pusher to me. The editor was given incorrect warnings as far as vandalism goes, so I'll leave a correct one on their talk page. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (I'd already added the ANI notice). I've been doing some poking around on the web to try to find out more about the technology. Most sources are companies trying to sell it or consulting services. However, I've found a little bit of information that might be sufficient to source the technology. The article would still have to be pared way down to eliminate what reads like an advertisement/instruction manual and just reports on what the technology is used for and its accuracy ratings. Assuming that could be done, do others feel it's sufficiently notable? I don't know what other kinds of articles Wikipedia has on drug testing. I don't want to go to all the trouble if it's for naught. I also don't want to start severely editing the article if it's going to be disrupted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, no POV pushing here (haha). Not sure why this editor reported me for removing very damaging personal views on a page that was stating facts, and only the facts. Additional reference links will be added to the page to verify the technology and how accurate and useful it is. Then the readers can form their own opinions. Thanks!Purechi (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

The only valid reference used is to the Druid trial on a whole range of oral fluid screening devices. Apart from that and a reference in Finnish(!)it is uncited. At the moment Bbb23 is right - it looks like an advert. Purechi's last two sentences above are a worry. I would suggest an article on oral fluid screening devices instead.Fainites barleyscribs 23:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I've cut back the article, although there are still unsourced claims. Purechi promises to add sources. Usually, I would remove the unsourced claims until the sources are added, but some slack can be given. Hopefully, Purechi will leave my most recent changes alone. If not, I intend to stop absent some administrative intervention, or guidance as to how to deal with this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another U2 vandal...[edit]

An IP ( ) is claiming that they have a consensus on the talk page to say the band is irish, but the talk page clearly reads "NO CONSENSUS" about it. As such it should not say they are an irish band; correct? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Barts1a for both edit warring and falsely accusing the editors he's edit warring with of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His use of rollback isn't ideal either. AniMate 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hixteilchen, discussion closures, and overall disruption[edit]

User was warned 3 weeks ago regarding closing deletion discussions, (User talk:Hixteilchen#Blanking AFDs and removing AFD tags), but it seems to have not quite sunk in yet, as this user tagged a DRV as closed today.

There's also an issue of behavior relating to the Rachel Roxxx article; it was deleted and upheld at DRV a few weeks ago, but has since been recreated on the basis of now meeting the disputed WP:PORNBIO. I have taken that to a 2nd AfD, but in the meantime, Hixteilchen has gone around bragging about the article's recreation; once at the subject's talk page (reverted by me per soapboxing concerns) and another on the old DRV page, weeks after the DRV closed (reverted by an anon).

IMO this needs some sort of admin attention, whether to follow up on Spartaz' "do it again and you will be blocked" admonition following the first transgression or sometihng lighter I am neutral on. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't see the issue with the DRV close, since he raised the DRV, it's really a withdrawal of the request. No comment on the rest, beyond not seeing it as an AN/I issue. -- (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I closed the DRV as withdrawn. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't know how to start to consider the means by which one deals with a "moralic winner" editor... except for an indef block while I try to find out, I suppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the size of the editor's ego; it hasn't received any delete votes yet, there are references which go to the top of the industry; definitely notable! I think the nominator just doesn't like that they didn't write it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, the hell is this "doesn't like that they didn't write it" shit? I nominated it because the criteria that its rests upon, WP:PORNBIO #3, is disputed at the moment. I had assumed that it would go like the DRV for Capri Anderson, but the WikiPorn project is out in force tonight, so that's the way these things go sometimes... Tarc (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: VOA blocked. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this user, Ben-Bopper (talk · contribs), has a long term history of bad edits. A search of their talkpage shows the following warnings, among others:

  • Adding unsourced info to a Family Guy episode list
  • Bowdlerizing swear words
  • Incorrect edits to Intel, Midway Games, etc.
  • Vandalism at 2 Girls 1 Cup, Transamerica (film), etc.

He was given an "only warning" on November 2010, and after that, created two bad articles (one of which was THIS VIDEO WILL BE FLAGGED, a non-notable YouTube meme). Since then, I've also seen vandalism at Endemol diff, blatant OR on Growing Up Creepie diff, vandalism on a Legend of Zelda article diff, and bowdlerized yet another article diff. He also made a blatant WP:PUTEFFORT violation in creating The Way It Really Is (song). Any good faith edit he makes is only a minimal cleanup task, such as reversion of tiny bouts of vandalism, or properly piping links in infoboxes. What's more, he hasn't answered the scads of warnings on his talk page.

tl;dr: We clearly have a problem editor here as his good edits are insubstantial and his bad edits are very problematic. I suggest a block ASAP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Going through his contributions also reveals that he has had some problematic edits per TenPoundHammer's comment above. I agree that he should be blocked as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The editor has been here nearly a year and has yet to make a talk page edit or user talk page edit. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Indef block - No talk page edits after multiple warnings? No user talk page edits? Continues to vandalise? It's preventative to block. Jusdafax 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block - Ben-Bopper is a classic example of a user who refuses to respond to talk page replies while damaging several articles, as it has been with another user who vandalized film articles before he was blocked indefinitely. He is also a perfect example of damaging several articles, but I think this all needs to be brought to a necessary end with an indef block. Enough is definitely enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as above. No talk edits anywhere in 8 months? Wow. - KrakatoaKatie 05:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom[edit]

This has just been started, will some non-involved Admin please close it as a WP:Point nomination. Not saying that this is the motive of the nominator, but for a long time there have been attempts to put a racist spin on this article, mainly by IPs, add it to the hate crime category (despite the statements by officials that it was not a hate crime), push it in the readers' faces that this was a crime where blacks killed whites, etc. This particular editor, not happy with not being able to get his own way, is using the AfD process to get his way. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've just looked at this new account's contributions, pretty much an SPA on racial issues, and has now created another racial [[AfD, Tammy Chapman. I'll notify the editor of this discussion, but I've lost any GF and wonder if we have a sock here.Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't nominate it, he just commented. And I don't think that AfD has anything to do with race. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bongwarrior on this. The AFD that started this thread was obviously pointy, but the Chapman AFD was started by a different editor and on the surface doesn't seem to have anything to do with racial issues. --RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, my bad, many many apologies, too much multi-tasking too early in the morning. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The button spamming[edit]

Moved to WT:AN § The button spamming: GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


{{hat|Frivolous complaint and petty bickering. No admin action required. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)}}
Following a rather insulting exchange at AfD, I told User:TreasuryTag not to comment on my user page. However, he did so just moments later. I would really appreciate some help with this.--TM 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so Namiba has decided that ANI isn't such an evil waste of time as he once claimed it to be.
As for the substance of this non-issue, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had a policy against the mild use of sarcasm (and it seems that many, many contributors are equally unaware of this if so!), and if someone coudl refer me to it so I can check out exactly what is and isn't covered, then I will be glad to modify my rhetoric accordingly.
(Incidentally, I'm practically certain that we do have a policy against personal attacks, so if someone uninvolved could warn Namiba accordingly... Thanks.) ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest thickening up the skin a bit; it was hardly a personal attack to call you arrogant, and frankly I've seen much worse from you yourself in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have made anything of it if Namiba hadn't conveniently provided me with a forum in which to do so. It's certainly worse than whatever I somehow offended him with in the first place, is my point – nevertheless, it is most certainly a personal attack, albeit a very minor one. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's unjustified, then certainly. But I don't really feel like delving into the argument which lead to Namiba to asking you to stay off their talk page and you to (again) very helpfully posting to their talk page immediately afterwards to find out who was arrogant and who was being a bit rude, and right now I don't see any reason why admins need to get involved in this situation one way or another. Disputes happen, sometimes words get heated and people are petty. I'd suggest you both stay away from each other and go do something constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page 'bans' are a bit of a weird case. I would recommend that Treasury Tag avoid Namiba's talk page (unless there is something of substance that needs to be communicated; {{tb}} pointers to ongoing discussions are unnecessary and annoying). I would also recommend that Namiba not look so hard for "attacks" and "insults" in other editors' posts, but rather concentrate on the substance of the message itself. pablo 16:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm—for what it's worth, I consider {{tb}} to have a very important purpose: aside from its use as a courtesy to let others know that you've replied to them (I frequently miss individual responses in long discussions) it also ensures that nobody can 'decide not to notice difficult comments'. In other words, it avoids playing the, "Oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't see that one," game and makes sure that whenver a comment is deliberately ignored, that fact is on the record. ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What action are you looking for from administrators, Namiba? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Well, User:Jerzeykydd was blocked for a month for doing the exact same thing as Treasury Tag has done; however, if this is judged too much, I am fine with a warning to TreasuryTag to be more WP:CIVIL (particularly in AfD's) and to stay off of my talk page, as I requested.--TM 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Looks to me as if he was blocked for harassment, not for disobeying a Direktiv of yours to keep off your talkpage... (And FWIW I will accept a warning on neither point on this issue.) ╟─TreasuryTaginternational waters─╢ 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blocks are preventative, not punitive. TT, Namiba has made it very clear that they do not wish any further correspondence with you. By all means leave them whatever notices policy recommends (AfD notifications where they're involved, notifications if they're involved in a noticeboard discussion), otherwise drop the stick and stay away. Namiba, if you want to avoid interaction with TT, it wasn't incredibly constructive dragging them to ANI over an issue which doesn't actually warrant admin attention. I'd suggest you avoid TT also. Is this acceptable to both parties? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
TT, Namiba has made it very clear that they do not wish any further correspondence with you. Well thanks for your helpful summing-up of this incident. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And as a side-note to TT, making a WP:POINT by leaving a completely unnecessary message on a user's talk page after being asked not to is disruptive, and disruptive editing is not condoned on wikipedia. Continuing to do so may also very well be considered harrassment. If you have no legitimate reason to need to contact Nambia and they have made it clear they don't desire to communicate with you, just leave it be. This isn't the first time editors have made similar complaints about your conduct. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please link to this "completely unnecessary message" I left? ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you should read this about Jerzeykydd's harassment and subsequent block. He was warned not to comment on my talk page, did so and was blocked. With the continued actions of TreasuryTag, I think it is clear that a block is probably more in order given his unwillingness to obey even a warning about harassment.--TM 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly – you've hit the nail on the head with your use of the passive voice. He was warned not to comment on your talkpage. This means that another, neutral editor issued the instruction. I very much doubt that had you been the only one whining, "DONT COMMENT ON MY TALKPAGE OK!!!" that he would have received a block. Individual editors may not issue Direktivs to others banning them from their talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Enough. Are you both going to agree to play nice and leave each other alone (and end the issue) or are you planning on dragging the community through another interaction ban discussion because you're both too stubborn to stop battling it out and go do something constructive? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Barring colleges from one's talkpage is quite tricky. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As usual, you're not helping much... ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have unhatted - with the template and commentary intact for reactivation - since I was looking for the relevant policy/guideline; which appears to be WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. It is fairly clear that disregarding a request such as that made by Namiba is specifically discouraged, and therefore the post made to this page is not trivial. There is the issue that a previous poster was sanctioned for posting to the same contributors talkpage (after a warning) and that even AGF'ing Treasury Tag was unaware of this past issue it might be considered within the admin remit to remind TT of the guideline and strongly suggest that they do not make any similar post. I will note my comments here to TT, as a form of noting them of the guideline, and HJ Mitchell (as an example of the courtesy we should be encouraging between contributors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I, and I believe another administrator, have warned TreasuryTag about this recently, and yet has refused to follow policy on this. I think that a block is in order. NW (Talk) 17:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    How many hours has it been since I last edited Namiba's talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 17:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying that you don't plan to do this again? Bearing in mind this is almost identical to what happened with you and Giano. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    If there is no ongoing disruption, it is not clear what a short block would be preventing. And I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    If that's how you feel, maybe an indefinite length (i.e. however long is necessary) block would be suitable? Although I personally feel even a shorter block would encourage you to not repeat these kinds of actions in future, and thus would be preventative (ditto NW: support block). I also feel Namiba could use a stern warning about incivility towards TT, which in this case clearly inflamed the situation. Not that this excuses TT's reactions in anyway. Other users following this may also want to have a look at this thread on TT's talk page. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Given that I clearly stated, "I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case," I am unclear as to what gave you the impression that I would support an indefinite block of myself... ╟─TreasuryTagRegent─╢ 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    And would I be correct in saying that you, Kingpin, are in two minds over the issue of a block, then? ╟─TreasuryTagpresiding officer─╢ 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Better to be indefinitely blocked than definitely blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)}
    Well, an indefinite block doesn't have to be long. No, I'm not in two minds. I said then that I didn't support a block at that point as I felt a better route would be for you to instead "simply leave this issue alone", and not repeat these kinds of actions in future. I see every indication that you have no intention of doing this (and do plan to repeat these disruptive actions), so I now feel a block would be a good idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    "An indefinite block doesn't have to be long," true. In which case it is a short block of the sort I referred to. Still not following you on that approach. And may I ask to be reminded of where I stated that I "plan to repeat" the actions this thread is complaining about? ╟─TreasuryTagconsulate─╢ 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Again bearing in mind that you've previously (independently of this incident) made these kinds of actions. Also, I didn't say you stated that, I said it was implied. How was it implied? Well, (1) by saying that an indefinite block would be long, you imply that it would be necessary for a block to be long because (presumably) otherwise you would continue the actions. (2) By not admitting that what you did was wrong, you imply that you will have no problem repeating this in future. (3) By saying "I [...] cannot moderate my conduct accordingly" full context (the reason being that you do not understand how what you did was wrong, see point #2). - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Aha, I knew you'd bring up that diff, which – as is obvious from the timestamp – took place before you stated that you were opposed to a block. So that is clearly not a factor which changed your mind. As for (1), I did not especially say that, you are playing semantic games in which I have no interest. I clearly stated that, given that there is no ongoing disruption now, a short block would be punitive. And a long block would be overkill. An indefinite block can be either short or long, and would therefore be either punitive or overkill. Not complicated.
    As for (2), no, I don't think that what I did was wrong. But that itself is not a blockable offence.
    Can I just also point out that we are the only two people arguing, and it's quite dull, and I'm willing to stop if you are. ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Well I clearly still hoped you would change your mind at that point (a user makes an action > gets warned > disagrees that they should be warned, indicates they will repeat the action > gets blocked, makes some sense to me. Saying that they shouldn't be blocked because they got warned instead doesn't make much sense, since the warning was ineffective (unfortunately)). Well no, an indefinite block would be in place until the very point at which it was evident that you no longer were going to cause this kind of disruption. If it's going to be overly long due to stubbornness on your part (or whatever other reason), then I would support a short block instead (I don't want you getting blocked for a year, for example), as a deterrent from future behaviour (encouraging more productive, congenial editing in future), as I believe that at present the chances of you repeating this are extremely high (see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goals). I'm happy for us both to take a break from this and allow some other users to offer input. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If TT & TM have agreed to stay off each other's talkpage? blocking won't be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue at this stage is the wider pattern demonstrated by TT's repeated incidents of this nature with other users. There are concerns that a block may be necessary to prevent TT doing the same thing again with the same or other users as xe has numerous times in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The closing admin should note the above editor's repeated displays of bias against me and our general past history. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest either providing evidence of my "repeated displays of bias against you" rather than a diff of a notice you apparently decided to write about me on your own talk page without my knowledge, or withdrawing the claim of "displays of bias" which is a pretty blatant personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It was not without your knowledge; it merely recorded for posterity you deleting my message to you on your talkpage. To say that someone is biased is not a personal attack, but for reference, in no particular order: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]+[6]+[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and, finally, various bits on [12]╟─TreasuryTagYou may go away now.─╢ 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into whatever semantic debate you want to lure me into, whether "bias" is a behaviour or a state of mind, whatever. I have provided evidence above, so your claim of personal attack no longer has even the slightest validity. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Treasury, please consider the possibility that nobody is taking your side because you are just plain wrong. It happens, nobody is perfect. You don't have to agree that you were rude, but you are going to need to agree to abide by consensus on this. If there is no urgent reason to continue posting on a user's page after they have asked you to stop, continuing to do so exceeds the bounds of WP:AGF and is a bad-faith action intended to inflame rather than resolve a situation. Whether you wish to "accept it" or not you can and should consider yourself appropriately warned not to do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly this type of behavior by TT is continuing here (imo, fwiw, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, why has a RfC/U not been filed? If it were, other editors can comment on the underlying issues, and if that doesn't end up with a desirable resolution in the long term for the project, then at least it shows for a more formal attempt to sort it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi and Iranian Propaganda[edit]

Resolved: Warnings issued. --Elonka 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This user persistently engaged in propaganda and deletes the information from the articles. Made him two warnings to which he responded inadequately and called my actions - "garbage". Balochistan conflict and Jundallah - he edit warring and removes the sources and was promoting the propaganda of the Iranian government and Ahmadinejad. I ask the administration to pay attention to this wikipedia provocateur and limit his participation in the project. Now, in order:
one unsourced change
two unsourced change
three unsourced change
four propaganda by Iranian government
five unsourced change and bias lie
he doesn't red sources but changes the information
unsourced lie
The same thing in another article - Jundallah. For the propaganda his need to block indefinitely.Sentinel R (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is a problem here, though with the personal attacks being thrown by both sides, it's not clear who is in the right or the wrong. Please start by keeping comments civil and focusing on discussing the article's content, not the other editors. --Elonka 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
(followup) This seems to be a skirmish between Sentinel R (talk · contribs) and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), who are using the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles as a battleground, both reverting each other and throwing personal attacks at each other. At the Jundallah article, it was especially disappointing to see that the article was undergoing an edit war, but there was no attempt whatsoever to discuss the disputed issues at talk. I have left warnings for personal attacks and edit warring on the talkpages of both users, as well as cautions at the talkpages of the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles. Hopefully both users will heed the warnings, and work harder to edit in ways that conform with our policies and guidelines. If not, further administrative action may be required. --Elonka 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Again. No consensus changes by Kermanshahi - one (and personal attack in edit summary), two, three. How long will it last?Sentinel R (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see from the edits, they were sourced. You see Sentinel R, used a source about Taliban insurgents supporting the BLA, to back up supposed claism that the Afghani government was supporting the BLA. Further he used an article about US and Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) support for a Baluchi tribal uprising in the 1980's to back up a claim that the current Iraqi government is backing the BLA (and completely ignoring the part about the US). He than refered to these edits, where in I reported what sais int he sources, to the article, as "unsourced lies," please Elonka just check up on the sources, read them you'll see what I'm saying. As for my actual "unsourced edits," it was because I do not believe that the whole list of supporters should be included in the infobox, so I moved it into the article instead. I gave up on this eventually, but I still believe that the infobox should only be the for the combatants and not the whole list of supporters under it, cause many are disputed or they supported only in the past and therefore need extra explenation which makes the list in the infobox even longer. These things are actually supposed to be said in the article. Further I notice he calls the edit I made removing unsourced figures "propaganda by Iranian government," but he had provided a non-existent link to back up some "2000" figure and used no sources at all to somehow include the 5,000 and 2,600 figures, that's why I removed them.

non existent link(c). Not even funny.Sentinel R (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentinel R has been hiding information in sources, on purpose reporting things wrongly and making up figures while reverting my edits (which only back up what sais in the links) constnatly. So who is making propaganda here? PS. I've explained about the Jundullah article on it's talk page. Kermanshahi (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I also still want to complain about Sintinel R's insistence on the inclusion of Noor Ali Shooshtari and Rajab Ali as Killed in Action commaners in the infobox.

The deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard = low-level commander?Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For Pakistan only the top leadership (head of military, presidents, prime ministers) have beeen included. For the insurgents in Pakistan only the top leader of each uprising is included, meanwhile for Jundullah their former nr.1 and nr.2 leaders, the Rigi brothers + the current nr.1 are in the infobox.

You can add more leaders from Pakistan. I do not mind.Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Than for Iran, Sentinel R feels the need to next to the President, the head of the Iranian military (Hassan Firouzabadi), the head of Iran's military's regular branch (Ataollah Salehi) and the head of the military's Revolutionary Guard branch (Mohammad Ali Jafari), suddenly include the deputy commander of the military's IRGC-branch's ground forces branch + the military's IRGC-branch's provincial ground forcs commander (neither of which have an article about them because their names were not even known prior to the incident), only because they were assasinated, just to add Killed in Action to the Iranian side of the table. Is this POV and politically motivaded, or what? Kermanshahi (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm already tired of writing the obvious things third consecutive day. If the administration decides that iranian propaganda is the place to be in Wikipedia - then so be it. True about Jundallah: Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination against Baluchis in Iran and thereby improve their daily lives. They perceive the rebel group as a proxy used by the United States and Britain in an effort to destabilize the Islamic republic from within by fomenting sectarian and ethnic strife.Sentinel R (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What Iranian propaganda? I was only writing what was in the sources.Kermanshahi (talk)13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Administrator made you final warning (not to promote your biased point of view), but you still continued after a warning. What is your interest in this? Obviously you all this not just to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told not to get into reverting edits constantly. No administrator said anything about biasm. Now what I did was not revert edits, but add sourced information and delete unsourced information. Now it is clear we have a disagreement here. You claim Jundullah is seperatist, I say they are not. Now, I've brought you 9 sources which say that Jundullah claims not to be seperatist but to be fighting for the rights of Sunnis. Now it's your turn to provide me just 1 source where in Rigi or any Jundullah commander sais he wants seperation of Iranian Baluchistan. As long as you can't do that, you cannot add such baseless claims to the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jundallah = Sunni separatist group. How much more do you need links? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is merely a reported working for a website calling them like that. As long as they themselfes deny they are seperatist it is POV to add this to the infobox as their motive.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Themselves claiming = WP:NPOV. Need opinions of neutral persons. you doesn't red sources but changes the information.Part 2..Sentinel R (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, the difference between my sources and your sources is, you bring me the word of a worthless reporter which labels Jundullah as a seperatist group in one of his reports, I give you the word of Rigi himself which denies being a seperatist in every interview and statement. Bring me one source which sais that Rigi called for seperation. Untill then, all you can do is add to the article that "the group has been refered to as seperatist by various media, however the organisation has always denied this".Kermanshahi (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Own words - not neutral. WP:NPOV - read this, ok? And Rigi said about separatism in this article "Earlier confessions made by Abdolhamid confirmed reports that Washington aided and abetted the armed separatist ring in carrying out its terror activities in Iran,".Sentinel R (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a quote from PressTV, with "the armed seperatist group" being used as synonym for Jundullah. This is not a quote from Abdolhamid Rigi saying they are seperatists. Unless you bring that in, there is still no proof. There is however enough proof, proving you wrong, with dozens of sources about Abdolmalek Rigi saying they are not seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I found two references are cited where Jundallah called separatists. How much a references you needed? A thousand? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you still not get it? You need to provide a reference where in Jundullah leadership say they are seperatist, not a reference in which some journalist labels them as seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His own words - not neutral. And this link doesn't work - [13] Why you added broken link?Sentinel R (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So you say when an organisation declares it's goals, we should completely ignore this, because the organisation is not neutral about itself and instead add some false claims made by (seemingly) unknowning journalists? That is ridiculous and that is definetly not how wikipedia works. Therefore I will not continue this argument. I hope the moderators sort you out.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All of your edits from that - urgently need to revert. Since you added broken links and fine-tune the entire article at your own biased point of view, unconsensus changes after final warning from administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the links I added were broken, all of the information I added was sourced and and written down in a non-biased and objective way. I was not warned by any moderation to stop editing, I was told to stop blindly reverting your edits. What I did was normally edit the article, using sources to back up everything I said. I see not a single way in which wikipedia would ever disagree with the edits I made.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're biased edited the article and did not take those links that I found. You're not looking for compromise, you just decided that you're in charge here and you can do anything. But it is not. Wikipedia - the overall project, and it is not your personal encyclopedia. You do not have the right to change the neutral article to biased article, but you did it. You ascribe to me words that I did not say, and personal attacks on me. I am with you no more to say, you are perfectly revealed today when the article began to change after the final warning to you.Sentinel R (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you gave me were worthless, but I can add them if you want. For the rest can you point out what is biased about saying that Jundullah themselfes sais they are not seperatist and adding sources to back it up? I am not changing a non-biased article into a biased one, I am adding sourced facts to a very lacking article. You are biased and therefore won't accept facts. And why should I compromise when you are being unreasonable.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You said nothing in fact, you just went and changed the article in the direction in which you wanted to. And do not you decide which journalists write articles on international sites like Aljazeera, your original research can not be authoritative for the encyclopedia.Sentinel R (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not do original research, I reported what the organisations official goals rather than journalist mistakenly calling them seperatist. No-one has the authority to decide which source is right and which one, that's why in this case we use the organisation's own offical goal in the infobox and to be neutral here, in the article we discuss both sides. That's why I added to the "view and goals" section that they have been refered to as seperatist by various media (which is the case) but have denied this themselfes (which is the case), I don't see any other way in which this can be reported objectively.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the administrators' noticeboard is not the location to discuss article content. Please discuss these matters on the article talkpages. I have added both articles to my watchlist, we can continue this discussion there. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User harassment report[edit]


Hello. I would like to bring attention to a case of harassment against my work from a particular user. In June, we were both involved in a large dispute concerning images in various articles, which resulted in edit warring, page protection, and account blocking. It was only after administration intervened that issue had reached consensus. Although this dispute has long closed, the User:Raeky, has continued to monitor my account and remove my work. After he recently reported an image I uploaded, which may or may not have copyright issues, he stated the obvious; "I monitor your account periodically", in the discussion.

This is not what has triggered this report. Today he removed my image of a photograph I had taken, with the comment "dark low quality cell phone image is not better than previous infobox image... restoring.", as he has had issues with my "cell phone images" and their quality in our past dispute. Since I added the image, at least one or two regular contributors to the article had either made an edit or reverted vandalism without questioning my image. Raeky has had no past interest in the article, except of course, a few hours after I added an image to it.

What happened in the past is irrelevant in terms of who was right or wrong. What I would like now is very simple, which is for Raeky to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short; I'd like this user to be instructed to leave me alone, period. After leaving a firm message on their Talk page, regarding their actions and my notification that administration will be informed if they continue, they've since notified me of taking some sort of administrative action.

I don't want any further issues concerning this user. We don't edit the same articles in general, so we wouldn't and haven't run into edit conflicts concerning text. I'd like what was said and done, and my content to be of no concern whatsoever to this user or to this report. All I'm asking for is as above, for the user to be told directly; to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short, to leave me alone. A much appreciated message on their Talk page could end this issue and stop it from continuing further. I'll await your response, thank you. Editor182 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sure was a firm message you left. [14] Given your history of image problems I'm not surprised other editors are following your edits. Quite sensible really. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Editor182 and Talk:Possum#Image are attempting to resolve the image dispute. Netalarmtalk 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way I see nothing but ongoing problems here from a user who apparently just doesn't get it. Surely it's at the stage of an indefinite block. Note I've been involved with him/her in this exhausting DRV where his contributions were largely bad faith rants against contributors he/she disagreed with. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The DRV, "history of image problems" and this image have all concerned the same user. I don't care who or how many people follow my work, this is beyond questionable reason, and I have never requested any such complete disengagement in my work from another user. That is all I'm after, and their actions are not sensible, they're harassment. Mkativerata, where do I know you from? The image dispute triggered by a one such user, this is not a broad issue, it's an isolated one. The image in DRV, be it copyright or public domain, was never brought to question since being in a featured article from April this year. This is what the exhaustive dispute we now speak of is based on. Any other editors who've taken any interest or action against other images, have done so amid these "ongoing problems" reported by the very same user. I don't want to drag this on and on.. any user who genuinely takes or has taken any issue to my work has not resulted in me being on an administrative message board..

I'd like Raeky to discontinue interest in my work. It's as simple as that. That's all this is about, not images, this is only a request for a cease of involvement in my work from one user. I'm not sure who this "indefinite block" mentioned above should be applied to, but I'm only asking for a message from administration to another user. Editor182 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Interesting to note: When Raeky brought my image up for discussion on Wikiquette, he used the heading Editor182, when on response to his request, and yet another discussion opened, but with the heading Image.. so what is this users concern, the image or the editor? If just one administrator could put a close to this now with a message on this persons Talk page to cease their involvement in my work, undoubtedly based on bad faith, it would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just what in the world are you talking about, I started the WQA in response to your offensive comment on my talk page. Netalarm made the second link on the Possum page about your image. I posted this after you reverted me stating regular editors should weigh in, which is a proper response since Talk:Possum has very low traffic. And FYI, User:Mkativerata is an admin and has weighed in. Not sure what your attempting to accomplish, anyone who views your edit history, past ANI history, and past ban history can clearly tell what kind of editor you are that obviously needs closer monitoring. None of my edits that you interpret as harassment are unfounded edits. If I really wanted to go to town with your edits there are a zillion useless images and edits you've added. Some articles are being benefited by your cell phone images, some are not, yet I've only done a couple things that I felt was copyright violation or clearly not a good edit, like the Possum image that you replaced. Again not sure what your trying to accomplish here, but it seems like another WP:BOOMERANG ANI you've opened. — raekyt 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm trying to accomplish? I'm asking if administration can request that you cease "monitoring" my contributions and cease any involvement in my work.

Still don't get the message? I'm hoping an administrator will give it to you, then you might. Editor182 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Editor182 really expect to be backed up by an administrator for a request under the header "F*** off" on a user talk page? [15] Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not even if the header was "Seasonal greetings" - I expect nothing, especially as Mkativerata is apparently an admin, and trying to get another admin to come along and side with me? No. I thought if there was a shred of decency when I opened this request.. but, now I'll just say that it's closed. Won't bother with disputes or contacting admin for help in the future, I'll just accept the decisions of Raeky, who may continue to reign over my account. Editor182 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edits hardly justify such a claim, I removed your picture out of Possum today, I nominated your image of the Monster Energy can for deletion on Nov 22, which got deleted, and sparked huge discussion here and is still unresolved... and aside from our previous encounter where you got banned for edit warring to the extreme about your images, I've done nothing else to your edits or history. The only reason I even looked at your account on Nov 22 was because I saw you editing the same articles that you was banned TWICE for edit warring over, and today I looked at your account again after I noticed that those deletion requests was still ongoing and the huge deletion review... I hardly thing this "lording over" your account, lol. Also, again yuo don't know how to use HAT, you didn't close it. Plus it's not your place to close this. — raekyt 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my place? Who's place is it then, account overlord? I opened it, I closed it.Editor182 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior hasn't been entirely resolved, an admin above called for your banning, possibly this is a valid reason why YOU should NOT push this under the rug? — raekyt 08:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another case of WP:BOOMERANG - Amog | Talkcontribs 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I could see there was no point in the argument after an admin was against the proposal. That's all. Editor182 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor182, admins aren't Gods. - Amog | Talkcontribs 09:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - I reopened this thread, but only because its closing was improper. It should be closed by an uninvolved party: as the filer requests this, and thus no administration action is sought as a result of this report. Doc talk 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What if an administrator who thought for themselves read the review and decided it would be in the best interest of all involved if Raeky did refrain from monitoring my contributions with malicious intent, and ceased involving himself in my media? I personally keep track of articles that I'm interested in and improve them in any way that I can. I don't monitor the editors; in this case, in bad faith; taking courses of action to remove images from articles where their experience is zero, instead of leaving it to the regulars judgement, but instead takes it upon himself to delete my content. Then, when a user suggests it be used somewhere else less prominent, he still advises against it. They are not helping, and not leaving judgement to others in a more suited position to make them on experience. Anyway, I concur, unless an administrator with independent and rational judgement sends a message to Raeky; to stop engaging in the aforementioned; then let's close it now. Editor182 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh) Editor182, you opened this thread, closed it twice improperly[16][17], and now want to keep it open... again, for an administrator that may come along who "thought for themselves" with "unusually good judgment". Have you actually read WP:BOOMERANG? Quit while you're behind, and read up on policy is my advice to you... Doc talk 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with User:Raecky having any article on her watchlist, especially one that might need help. I don't think she's necessarily harassing you to think that the picture you took is not the best one for the article, either- you're the one who seems to be attacking the editor instead of engaging with her ideas at Talk:Possum. I don't think any administrator action is needed right now, since no one has behaved in a way that seems to make a block necessary, but I'm troubled by your escalation of your disagreement in ways that seem to me to be uncivil, and unlikely to lead to a better encyclopedia. You should know, if you don't already, that there's no way to add a user's contributions to your watchlist- the only way to 'monitor' a user is to periodically check their contributions, when you remember to do so. If Raecky is doing that from time to time, rather than merely watching Possum, I think you'll find that she stops bothering with it once she stops seeing anything but polite and useful contribution and discussion in them. Don't worry too much about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having read for myself...clearly, Editor182's work - especially in images - has required some monitoring. I'm 100% sure that Raeky is not the only monitoring, and until Editor182's work becomes less disruptive, the more eyes the better on the situation. Editor182 needs to take the constructive concerns and work on them, rather than attack those who are rightly monitoring their edits. I'm not going to comment on the disruption that Editor182's causing by closing an admin request when it's "not going their way". Editor182 is turning this into something very personal, and this is a warning to stop it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Editor182 has requested the speedy deletion of the photo of a possum at the center of this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bwilkins. Was this this really necessary? - Amog | Talkcontribs 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "my sympathies to your mother" bit actually took me to the "block user" page for a moment ... but then I took a sip of Starbucks Winter Blend and hit the "back" button. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor182 has a habit of blanking their talk page after every post. This has the effect of making it much harder for observers to see the accumulated warnings and repeated issues. Rather than blocking Editor182 per WP:BOOMERANG for this diff among other evidence of disruption in this thread, I am merely going to place them under an editing restriction: Editor182 shall not routinely blank their own talk page. All talk page comments are to be retained, and then may be archived to an archive page when they are at least one week old. (We can help you set up an archiving bot.) Only obvious vandalism may be removed. Further talk page blanking may be treated as disruptive editing and gaming the system, and may result in a block. This will help other editors monitor and assist Editor182. It's very hard to help somebody when they keep blanking their talk page. Editors normally are allowed to blank talk pages, but in this case that tactic is being used to game the system. Editor182, Wikipedia operates on the principle of transparency. When you are actually causing problems, it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to monitor your work and try to help you improve. Jehochman Talk 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support restriction for a minimum of 6 months, at which point they may request an amendment/removal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be joking. Object. *It is my Talk page and I will archive it when I want. In regards to "this diff" which you're using to support your argument to take away my privileges, I left the response there and even linked it, to viewed by those on the noticeboard, so they may understand how the situation had been escalating. I came here asking for help, instead I get threats of blocks and a proposal to restrict my own Talk page rights. I blank it because I like it like that. It's my prerogative. Closing this discussion without your help is one thing, but with an extremely unjust proposal against myself? Talk about asking admin for help.. just close this discussion please, and please don't change my rights.
"Try to help me improve?" I don't need help to improve, and I am being provided with no such thing. Editor182 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess you haven't read WP:BOOMERANG yet? You came here to report a problem. We have looked into the problem, and now, we are trying to help solve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you say 'it is my talk page and I will archive it when I want.' That indicates to me that you think you have been archiving it. You haven't been- you've been blanking it- but I've created a place where you can archive it from now on. Check out my archives to see how it work s- archiving is not what you've been doing, and it's really useful for easily looking back for past conversations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Jehochman and User:Bwilkins - Amog | Talkcontribs 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. Rd232 talk 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That was POINTy blanking and the block was good. The user needs to learn to be less belligerent in general. (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor182 has agreed to terms and been unblocked. We've set up automatic archiving of the talk page. If a few experienced users would watch their talk page and help with a little coaching when needed, that would be great. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this administrative action resolve the problematic issues with images which spilled over onto Commons? Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Another sock of this permanently-blocked User has appeared, right after his last one was blocked for three months (see User talk: User: is editing in the identical manner as User: I think these socks need to be blocked permanently just like the User himself. Rosencomet (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't get indef'd but the latest one has three months. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no indication that User: has been blocked on his/her talk page (he/she hasn't one) or user page. Are you sure it's been done? Just asking. Rosencomet (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was looking at the wrong one. I have blocked the other now for three months per WP:DUCK, identical article edits and identical edit summary. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Rosencomet (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that the list of sockpuppets of User:RasputinJSvengali probably includes at least the following:

And there may be others. Rosencomet (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Insults to Jimbo[edit]

Resolved: Doesn't warrant revdel GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. WP:REVDEL? Perseus (tc) 13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They call that vandalism? I get nastier vandalism than that free with my breakfast cereal... I don't think it needs to be revdeled... just reverting it is fine. It doesn't contain any personal information that might harm Jimbo, after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Praytell, what personal information about Jimbo could possibly still be secret? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
We can't let anyone find out he's a nerd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's simply "run-of-the-mill" vandalism, whether it's to Jimbo's page or anyone else. "Material must be grossly offensive...": if this gets "revedel"ed, I'd be surprised... Doc talk 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Overreaction much? This is just standard mindless vandalism and certainly doesn't require suppression, or indeed any form of intervention beyond simply reverting it. --Dorsal Axe 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how the vandal would say "fcuk" out loud. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, they may have been trying to skirt cluebot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Aha. Like those spam e-mails that misspell certain things to get around the spam filter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep! However, cluebot "knows" about most of those (and as I understand it, gets updated a lot). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA adding invalid AfD notices[edit]

I recently nominated 2PR FM for deletion. The discussion was joined by a newly registered editor, User:Whitewater111 who used a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument against deletion, citing 101.7 WSFM as an example. He prodded that article, without providing a rationale in the template and the comments in his edit summary didn't justify deletion so I removed the prod. He seems to have taken this to heart, adding numerous {{citation needed}} tags to the article. He also added an AfD notice, but as he only copied and pasted that from 2PR FM without actually creating an AfD discussion, it obviously doesn't apply to 101.7 WSFM so I removed it.[19] He restored the invalid notice so I removed it again, but he restored it again. I've explained why it is invalid on his talk page and asked him to remove it but so far he hasn't. He has made an invalid AIV complaint since,[20] so he must have seen the "You have messages" warning. Since I can't remove it without breaching 3RR, I was hoping somebody could remove the invalid AfD notice from 101.7 WSFM and perhaps reinforce to the editor that the notice is invalid, since he's obviously ignoring me. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the invalid AFD notice, will attempt to counsel user on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
One has to wonder if Clearwatercity (talk · contribs) and Whitewater111 (talk · contribs) are related. Corvus cornixtalk 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Erfurt150?[edit]

Erfurt150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry before his block in October 2010. More recently, he has targeted Antandrus' editing as well as my edits using his sockpuppets (one of those actually belonged to the banned user Dr.Mukesh111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He often creates new sockpuppets and persistently reverts others without reason. Please see this for the tagged suspected accounts in question. Due to the ongoing activity, I propose that we ban this user from editing Wikipedia. I am bringing this issue to the community, and I hope this is not overkill. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are two different people that happen to have the same MO. Today's sockpuppet spree is by Dr.Mukesh. He's from Pakistan, and his interests, and fractured English style, are distinctive -- for example here. I'm not familiar with Erfurt, but looking at the contributions attributed to his sockpuppets (prior to today) they seem to be completely different, and he speaks English well. I've previously been able to shut down Dr.M with this and this range, but without confirmation from a checkuser I don't want to do that because of collateral damage (it shuts down editing from most of Islamabad). Acroterion and Geniac are both familiar with this editor. Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait, are there more socks from Dr.Mukesh111 than were recently turned up here? If so, please feel free to reopen the case. TNXMan 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any signs of Dr.Mukesh111 today, but there's still time for a new crop of socks to appear. @Tnxman, I appreciate your work esterday in shutting down the latest sockfarm. He generally stops for the day around 2200 UTC, as one would expect for someone in Pakistan. I agree that Erfurt150's a different person with the same pattern, and can be formally or informally banned. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong - another dozen today. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias[edit]


I have just noticed that someone(s) using the exact same username has been impersonating me on other wikipedias. Where do i go to sort this out? Simply south (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably that wiki's admin board, or Meta. You could try talking to them, it might just be coincidence. Basket of Puppies 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
are you talking about other language versions of this Wikipedia, or other projects like Wikimedia or Wikisource thtat are in Wikipedia, or are you talking about completely separate websites that use the Wiki format?? User:Smith Jones 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Other wikipedias. Actually, is this just to do with exporting articles? I've not seen this before. When the article has been exported, if you have contributed to that article will that show up on the foreign Wikipedias? Simply south (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you. Resolved elsewhere. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Slam[edit]

Resolved: Rollback has been revoked; Huggle & Twinkle access removed; ed. agreed to a mentor; will not use automated tools til mentor says okay. — SpikeToronto 05:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

At Ralph Nader, an edit war ensued between User: and User:Wayne Slam (see history). The IP was was removing content he thought was biased from the article, but was quickly reverted by User:Mystylplx with the edit summary "Stop removing content just because you disagree. It is vandalism at this point." ([21]) The IP proceeded to remove the content again, but also added/changed other information ([22]). Wayne Slam reverted this edit without an edit summary and warned the IP on his talk page. I count seven reversions by the IP and eight reversions by Wayne. The IP was blocked for "Vandalism" for 31 hours by User:Icairns, who went back and told the IP that he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Wayne claims on the IP's talk page that he kept reverting because he saw Mystylplx's edit summary which called the IP's edit vandalism. ([23]) The IP removed Wayne's comment (which is in compliance with WP:BLANKING) and Wayne reverted him. The IP removed it again, and Wayne removed it again with the summary "You are allowed to express your opinion, so stop." The IP's talk page was just removed. What actions should be taken? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be left as it is currently. WAYNESLAM 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind, Wayne, that you, too, violated WP:3RR. One exception to 3RR is "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." However, the edit this user kept adding does not fall under this category. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
My original block edit noted that there were multiple reversions. My 3RR comment was a clarification. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you see WP:NOTTHEM? WAYNESLAM 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Because that policy has no relevance to this discussion at all... Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
A lot POV-pushing going on there, and Wayne is as guilty of edit warring as any of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it doesn't appear to have been with intent. HalfShadow 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It was not intentional. WAYNESLAM 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean; generally edit warring is "I want my version, not yours"; this was just reverting what was assumed to be an unwanted/unhelpful edit. Someytimes I technically edit war when reverting edits to an article I have no interest in and am merely reverting because consenus seems to be that the edits are unhelpful. HalfShadow 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but WP:3RR states "Use of standard rollback for any other likely to be considered misuse of the tool" and the edits made by the IP were not "obvious vandalism." Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on what Eagles said here, and based on the rest of this thread, I would like to recommend one of two things be done:
  1. We assume good faith and let Wayne off with a warning.
  2. Wayne is blocked for 24 hours (or his rollback rights are removed) for violating the 3RR and misusing rollback, respectively.
--The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want neither to happen to me. WAYNESLAM 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I'm inclined to go with #1. Rollback rights removed, maybe, but he should not be blocked because it won't prevent anything that's already happened. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be my choice, as well. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Using rollback here was an absolute no-no, and he needs to acknowledge here and now that he understands that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Please don't do anything to my rights or my account, as I'm sorry for doing this and won't let it happen again. WAYNESLAM 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have misused rollback/Huggle. See User talk:Wayne Slam#Please be more careful, User talk:Wayne Slam#Boscastle flood of 2004 and User talk:Wayne Slam#Incorrect warning template?. Yet every time you say "I'll be more careful" or "It won't happen again," it happens again. I'm about ready to revoke your rollback rights now, unless you can persuade me otherwise (sanctions, etc.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't want my rights revoked because nobody's perfect and we make mistakes. WAYNESLAM 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we don't have to eventually face the consequences for unintentionally doing something bad. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I know, but can I get a second chance because this is something that I won't let happen again about what I did such as I did with that IP? WAYNESLAM 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me like the stuff the IP was trying to post was blatantly pushing a particular viewpoint, citing one specific source's opinion at some length. That's not vandalism, though. It's a short block, so it's not that big a deal. But Wayne needs to come away from this with a lesson or two: (1) Good-faith edits, even if wrong-headed, are not vandalism. (2) Users have the right to delete almost anything from their pages. Re-posting is not appropriate, as they're assumed to have already read it. (3) Most importantly, edit-warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • WayneSlam is just as guilty as the anon in violating WP:3RR, since what he reverted was not obvious vandalism. It was nothing that would warrant it; no profanities were introduced into the article, and the anon did not remove a large chunk of text within it without producing a reasonable edit summary (it was probably following similar anon's "moved to 2000 article" edit summary), and as shown on the anon's talkpage, he did not assume that the anon was acting in good faith and really attempting what they believed was an improvement to the article. Furthermore, WayneSlam has revert warred over the anon's talkpage, when it is given in the talkpage guidelines that users are allowed to remove content from their own talkpages if they wish, be it anon or registered users, because it can be presumed that they have already read the messages. I recommend that the article be protected against further edit warring and reverted to the pre-war version and the anon reblocked with talkpage access restored to sort this out till later. This is to allow the anon to discuss their actions as well as comment on this ANI thread. A note should be left on the anon's talkpage not to abuse the unblock template, lest talkpage access is to be revoked again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wayne's a hard-working vandal-fighter, if a bit... overenthusiastic at times. I think in this case his biggest mistake was taking the previous editor's "vandalism" call at face value, rather than critically evaluating the IP's edits on their own merits. If it had been true vandalism, Wayne's actions on the article (though not the IP's talk page) would be uncontroversial. Wayne, would you be willing to agree that:
  1. just because an another editor has tagged someone as having vandalized, that doesn't mean that editor is correct;
  2. even if that edit was vandalism, that doesn't mean all of the subsequent edits are;
  3. every edit must be evaluated on its own merits before rollback is considered;
  4. unless an editor is removing required templates or otherwise violating policies, their talk page comments should be left alone; and
  5. if there's any doubt at all that an edit is vandalism, you'll consult another editor and let them do the revert if they agree that it's vandalism?
If you'll agree with the above, I think a warning – and the understanding that another visit here will probably result in loss of rollback privileges – are probably the best resolution for this. I think it's unanimous that your intentions are good and that it's just the execution that needs improvement. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
28bytes, the real issue here is edit warring. His reversions without edit summary is another thing, but he could lose his rollback privileges or earn a block due to edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Understood. It's quite possible a block or rollback revocation is warranted based on the edit-warring. I just get the impression he thought (quite incorrectly, of course) that he was reverting obvious vandalism based on the fact that another editor had tagged the IP's edit as vandalism, which seems to be where he needs some re-training. As HalfShadow says, I don't see the edit-warring as intentional. I doubt Wayne really has a POV on the Nader article or particularly cares what edits are made to it as long as they're not vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I read this discussion with much interest. After looking over Wayne's user talk page, his user talk archives, and his contributions, it's clear to me that he is careless and in too much of a hurry with the automated tools, both with Huggle and the rollback button. While I think his heart is in the right place, he is causing disruption to the project. I would support removal of the rollback privilege. I also think he should stop using Huggle or Twinkle or any other automated process for at least a couple of weeks. This has to stop. - KrakatoaKatie 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Likewise, having looked over this, it seems clear to me that giving the user another chance isn't so much going to be a "second chance" than an "umpteenth chance", and would support removal of rollback and removal from automated whitelists. Perhaps further mentorship by an experienced user would be good here and rights could be restored when the mentor agrees the user is ready. StrPby (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I also question the judgment of Mystylplx (talk · contribs) in this matter and calling the IP's edits "vandalism". Perhaps the page should be protected against further edit warring. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • TelCo, you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you still think it is needed. But, at this time, there has only been one edit since Wayne’s last revert four hours ago. — SpikeToronto 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with you. I shouldn't have called it "vandalism." It simply seemed (in the moment) to be vandalism to me, as the IP user had been continually reverted by a number of different editors and simply kept reverting it to his/her version. That may not be the wikipedia definition of the word, but the word has meaning outside of wikipedia as well. Mystylplx (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Mystylplx, just for future reference, you might want to take a look at WP:VANDTYPES. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support revocation. I think that Wayne has had upteen “second” chances and any more would not result in any change in behaviour. Notwithstanding that his heart is in the right place, and that he really cares about the project, he is not a good vandal fighter at this time. While I have tried to mentor him, as his talk page and talk page archives can attest, progress on understanding the concepts has not been at a pace that would support letting him keep his rollback privileges. Of course, I accept that I just may not be any good at mentoring. Nonetheless, I would be more than willing to adopt/mentor him once the rollback bit is removed — because I cannot get him to slow down while he’s got it — unless he would prefer someone else. Finally, if his rollback privileges are revoked, and he seeks to have them back in the future, he should have to ask at WP:PERM/R where his recent edits can be assessed more publically than through a private request elsewhere. By the way, I am truly sorry to see this end up here at ANI. But, many people have tried to help this editor in this regard without much success. Let’s hope that a period of time without rollback can be used to better acquire the necessary skillset for recent changes patrol. — SpikeToronto 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support after a quick look at his contribs. There may be a competence issue (or maybe just this) going on here. access_denied (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. RC Patrol is very delicate; mistakes must not be common. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support rollback removal. The concern is - and I'm sure many users are plenty aware - that Wayne is obsessive over Huggle and views it as a race. This diff basically states, "if I use the drop-down menu [on Huggle], someone else will beat me to the revert." It's a chronic problem with him, unfortunately; see here, where I had to alert Wayne about complaining about another user (who was obviously offended) constantly beating him to reverting vandalism on Huggle. Revoking Wayne's rollback would benefit him as an editor, since it would relieve him of this "race" mentality and allow him to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. --Dylan620 (tcr) 02:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fighting vandalism is good. But if someone is in a big fat hurry to revert vandalism and (apparently) doesn't look very closely at it to confirm it really is vandalism, that's not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I have revoked Wayne Slam's rollback privileges and blacklisted him from Twinkle. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Wayne's Huggle privileges as well, as I think that may well be the proximate cause- using the program way beyond the speed limit. Courcelles 03:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like Wayne Slam needs a mentor of some sort; I know that Wayne Slam was working with Tommy2010 before he retired. Vandal-fighting isn't my line of work, so someone who does a lot of that would probably be the best person if Wayne still wants to do that; if he wants to do NPP, though, I'd be more than happy to work with him. I think he's trying to help, but just needs a bit of guidance; with said guidance, he could be quite valuable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
He is very valuable but very young. His speed will be an asset once his judgement gets better: when to go fast, when to stop for a minute and investigate more thoroughly. User:The Utahraptor has offered to mentor; he is an experienced Huggle user and all around experienced editor. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Good; I hope Wayne takes it, and I think he'll be fine. He was doing really well with Tommy2010, so I think this is just what he needs to get back on track. I don't know how you vandal fighters do it (I've tried it with Twinkle, with limited success), but we need as many as we can get; we need to do our best to keep our good younger users around, and I can see some serious potential in Wayne Slam. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He still doesn't get it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. How about we actually try to help him rather than drag him over the coals? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually HJ, while it may not be a helpful comment, it is a very helpful diff. For those of us who might have been feeling a little bad about this action, it’s vindication when we read that Wayne’s concern with losing rollback is: “Now my edit count will suffer because now I'm done with rollback.”SpikeToronto 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's another troubling diff, Spike: [24]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that that just attests to youth and growing up in a world where “can’t we all be nice” trumps everything else, including reality checks. It’s not that revoking rollback is an action that isn’t nice; it’s that revoking rollback, in this instance, protects the project. I think that, in time, with some better mentoring than I had been able to give him, he’ll come to see that. I certainly hope so … — SpikeToronto 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I need some mentoring. WAYNESLAM 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily a good choice for a mentor, but here is an example of actual vandalism.[25] That kind of garbage is what rollback is to be used for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Or look at my recent article edits for more examples. There are probably a few mistakes in there butnot many. access_denied (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Delisted  With this edit, I removed Wayne from the list of Huggle users, per this discussion. Also, and perhaps more importantly since Courcelles had already disabled Huggle access for him, with this edit, I removed Wayne from the Huggle whitelist so that any of his manual reverts, edits, etc., will appear on the Huggle screens of other Hugglers.SpikeToronto 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing it for? Could somebody look at this? WAYNESLAM 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It should stay disabled until your mentor feels that you're ready to have it back. Nakon 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry about all of this. This should have never happened. I'm very sorry. WAYNESLAM 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I should note that Wayne has chosen me to be his mentor. Like I said on his talk page, there's certainly the potential for him to become a truly great vandal fighter. He's just not able to reach this potential yet. --Dylan620 (tcr) 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible hacking via a proxy IP[edit]


I just deleted a test article about some horribly named album called "To Hell With God." It and the talk page were created by User: I thought it might have been a user naming himself after his IP, but that may not have been the case. I was still able to see the WHOIS and geolocation template on the talk page. It resolves out of Hungary and I've blocked it for a month as a proxy. Still, the fact an anon created a new page has me worried. Have we dropped the requirement that an account must first be created before a page can? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP only created the talk page, the actual page was created by User:AlexanderBp. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just caught that. The IP edited the talk page and an article on the, um, band. A registered user created the test page. Nothing to see here. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To Hell With God... you know, that sort of stuff was interesting when Mayhem and Emperor first made waves, but that theme gets really boring after a while. It's annoying that every single garage band has to be either some "Satanic" group (and it's clear none of them know what Satanism actually is) or Christian music. It's too predictable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the IP be unblocked now that it has been determined that it isn't a proxy? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Yes, I'll do that right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another cartoon vandal[edit]

Jpablo95 (talk · contribs) has several final level warnings for adding inaccurate info to Vampires Suck and Mad (TV series). After an unblock, he made this very inaccurate edit to the latter. A search of his edits shows he's never touched a talkpage, nor responded to the warnings piling up on his talkpage. I say a longer block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I have lowered your ten-pound hammer for you. :) He's indef blocked and I suspect he's a sockpuppet. Seen this too many times before. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh, he's been doing that for ages. In fact, that's almost all of his edits; some of these oiks, once they start they don't stop until a house is dropped on them. Pity a lot of them are IPs... HalfShadow 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
No shortage of weirdness on the interwebs. I just can't figure out what's going on in the head of someone like this. Way too much kiddie TV and not enough real world interaction. Sad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak and my talk page and I would appreciate if an administrator would block this account. Over at the cable leak talk page, the user continues to disrupt discussion by claiming "A retarded 10 year old child can see what is happening." I warned the user on their talk page, only to have them accuse me of lying over and over again, and attack my talk page:[26]

  1. (cur | prev) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (talk) (18,059 bytes) (Undid revision 400843815 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 12:40, 6 December 2010 (talk) (17,468 bytes) (Undid revision 400843514 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 12:37, 6 December 2010 (talk) (16,714 bytes) (Undid revision 400843284 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 12:35, 6 December 2010 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400843027 by Viriditas (talk))
  5. (cur | prev) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400842781 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842569 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 12:29, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842395 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842168 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842071 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 12:25, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841880 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  11. (cur | prev) 12:22, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841622 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  12. (cur | prev) 12:21, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841471 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  13. (cur | prev) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841336 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
  14. (cur | prev) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841214 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)

Looking into this further, we can see that their entire history at Wikipedia, consists of some kind of personal attack:[27][28][29][30] etc... The user also disrupted a recent discussion on the cable talk page about the unreadability of the page by claiming it was "nonsense" and that it was "one of the most "readable" large articles I have seen in Wikipaedia." The user is trolling the talk page, attacking retarded children, and bombing my talk page. Could someone semi-protect my talk page and remove the insults about retarded children from the article talk page as well? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talkpage for a week. I agree about the troll