Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

IP address 72.44.38.243 is removing useful links, en masse!

Resolved: Account is already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone from 72.44.38.243 is removing all links to pinouts.ru. And the information at pinouts.ru is very useful and straightforward in regards to pinouts. Other useful links has also been removed by this user on some pages. There's lot's of edits, so someone with script-fu needs to take action. IP addresses tend to have the most bad edits to good edits ratio. I have reverted some edits. But I dealing with 100s of edits is worse.

Could someone take care of this ..? Electron9 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have one link to the main page of the site, rather than the 20 or so links throughout the article (referring to Mini-DIN connector)? Kevin (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, no. There are so many different pinouts, some with very similar names, that if someone has done the dirty work to link the right things together that work shouldn't be thrown away. pinouts.ru is an encyclopedia of sorts itself, and just telling people "the information you want is here -- someplace! Go find it!" isn't all that polite if you already know where they can find it. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - sorry if you found it impolite. Kevin (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my tone came off much harsher than I had intended it. Apologies. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Zzuuzz has already blocked this IP for using an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks for putting an end to the wreckless "edits". However someone suggested I can look at the contributions log for the IP to undo, but there's lots of changes!, so some script-magic is still appropiate. Electron9 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All the edits have now been reverted. For Electron9, WP:TWINKLE can be useful for reverts like this Kevin (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

There is an on-going systematic effort by User:Nihil_novi and few other extreme nationalist characters to archive the content of the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach.

The discussion on this page contains many arguments and references on Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and on his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

Polish chauvinists attempted to initiate the discussion of the censorship purge of the article on Banach. To create a semblance of a "vote" supporting their censorship, User:Nihil_novi attempt to hide into the archive the discussions of the Banach Ukrainian roots and his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

The section Stefan Banach#Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important and non-redundant facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of Stefan Banach.

The on-going attempts of Polish extreme nationalist characters to impede the establishment of NPOV on Banach must be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

98.210.14.5 is trying to harass Nihil novi and pushing his POV. Admins should ignore his comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look into the change logs ("history" tab) of Talk:Stefan_Banach . Apparently, censorship of the discussion by archiving or erasing the previously stated opinions was done by User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski. Your intervention on behalf of Wikipedia will be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and then notice that this is nationalistic pro-Ukrainian, anti-Polish edit warring by a bunch of IPs and ignore this complaint. --Haemo (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and is Wikipedia really anti-Ukrainian and pro-Polish? The discussions that User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski attempt to censor contain both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Polish views. Discussions help to reach NPOV. People who censor and impede the discussions undermine Wikipedia.

Dry needling: OR and removal of sourced information

121.216.77.150 is removing sourced information and adding unsourced original research to the Dry needling article. The user is not heeding advice or warnings. -- Fyslee / talk 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has not made any edits since your last warning. Gary King (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Something curious here

Resolved: Blocked indef

I came across Yartamis (talk · contribs) who seems to be a vandalism-only account. She's only made about a dozen edits, mostly in the last day or so, even though the account is a year or so old.

But looking on the talk page, I see lots of notifications about non-free image uploads. Except that NONE of the contributions of this user were image uploads!

Why is it that bots or people think this user has created images, when the account history doesn't show that? Am I looking in the wrong place? Do they not show up in Contributions? Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if the image was deleted, it will not show up in contributions list. -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And looking at the contribs, nearly all of them are vandalism of one sort of another. I say they have overstayed their welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone notified them of that fact, having just finished cleaning up the mess. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I don't see any image uploads; the warnings are all regarding making attack pages. There's nothing in the upload logs, but all the attack pages show in deleted contributions. And yes, they've gone on an unusually long tear without getting indefinitely blocked yet. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP talk page blanking policy?

Is there any policy covering an anonymous IP blanking the talk page belonging to that IP? Normally when I see this, it's an attempt to conceal a record of warnings and other infractions.

Recently I saw contributions blank User talk:99.240.27.210, so I automatically restored the page, warnings and all. The anon proceeded to re-blank the page, leaving threatening notes on my talk page to "stop harrassing".

I know established accounts have considerable latitude in editing their own talk pages, but does that also extend to anonymous IPs? =Axlq 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It shows that the user has received the warnings. It's a good idea to look at the talk page history when leaving warnings in case of blanking/removal. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) In general I think people are permitted to blank their page if they've read a message. Typically with an active vandal I'll roll back blanking so other patrollers can see what is going on, and on the other hand, if there is obviously more than one editor active at the IP, I'd assume good faith and allow the person to blank messages they have read. If the IP is making good edits I'll always allow them to blank messages. I'll also use rollback if they replace the messages with abuse. So I don't think there's one blanket way to handle this. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, in this case the IP is pretty clearly a fixed IP address used by a single user, and thus is to most intents and purposes a normal user. I see a number of warnings he blanked, but I also see a lot of contributions, and they seem to be in somewhat contentious areas, so warnings are not too surprising. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Learn more at WP:BLANKING Gary King (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice when these things resolve themselves, isn't it? – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay anons! :D --67.186.244.249 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Happyone2

User Happyone2 (talk · contribs) writes incorrect info on various articles and does not give any sources to verify. This is especially true with Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, listing an English cast. In fact, the said title has no official English dub and there are no verifiable reports to back it up. The user has even created an article for a "live action movie" of the said title, but it is completely false was deleted. The user was reminded several times on the talk, but it seems the user doesn't respond to any of them. Some of those edits were reverted, but this doesn't stop his/her misinformation. What do you think can be done with this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Diff for reference - he has received a few warnings, but perhaps he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong...so Happyone2, if you read this, verifiability is a key Wikipedia policy that states that when adding information, you really should provide a reliable source backing it up. Not doing so makes it difficult to collaborate effectively, as editors have to try and work out where you got the information from, which can waste their time and efforts. You can learn how to cite sources at WP:CITE - hopefully this helps you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if he'll respond to that. But I'll tell you if he has learned or not. Because I'm sure he hasn't read his talk page, hence his continued misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that if he ignores his talk page and the discussion here that you leave him a more stern warning (and also a note about edit summaries) strongly suggesting he take a look at WP:V. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Blechnic

User Blechnic (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently banned from Wikipedia (the ban ends in a few days time IRC) but this user has removed all the warnings and the ban template and has just started adding stuff on the talk page[1]. I've got no idea whether this is against any policy's on Wikipedia which is why I've posted this here. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, its permitted, since we take that to mean he's read them and understands them, if he's removing them. Sort of a remove them at his own peril situation, since he can't claim ignorance in the future. MBisanz talk 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. :) What about the other stuff they adding to the talk page? Bidgee (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that is puzzling. Some of it looks like copyvios, other parts look like edits he intends to make when unblocked, and other parts I just can't figure out. More admin eyes on this one please? MBisanz talk 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
These look to me like the notes of someone getting ready to do lots of editing once they're unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, they're what I would have edited, along with my articles on viruses, plants, and electron microscopy. Someone else definitely should edit this stuff--it's really really bad. Only one's been corrected so far, the embarrassing geological information of the 3-4 billion years old Pliocene epoch. Unfortunately the editor who corrected that left even worse information to sit idly for the unwary reader of the article--although rather an obscure topic. I considered posting notices on the article's talk pages, but I was banned for discussing an article on its talk page. Oh, wait, no, I was banned for putting fact tags in an article, and I've been threatened that if I question inaccurate content in an article again by tagging it I'll be banned again. Very little fact checking will reveal what's really really wrong with all of these. I have a few hundred more. But I won't put any more tags in articles or discuss the tags on talk pages, I learned my lesson there! Oh, and I promise not to edit any more inaccurate or poorly sourced information out of Wikipedia articles, and I understand that four "sorta okay sources" equals one reliable source. I can't find that anywhere under "verifiability," but, again, I learned me lesson. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I won't be back to discuss this here or there. --Blechnic (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

80.249.52.136

This user is continually vandalising pages, including my talk page. I think its a library beloning to Birmingham City Council... can someone do something about this? Temp Block? Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone is currently active on that IP, report them to WP:AIV - the helpbot there will make a note that it's a library IP, and an admin will block appropriately (ie. not for too long, I'd say). It's best to ensure they've received the full set of warnings first (see WP:WARN). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Reblocked for another 6 months. MBisanz talk 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Maybe this will encourage Birmingham City Council to do something about it... Though I seriously doubt it. Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer User:Karmaisking (indefinitely blocked): moved from User:Socppt11 (blocked) to User:Socppt12

Resolved: Blocked, please use WP:AIV next time. Sandstein (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the long history, he's now just moving through numbered sockpuppets. Grateful admin action.--Gregalton (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats from blocked user

Resolved

After a protracted spat on Talk:Ayn Rand and much rude and uncivil behavior from a certain blocked user by the name of Edward Nilges, I deleted his posts from the page under the rationale that he was, in fact, being a troll, as well as violating WP:FAITH, WP:ATTACK, and goodness only knows what else. He has since posted a legal threat on my talk page. Nilges was indefinitely blocked due to his uncivil and disruptive behavior--see User Talk:Spinoza1111. Any help would be appreciated. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

203.218.232.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3 months for legal threats. Sandstein (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile if an admin or two could watchlist Talk:Herbert Schildt as Nilges has been active there, too, using multiple IP addresses to evade his block. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help fixing cut and paste move, please

Cheerbo (talk · contribs) has performed cut and paste moves on all of the Australian Idol season articles. I've now gone and reverted him, but as the pages he created all have a bit of history now, a fix of the cut and paste move would be useful.

The articles are supposed to be (and are now at);

The pages he copied content to, which I've now redirected back to the above, are (respectively);

Go ahead, work your magic! :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the top - if someone else comes along start at the bottom please. ViridaeTalk 12:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that - splash appears to have reverted. ViridaeTalk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Nightmare, with crossed-over edit histories and things. In future, it's more pleasant for the admin to just do the whole lot - there's not really much reason to go redirecting etc., since the edit histories then begin to develop independently as people fight over the two articles and possibly edit them both. If that hasn't already happened, then an admin can repair the histories much more easily. In this case, I've left deleted (or intended to leave deleted) the edits that deal with the move to/from the title apart from my undoing-move since otherwise the edit histories would have been interleaved. This was slightly trickier with Australian Idol 2008 where exactly that had happened, and I also left deleted the edit by User:Elitehkmodel which was analogous to the same edit they made to the other articles. However, I am given to understand that there is some disagreement over which title is eventually where they will settle down. Splash - tk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as long as they do it the right way. ViridaeTalk 12:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gs111

Yes check.svg Resolved.

A guy named Gs111 recreated an article which just got deleted. Is that ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He just got another article deleted, too. I've left them a note, let's see if they stop. Thanks for the note. Also see WP:AIV for this sort of thing when it persists. Splash - tk 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Bonk. Splash - tk 12:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Charliecow7

This guy recreated a page which was just deleted. I'm sorry I have to do this again, but, did he really recreate? 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see any re-creations in his contributions. Are you sure this tag is warranted? Splash - tk 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops! That's why I asked. I'm sorry... Just checkuser him and see what happenns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kiltpunker

This user just recreated an article that was just deleted.122.54.90.185 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted immediately. Recreations are usually very easily spotted. No need to report them to this page, just tag the article with {{db-repost}}REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chimmychimp (talk · contribs)

Resolved: blocked indef by DerHexer -- thanks

Equazcion /C 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reported this at AIV but there's a backlog, and this user keeps vandalizing Adolf Hitler. Could someone please block? Thanks. Equazcion /C 14:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Harry_the_Hamster - sock of User talk:Argus-Bot, User talk:86.129.31.62, User talk:86.145.219.221, User talk:86.162.213.186

Yes check.svg Resolved.

User talk:Harry_the_Hamster has engaged in repeated vandalism and insertion on unsourced information on Video CD, CD Video, Template:Video storage formats. Same systematic edits as blocked User talk:Argus-Bot,User talk:86.129.31.62, User talk:86.145.219.221, User talk:86.162.213.186. First edit for Harry the Hamster appears 3 days after argus bot was blocked. I have issued a level 4 warning, editor is currently active. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. You can use WP:AIV in the future.-Wafulz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickwtts

Resolved: Vandalism-only account, blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This guy is always spamming.122.54.90.185 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a vandalism-only account; glancing at deleted (and non-deleted) contribs, I've blocked it indefinitely. MastCell Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Very heated AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau is getting very hot, allegations and personal attacks being thrown around. Could an admin please have a look.--Phoenix-wiki 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: It appears a lot of the edits on that AFD according to the page history are being made by Aimulti and it appears he's making attacks towards others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:70.69.9.186

IP editor 70.69.9.186 has an unfortunately lengthy history of vandalism, insertion of original research, NPOV violation and failure to source assertions. The editor has been blocked previously for this behavior, and warned many, many times by multiple editors on his or her talk page([2]), so I don't think it's possible to claim ignorance of the policies. Examples from the last day or two include [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8], just to note a very few. Several editors have had to go out of their way to track and revert these baseless changes. Even if a longer-term block is not warranted, perhaps a friendly warning from an admin might convince him or her that their editing behavior needs some reconsideration. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment] Given the constant re-offending after multiple warnings with no signs of reform, I see a 24h block as rather lenient [esp. as it doesn't seem to be a public/institution IP]. If after the block expires they continue to offend unabated, I would think that a much longer block [2wk+?] would be warranted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:06, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

User:Mountainsarehigh

Mountainsarehigh (talk · contribs · count) is skirting the borders of policy with SPA POV edits to Ron Paul. User is attempting to avoid reportability at other boards, but has had a WP:AN3 block and returned.

  • Classic old-user new-account marks: upon 5/1 creation, immediate familiarity with how to edit and reinstate reverted edits, and with some policies (while denying knowledge of others). Immediate edit war per WP:AN3. Deleted warnings, and later questions, from user talk (see history). Used edit summaries and well-formatted sourcing in second session. Clear WP:SPA, every last edit has been directed toward discrediting of Ron Paul. Clear alternative account of somebody.
  • No admission of being a legitimate alternative account despite the above; legitimate alternative accounts should freely admit having a prior WP history when questioned with evidence to avoid bad faith. However, this tells the whole story of attempts on that front.
  • User had been engaging in many suspiciously familiar behaviors since 5/1, but today performed a very strong maneuver, i.e., removing a longstanding footnote from a lead blithely as "need better sources here", without seeking current or past consensus, without considering how it redlines other article locations where that footnote is cited, and without admitting the additional support sources have already long appeared in the subsection and subarticle. IMHO actions of user have served to begin destabilizing an article that has been quiet for recent months and has been a FFAC. User has gone on to other generic disruption, such as pinning the errors of that edit on another editor.[9] Disruption is so obvious (to me) that it appears to be deliberate testing of WP's standards.
  • Caveat: I have not succeeded 100% in my reports of suspected socks and am not 100% sure of a puppeteer in this case. However, the extant behavior warrants a report to this board in good faith. I suspect a banned puppeteer who has returned regularly with sophisticated new accounts.

My request is for some admin to provide a second view in this case as to my next step. Should I assemble evidence for SSP or directly for RFCU? Should I ignore the potential destabilization, or just deal with it by ordinary means as well as possible? Is immediate admin response available? RFCU has been proven to be a regular need to remove sock factories in the case I am considering, and it is likely to turn up others in any latest sock drawer. I am not listing all my evidence with this initial report due to the time it takes to assemble, but I will add as needed. JJB 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone delete this junk?

Blocked/banned User:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as User:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.
After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:
  1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
  2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?
--barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked User:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of User:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thnaks for the note, just coming back from the weekend: As already said to The way, the truth, and the light, i closed one (the first?) Afd related to User:W.GUGLINSKI, so i had some idea regarding his theories and demeanor. As far as i understood, the user was not banned, but blocked indef. If he has used any sockpuppets previously, why is no SSP case mentioned here? Moreover, I had noticed that the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory mentions some person named Dankal.naveen, who may simply have found his way here as one of the few who agree with Guglienski. I explicitly mentioned that on my talkpage to "The way, the truth, and the light" as well as that I assume the two accounts are not the same. I had thus declined deletion per CSD G5 and prodded the article and tried to reason. While I could not convince Dankal.naveen to let the article go (and would thus have brought it to AfD myself), reading trough the now twice denied polite unblock requests and once more through the AfD I see beyond just AGF both in writing and arguing two different persons so would stick to my original assessment and consider this block not valid (and thus us also not the deletion). I really think we need more evidence than common beliefs in such cases. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any feedbak here? Especially to 1) any previous accounts under which Guglieski would already have edited while being blocked and 2) anything other proof than a perceived similarity in topics, while I do see significant differences in writing, communication. Otherwise I am going to assume that is is indeed someone who knows Guglinski, has his book reviewed on Amazon, posted now his own essay on wikipedia (like thousands before and after) and edits probably from India (according to the first IP edit on the deleted article), nothing of which is blockable. As there is now another unblock request, I am going to unblock unless there are objections. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to an unblock if you really think these accounts aren't the same person; re-blocking is easy if disruption continues. But I will say that I do find enough similarities in the writing style and subject matter of the old and new articles that I, personally, believe they are the same person. Still, if you disagree, I guess the AGF default is unblock, and watch. I think I know what's going to happen, but I've been wrong before. Have you asked Raymond about it on his talk page? (sorry, I'm to lazy to open another window to see for myself). --barneca (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, no objections either, so I've unblocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The hypothesis that Naveen Dankal is a different person is reasonable, so I support his unblock. Dankal does have an Orkut community called 'Grand Unification Theory'. In Orkut he says he is based in India; Guglinski may be in South America. There is no burning need IMHO to allow recreation of Heisenberg's Scientific Method although technically the grounds stated in the deletion log no longer apply (article was not in fact created by a banned user). No reason to lift the indef block on User:W.GUGLINSKI so far as I'm concerned. Check out Guglinski's behavior during the Quantum Ring Theory AfD if you are wondering. I would keep an eye on Dankal to see if he's willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actaully I closed that AfD ;). As for Dankal we'll indeed have to see what he now does with the editing privileges.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User Rjecina - playing checkuser and administrator - shall be stopped

Resolved: Blocked the IP for 3RR violation. Suggest that Rjecina report this IP as a Velebit sock at WP:SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is engaged in regular removals of my contributions to the Srbosjek article and the talk page - removal of references and pointless insertion of the [dubious ] tag after each existing and not removed reference. See [10], [11], [12] He was warned already three times by other user and by me - [13], [14], [15]

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper waning is given. [16], [17]

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([18]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--71.252.101.67 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rjecina is removing the material (actually reverting to a previous version) with the edit summary "revert of banned user user:Velebit, aka user:Stagalj aka user:Standshown aka User:Pederkovic Ante". Removing material from banned users is allowed. Of course, if this is NOT one of the listed banned users, there might be a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For evidence see User talk:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51 (I am not even asking to see history of Velebit, Standshown and Stagalj). This puppet is using similar multiple IP for editing. From my knowledge his blocking is not possible (because of multiple IP:71.252.102.204, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.52.88, 72.75.18.147). Similar style of editing (writing about Ustaše) is answer if he is puppet or not (see WP:DUCK). This argument has been used by Future Perfect last time.--Rjecina (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For evidence - I never used the IP adresses listed above. Also, Rjecina attempt to block me was already rejected twice [19], [20]

--71.252.101.67 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Your last argument is 1 of reasons why we can't let user Velebit edit wikipedia ! You are writing again and again false statements. Nobody has asked for your blocking and this is clearly writen in demand for semi-protection.--Rjecina (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. In the header I added the name of the article under dispute as well as the user links (for the person complained about) to make this report less puzzling. The comment from Future Perfect is quoted by the IP from somewhere else, since it's dated April 22nd. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for 3RR on Srbosjek (knife). Rjecina may or may not be justified in assuming this is a sock, so his reverts may or may not be right, but there is no justification at all for the IP's reverts. Rjecina if he wishes may add the IP address to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Purger. The IP does fit the address pattern 71.252.* of at least one previous Velebit sock and he has the same interests. The IP's recounting of Rjecina's previous history (above) is quite unbalanced, as you'll see if you click through to the various sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The two IP socks above look very much like more Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) socks to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

EarthBound/Mother Name Controversy

There's been a naming of the series article controversy that's been going on for several months. In case you don't know, the series consists of three role-playing games, Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3. Only Mother 2 was released in the U.S. under the title EarthBound. Personally, I'd prefer Mother (series) instead of EarthBound (series) for these reasons.

1.) EarthBound was the name of only one game.

2.) Though Super Smash Bros. Brawl says EarthBound (Mother) under series when looking at Trophies, when looking at songs, it says Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3.

3.) On the Smash Bros. dojo, never says EarthBound, only Mother.

There are too many reasons. In the discussion page, the main person who's defending this is A Link to the Past. To be honest, I'm not to fond of him and tangled with him over a naming controversy. It was whether the Android/Artificial Human pages should be called either one. I think I contacted you about that. Anywho, again, he was the only one trying to make it Android, dispite Artificial Human being the proper term and more known. I ended it by renaming them #17 and #18 because these are also propers names used after the Cell arc. In this argument, some of the points he's making aren't accurate, and he's becoming very frustrated with the subject, resorting to name calling and such. Read the discussion and you'll see. He even kept reverted more than three times which breaks the 3RR policy. He's also moved the article without Wikipedia:Consensus. Can you please intervene so this discussion can end. I haven't been to the article in months, and it's still going on. I read everything and he's wrong again like he was back then. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't require admin intervention. As an aside though, the game is significantly more well known as Earthbound. (I'd never heard of it being called Mother before).SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Content dispute. I've been watching that page for some reason and although discussion has occasionally been a little too "passionate" at times, the last comment on the talk page by A Link to the Past was left unrebutted on May 8. Perhaps try WP:RfC or WP:3O to get more voices. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WikiSkeptic's extreme incivility and personal attacks

I need admins' attention on WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs)'s incivility and personal attacks against other editors. I first noticed him for his personal attack comment pointing at me[21] at the talk page of the indefinitely banned user's WP:SSP case which I filed.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka I don't know what led he to come across the SSP case, but I took strong offence by him. He also edited Japan-Korean related articles with insulting personal attacks toward Japanese/Korean/Chinese people such as calling Jap Kap, Cap.Jap POV: terrorist group[ balance, all Kaps not crooks[22] So I gave him a warning not to speak the inappropriate comments. But he ignored my advice[23] [24] [25] and then keeps doing that. In the meantime, Ludvikus (talk · contribs) gave him a barnstar[26] which I felt so odd, so went over to the user's page and found more insulting comments towards other editors with whom he had a dispute, especially Flying tiger (talk · contribs).[27] [28] [29] He called the disputed editor doing "terrorims". Also other editors protested to ludvikus for his giving the barnstar because of WikiSkptic's past personal attacks.[30] Ludvikus also disagreed his way of speaking and incivility, so retract the barnstar.

Today, he edited Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations which also I edited several times earlier and has been on my watchlist. I thought his edit with no source does have any merit so reverted.[31]. Then he left an mocking comment at his talk page which implies my English.[32] I said to him for his incivility but accused me of wikistalking him[33] and being paranoid[34]. He was recently warned by an admin[35] but does not admit his wrongdoings. I need your help. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Please note complaining user has been reprimanded for filing inappropriate AIV reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Appletrees&diff=211709535&oldid=211709323 I can state categorically that I have never examined Appletree's watchlist and still remain ignorant as to which articles are or are not on it. User keeps claiming my edits are "pointed at him" and/or "directed at him" when this is not the case--paranoia anyone?-WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The AIV report has nothing to do with your incivility and personal attacks. That is a clear evidence that you're wikistalking me to the contrary to your false accusation[36] [37], so you lessen my effort to notify this report on you. You came to the admin who took the AIV report and the editor who had a dispute with me. What a hilarious. It does not change the fact that you're warned for your extreme wrongdoings.--Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, what's hilarious is that the record clearly shows that you began editing my pages in each and every case after I've edited them. In other words, I started editing, and you've chased me across Wikipedia. THen, when I ask for a "little assistance" from some well-known and respected Wikipedians, you "retaliate" by looking for one of your friends. At each and every case, you are clearly obsessed with me, and I'm hoping you might eventually learn to put Wikipedia first and your bizarre obsessions second. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No way, your appearance at WP:SSP/Azukimonaka is just a coincidence? Your bizarre way of speaking is really not tolerable. You've been warned but you do not cease that. You need a lesson for what you did. --Appletrees (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Before this goes any further, both of you knock it off. ANI isn't the place to fight over things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not come to here to fight with him. This report is all about his abusive verbal attacks. So need an admin's attention like these as well..[38] [39] [40] [41] --Appletrees (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And attention will be given now that it has been brought up. I'm currently looking into both of your recent actions, as are other admins as well, I'm sure. Once we can actually post without getting into any edit conflicts, we'll decide if any administrative action is warranted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But edit conflicts are not a matter for the report. I can't stand his racial/personal attacks.---Appletrees (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Article material aside, WikiSkeptic's racist comments are completely unacceptable.-Wafulz (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, he added more insulting personal attacks against me.[42] Regardless of the admin Hersfold's advice, he went over still to assault me behind my back and the admin said to him to stop lobbying.[43]

I think the editor should earn a proper lesson for what he has spoken. If he complaint about my notifying Flying tiger, one of the victims of his verbal attacks, I wonder why he notified unrelated people to seek his help.--Appletrees (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well now I've had a short moment to look at things without getting a new messages bar every five seconds, it looks like Appletrees has a legitimate complaint. This discussion started up after User:El C warned WikiSkeptic for this trolling comment. During that discussion, WikiSkeptic manages to drag Appletrees in for no apparent reason other than to set up up as an example. Comments such as these two have no place in the project, particularly when coupled with and made immediately after comments directed to other users [44].
This isn't to say Appletrees is entirely saintly either: this isn't anything that I'd call polite at all, and there are many similar edit summaries (talk history) and posts that indicate to me someone has a slight problem in keeping cool in heated situations.
I feel a block is merited here, for WikiSkeptic certainly for his racist comments, and possibly both parties, but I'd like another admin to look into this to help check over what I've found. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That fact that I had disputes with Badagnani is totally irrelevant to WikiSkeptic's personal attacks at me. If anyone asks me about the dispute with Badaganini, Badagnani should be summoned for his behaviors here. However I only reported WikiSkeptic's assaultive remarks. The disputes between me and Badagnani are his introducing original research on Korean cuisine articles and personal attacks. I only claims that he should bring reliable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Skeptic for 24 hours. Haven't look at the Appletrees stuff yet.-Wafulz (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've checked out Appletrees' contributions and I don't think s/he's done anything wrong. I think this is the result of their English skills and not necessarily any incivility.-Wafulz (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Badagnani and I've edited Korean cuisine articles and English sources are limited for the subjects but Korean sources are many. The reason I stated that he does not read Korean but Badagnani insisted on creating the non-notable garaetteok article with its unofficial name after his googling the unofficial name in Korea website. This is not the first time. I've talked him many times but my patience hit the bottom. He also said huintteok (garaetteok) maybe be noodles but he has edited tteok articles a lot, so I do not understand about his insistence. Anyway, the disputes on Korean cuisine are no related to WikiSkeptic.--Appletrees (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The irrelevant accusation of my disputes with Badagnani.

These disputes with Badagani have nothing to do with WikiSkeptic. He dragged me and accused unrelated matters to turn from the main subject. --Appletrees (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought to my attention by messages left on my talk page as mentioned above. I declined the AIV report of Badagnani for a good reason - AIV is not for dealing with anything outside persistent/obvious vandalism and spamming. AN/I or dispute resolution is the correct place. I did however advice Badagnani that users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages generally. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a troll? Second opinion, please

Resolved: That's quite enough
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please look at this user's [Beans Backside contribution list] and tell me if I'm right to suspect trolling here. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Any one or two of those questions, taken by themsleves, and I'd say AGF. But good God, 60 questions in 3 days? No. I'd warn them to stop, and block if they continue. I'd be tempted to delete their 60 questions as time wasters, too. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly looks like a lot of time-wasting to me. Notice there are no mainspace edits. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
His questions all seem reasonable, though. Very much unlike the typical RD trolls. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is reasonable? I dislike the word troll but every question I looked at seemed to have been written to do nothing but nettle (and waste time). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Edits are coming from a range that has been softblocked (schoolblocked), a second range that might also be a school or might not, and the account was one of 6 created at the same time from the same IP.
  1. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Stolen thoughts (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
  2. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Avril's sister (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
  3. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Bliss bois (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
  4. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Sticky end (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
  5. (Logs) . . 22:22 . . Swan's swimming song (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
  6. (Logs) . . 22:21 . . Mr Beans Backside (Talk | contribs | block) New user account

Thatcher 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    • User:Stolen thoughts was blocked for being one of a series of accounts that was creating nasty attack pages directed at a particular user. Avril's sister has no contributions. The only contributions from the rest of them are... inane questions to the Reference Desk. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions are sometimes coming at the rate of 1 per minute. Disagreeing with Someguy1221, most are unreasonable, with a few legit ones thown in occasionally. We are definitely being trolled. I say, block indef as troll, revert all questions that don't have a response yet to minimize wasting time. --barneca (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Let me echo Gwen Gale in pointing out that there are some questions by this editor that can't really be considered reasonable. He/she is here for some fun at Wikipedia's expense. Fairly harmless but potentially fairly annoying. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the remaining unblocked accounts as obvious socks. I advocate an indef block for MBB as well, but if someone wants to give them a final warning, or a shorter block, that's up to them, and IMHO it's NawlinWiki's call anyway. I see NawlinWiki is removing some of the questions. Good. --barneca (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've warned MBB. I'm prepared to block if there are any more inane questions. Thanks, y'all. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I object to all of these allegations. I am simply asking questions. I'm sorry if I posted too many, but I don't see any reason for threating me with a block. As I said to NawlinWiki on his talk page, I wasn't aware contributing to the encyclopedia was a requirement for asking questions on the Reference Desk. Also, I do not see how they can be considered disruptive. I informed Gwen Gale, another user who reverted some of my questions, that they are not offensive or rude, homework questions, legal or medial, or starting debates. I don't see a problem. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
They are disruptive because they distract Ref Desk editors from answering real questions. Your pointing to the specific list of guidelines that you say you aren't violating is a clue, to me at least, that you are trying to game the system. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I object to my questions being called inane or fake. They are real and they are not senseless - they are simply things I wanted to know. Look, I'm new here and I've obviously broken some of the rules, so if someone kind would point my in the direction of the guidelines I should read to avoid being blocked, I would be grateful. Thank you. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read that and it does not relate to this situation. I have not committed any "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies", asked any "questions about which reasonable people may disagree", edited an "article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors", "failed to cite sources", "cite unencyclopedic sources", "misrepresents reliable sources", or "manufactures original research", and I have not broken "Wikipedia:Civility" or "Wikipedia:No personal attacks". Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you seem to be rejecting community input. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But the community input in this case is not biased on anything other than speculation and gossip. After reading the guideline pages, I can see that I have broken no rules whatsoever. In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of a rule I have broken. Yes, I am arguing with you now, but only because I feel I am being misrepresented at this trail. And yes, I am going against the majority view of most of the editors of this page. But again, I feel I have a right too because no one has yet shown any indication that my questions are disruptive. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
By now, I think you're on the cusp of straying from WP:GAME. Let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think (some of) your questions would be more appropriate for The Straight Dope. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, by pointing to very specific rules or guidelines and then attempting to find ways to skirt around those, you make it hard to assume good faith. Also, suspicions might be aroused by somebody who knows his way around the editing window and conventions, yet professes to be 'new here'. Answers to many of the questions you peppered the Desks with could be found with a simple Google search, and if you really have such insatiable curiousity, then taking time to read up on the answers to the first several dozen questions should probably keep you busy for awhile. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If your questions were asked in good faith, please explain the encyclopedic notability of this question. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Or was that just one of the many questions you copied and pasted from here? SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That question is a valid as Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Finger Gestures or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Cookies or bars, both of which no one is arguing about. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this user is bored and killing time. Have we seen enough? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Short circuit this feeding frenzy: Indef blocked. I believe Thatcher's CU evidence, combined with the similar editing pattern, proves this person is a sockpuppeteer. One of the deleted edits of one of the socks was grossly uncivil to another admin. They are disruptive (if not per policy, then per the simple English meaning of the word), they are trolling, they are blocked. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

possible reincarnation of pornography troll blocked yesterday

Resolved: longtime sock abuser... checkusered and blocked...

New account apparently trolling today: Livni (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Similar account blocked yesterday: Abreactive (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Link to yesterday's AN/I report

In addition to similar editing/vandalism patterns adding pornography links into many articles, both editors marked every edit as minor.

Not every edit is about pornography, but many of them are, in addition to changing the definition of rape to a "successful evolutionary strategy".

I have not warned this user or reverted any of the changes, but because the activity looks so similar to yesterday's incident, I thought it best to report it so an administrator can take a look. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Though some of the edits may be OK, it's pretty obviously a sock of Abreactive, and has been blocked as such. I'd support unblocking the user if they went through the normal unblock route and pledged to discuss controversial changes first rather than acting unilaterally. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Abreactive was later blocked as a sock of User:DavidYork71, and both of these should remain blocked indefinitely on those grounds. I'm going to set up an RFCU to see how many other sleepers are out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action. I endorse the initial block and also concur that if the person agrees to collaborate positively, it would be reasonable to unblock for a second chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is patently a sockpuppet of Abreactive, and likely also both are socks of DavidYork71. Go ahead and file that checkuser request. It should put an end to this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We have a winner. Sock farm ferreted out and gassed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And that seems about it on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Another one: Worthy2Bworshipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blocked on duck test. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just coming to report that--support on duck test. Worthy2Bworshipped hit all the same articles as Abreactive, and added the same porn links.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


William Gaillard

Resolved: From the top of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process." Try WP:DR Alex.Muller 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute with User:Dead-or-Red. Have tried to reason with another user but they continue to remove cited sources. Have tried to get to contextualize the piece that they keep removing. Basically want to bring the situation to a resolution.Londo06 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Londo06, you could try obtaining a third opinion.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Will give that a go.Londo06 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

i have never removed cited material, and have always tried to reach a consensus. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not true. There was sourced material that was repeatedly removed.Londo06 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Please block 64.5.138.2

Resolved: another six months block --Rodhullandemu 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP address was blocked for six months for repeated vandalism. It has resumed editing as if nothing ever happened. Its most recent edit to a biography of a living person is especially offensive.

I ask that you block this IP address for another six months at least, or even a year. Since this is not a typical report for WP:AIV, I am posting here. Shalom (HelloPeace) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Cape Henry Collegiate School.(whois) 68.220.216.108 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor playing administrator, needs to be stopped

I will admit, this is not that important in the grand scheme of life. But then most of Wikipedia is not. If you have a cyclone rip through your country or have a car smash into your home, WP is the last thing on your mind and nothing qualifies for ANI.

User:WilliamH has violated guidelines with speedy keep of a porn star that has no notability other than posing naked. It doesn't matter if she is in a list of other naked models. September 11th victims don't have articles (or they get deleted) even though they are among a list.

Appropriate closures Non-admin closures of XfD's should be limited to the following types of closures:

Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants. speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.

from [45]

Naughty, naughty, WilliamH. An administrator should either block WilliamH for 24 hours OR redo that AFD and tell WilliamH.

If WilliamH's actions are OK, please state so here and I will do the same to other AFDs. State so here ______________ Thank you. JerryVanF (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Might help to link a diff to the afd closure.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume he was talking about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ‎
Just look at User:WilliamH's contribs. It's full of them. I agree this user is playing administrator and needs a good talkin' to (not a block yet though as that would be punitive at this point). I've undone one closure already, looking at some of the others now. Equazcion /C 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be critical just advice, I just have seen that complaints with clear diffs get handled quicker then if you make the admins search for the incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem in principle with a non-admin closure, but one that is closed after less than 3 HOURS! No one even had a chance to comment on that one. Even if an admin had closed it that quickly, I'd have something to say... Indeed, he should stop closing AFDs if his judgement is that poor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

← I looked at a few of the other closings. I'm not going to revert them because I agree with William that they had no chance of succeeding. However, in the future, this user does still need to refrain from performing closures so frequently and so speedily. Closures are generally supposed to wait 5 days and be handled by administrators. Non-admin closures are for extenuating circumstances and aren't supposed to occur often. Equazcion /C 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Evenson then happy that someone would take the effort to close it. Just reading the article gives it's notability 'Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month'. SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted that closure too. The article doesn't actually establish notability. There isn't a single valid ref. I'm not sure that being a playboy playmate establishes notability for a person in and of itself. Let's wait and see what the AfD determines. Equazcion /C 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? Playboy model of the month = notable, but olympic athlete ≠ notable? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Closed as a snow. I can be reverted however. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)*3 The AfD discussion has been open for less than 24 hours. Give it some time - if the subject is truly notable, the AfD will fail anyway. —Travistalk 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... let's please stop with the non-admin closures, especially of this particular AfD. Quite a few people here, including admins, seem to feel the discussion should stay open for now. There's no emergency here. Equazcion /C 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
While I tend to agree with this. Some editors including some admins get uptight if you even put a notability tag on an article without any WP:RS and less notable(to me at least) then the article in the link above. SunCreator (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought anyone could do a clear "keep" close, with due caution. (It better be clear!) Has someone policy-crept the closure guidelines to say otherwise? - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is in a keep close for an unsourced WP:BLP more than anything else. Anybody with sufficient experience and Clue can perform a keep close as long as the article clearly meets policy, but that cannot be said of unsourced BLPs so I am uneasy seeing such things closed by people who do not demonstrably have long edit histories with evidence of sound knowledge of policy. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the real test is whether the closure is seen as non-controversial. The issue is also compounded because it's not only non-admin but also speedy (very speedy, in some of this user's cases), and combined, that makes for very shakey closures. These should only be done if no one has a problem with it, aside from the nominator perhaps. And they should probably never be done after just one day. Equazcion /C 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at a few of this editor's closures. I agree that the speedy ones seem to be against the written policy about non-admin closures, but I can't muster up much indignation about any one of these. Can anyone find an example AfD where they believe an experienced admin closer would have taken the opposite result? I see that his closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson was undone, and that reversal seems well-justified since the closure was too fast. I don't see any obvious errors about the results. (This guy seems to have some judgment). I could support a policy where any non-admins who speedy close in under 8 hours could be threatened with blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
O RLY?CharlotteWebb 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka, back in January though, I had a strange experience when the article name and a possible move was discussed without it being actually listed at WP:RM. People just started voting, a kind of instant democracy. Then, User:Hexagon1 CLOSED the "poll", I objected, only to be reclosed, and then after my removal, again (please do not push move that nobody wants, disruptive only) after which I [46] excluded at least my talk from the greenish box with the "vote". To no avail (rv, your talk is as much a part of the vote process as mine or the others'), and again (rv. sigh. per Talk:Caron/Archive2 and every other talk page vote ever held. your comments are part of the vote discussion, and as such get archived. Start a new section to talk if you want.)-- Matthead  Discuß   19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from WilliamH: Firstly, I am glad to know that my ability to determine opinion is not really the point of contention. However, in terms of allowing opinion to form, I realise I ostensibly prevented it from occurring to the extent that is preferred. Please understand that elsewhere, this is not the case, and please understand that I highly value consensus, and it is something which I would never intentionally impair or disrupt. It is ultimately my belief that a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package, hence its importance.

"Playing administrator, needs to be stopped" disregards my ethic, and comes across as though my non-admin administrative actions were not for good purposes, but that I was acting, i.e. masquerading as an administrator whose actions needed to be stopped because I intended to subvert the project, which is blatantly not the case. Please consider the effect such words have, as what has been misconstrued comes across as rather ad hominem. No one wants their words to have the potential to imply such a thing, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't extremely disappointed to learn that contributions I have made in good faith have prompted a user to suggest my blocking. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that such misunderstandings could result in sound contributors departing Wikipedia, a wholly undesireable scenario.

To sum up, I understand I have exerted a bit too much boldness. I also appreciate the BLP concerns and would like to make it clear that this is something I take seriously. I agree with the comment on my user page that no matter how sound my judgement may be, I realise I may have applied it too early and will act accordingly. Regards and apology for any inconvenience, WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everyone's concerns here, William. Equazcion /C 13:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thought: As this is a borderline notability BLP, do the new ideas about no consensus=Delete apply? Did that policy proposal take root well enough? ThuranX (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

I've moved this to the main noticeboard. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub genocide

Despite the stated "unreferenced stub about a community that can be discussed in its parent municipality until there's enough info about it to justify a separate article", stub article contains an entire referance section. Can we put an end to this stub genocide please? I see a bulk action by the user. -- Cat chi? 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted the user?-Wafulz (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the below link this isn't a new issue. -- Cat chi? 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What I learn form above history is that there was an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Cobden.2C_Ontario initiated by you on March 9. Are there any successive 'bulk redirects' or discussions beyond that?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a single one of the links in question is a proper reference about the community; they're all web pages which happen to mention the community in passing but not in a way that serves as an adequate source for the article's content. Three of the four are just straight lists of communities in the county, with no other content besides that, and the fourth is a list of headstone transcriptions from county cemeteries. That's a directory listing, not a valid reference section. And while it has sparked some discussion and disagreement in the past, redirecting an unreferenced stub article to a larger, properly referenced parent topic is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy: the presence of genuine reliable sources which properly verify Wikipedia content is a requirement, not just an option.
I'd also like to clarify that the entire "county" is actually a single municipality — despite its name, which was retained for historical reasons, it's actually a single city and not a county in the normal sense. These aren't independent towns, but unincorporated communities within a single incorporated city which only has one mayor and one municipal council. Wikipedia policy already explicitly states that until such time as we can write something substantial and properly referenced about them, individual neighbourhoods should exist only as redirects to the city that they're part of. Unreferenced stubs aren't inherently entitled to stick around Wikipedia if there's a better and more solidly-referenced article in which we can discuss the topic. Having 41 separate unreferenced and badly written five-to-ten-line stubs about a single city is not an improvement over having forty redirects to one good article about the whole city.
And again: the links here are just lists which happen to mention Hemlock. They aren't valid references about the community, because the only statement in the entire article that they properly supported is the basic fact that there's a community called Hemlock within the City of Norfolk County. They didn't support the statement about wind power, they didn't support the stuff about local schools, they didn't support the weird and irrelevant tangent about Socrates (specifically, is there a documentable reference to confirm that the community was named for the ancient poison that killed Socrates, and not for the local presence of tsuga trees?) They didn't support any statement about Hemlock beyond the mere fact that it exists. An article isn't necessarily properly referenced just because one or more external links are present — the actual quality of the links has to be taken into account as well, and these links simply aren't solid references. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I should also note, Cat, that this is the second time you've come straight to AN/I with an issue about this without discussing it with me first, and both times you've misrepresented the situation: in the Cobden discussion, you accused me of deleting content that I did copy into the target article but simply rearranged into a more logical flow, and this time you accused me of ignoring a reference section that I did review carefully enough to know that it didn't actually contain any real references. Could you at least give some consideration in the future to the fact that, having been a Wikipedia administrator since 2005, I just might have an actual clue or three about Wikipedia policy, and maybe talk to me first so I can clarify my reasons for doing this before having to defend myself against charges of vandalism? Thank you kindly. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
One more point: the goal of Wikipedia is not to maximize the number of stubs on here. The goal of Wikipedia is to maximize the number of quality articles, and minimize the number of stubs. And yeah, for smaller and less well-documented topics, that sometimes means merging five or six or ten or twenty stubs about interrelated topics into one longer article. In a situation like Norfolk County, a considerable number of the community stubs will never be anything more than stubs, because there simply aren't enough good references out there to produce quality articles about each individual community — so writing one quality article about the city, and then redirecting the individual communities to that one article, is much more consistent with the goals of Wikipedia than keeping 41 separate stubs that have no realistic prospect of ever becoming good articles otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stnickvillager

Hello. I logged on just now to check that everything was running fine, and to my surprise, I discovered that most of the pages in my watchlist had been edited by this user, with summaries such as remove vandalism. I wondered what vandalism the user was talking about, and then it soon came to my attention he was talking about me! I then checked his/her contributions, and found that they had basically gone through every single page I had edited, undoing basically all the moves I had made, and all in all, just removing pretty much all of my contributions. I then noticed that he had left a comment here about me, in his contributions (which is how I found this link). The user had complained I was "vandalising", but was rightly told by another user that he/she had not done what they should have done - talk to me, and instead, went round telling several other people (you will find them in his contributions) that I am a vandal. To be honest, I am quite appalled with the way this user has acted, and perhaps I am in the wrong here - I don't know, I'm not that experienced, but I am sure that he/she is the one at fault, and I would be greatful if someone could help me with the situation with this user, and perhaps advise me on what to do next? Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I had another look at it, I noticed this user is perhaps even newer than me. I am going to undo the page move revisions he did. If anyone disagrees with this, please tell me, while I am still working on it. I would also appreciate it if someone could speak to the user about being polite, and about the naming policies. Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried talking to the user? Try starting a discussion at his/her talkpage and hopefully you can sort it out between you. Also, for specific articles you could discuss at the article talkpages.--BelovedFreak 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not sure what to do, since the more I check the user's contributions, the more it appears they are possibly a POV troll, not to mention an uncivil one. I have lost count as to the amount of times I have been called "vandal" by the user. I have changed all the relevant pages back to how they were before he went on a big reverting spree. I feel that talking to the user will have little consequence, since the user apparently did not want to talk to me - instead, coming straight here (which is now, in effect, what I have done, but in result of coming to the conclusion that this user is perhaps rather unwelcoming to discussion). I am honestly not sure what to say to the user, as I do not want them to come stalking my edits even more. I shall then, for the moment, leave it in the hands of the community here. Thank you. {¦:-)} Hamletpride (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You are both editing in the same area. The other user claims to live in the physical area, and thus have an interest in articles about the local area. And he also has an opinion about what those articles should say. I think you can bet that you will see him again, whether you like it or not.
What you need to do has been mentioned above: pick one (or more) of the articles you want to change, and start a discussion on the talk page. Post a small, short, polite note on his talk page mentioning that you have started a discussion and you want him to participate. Maybe something like: "Hi. I've started a discussion about hamlets on the ... talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop by and offer your comments. Thanks!" Be sure to sign your posting.
After you have done that, give him a couple of days to see if he shows up. If he doesn't, you can make the change you want in that article. If he then shows up and reverts or whatever, point him again to the discussion you started on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on policies

Hello. Since I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies, please tell me what happens when:

  • Some user proposes a rename/merge and a vote is taken.
  • the proposing user threatens to cause havoc thereafter if he loses the vote.
  • The user proposing the rename loses the vote, then starts to butcher the page, cause havoc and starts a process of slow merge and slow rename in a gradual manner to achieve the same affect as the vote that he lost.
  • Several other users are unhappy about this and have expressed frustration on other pages as well. What can they do? They have asked the havoc causing user for an explanation, but his usual reply is that he does not have time to provide explanations.

This is happening on the Blessed Virgin Mary page and is slow vandalism in my view. What are the Wikepedia remedies here?

This is in some sense a pattern of behavior here for another frustrated person commented on Protestant views of Mary:

"I do not understand, why our fellow traveler Carlaude first contributes actively to this (new) topic, changes its name, and then requests deletion? AFTER his deletion request on May 6, our friend was busy linking Protestant views of Mary to several other mariological pages".
History2007! I have answered this for you just minutes ago-- please read my posts.--Carlaude (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a great deal of effort being wasted here by many people, trying to maintain the quality of Wikepedia articles. Your help will be appreciated.

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SANTA MARIA! That page history is a mess. Honestly. Not sure what to do with that, but it appears as though Carlaude's edits are against consensus, and he is trying everything he can to dodge that consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, get multiable reverts and accusations of "butchering the page" from History2007.
I did and do make continued efforts discuss content issues... as to what edits he objected to & why.
He has told me very little if anything.
If you think I am "trying everything he can to dodge that consensus," please tell me how.--Carlaude (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap! (pun fully intended) That page, as edited by Carlaude fails NPOV by a long shot. Instead of discussing the dogmas, he edits the page to be a litany about the holiness of the subject. He's clearly interested in continuing to push his religiously motivated version of the page against consensus, and should be blocked and/or topic banned for it. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IP using flagicons inappropriately (2nd time)

The IP 71.187.44.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding flagicons to film and television articles, in addition to stuffing any and every possible worldwide release he can into them. Attempts to communicate with this user have failed, and the last block seems to have taught him nothing. This was already reported once here. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

gaming the system and edit warring against the recommendations of WP:RSN

Levine2112 continues to ignore that there was discussion that the source is reliable from an external observer at the RSN. Slp1 wrote it qualifies under SPS. Levine2112 continues to remove[47][48] well sourced WP:NPOV text against the informative recommendations at the RSN. Levine2112, has refused to abide by his personal agreement. The relevant discussions are here and here. QuackGuru 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring against the recommendation of the RSN has continued.[49] I notified the editor about his personal agreement[50] and I was attacked in his edit summary. Levine2112 wrote in his edit summary: remove false allegations from known harrassers. QuackGuru 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112 Here is a bit of background info. QuackGuru 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cooper University Hospital‎

Hi, I hope you can help me - I would really appreciate some advice about what path to take. There is an anon editor who keeps posting controversial material about Cooper University Hospital‎ in its article. The anon's edits have been reverted by other editors who say the info is untrue, and me because it's unsourced and has been challenged before. The anon edits from several IPs, making warning messages pointless, has not entered into dialogue on the talk page, and uses misleading edit summaries. The anon edits from 198.202.202.165, 150.131.73.89, 68.236.0.92, 69.250.190.109, 216.9.250.44, 216.9.250.40, 74.186.185.22, 68.143.37.18 and 216.9.250.106, and previously 68.236.36.160 where they were blocked for harassment and personal attacks. Is semi-protection of the article an option here? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Above and beyond issues with the IP edits, the article is atrocious. It reads like an advertisement or press release. I've tagged it accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article is terrible. Bad writing, no sources. The rest of the content seems to be non-controversial (the content, not the writing style), so it's just the info the anon is adding about gang violence that's contentious. Somno (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Happyone2 again

I think this user did not learn. He just continued putting false info. This needs to be stopped as several other editors aside from myself are also peeved by his edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Happyone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you provide any references or DIFFs? seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here: this and these on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, and the following edits on Rina Tōin, Hanon Hōshō, and Lucia Nanami respectively: [51] [52] [53]. The said anime has currently no official English version and there's no confirmed announcement that there will be one (it has a license, but it is soon dropped). You can examine these edits as well, some reverted by Pitstain (talk · contribs): [54][55][56][57][58]

Also, this and this on Engine Sentai Go-onger. Arrowned (talk · contribs) reverted those edits due to doubt and asked Happyone2's sources for those edits, but it seems the latter never responded.

What kind of action do you have in mind in this matter? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

North Queensland Cowboys vandalism

The users from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.187.85.212 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.220.202.31 have been vandalising the North Queensland Cowboys. This page has copped quite a bit of vandalism lately Ssiww (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll get a faster response at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous atmosphere at John Howard

Could I ask for an admin to review recent conflicts at John Howard, please? The atmosphere has become quite poisonous, to the extent that constructive edits and discussion are impossible. There seems to be no consensus for inclusion of certain newly-added material and the personal attacks, incivilities and downright falsehoods are piling up. I suspect that I'm being deliberately goaded through the above tactics, and I'd like to see some outside eyes on the article. It may be necessary to protect the article - either way, I don't mind, the material in question is trivial - until we can work out a consensus. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, to underscore my remarks about atmosphere, there is edit-warring on the discussion page. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Article protected; ad hominem sections of talk page {{hat}}/{{hab}} enclosed; notice and warning left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett Legal threat

I want to get the eyes of a more experienced admin on this situation as soon as possible. An acount and an IP have both claimed to be Annett himself and are now asking that the article be removed. I blocked the acount for disruptive editing a couple of days ago and advised them to contact the Wikipedia offices through email, but it looks like he wants to handle this on the site itself. Let me know if I can help at all. Thanks in advance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can be honest, email communication with Wikimedia is really the only way I can see for us to confirm that the accounts do belong to this person. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Meatpuppetry on Bryan Pisano

This thread was archived without us receiving any admin assistance. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, given the creeping admissions of guilt (from 'not at all' to 'maybe' to 'well we do know each other, except for that guy', to 'oh wait, that guy i said i don't know is my brother'. It's a MeatPuppet parade, and Admins are needed. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Would either of you care to open up a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and put all the necessary diffs in? Since there seems to have been collusion in both a DRV and an AfD, that increases the case for taking some action. If you then want to file a checkuser request, you greatly increase the chances that an admin will act on the case. Don't worry too much that the closer of the AfD will overlook the socking; other editors have pointed it out several times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually already did here last Tuesday. But so far it's just been the accused and the AfD participants. I didn't put any diffs in, but I did include the three discussions that were most pertinent... --SmashvilleBONK! 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for filing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender. The case is not quite dire enough to justify a checkuser, since code 'D' of checkuser requires that the socks have affected the result of a closed vote, like an AfD or a DRV. So far the two AfDs and the DRV have both closed *against* the wishes of the possible meats, so they haven't done much more than waste people's time so far. Any admin who wants to take action on the data already gathered is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that irrelevant? Meatpuppetry's a flat out no-no, and giving them a free pass on it now invites more of it later. Why not give lengthy blocks all around? ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because blocks are preventative and we're probably never going to see them again. --Random832 (contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, free pass to do it again, drop out again, then again and again and on and on. Ok. I thought somewhere inthere we'd adopted rules about Meatpuppets, but I guess those only apply when admins want it to. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been a lengthy and reasonable discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender where two of the named editors participated. The second of these guys has started creating articles. If you see any joint participation by two or more of these editors in any future AfDs, ask them to withdraw. If there is no response, post again at ANI, and a block should be considered. I think our patience is running out, but the two people who seem to be continuing as editors look OK. During the times they are not colluding on AfDs they are doing some useful work. EdJohnston (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I did just