Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive356

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

POV-pushing at Urban Sprawl[edit]

I'm not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, so please excuse me if I'm wrong. There appears to be a lot of POV-pushing editing on the Urban sprawl article, including at least two newly created IDs, User:RedAmerica and User:America1st which appear to have been created specifically for that purpose. I'm not involved in the tussle, just came across it by chance. I've reverted to what I believe is the last good version before this particular bout began, but is there anything that can be done about it? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing accusations usually are content-related issues. Has dispute resolution been attempted, such as through WP:RFC or WP:3O or WP:Mediation? Please bring in uninvolved editors from the above pages to see where consensus lies. If dispute resolution shows a clear consensus one way or the other, and someone is diruptively acting against it; or if there are obvious trireversions that need dealing with, let us know. We may be able to protect the page if you wish; try WP:RFPP to stop any ongoing editwars; however be aware that protection preserves the last version, not necessarily the version YOU want.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, Ed Fitzgerald is just an innocent bystander. God knows we don't have too many of those around; there aren't too many bystanders either. east.718 at 20:16, January 17, 2008
Yeah, I was going to say that I am basically an "uninviolved editor." I understand the give and take which (in the best of all possible worlds) winds up with something approaching neutral accuracy, but I thought that the involvement of what looked to be single-purpose IDs might make a difference. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, another newly ID, User:Oceancity has jumped into the fray, and it too appears to be a sinbgle-purpose ID -- one of its edit summaries decried "Commie" behavior, or something like that. I thought perhaps that semi-locking the article might be an option, to keep out the new IDs? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Oceancity registered at 19:50 UTC, here, and edited the article 9 minutes later, here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article from a "Third pair of eyes" standpoint, and much of the added material is biased. In some cases, the additions seek to editorialize about the benefits of sprawl, such as changing a section on "Consumer preference for sprawl" to "Smart consumers prefer sprawl". Other edits are similar. I've changed some wording to a compromise version, since some of the existing language could be cleaned a bit - but, generally, the added material doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. I would support protection, though I'm not sure if Semi-protection would work on this particular set of registered users. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh good lord, I forgot the lead. Fixed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken a look; Ed's right, these are pretty much pure blatantly POV-pushing single-purpose accounts. They denounce anybody who disagrees with them, refuse to source their assertions of opinion, and generally disdain all norms of Wikipedian editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Past account sockpuppetry?[edit]

Hi there, User:Nlu has labelled my old (User:Sumple) and new (User:PalaceGuard008) accounts as sockpuppets, and indef blocked the old account (which doesn't really matter to me as I can't access it anyway - as explained below). Here's my posting on his talk page:

A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden.
Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.
Neither User:Sumple nor User:PalaceGuard008 are alternates of each other. One is the successor of the other, mainly because I changed the password to the User:Sumple account to a string of random letters, and not having an email address stored, could not retrieve it. I have never simultaneously operated from both accounts.
The two accounts have not been used deceptively. I do not operate from both accounts, nor have I ever at any point. I have never represented that the two accounts were/are not the same person. When User:Certified.Gangsta and another vandal previously accused me of sockpuppetry, I clearly stated in both cases that they have no evidence of "sockpuppetry" - which they do not, since neither account is an alternate of the other, and they have not been used deceptively. In fact, the two accounts have not been used together at all. They are successor accounts. Never have I denied that both accounts have belonged or currently belong to me.
Having lost access to the previous account, the creation of a new account is clearly justified. The amount of personal information I choose to reveal on either account is a matter entirely up to my own discretion.
This is clearly harassment from Certified.Gangsta as "revenge" for my objection to his racist user page content. Please remove the templates, or file a proper sockpuppetry case so that I can defend myself as per natural justice.

To summarise, there is no sockuppetry here because (1) the two accounts are not alternates because the old account is inaccessible and the new account is a successor account; at no time did I edit from both; (2) I did not use the two accounts improperly; (3) I never denied that I registered both accounts. A clarification from the admin commmunity would be much appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin opinion) If you admitted in the ast that you own both accounts, then I see no problem in the matter. I'm sure many users have started off a new account and left their old one behind. I don't know whether its harassement however. Maybe some diffs needed? D.M.N. (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin opion here... I am ready to unblock the prior account and remove accusations of sockpuppetry, what do others think. I see no evidence of using multiple accounts incorrectly. WP:SOCK expressly allows the use of multiple accounts as long as no attempt is made to abuse them (such as vote stacking, false consensus building, edit warring, etc.) I can see nothing that has gone wrong here. Any other opinions? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment for ease of use:
Hope this helps. Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And just to explain the history and context a little: I changed the User:Sumple account password to a random string of letters mainly because of my frustration at the time and decision that I no longer wished to edit Wikipedia. Later, I changed my mind and decided that I needed an account to make an occasional edit, hence creating User:PalaceGuard008, which was meant to be a "single purpose" account for editing the Forbidden City article, a work in progress at the time. Over time, I've found myself editing more and more using this account.
Given the context, you can probably see why I didn't feel the need at the time to label User:Sumple as my old account, since I didn't anticipate much continuity in my activities. That was in hindsight a mistsake. Nevertheless, I made no attempts to hide the fact that I "used to be" Sumple: my personal webpage, which is linked from my user page, clearly states so. My friends on the project are all aware of this. At no time did I deny that the two accounts were both registered by me. However, I do not believe this is sockpuppetry, so when I have been accused of sockpuppetry, I have of course vehemently denied it.
Just to make it clear, I'm not seeking any action against User:Certified.Gangsta. However, I would like to see User:Sumple unblocked. It makes no difference to me since I can't access it anyway, but I have a feeling that account being blocked for sockpuppetry will be used as a weapon by User:Certified.Gangsta in any future conflict along the lines of "User:PalaceGuard008 is a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppet User:Sumple". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, I see no possibility of abusive sockpuppetry as described in WP:SOCK, but it may fall slightly in the gray area of Wikipedia:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny...the last edit by Sumple (talk · contribs) was 12:38, May 27, 2007 & the first by PalaceGuard008‎ (talk · contribs) was 08:25, May 28, 2007--there's clearly no overlap in contributions in which the usual votestacking and such could have occured. But Sumple does have a minor block log, a 3 hr block on the day Sumple "left" the project...and there was certainly a lot of drama 'round then, too. That said, there's nothing really to fight about here, in my opinion. I'd say just unblock User:Sumple, leave the note that's currently there and ask this editor to link back to the old account on User:PalaceGuard008 for full clarity. — Scientizzle 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I will do that presently. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see conclusive evidence of intentional deception, but the end result is deception. By leaving the Sumple account and starting a new one under PalaceGuard008 at the time that he did -- when he was in a state of dispute, including with Certified.Gangsta -- it created the impression that he is a new user who had no prior history with Certified.Gangsta and anyone else, and the failure to disclose that in the recent dispute with Certified.Gangsta creates a misimpression, even if, arguendo, that was not the intended effect. I do not see any reason to unblock the Sumple account. It should be noted that I did not block PalaceGuard008. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But on what grounds did you block the Sumple account? Not being an alternate account, it can't be a sockpuppet account, and I did not use it deceptively - I have not even used it for the last 7 months, nor could I, as explained above.
There is no obligation for me to actively disclose every time I deal with an issue that I had participated in that I have had a previous account. At no point did I say that the two accounts were not both registered by me, and those users who have worked with me harmoniously often already know the history and status of the two accounts.
How can it be "deception" when the issue didn't even involve me: it involved a part of Certified.Gangsta's user page that others found offensive. Your argument is that because I, in my previous account, had had run-ins with Certified.Gangsta

on other issues, therefore I have an obligation to detail my past dealings with Certified.Gangsta every time I raise an issue about him?

No unfairness was created, unless you are saying that you would judge the merits of "China=Shame" not on its contents but on the identity of the person raising it on AN/I. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sumple and his sock PalaceGuard had so far presented a disgracefully distorted account of the entire episode. Sumple had actively pursued me in the past and launched a harassment campaign through his IP after he announced his departure. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Sumple (note that Sumple already took issue with the content of my userpage during this arbCom case) [1]. He also had a personal attack on his userpage against me calling me crazy people. (see AN/I

[2]) After he announced that he has left the project in May 27th, 2007 on User talk:Sumple after User:Geogre blocked him to cool him down. (and real life friend User:enochlau deleted his userpage)

The very next day, Sumple deceptively got a new account PalaceGuard. This exchange is quite interesting. blueshirt asked "Are you Mr. Sumple?" [3] (diffs doesn't show since this is the 1st edit) Sumple replied "As for your question, hush hush." [4] This show a blatant lack of respect to wikipedia policy and deliberate disruption. On May 29, Sumple's IP continued to harass me in various forums [5] [6] and added persona non grata through his IP in August

[7]. He continued to harass me throughout the months through IP addresses, most recently [[8]] While he tried to appear to be neutral and objective in his latest harassment endeavor, he refused to acknowledge his identity even when pressed by admins [noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=184688458#Racism in user page]. This is certainly not in accordance to the "right to vanish". He claimed he has retired while starting a new account to continue his harassment campaign. All of these add up to sockpuppetry, deception, deliberate disruption, trolling, and overall a lack of respect for wikipedia policies. He deserve to be blocked like all other sockpuppets and puppet master.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust readers can see that Certified.Gangsta is just assembling a bunch of unrelated diffs, mostly by unrelated parties, and infilling them with a bunch of emotive language...
Look C.G, stop stirring up problems. You didn't realise I changed accounts unlike other editors - that's not my fault. Your slow realisation is not a cue for you to come and pin every charge under the sky against me and claim that every one who dislikes your "valuable" contributions is me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, immediately changing to the sumple account could be construed as a disruptive attempt to channge identities, but that now no longer presents a problem because it is ntoed on the relevnt userpages. There has been no sockpuppetry by the definition of it. Note that Certified Gangsta is now callig for "justice" and threatening to leave and stalk palace guard (not sure wether that was sarcasm) on my talk page. ViridaeTalk 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m not making that threat. I’m putting this issue into perspective in the case that if I were Sumple and Sumple were me. It’s strictly hypothetical. Sumple, no doubt, is stalking (wikistalking) and spamming me all over the place while abusing his right to vanish. I’m just pointing out the absurdity in Viridae’s vehement defense for Sumple in a hypothetical situation.I don’t believe in sockpuppetry. That’s why I always request name change through the proper process and persistently hunted puppet master User:PoolGuy, User:Ideogram (a user Viridae patronized in the past), and User:RevolverOcelotX in the past. This, no doubt, doesn’t sit well with Viridae, who is more interested in personal vendetta and wikilawyering than upholding wikipedia policies.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Attacks will get you nowhere CG. ViridaeTalk 04:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m not going to waste my time anymore. I’m just going to point out the fact that, admin Nlu, an experienced sockpuppet hunter, agree with me that Sumple and PalaceGuard are sockpuppets. Sadly, he probably no longer wants to participate after Palace spammed his talkpage. If nobody wants to enforce the most basic policy, then so be it. As usual, the messenger gets shot.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually he didnt agree, per the link i provided to you when you claimed there was cosnensus that palaceguard and sumple were socks. You are repatedly ignoring evidence you disagree with. ViridaeTalk 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read any of my evidence above? As for the thread you point out on Nlu’s talkpage, nowhere did Nlu agree with you. Also, enochlau is Sumple’s real life friend who is his conspirator in this cover-up.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is this CG? "OK, thanks for the information. In which case, I'd say that the sockpuppet tag on his new account can be taken off, but I am honestly unsure how I feel about the tag on his old account; I'll have to think about it further. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)". Palacaeguard then agreed in this thread to tag his old account with a note notifying anyone interested of his new account. No evidence CG, how about you just drop it? (incidentally that hodge podge of unrelated diffs you supply as evidence above shows nothing). ViridaeTalk 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope anyone reading this thread can see the reason that I'm still pushing to have User:Sumple unblocked, or at least not blocked as a "sockpuppety". It makes no practical difference to me, because I can't access the User:Sumple account. But you can imagine what it'll be like if I run into Certified.Gangsta again, can't you? He's going to try to use this to attack me on any unrelated issue, probably citing some irrelevant diffs filled with a splodge of groundless and paranoid accusations... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Check the block log ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sumple ) it happened about 5 hours ago. ViridaeTalk 05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh oops. Sorry to waste space and time -_-. Thanks for your time all. This is what happens when you are trying to campaign on another account. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s way too premature to think this is over. Just watch me.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wenocur article socks or recreation?[edit]

Not sure if this is sock puppetry, or just coincidential recreation of a deleted page, but something looks a little fishy to me. I came across a User:AmeliaElizabeth and saw on their user contributions that this person has been modifying the userspace article User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur. User:Alfred Legrand was banned on January 10th, and this AmeliaElizabeth's article edits started on January 11th. I also find it a little interesting that User:Steven J. Anderson created that page on Alfred Legrand's userspace page.

I would note that it appears that the User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur article is a userspace update of the article R. S. Wenocur which was deleted multiple times , most recently through this AFD discussion.

I do not know if this may be sockpuppetry or not. I did notice, however, that Legrand was banned from using Wikipedia on January 10th, and AmeliaElizabeth's started January 11th. Also, why would Steven Anderson create the subpage on Legrand's userspace and not his own?

Just wanted to point this out in case there is something going on that should not be. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that before he was blocked, Legrand asked for userfication of the deleted article. User:Steven J. Anderson, an admin, probably responded to a request. Horologium (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that a report on this was already filed above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wenocur. Pairadox (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block users per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected AfD sockpuppetry[edit]

Could some of the admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Filippella? I strongly suspect, based on edit histories, that most of the keep votes (with the exception of the first one) are sock puppets of the subject of the article. However, I'd like to hear some additional opinions before slogging through a formal sock inquiry. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I struck out one that was a duplicate vote - two from Herndon VA same network. Another of the IPs WHOIS resolves to California, so I don't know. It looks like the IP was impersonating User:LuckyLuke. The blue-linked contributers are not, of course, socks. You could put a note at the top of the page about sockpuppeting by the someone who may or may not be the subject of the article, in bold, to make sure the closing admin notices (not that anyone wouldn't, given the shape of the discussion). Avruchtalk 02:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Only edits of User:Standshown is edit warring on Serbia-related articles [9]. Because of that he has been blocked on 24 hours period, but after that nothing has changed. For example of his POV editing I will use article Puppet state where he is deleting puppet regimes of Germany (to delete Serbia ?) but he is not deleting puppet regimes of Soviet Union. For me is not possible to believe that only him of all others editors of this article know what is puppet state or puppet regime and what is occupied territory ! Similar to that he is edit warring in articles Serbia (1941-1944) , Neo-Nazism in Serbia , Ante Pavelić , Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. In last 2 articles of this list he has stoped edit warring on New Year but new account User:Stagalj is created which is edit warring on this article. Because of possible socks we are having check user demand Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Standshown . Can somebody please stop this edit warring ?? --Rjecina (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy IP blocking[edit]

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I have only just joined. I had to do so because when I went to make a minor edit in wording in an article I was blocked. This was due to the fact that I am connected through iprimus (Primus Telecom), which uses a proxy server. While I agree to blocking a proxy due to consistent vandalism being issued by it's users, I wish to request that the policy on blocking be changed so that members of a proxy can still register on wikipedia. It is completely unfair to prevent them all from registering, when, once registered, they can be individually blocked. I understand that they can then make multiple accounts and undermine the system, but isn't blocking them to prevent that against the whole idea of wikipedia? Besides that, if they know how, they can simply bypass the proxy in their browser. Ultimately I would like to request that the policy be altered to stop the prevention of proxy users creating an account, or that at least the relevant instructions on how to bypass the proxy, and a list of affected ISP's be added to a relevant area. I myself had to navigate to an historical page on the problems with blocking AOL users to determine what I needed to do in order to register...

--KeeperoftheWatch (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't any trouble for you. Users behind proxies can request accounts in emails to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read the message? It was trouble for this user. You can be as flippant as you want, I suppose. Nevertheless let's not pretend that blocking out potentially valuable contributors is solved by requiring them to be aware of Wikipedia arcana and reveal their email addresses to who knows whom.
I look forward to the day when assuming good faith is a prevailing presumption on this site rather than merely a cudgel to be used against those with whom one disagrees. Frongle (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, can you please not jump on people's throats like that? Sorry to hear that, User:KeeperoftheWatch. Unfortunately due to the way our software works, we can't allow account creation on proxies that are known to be used by vandals. The block message should however redirect people to our mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If you give us the IP that was shown as blocked, we will be able to tweak this message. As a more permanent solution, you can contact Primus Telecom and ask them to follow the steps of explained by our m:XFF project, whose aim is to help ISP to configure their proxy servers to reduce collateral damage. -- lucasbfr talk 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar[edit]

Unresolved

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [10] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk)

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. —Random832

That page is a gigantic mess. Who is ever going to read that whole thing to find out what the actual problem is? Avruchtalk 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry at Andrea Bocelli[edit]

There are some very odd edits going on at Andrea Bocelli. Check the article history, especially re: the edits of the following users:

Something is quacking like sockpuppet farm here. Could someone look into this. Is this abuse of the kind that Checkuser could be useful for? Or is this nothing? Something has my Spidey-Sense tingling on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest, from a quick review, that LogonOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Legacie are related, but that bottichelliFan might be unrelated. Perhaps some more detailed explanation of what sorts of patterns you're seeing could help?ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all small stuff. The issue is that each user shows up for 1-2 days, makes 3 edits all subtly changing the article in some way that lies just below vandalism, and disappears again. All of the edits are related in some way to Boccelli being a bad singer, such as changing opera to "popera" or entering some personal analysis of his vocal qualities. Several of these seem to understand how to use ref tags and other higher order aspects of wikimarkup, which seems weird for a new user. Some of these may be innocently caught up in this, but something smells funny to me about this. I still want to see what others think... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the things to go sock farm over, Andrea Bocelli? Ronnotel (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, weird, right? And yet, something doesn't feel right about this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Yeah, it's a farm. I'll put the list at User talk:Jpgordon/Belcanti sock farm; someone should check to see there aren't any false hits in this list of 30 editors on one IP. You'll note that LogonOne and BotchelliFan are indeed there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Were these checkusered? Do we know they are one IP? And is it enough to take action against them??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I checkusered them, and I said they are one IP (actually, I found a couple more on an adjacent IP). And, sure, they might be a class. But the sort of stuff it's full of is like this at 22:40 followed by this two minutes later, then the creation of User:Dysopic at 22:45, and then the creation of User:Gitelmesumodat! at 22:54, then User:Gitelwomaner at 23:07... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Prolly more too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there little discussion the content? What if there was a school lesson about the person and the kids then edited. Let's see a list of which users are good and which are bad, then block the bad. I know nothing about the article's subject so I can't tell. Republic of One (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK if I just butt in? If this had been a follow on from a school lesson then surely most of the edits would have happened very rapdily over a short space of time. These edits from new users (most of whom as has been said seem to have quite a good understanding of how wikiedia works) just keep "popping up", and don't come across as being edits as a result of a school lesson. On 10 January LogonOne removed one section and then Lefacie later that same day (after it had been re-instated by someone) made an identical edit with virtually the same edit summary. There just appears to be a pattern of editing from all these new users all seemingly trying to change the whole feel of the article, and most of them coming acriss as if they were all being done by the same person. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ftleitner is on the list. The most recent edits that I check seem ok. User:Wasted Time R carries on a decent conversation with the user so that's a sign of not being a vandal (either that or they are both socks carrying on a fake conversation). Felix Leitner is a known CIA agent. He has worked with James Bond including the latest film. Republic of One (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but: look at the sequence of edits starting with this one. Three in a row from the same IP. Actually, that makes it seem more likely that it's a class project. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I've seen weirder. There probably are a lot more -- I haven't done a comprehensive checkuser yet (that is, I've not checkusered every username on the list yet; I just found these on the first one I checked.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If it's a class, make me a Sherlock Holmes award! Republic of One (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Take a look at the edits starting with here. The three edits within an hour of each other are from the same IP. I really really am inclined to hope that it's innocuous, because there are a ton more than I put on that page, which I'm now deleting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Maybe run a Whois on the IP? See if its a school or what? I mean, ONE IP address accounting for all of this... This... I don't know what to think. I mean, it could just be some kids at school goofing off... But... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh, it's not one address anymore -- there are a handful of them in a small (so far) range, but from 3 of them, I've got over 60 names, and I'm going to stop looking unless there's an actual problem, like talk page collusion (rather than conversation, which is what I've mostly seen.) Maybe it's an Internet cafe? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Or a public library... Still, there MAY be some sockpupetry going on between some of these. It is probably no longer a "grand conspiracy", but we shouldn't let this color our analysis of some possible sockpuppetry from some users using this IP. But I agree, the idea that this single IP means it is a single user is getting harder and harder to believe... Weird stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as long as it's not Sefton Public Libraries... which has already been blocked a lot of times! --Solumeiras talk 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up"

Reminds me of that incident that incident involving a professor that User:Zoe got into a discussion about on here... --Solumeiras talk 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX (reprise)[edit]

I made a report here a day or two ago about ThuranX denouncing me as a "racist" and a "bigot" - labels that I find deeply offensive. As I did not have much time to respond to user comments at the time, the report was quickly superseded by newer reports, and as I've been reluctant to make an issue of it, I decided perhaps it would be best to just drop the matter.

On reflection however, I've decided that I can't really do that, because it leaves me feeling aggrieved and I couldn't possibly be expected to co-operate in future with a user who maintains that I am a racist and a bigot. I have also found that this matter has considerably soured my interest in Wikipedia, to the point where I no longer feel like contributing. Therefore, I feel this issue requires some sort of resolution.

Before I take the matter further then, I am going to ask once again, if ThuranX is unwilling to withdraw his slurs, that he be sanctioned for it. I'm asking here first because it strikes me as a relatively quick and easy place to resolve a dispute like this. In the event that no-one here is willing to sanction ThuranX for whatever reason, the next step will be to take it to WP:WQA. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, ThuranX is incorrect to call you a racist, when it's obvious from inspecting your contributions on Holodomor Denial, that you are a communist propagandist and Holodomor denialist. Being a racist is much more respectable. Argyriou (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As with any AN/I post - can you provide diffs, even if you have cited them in a prior thread? Additionally, Argyriou, observe WP:NPA or you will end up blocked. Avruchtalk 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-adolescent sex and Adult child sex[edit]

[I changed this section title to match the actual discussion content here. Page title was temporarily at Adult-older teen sex; that was changed during this AN/I report, per discussions that were in progress previously. The prior title is mentioned in the first few paragraphs but is not the main point of this AN/I report as can be seen here in the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

Jack-a-Roe was among the set of Wikipedians who supported keeping the article at Adult-older teen sex. I'm not sure why the pagemove which started the current kerfuffle shouldn't be in the section head, as it originally was. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, SSBohio, that is a misrepresentation of my position, and shows a lack of good faith. I never liked the title "Adult-older teen sex". I support either "Adult-teen sex" or "Adult-adolescent sex", or simply deletion. I changed the heading here, for clarity in this report only, in good faith, and not for any undue influence (that would not have accrued anyway). It's also completely untrue that the title of "Adult-older teen sex" is at the core of this issue, that's a sidetrack and discussing it does not help in any way to get to the root of the content dispute. Now, there is an AfD in progress for that page, so we'll find out what the community consensus is about that, and that is a welcome process. I believe the widest possible participation in the AfD process would be beneficial to Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)



Would an admin (or two or three) review the page move and subsequent creation of a dab page to prevent the move from being undone? A quick look at the relevant talk pages will show that this was done with virtually no discussion and is extremely controversial, with more and more editors weighing in on the inappropriateness of the move. Pairadox (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this plea. Three people "reached a consensus" among each other to move and re-direct within a few minutes after 15 or 20 similar or identical proposals had failed, where several dozens of people had voiced their utter disagreement with such a move. The current supporters of the move link to a "discussion" they themselves have deleted, just as they have deleted the whole history of the article they moved. Compare the current remains of Adult-child sex to my WIP draft of the same article that by now several people have agreed on that it would be better to revert to than to accept this mere disambiguation ruin. A number of newcomers to the talkpage at Adult-older teen sex already voiced how poorly the few materials the moving editors kept corresponds with this new article's theme. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The title "Adult-older teen sex" is utterly ridiculous, not least because it makes no sense in the English language. I have moved it to Adult-adolescent sex for this reason alone, and consensus on the page should determine a correct outcome (whether to go back to the old title or what to change it to if not.) Other admins should not feel they are wheel-warring me if they disagree and can think of a better solution to this mess. Orderinchaos 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
To claim 3 people reached consensus is a complete under-exageration and I would argue that consensus has been achieved butt hat a tiny minority of editors refusee to accept it. Then title is now Adult-adolescent sex which is not ridiculous at all which I fully support as a fine solution, and I don't believe those who su[pport the creation of the dab page at Adult-child sex will disagree either. Hopefully no more admin intervention is now required. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As usual SqueakBox, you have the overwhelming majority of people against you and don't even acknowledge that. Just recently, User:Karla_Lindstrom has referred to your persistent disruptive behavior as "dictatorial behaviour with some vague appeal to common sentiment", not to mention the hundreds of accounts where people agreed with her on that and that are now conveniently deleted because you deleted the entire article. --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither side has an overwhelming majority on this issue. That's why there's a conflict. What should concern us all are the tactics being used to circumvent the ongoing discussion. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, is this not about deleting subjects which you can't comprehend, rather than making only important information available. The small group of editors that includes yourself seem intent on deleting any historical or anthropological mention of nonwestern adult-child sex that threatens to undermine the dominant theory. It really is quite pathetic and immature. digitalemotion 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I broadly agree with some of your points, but I wanted to clarify that this discussion is entirely about whether the article needs admin intervention, not the merits of any side. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Have reviewed the situation carefully. User:Nakon carefully reviewed the situation then move-protected the article a few days ago after some fairly extreme warring. Some constructive editing thereby took place but then some further wholesale changes occurred. Nakon reverted them, and placed a notice on the article that "Your Attention, Please! Anyone coming here to revert changes should read [11] before pressing the "Save Page" button. Editors continuing to revert changes will be blocked from editing for disruption and edit warring." There does not appear to have been consensus to move forward on this.

I note that even in the time since I restored to Nakon's version about 20 minutes ago, Squeakbox has attempted to jump to the thick of the battle from 6 days ago. There is indeed some problem editors and problem edits on both sides, and the article is not ideal, but the way to solve this is pouring water on it, not gasoline. Orderinchaos 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article Orderinchaos. Should we be inclined to understand this as a warning directed at SqueakBox? --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that other admins are advised to participate, as I now seem to be involved, due to Squeakbox's two reversions of my edit (strangely, the version being reverted to is way back on 7 January[12], not any recent version). Orderinchaos 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, as you can see, two editors (SqueakBox and Pol64) are obviously ignoring your admin decision as well as they are violating your user block warning that has been put at the very top of the article. I propose that said warning of user blockage ought to be put to action. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify - a. as an admin I'm basically just a trusted user, I don't run the place and it should be noted one of the other parties, User:Herostratus, is also an admin (the one who moved the page despite sysop-protection). b. I didn't place the notice - Nakon did. c. I can't block - see WP:BLOCK. "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Orderinchaos 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I've seen admins use their admin tools when they've been involved in a content dispute. I think your way avoids conflict of interest to a greater degree. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. There are two users (Squeakbox and Pol64) who are determinedly and mechanically fighting any attempt to deal with the situation in a rational manner. If another admin could look into this as I'm unable to act against any of the parties given my involvement tonight, that would be great - please note this is urgent and current. Orderinchaos 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, respectfully, there are so many kilobytes of discussion, and so much aggressive activity in this situation that has gone on for months, that perhaps you didn't notice the at least five more editors who support the change of article title. I'm not saying that's enough for consensus, but it is enough that it's not fair to focus only on the two users you mentioned, who happened to be the ones online since you became involved.
In addition to those two, I also support the change in article title, for many reasons; and other editors supporting the change include administrator Herostratus, who you noted above, plus administrator Will Beback, Flyer22, and JLove. That's at least 7 editors who have stated their support of the change in just the last couple weeks. Prior to that during debates over the last few months, there have been many more, though I have not organized that information so I can't present it here.
My point is that this is an ongoing complicated difficult situation and a larger issue, not just a couple people being pushy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - it's a lot of people being pushy. Pairadox (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've said things I'm not proud of during the course of this dispute. Others, presumably, have as well. The discussion here is primarily concerned with what admin action needs to be taken, not with who's right about the article's title or content. Right now, I feel that the article may need to go under a (brief) period of full protection, as semi-protection hasn't doused the fire. These issues need talked out, not repeatedly reverted. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, but it strikes me that what is going on is largely a content dispute. Whilst admins can deal with the issue of edit-warring and other conduct issues, the actual content dispute should go through paths starting with RFC. At the moment we have a ridiculous situation in which Adult-older teen sex is redirected to Adult-adolescent sex is redirected to Adult-child sex. Thus we have a redirect from something that is legal in most contemporary societies, to something where there is a legal fault line (i.e. Age of consent) through the middle of the legality of the concept in most societies to something which is illegal in most societies. What is needed is sensible discussion on how to deal with the content issues. Admin fiat isn't going to solve them. But the blurring of the subjects produced by the chain of redirects makes Wikipedia look muddled.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescensts, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents as you can see in my further advanced draft in my own namespace I've linked to above, but then Herostratus moved it to Adult-older teen sex by agreeing with SqueakBox and Pol64 after we had 15 to 20 unsuccessful proposals for delete/merge/redirect already.
Also, as it might interest a few people here to know, the people that have been warned today by admins of getting blocked for more unilateral, "disruptive" redirection have now started another proposal for delete/merge/redirect. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Which of course is not a disruptive action at all and hopefully will give greater community consensus on this matter. If people feel the need to edit the article to resolve the problem screaming don't until you are blue in the face is not helpful. Some editors appear only to to be here to promote a POV and trhen they go blamingm other editors who are more interested in NPOV. Count the number of SPAs and you will see whaty I mean. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On "disruptive", I've only quoted literally those admins that have now warned you. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Tlato, are you aware that Hersostratus was an admin and that Orderinchaos was wheelwarring? I am not criticising any admins but I do think Tlato is being a bit presumptive here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:WHEEL does not actually encompass moving an article, strangely enough, so your position's a little hard to justify. Admins who make non-consensual changes after a resolution has been attempted in complete violation of WP:PROTECT (in summary, don't use one's tools to advance one's own position) are likely to be reverted as would any other user - mine, as I have noted, was not a position taken on issue but a status quo based on the last review (which the paint hadn't even dried on yet). Orderinchaos 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of these cabals gaming the system. Yes, cabals. real ones. I said it. There's a pattern here. Cause trouble, find an admin willing to jump into this gigantic morass of morons and sort it out. As soon as one does, they're tainted, and cannot resolve it again, because one side or the other tags them as 'involved editors by arguing their actions with reverts. Once an admin action that didn't involve the fancy buttons is reverted, the editors claim the admin is now part of the content dispute, insulating themselves from blocks by that admin. Then another admin must step in, read it all, and issue blocks. Those blocks are contested by the editor's fellow travelers, making the new admin also tainted. Then, there's two less courageous editors who can ever again step in to resolve this stuff. It's a war of attrition, and it's intentional manipulation of the situation. Admins who step in based on AN/I reports ought to be covered by policy to protect their effectiveness. Any admin actions can be appealed through various methods, so why should we give them a 'one shot deal' system? By that logic, our oldest and boldest admins are relegated within a year or two to policy debate and vandalism fights, because all the content and dispute stuff is off limits as 'involved'. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. It puts administrators in a no-win situation and encourages inaction. Orderinchaos 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Shouldn't WP:AGF cover this? After all, an otherwise uninvolved Admin entering a dispute should be assumed to be objective until it is clearly proven otherwise. (Emphasis on "clearly".) -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but because one is attracted to a certain group of people does not mean one has sex with that group of people; conversely, just because one has sex with a certain group of people, doesn't mean that you are fixated on that group; it may just be a source of easy sex that's close enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathewignash posting cartoon images[edit]

A few days ago I asked to hear for feedback on the images of toy/cartoon/comic characters. I asked what was the most accepted source - a comic book scan, box art, the toy, promotional images, assuming I use a proper non-free source tag. Has anyone put any thought into this matter? I was hoping to post one or two more pictures for character articles lacking images tonight or tomorrow. If I don't hear from anyone here, I'll guess it's okay to try two more and then ask for feedback on if I did them properly. Thanks in advance for any input. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MCQ is a better place for these kinds of inquiries. —Random832 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Legrand and the sock puppets[edit]

Please block very recently confirmed sockpuppets of Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand.

 Confirmed - sock puppets of Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs)

Thanks. CM (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this specifically - doesn't the RFCU clerk typically perform these blocks? Avruchtalk 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No :) We often do since we're obviously watching the page more often, but the procedure is for the requester to ask an admin to perform the blocks based on the evidence. Some clerks are not admins, which shouldn't prevent them from closing and archiving cases. -- lucasbfr talk 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Also to add to what lucas said, sometimes the requester doesn't want a block, or a block is not the best solution, and all that is being requested is the confirmation. Orderinchaos 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, we need to seriously discuss an indef community ban at this point. This behavior goes back to at least January 2006. — Satori Son 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
05:18, 10 January 2008 User:Krimpet blocked "User:Alfred Legrand (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite. -- lucasbfr talk 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This situation is so long-term and complex, I'm not sure which account could even be classified as the "puppetmaster" at this point. But I see that East718 has also indef blocked the longest existing account, MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · block log), which I fully support. — Satori Son 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Logical Defense (talk · contribs) making personal attacks and threatening to subvert IFD[edit]

Under a previous username (which is open for anyone to see), I applied some RFU and missing fair use rationale and copyright tags to an image. I have since retired that username and begun using this one after a bit of drama involving a former admin and an alias signature I was using at the time. In any case, I gave up previously. However, I ultimately decided that a rule is a rule and everyone should be required to follow them. So, I retagged the image in question. [13]. Logical Defense once again deleted the tags (even though the RFU tag clearly states that it should not be removed). I was told that if he did this again, I should IFD the image, which I have done [14].

Logical Defense is mistaken regarding a great many things. He continually accuses me of bad faith, claims I'm tagging the image because I'm "pro-Christian" (I'm not). Now he is going around bad mouthing me on other people's talk pages and violating WP:CANVASS to boot [15]. At the end of his screed, he claims that if the image is deleted at IFD, he "already knows what to do". Which I assume is to subvert it by uploading the image again.

I've never said the image is needless as he claims. I'm NONE of the things he claims I am (a kid, a teenager, religious, etc.), and instead of following the rules according to our non-free media policy, he deletes tags and makes personal attacks. I would like it very much if someone would explain the replaceable fair use policy and the nonfree media policy in general, and warn this person to stop canvassing and making personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the IFD tag. If it continues to be removed, the image can be protected until the IFD is over. None of the other tags (replaceable, etc) really matter as any of those processes are superseded by an IFD discussion. --B (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! I probably should have IFDed in the first place. Oh well, live and learn. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your accusations of "personal attacks" are greatly exaggerated, and any investigation into what I've said in edit summaries and so forth will show that nothing I said was intended as "attacks". If you take offense to being called a "teenager" (which according to info on your former account, you at least were when I first met you here), or "Christian" (which again, you named yourself at the time our conflict emerged), then that's your personal misconception. You keep trying to spin my actions in an attempt to hurt my rep, but the truth is, I've done nothing wrong while communicating with you or anyone else.
I stand by my claim that your pursuit to erase the image is personal bias; the image, afterall, provides mood and intrigue to the black metal page. If providing a clear portrait of a historical moment is something you're against, then I can understand this game you're playing. Otherwise, I don't get it. But we'll let review decide. "Reuploading the image" -- by the way -- is another exaggeration you've made without merit. Logical Defense (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Stand by your claims all you like. I just hope you're accustomed to being wrong about a great many things. My age and religion/lack thereof are immaterial and constant mention of them is nothing more than an attempt to divert people from the issue at hand, which is a non-free image being used in violation of WP:NFCC. Sadly, nonfree images can't be used to provide "mood and intrigue." IFD will determine the ultimate outcome and whatever the reviewing admin decides will be fine by me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates and user pages at CSD[edit]

While doing the gardening, I noticed there's a bunch of templates and user pages for consideration at CSD. These make an interesting change from the usual "is gay" moronic stuff, so please pop along if you've a mind to do some mopping. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Before anyone asks, no I don't do the gardening with a mop. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

168.167.93.241‎ (talk · contribs) and La'teen (talk · contribs)[edit]

I may not be handling this properly so I would like some help if possible.

I suspect that the IP and the username listed above are the same person based on the fact that they are editing some of the same articles and at about the same time. User La'teen created article S.C.A.R which was a cut and paste from " this site. I tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. User La'teen, the creator of the article, removed the speedy tag which, per the tag itself (do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself) was in violation of policy. I replaced the tag back into the article and posted a notice on the user's talk page regarding this violation. Shortly thereafter, 168.167.93.241 deleted the speedy tag from the article. If 168.167.93.241 was a different user than La'teen this would have been fine but I suspect that they are the same person and are using an account and an anonymous IP address to circumvent policies and rules. Here are some of the articles they have both contributed to:

I have placed templates for suspected sock puppets on their user pages but am somewhat unsure how to proceed and whether or not I handled things correctly so far. Please advise. Thanks.

P.S.
The S.C.A.R article has been rewritten since I first tagged it as a copyright violation so it may not qualify for speedy anymore, at least not for that reason. SWik78 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is a real intention of violating Wikipedia practises even if they were the same person... I don't think La'teen knows enough Wikipedia policies to try to circumvent them. I think he's just a new eager editor from Botswana, who wishes to contribute but is finding the learning curve too steep. This is exactly the situation I was hoping to avoid when I advised him to create articles in a subpage of his user space and asking for comments before going to main space :( Sadalmelik (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HemperorOfSmokeLandVillez.dum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Current involved in an edit war at Bourke Engine, but that not why I'm bringing him up; looking through his edits and his talk page, the man is almost literally incoherent. Also, he's now threatening people HalfShadow (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the edge of blocking him for re-creating promotional articles - at least, they look like promotion if you squint at the nonsense long enough. I think he's been using too much of his product. He seems to have achieved a critical blocking mass at this point. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Hmm. Too much "hemp(eror)", perhaps. However, communicating through edit summaries is not helpful. Neither is the provocative format, never mind the content. I'll drop him a note on his talk page and see what that brings up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was formulating a 48-hour block for edit-warring/spamming/nasty edit summaries/craziness, but will hold off for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If craziness were a reason for blocking, two-thirds of us wouldn't be here; feel free if my move doesn't work, but we have to realise that editors come here with widely differing value systems. However, this editor has had a wider variety of warnings than I can remember seeing; a 48-hour may allow him to come down from Cloud 8, perhaps. And that's not an insult; I've been there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think he might descend from #9 to #7. I'm not in favor of crazy-blocking either - this place would lose many of its more amusing charms if we did that. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't even make no sense; he makes anti-sense. If sense and him entered a room at the same time, there'd be a massive explosion and release of energy. HalfShadow (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. You say that as if it were a bad thing. Whilst it would be beneficial if he would meet us half-way, I think first we have to be on the same road, and since we hold the keys to the road, I would suggest the ball's in his court right now. It's not quite the same as other users I've seen whose first, or even second, language, is not English; or who have some other communication issues. But this editor had got to be straight sometime, and realise that if he wants to participate, he should accept prevailing cultural values, limited though they may appear to him. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Now blocked for 48 hours after starting right back up. Reviews welcome, as always. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh well; I tried to engage here. It's said that failure to hit the target is not the fault of the target. Apparently this is an exception to that proposition, and I can't criticise your judgement here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. Their editing behavior on Bourke engine‎ has clearly crossed into disruptive. Hopefully they'll get with the program. — Satori Son 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mandloi[edit]

Resolved: page deleted, user blocked

Mandloi (talk · contribs) is creating User space articles touting a pyramid scheme. Corvus cornixtalk 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • deleted the user page and user talk page. Left a warning on talk page. If it continues, let us know, and a block may be forthcoming. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not just spamming, this is an illegal pyramid scheme and possibly even a criminal scam. I am blocking the user, and will make a checkuser request since he may well be operating from an open proxy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like Ryulong has been faster ... - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FANCYHOODLUM[edit]

Resolved

User keeps on creating nonnotable autobiographical articles (Eddie Vegas and Eddie vegas despite multiple editors telling this user not to. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have protected Eddie Vegas; Eddie vegas already is protected. If the user continues to disrupt Wikipedia, I will briefly block him to get his attention. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on...[edit]

Resolved: image deleted

Yes, i am aware that wikipedia is not censored (fuck that stupid policy ) :). But is this really needed? I mean what good is it going to do on this project? What article does it relate to? I personally see it as vandalism and think it should be turned into another pretty red link. Thoughts? Tiptoety talk 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that got someones attention fast! Thanks, Tiptoety talk 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For the curious, it was added to an article in [16] and deleted 3 minutes later (3 minutes before Tiptoety saved the first post here). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more appalled by the username and have reported it at UAA. Estrella roja alada.svg ALLSTAR echo 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That was unnecessary as the user has been blocked indef for about 3 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well now the user can be deleted for about forever.. and get a non-offensive username. Estrella roja alada.svg ALLSTAR echo 07:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What? The issue was the image, and the user was a vandalism only account. There's no reason to add any more admin actions here. This is not a UAA issue. It never was.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, user is already blocked, what more do you want? Tiptoety talk 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Kuru[edit]

Resolved: all socks blocked (more applause). Tiptoety talk 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock harassment This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. danielcase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. pharmboy (talk)

This admin continues to vandalize West Texas accounts through his army of sockpuppet. He has created over 25 sockpuppet accounts to avoid detection. luna santin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhill45 (talkcontribs) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've blocked all sockpuppets blocked involved. east.718 at 05:06, January 19, 2008
(Applause) --B (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As it ends up, I had to protect the sockpuppet's talk page. I consider this an extreme measure that is warranted in this instance, so review is welcome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, it's about the 20th time this ding-dong has had one of his sock account's talk page protected. List is here. Kuru talk 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm... Ding Dongs. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Andy Marchbanks[edit]

Resolved: No action required.

Since his first edit at 21:05, 6 December 2006, User:Andy Marchbanks has refused to use edit summaries. As of 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC), Mathbot's edit summary usage for Andy Marchbanks stands at 1% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. The reason it is 1% is due to page moves and article creations which use automatic edit summaries. According to User talk:Andy Marchbanks, at least five users (including myself) have asked him to use edit summaries. It is very difficult to monitor recent changes and watchlists when established users don't use edit summaries to help their fellow editors. Can anyone help resolve this situation? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no unbreakable law that editors have to use edit summaries, Help:Edit summary, it is simply good practice, and although it does help other editors if you use them, no one can force you to do so, some people may simply not what want to bother, and it is an easy thing to forget to do. Also, nowhere on his talk page does Andy refuse to use summaries, he simply does not acknowledge the messages. Sorry all anybodycan do is ask him to use them, we can't force him to. Try talking to him about it on his talk page without using an automated message, it may get a response.--Jac16888 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Edit_summaries. At 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC), an administrator, User:Kralizec!, composed what appears to be a non-automated response.[17] It was met with silence. Using edit summaries is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette (although for some reason it is not listed on that page). The edit summary help guide is grouped under related editing guidelines in {{Guideline list}}, but does not have the status of a guideline. Why? The edit summary article even says, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And i quote "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits;failing to provide edit summaries....is considered incivil and bad wikiquette", taken from the arbcom precedents page you quoted, which also says it doesn't have a penalty attached. Out of any given recent changes page, very few edits will have summaries, i.e., the ones by established editors. I repeat, you cannot force someone to use summaries, literally, there is no way of doing it. What is it you actually want to happen?--Jac16888 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Andy's just a good old-fashioned WikiGnome? --Merovingian (T, C) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you. I was planning on saying that in my next response, should i need to :)--Jac16888 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Anyway, to elaborate, I would venture to guess that as long as his edits are legit, we have little to worry about. --Merovingian (T, C) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This situation is not resolved, so I don't know why it was marked as such. The edits are not all "legit": the user is deleting content from controversial articles without edit summaries, and on his talk page, is claiming that these are minor grammar fixes. The user has been asked not to do this by multiple editors. Please read the user talk page and review the most recent contribs. The user has not "forgotten" to use edit summaries - the user refuses to use them. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Edit summaries should be used for major edits. It takes longer to make a major edit than to write a brief edit summary. Omitting the edit summary saves very little time, and wastes the time of other editors. Does he even bother to mark minor edits as minor? Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Racist comments[edit]

Resolved

I wish to report the edit of 86.147.3.72 to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. on 19th January.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=185365879&oldid=185353160

This clearly inappropriate content and I would appreciate investigation by WP with a view to this user being permanently blocked. Tmol42 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already given the user an only warning, which is the best option, and they have not edited since, its possible they may have listened to the warning. If they come back and post more attacks, give another warning, see WP:Vand, then report them to WP:AIV--Jac16888 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Or better yet, report them directly to me and I'll block them. There's absolutely no place in Wikipedia for racist crap like this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


User:PYLrulz[edit]

Resolved

User:PYLrulz is attempting to bully myself and anyone else who chooses to remove the unnecessary pro wrestling trivia being included in the article for Wachovia Spectrum. For far too long, too many articles have been all but vandalized by this fancruft, and the wrestling kids have relied on bullying tactics to preserve this unencyclopaedic content. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an article about a stadium that's been used for pro wrestling. There's no reason not to have that information there; why is college basketball more important than wrestling? In any case, it's a content dispute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
To reply, this person had kept on deleting notable information on the page regarding what I belive is a fair enough review of history of wrestling at the Spectrum. I had to revert his edits 4 times, the first time just a normal revert, with a level 1 warning, the next, just a plain revert, the 3rd, I had asked him not to delete the info, and then the 4th time, I had said I would report him if he took off the info again. If anybody needs to talk with me about this incident though, I will be all ears on it. Whammies Were Here 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. You are at 3RR and PYLrulz is at 4RR. Take care to avoid an edit war. Personally, I see no good reason why it should be left out if it can be referenced appropriately. AN/I is not for content disputes, so the only action likely to be taken here is going to be based on the edit warring you two have been engaged in. Avruchtalk 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a week due to the edit warring. I suggest you use that time to come to a consensus on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been protected to endorse the inclusion of pointless fancrufty wrestling content. That doesn't seem logical at all. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read the tag - "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." The world won't end if an article has a little cruft on it for a week. (Less if you can come up with a consensus before that). Mr.Z-man 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Andyjsmith[edit]

Resolved: see below

This user has been doing nothing but stalking me recently. He's called me a troll because I switch "manned" to "human" on manned mission to Mars calling "manned" sexist. He should get a warning against doing that. Every single one of his edits today has been him stalking me. He seems to have something against me. RightGot (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Righty I would refuse to be riled by him if I were you. I agree with you to an extent, but feel you could concenntrate on improving your own edits, annd ignore him, . Idon't think Andy's got anything but the best interests of wiki in mind and perhaps a slight prejudice against your work. You could discuss with him perhaps, about what would help him feel happier about your efforts on wiki and make him feel you mean well, or ask another user to mediate. Merkinsmum 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Related: #RightGot x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The link posted above is relevant. The user appeared to be riled by the deletion of pages they had created and started a number of pointy AfD nominations, which were either closed or reverted by User:Andyjsmith or others. They have been warned. There is nothing that requires admin attention here, so closed. BLACKKITE 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Block of User:Rkowalke by User:JzG[edit]

Resolved

See below. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rkowalke (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Can I ask for a review of this block of Rkowalke by Guy? Its an indefinite block with 'unsuitable edits' given as the block reason. As someone who interacted frequently with Rkowalke on the Warren National University article I would agree that Rkowalke was focusing primarily on that article and from a specific POV, but I'm not sure I would agree that his editing rose the level of warranting an indefinite block. I realize the block is older at this point, but since Rkowalke seems to be checking back periodically (and with increasing frustration) perhaps he'd return if his block was revised. Avruchtalk 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the specifics of the case, but I don't see why a conditional unblock could not be enacted. I think, given his apparent desire to return, we could work with him to avoid the problems that got him blocked in the first place. It seems to mainly be with article ownership and POV pushing on an article about a diploma mill. Perhaps as a condition to his unblock, we could institute a community ban on editing Warren National University and related articles; he could use the talk pages to civilly discuss changes to the articles, but should avoid editing them himself. He could also freely edit other articles, but should he revert to his old behavior, an indefinite block should return. I think a second chance may be in order, but he needs to know there will be NO third chance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something of a moot point. His last edit is over a month old; it's unlikely that he will return with the expectation to find that he is unblocked. Additionally, a number of admins have reviewed the block and agreed with the reasoning. Unless there is an exceedingly good reason to bring it up again, it should rest - and if that reason can be brought up, it would probably necessitate an RFC.

The best course for a user in a case like this who has decided to turn over a new leaf is to start a new account quietly and go about editing elsewhere. It's been done before, and so long as they can stay away from the original problem(s), nobody will reblock them. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was it previously reviewed? Must've missed it. Avruchtalk 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There's an unblock request on the talk page, and some comments which follow. And I reviewed it as well, just for good measure. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. I have read the page, but it didn't seem like a comprehensive review of the block (Maxim's "You didn't state a reason for unblock" isn't really a material review). I can understand you reviewing it and expressing your opinion that its a good block, but I'm not wholly convinced it warrants a resolved tag unless it was brought here before. Avruchtalk 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
JzG is a well-rounded admins whose opinion I trust. Typically one unblock request is sufficient; so far there's been at least two admins (not including others who dropped by this user's page) who have reviewed and agreed with the decision. However, if you want to solicit a third opinion, you may remove the resolved tag... I won't take it personally. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Restore[edit]

Resolved

I would like to see the contents of Supercheats. Can it be restored and userfied to my userspace? Thanks, Mercury at 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done privately. east.718 at 05:49, January 20, 2008
Now that.... that is confusing (sigs). ViridaeTalk 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


ScienceApologist blocked again[edit]

Resolved: The matter is being discussed at arbitration enforcement. No need to duplicate here.

I'm having a hard time following this one. This message showed up on ScienceApologist's page, indirectly pointing here as justification, but when I read that discussion, it seems to have been closed with a decision not to block.Kww (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should try asking the blocking admin first? Since he didn't reference the post you did, perhaps there's another reason. Shell babelfish 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I copied the diff of the complaint. The section below is with regards to Martinphi. I blocked him per these diffs in light of his arbcom restrcition. - Revolving Bugbear 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, a little attention to this would be appreciated. - Revolving Bugbear 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, to be fair to Science Apologist, he should try harder, but those diffs are incivility in response to assumptions of bad faith on his part, which somewhat mitigates it. However, the "he should try harder" is still true - perhaps 24 hours or a warning would have been better than 72. Adam Cuerden talk 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is currently being discussed here. With regards to the length of the block, see my justification there. - Revolving Bugbear 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Assumptions of bad faith don't mitigate incivility. There is nothing about other people doing bad things that forces anyone to be uncivil. (1 == 2)Until 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Legal threat[edit]

Resolved: user blocked

An editor came to my user talk to complain about a legal threat.[18] I agree this is an explicit legal threat. Would someone who has the tools step in please? DurovaCharge! 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indef. Nakon 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've watched this user's page. It's not clear to me the user is experienced enough to understand the policy on legal threats and, per policy, the block should only stand as long as the threat is pending. We'll see what he says, of course. - Revolving Bugbear 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Ngoogs[edit]

Resolved: User idef blocked by User:Neil. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please block User:Ngoogs? I'd do it myself, but since I'm one of the people he insulted I figure I should as someone else to do it.

As you can see from his talk page, all I did to "provoke" this was try to give him some advice on how he should approach writing an article in order to demonstrate notability, and to give him a quite politely worded warning about exactly this sort of incivility. - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I already told user on talk page that a block can not go through until the other user has committed two more acts of vandalism/attacks/etc. But I do see a need to do something about Ngoogs. The user has shown a lack of interest in helping the project. Rgoodermote  01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Since when do we give four civility warnings, one of which must be a final warning, before blocking? Any admin should be willing to block somebody who continues to be incivil, no matter how many "warnings" they're given. Corvus cornixtalk 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no mandatory minimum number of warnings in cases of grossly offensive name-calling and disruption. As best I can tell, this user came back from three weeks of inactivity and his first edit was to post a vandalistic insult on another user's talkpage. At most, one more like that and I'd say out he goes—and I don't think a lot of discussion would be needed, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked. If he is not interested in contributing productively after polite offers of help, then I'm sure we can muddle on without him. Neıl 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Agreed, lets just block and move on, i don't see anyway to WP:AGF.Tiptoety talk 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It is just recommended, but as I have conflicted like six times I have been unable to say the user has gone past last warning. Rgoodermote  01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Need review of block[edit]

Resolved: User un-blocked

I'm about to head to sleep and I just wanted to ask for a few opinions on a block I made with regards to Dexryu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I felt the block was very much a borderline case, as it sort of compares to DerHexer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). One could argue that it is pure coincidence, and it very well may be. Anyhow since I'm about to go to sleep and would not receive a complaint or request for unblocking until later I'm asking that other admins review the block and/or watch the talk page of the account to see if an unblock request pops up. Please don't hesitate to unblock if you feel it is warranted. Thanks in advance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there a reason for the block beyond a conincidental sequence of letters in the username? Cuz the user didn't even edit once? Just curious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Gawd thats stretching it a bit. I will unblock. ViridaeTalk 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Viridae. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No quarrel here with that. Thanks Viridae. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If that level of similarity is grounds for blocking, then we should probably stop letting people register accounts. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, lets try to assume good faith here, he was just trying to protect some admins, and openly requested for a review of it. Tiptoety talk 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm like I said it was a borderline block, hence my request for a review. Obviously you missed that bit in your haste to bestow us with your brand of sarcasm. Bravo well done! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


WP:BITE and users using wikipedia as a chat space[edit]

Resolved: "No harm done"
renamed, because User:Ryulong doesn't like being singled out in a section title. —Random832 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Ryulong is a very respected administrator on Wikipedia, and I respect him a lot myself, but last month (December of 2007), he was very unfriendly to my personal friends, Awesome93, 13aquamarine, and This doesnt hurt. They were partially at fault because they were using Wikipedia as a messaging area, but the way that Ryulong handled it was very disappointing. He deleted their userpages, and left a message that, to put it lightly, was stated in an unfriendly manner. My friends were starting to edit (and their user contributions show that, except for 13aquamarine, as she feels her grammar won't contribute effectively to the project), but then Ryulong reacted negatively, and, ultimately, pushed them away from Wikipedia. However, they are starting to edit a slight more, because I've been encouraging them in real life. My overall message is to let administrators know that when handling problems, please approach them in a manner that is not hostile, and write something like, "I see that you're using Wikipedia as a messaging space. Although Wikipedia welcomes everybody, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be used as a messaging space (see WP:NOT#MYSPACE). This is only a warning, just to let you know that you have to start editing pages. If you ignore this message, you may have your userpage wiped out or even be blocked. Please start making contributions, as you'll find it more fun and you won't be in trouble!" Just an example... — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's important to not bite the newbies. This would probably have been better to post to the village pump or something. —Random832 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since it does seem to involve adminsitrator actions,(deleting userpages and the like) it should probably be reviewed here. Ryulong is a good admin, and dealing with disruptive behavior such as excessive chatter without encyclopedio edits is likely to generate some controversy among those one is reprimanding. Looking over this, Ryulong probably dealt with it a bit harhly. I would have left more tactful warnings, and probably asked the users themselves to voluntarily clean up their user space. However, his motivation was fine, and personally I feel, that aside from some hurt feelings, this is probably a "no harm-no foul" situation. However, other admins should be given the chance to comment. This is surely an admin issue and should be dealt with here, and not VPP... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This may be the right place, but I don't see any particular foul, and no particular course of action beyond Ryulong being made aware of the situation, and moving on with that experience in mind. This happened a month ago. Had you spoken up right away, perhaps more could've been done. Luckily,. we lost no editors to blocks or bans, so overall, it seems to fall under 'no harm done'. ThuranX (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta's user page[edit]

The controversial "China=shame" section of Certified.gangsta's user page was recently the subject of a thread here. It was removed, the page protected, the page was unprotected, and the section restored. Those wishing for the removal were advised to follow dispute resolution or perhaps take it to WP:MFD. A single purpose account Lysol x has taken the section off of his page again. Pretty sure he's violated 3rr and perhaps a checkuser should be run. AniMate 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No point in MfDing a page for one small section. Viridae