Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive433

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Comet (programming) attracting reverters after being ranted about in reddit.com[edit]

Someone posted a rant on reddit.com about the ongoing rewrite of Comet (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and this has attracted some vandalism as well as some tentatives to shortcut the ongoing rewrite discussion by reestablishing the old version.

For context, see

Since the reverts were from Anons at first, I've asked for a semi-protection, which was declined. Anyway, not only anons are landing in the article, but long-inactive accounts as well.

Some admin overview may be good. I am repeadly re-reverting the article to the work-in-progress version, but I may be the wrongdoer on this case. Help needed. --Damiens.rf 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a Request for Comment to try to get more eyes on the article. Right now consensus is not really possible, since we have a supermajority holding a particular opinion, but that opinion that is questionable due to canvassing, conflict of interest, and a lack of experience with Wikipedia policies.
I am not nearly qualified to comment myself, unfortunately... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. I'll let the SME's figure out the content issues. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the issue here is not vandalism but edit-warring, I feel that full protection might be a better temporary remedy. I will apply it if there are no objections. Canderson7 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur; IP editing here isn't really the issue - Tan | 39 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There is a difference between edit warring and vandalism. The reversions by the Redditers to the article's longer version are the first, but not the second. Damiens.rf, you should also be aware that you have long since passed the customary three revert limit. I think you should limit yourself to talk page discussion for the time-being. I agree with Jaysweet that an RFC would be a good way to proceed. Canderson7 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately, it seems that full protection will be necessary. And maybe a rfc as well... --Damiens.rf 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement that these edits don't constitute vandalism, rather a conflict over inclusion of content versus exclusion. I'd note that while I was writing this, there have been several more reverts. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Non-admin Comment - in reviewing the discussion the consensus reached to essentially restart the article was largely based on the comments of Damiens.rf and Restepc, and largely opposed by jacobolus. Despite the appearance of this article on an external website, I think the discussion needs to be-reopened, and that the current consensus be re-evaluated. Disclosure: I am a regular editor, but became aware of this through Reddit. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course Jacob opposed the rewrite, since he single handled wrote the version that raised the WP:COI concerns. Besides him, only his co-workers from cometdaily.com came up to defend the old version (that was a huge advertisement for comet and cometdaily.com. See the first link above). --Damiens.rf 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of this “restart” however was to leave the article completely devoid of useful content for 2 weeks, with no visible rewriting occurring. I would very much appreciate renewed discussion by editors with fresh eyes. The original article has much room for improvement (most of all in increasing the number of sources), but the stubbified version is clearly unacceptable, so hopefully with new and wider attention, progress can be made by working on the page rather than blanking it. —jacobolus (t) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify the role of Comet Daily in this in case anyone cares... we started Comet Daily as a common place for people to write about Comet. I know many of the people involved with Ajax and Comet, and thought it would be a great venue for discussing Comet. The characterization of us as co-workers is a bit much, as we're really just a group of people that want to talk about Comet, that all work for other companies. Jacob's work on the WP page about Comet was originally done by his own desire to explain Comet. Obviously he didn't understand what is and is not acceptable content for WP, and that's ok, that's why we need editorial help. We get that. As far as the allegations of Canvassing go, we're very well connected in the tech community and know a lot of people. But we didn't actively solicit this community response. Rather, people asked us what happened to the WP page about Comet that used to be informative. We didn't start a campaign, rally the troops, etc., it just sort of happened as people interested in Comet saw what happened, and started to read through the talk page. Obviously we think Comet is an important technology, it is used in a number of places, and we think it's important enough to have a solid explanation at WP. We talk a lot about Comet because we care about the tech, we contribute to great Comet-based open source projects, and because we believe it helps make the web better. I'm not really sure why Damiens.rf has a significant grudge against Comet Daily, and my efforts to try and better explain Comet. If we're not a valid source, that's fine, but please don't use that as a reason to discredit every author that has chosen to contribute to our site to help explain Comet. - Dylan Schiemann
Yep. It's much more complicated than I originally thought. (Canderson7‎ and) I've fully-protected the page for 1 week. Take to RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?[edit]

Resolved: 1 edit, user warned, take to wp:AIV if persists Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP marked as belonging to the Oregon Public Education Network User talk:198.237.119.80 has been the source of a lot of vandalism recently. Could an admin look into it please? Jasper33 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets[edit]

Resolved: From what I can see, all the socks are in the wash. If not, just remove this "resolved" thingy. J.delanoygabsadds 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 are sockpuppets for evidence: see their contributions. Now DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 is on harassment against User:Luigi 28.--Ciolone (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to file a suspected sock puppets report, as that's the best venue for this kind of thing (and it will probably get a faster, more appropriate response). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, June 15, 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Let me see if I have this right... You, whose account is a few days old, believe that DIRECKTOR - who has been on WP for 18 months - and AlasdairGreen27 (a 9 month old account) are sockpuppets harassing Luigi 28, an account of a week or so's experience? I didn't notice the same mix of articles on AlasdairGreen27's contrib history as I did on DIREKTOR's, Luigi's and yours, but a few comments on DIREKTOR's talkpage. Without probing too far, it seems to me that DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27 seem to be agreeing with something that Luigi (and you?) don't. Now, are you able to provide diffs that indicate sockpuppetry rather than two experienced Wikipedians agreeing with each other? Any comments regarding both you and Luigi's recent arrival on Wikipedia and concentration on very similar subjects may also alleviate any concerns that some suspicious minds might have regarding socking by yourselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Luigi 28 has been claiming "harassment" because DIREKTOR believes he is User:PIO. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428#Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sockThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Anybody fancy taking a look at the contributions of Ciolone? I just undid a few - one a grammatical revert - regarding introducing "comparative sports" in articles which upon review were quite different. Does this appear to others good faith mistakes or subtle vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
My invite to this party must've got lost in the post. For the benefit of 'Ciolone', I can advise him/her that DIREKTOR and I do not even live in the same country. For the benefit of Wikipedia, I can very confidently assert that Ciolone originates from the same hosiery factory as User:Agazio and User:Jxy, among others. Could a CU be done to resolve this urgently? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
For User:Ciolone: please, don't use my name for your private issues.
For User:LessHeard vanU: my week is more than one month. Please, read better. User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 harassed me, because they think I'm another one (User:PIO), and reverted many, many times my edits, without any kind of explanation. This is harassment.
For User:HandThatFeeds: the same.
For User:AlasdairGreen27: good luck.
For User:DIREKTOR: nemojte transformirati naše rasprave u borbi između Talijana i Hrvata--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
For User:Luigi 28: Speak in English or you will be blocked soon enough. It's quite clear that you are not attempting a civil discussion with DIREKTOR. Civility mean being civil, not being civil in a language than everyone here understands. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
For User:Ricky81682: User:DIREKTOR is Croat and I wrote in Croatian. However, my words in English are: Do not transform our discussions in a struggle between Italians and Croats.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I forgot: I hope that words are considered sufficiently civilians.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies. A thread where someone claims is being harassed and then non-English language used has a pattern of being uncivil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That being said, this has GOT to be the most ridiculous report in months. Imagine: a sock and his sock reporting sockpuppetry. All concerned Admins, be advised: this is a (lousy) attempt at counter-reporting. See [1], this intentionally cluttered report is still awaiting Admin attention. I don't know for certain about User:Ciolone, but User:Luigi 28 is yet another sock of banned User:PIO. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is harassment! I'm a suspected sock (and I'm not a sock!). User:DIREKTOR reverted my edits only thinking I was this User:Pio!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I think you may well be right, Direktor... it would definitely not be the first time it's occurred on this board. Orderinchaos 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zenanarh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
No.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by--Ciolone (talk) 13
32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that Ciolone has helpfully brought himself into the limelight (I personally hadn't noticed him before he started this thread), I have opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (4th), and notified him of it on his talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ciolone is blocked indefinitely as a likely sock or meatpuppet of PIO. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And Luigi28 is blocked indefinitely as well, same reason as before, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) for reasoning. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

death threat on user page[edit]

Resolved: TOV deleted, user blocked, no further action necessary Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Silanthaler (talk · contribs) displayed a death threat on his user page against all inhabitants of FYROM which I have blanked. All his other edits are harsh uncivil exigences to comply with a certain nationalistic POV, see [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

69.17.100.99[edit]

69.17.100.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has made 6 revisions over the past several months, all linkspam to the same URL, and all have been reverted by editors. Please block as appropriate. Jkraybill (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?[edit]

On the last paragraph under Tim's death, please change following to followed (footnote 29). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.99.239 (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
They should have called him a (attack removed) Cbsite (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
removed an attack that doesn't belong here. Nate (chatter) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? AvruchT * ER 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Good to keep the semi-protect up, might be enough for this scenario for the next week. Problem being, half of these vandals are procuring the stereotypes that contemporary conservatism apparently represents. They're looking for excuses to be immature. Sad, really. (Not that the left is any less guilty of it, but still) Brokenwit (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:84.134.65.233[edit]

Resolved

Please consider blocking this IP for persistent incivility following warnings, and in particular for this response to a warning: User_talk:AndrewRT#Tocino AndrewRT(Talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bunch of these today, and blocked them. This is one already blocked 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gen IV reactor article needs moderation[edit]

Resolved

I'd like to request some kind of moderation in Generation IV reactor article to avoid an edit/revert war with User:Eiland. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. DustiSPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet dumping copyvio on user pages and articles[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocked sockpuppet

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please indef-block User_talk:Adeebtanoli as vandalism-only account and sock. Look at the multiple other IPs and accounts that he used to dump the same content on multiple pages, including one wikiproject[3] and "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" which he keeps vandalizing for whatever the reason [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please delete user page and talk page as also having the ofending material --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was about to nuke 'em, but User:Gwen Gale got 'em about 10 minutes ago. I'm going to minimize the user and talk pages as a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06[edit]

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category [[Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars]]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".
There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).
mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.
In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.
The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, [[Cavalry] and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.
What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.
I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.
If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Wikipedia policy (except occasional loss of temper).
Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Wikipedia as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.
As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.
If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but decided to go to sleep finally so did not respond.
I sent Buckshot06 the notification almost immediately
Its not just to do with Buckshot06 following me to the Napoleonic Wars area. He persistently follows me everywhere by watching my posts and interludes in my discussions with others, invariably in opposition, but usually lacking any supporting sources, and basing himself in guidelines and conventions while failing to appreciate that they are not policy. My academic background is strongly predisposed towards factual evidence to support statements, an I find lack of this in Wikipedia (despite policy) quite unsettling. How much more so when aside fro having to dig up reference for articles, I am forced to do so on talk pages also. Being gnomish is one thing, but from my perspective Buckshot06 is as close to being disruptive towards me personally as I think is possible without actually crossing the line. I have no problem if his activities in respect to my edits were gnomish, but they are not just that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this matter Jaysweet. Might I encourage you to contact user:Kirill Lokshin, user:Roger Davies and user:Woody. All three are coordinators of the Milhist project, all administrators, and are in a more neutral position to comment on Mrg3105's actions, which I believe are harming the encyclopedia (though most recently Roger issued him a block warning). Mrg has been involved for months in a string of bitter disagreements with Milhist and religious editors on article naming, categorisation, deletion debates, WP:RMs, article introductions, and other matters and has usually been in a 1 versus all other users position. WP:Consensus appears to have no meaning for him whatsoever. I started monitoring his edits because he was working on subjects I was interested in; now I do so because he's warping wikipedia and usually doing so without regard to anything anyone else thinks. Buckshot06(prof) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, everything Buckshot06 says is completely true, with one significant omission. All these disputes were, and are centred on the non-use, use and mis-use of sources. As a reference work, Wikipedia can not include in its articles information which is not referenced properly, and in each and every case that has been the issue. It is still the issue. Lets be clear about what Wikipedia is supposed to be - a work of reference that has public trust. Currently most academics tell their student not to use Wikipedia. One can not add content to a reference work by consensus. Consensus is only required to evaluate the validity and verifiability of sources on which that information is based. One can not for example establish by consensus that 2+2=7.43, or that the capital of Australia is Alice Springs.
If I contribute to Wikipedia, I want my contributions read. If I want them read, the quality of Wikipedia needs to be brought to a level where it is not just trusted, but recommended. If I, and other editors, have to drag the others kicking and screaming to a level of higher quality of produced articles, so be it. If this does not happen, than Wikipedia has no right to existance. It is just that simple. I am not liable for actions or inactions of others. I answer for my own actions, and so far, with one exception, I have nothing to be sorry about in my participation in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 can not seem to fathom that beyond the daily grind of editing there is a strategic goal for Wikipedia we are all supposed to be focused on
Roger's block warning was directly related to Buckshot's activity. Most of the bitter disagreements have been with Buckshot06, and several groups of highly nationalistic editors, something I will address elsewhere.
It is true that I am "warping" Wikipedia...into shape! Currently the coverage by the Project is out of sync with other Projects within the area of Humanities and the discipline of general History. Its articles are disconnected, uncategorised properly, many core articles are unreferenced and unsourced and the subject areas badly organised. This is largely because there is a lack of awareness of the big picture, and a lack of direction. I accept this to be the nature of Wikipedia participation, but that also allows me to contribute in the way I see best fit and within the policies of Wikipedia as they relate to editing. So far my only cardinal sin has been in in being uncivil to people who usurp these policies and stack consensus discussions to really warp the process by which Wikipedia is created. If Buckshot06 can't see this, I suggest he is not really paying attention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Core damage frequency[edit]

Resolved

Core damage frequency articles also needs moderation to avoid an edit/revet war. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. DustiSPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project. DustiSPEAK!! 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Buckshot06[edit]

I would like User:Buckshot06 to stop stalking my editing. There are too many diffs to list, so please help yourself by using User contributions feature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a case of Wikistalking, rather than a dispute over the appropriateness of the category [[Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars]]. mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has added this category to some 30+ articles or so, and Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) has removed it from each with the edit summary "Rmv overcat".
There is ongoing discussion of the issue here, and it's worth pointing out that Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) has observed that mrg3105 has had repeated problems with overcategorization, often in explicit breach of consnesus (diff of ND's comment). Quite troubling is that mrg3105's response to Nick's advice was met with "Nick, don't try to impress me with your admin status" (diff, it's a long read, but trust me the comment is in there).
mrg3105, can you show me where there is consensus for the inclusion of such a specific and awkwardly-phrased category? If there is consensus, I will warn Buckshot about the reversions. However, at present, I think his removal of the category tag was appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not just about this category, but an ongoing stalking of articles I edit by Buckshot06, often within minutes, for many months, and his constant opposition to virtually everything that I do, regardless of consensus being there or not.
In this particular case the category name was taken from the higher level category with the addition of the Napoleonic Wars to the higher level category name, so not exactly inventing anything here.
The troop types, all present in the period, but uncategorised as such, were then gathered so I can work on them from one central category since many use same sources. In at least one case this is currently the only category being applied to the article, and in the cases objected to by Buckshot, Infantry, [[Cavalry] and Artillery, there are currently only 4-5 categories. What Buckshot06 objected to this time is the possible overcategorisation of these articles if every period in military history was to adopt the same category name. However, no one has done so in the many years these articles exist. Most of the troop types cover only three centuries, so overcategorisation is highly unlikely. The plan is to create dedicated articles for the period to cover the Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, as Infantry of the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars and Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars, and subsequently removing the current category from the more general articles (however something is needed now). Buckshot06 as usual would not enter into a discussion, and I felt that I have as much right to create a category as anyone. If anyone thinks the category inappropriate , by all means use the category talk page.
What I did find inappropriate was Nick suggesting that I am asking for "some kind of block". This is actually before a blockable action has been found. Sounds rather like a threat to me. Administrator rites are not there to be invoked every time an editor doesn't do what the administrator desires. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
There was no consensus because the category did not exist. So far as I'm concerned the entire categorisation of the Military History is a mess. I have taken several efforts to bring the matter to discussion over a period of months, and every time has found apathy and Buckshot06's opposition that lacks argument. My last effort to achieve a discussion received interest from less then 1% of the group of editors officially signed on to the subject area, so what I decided is to be bold and create the category and start working on the articles. I rally do not wish to waste more time in fruitless discussions because aside from new article patrolling, occasional salvage and de-stubisation I also actually contribute articles that are not stubs, and they also take time to research and write.
I do not see why I should have to be shadowed by Buckshot06 continuously correcting and reverting my contributions. Previously he claimed that we edit in the same are. This was only partly true, but is completely untrue now. Since I begun new article patrolling, he has been a shadow to me despite there being lots of other editors and bots quite up to the job, and lots of articles that he can be destubing even within the Project that has 196 pages of stubs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if I got the core issue wrong, then provide diffs. You said "please help yourself by using the User contibs feature". Frankly, most people who patrol these noticeboards will just ignore a request like that (notice that nobody else has responded other than me). I decided to go the extra mile and check the contribs, and that was the conclusion I came to.
If there is a longer term issue, you are going to need to provide diffs, e.g. show multiple examples where you started editing an article that was entirely unrelated to your past interactions with Buckshot, and which he had not previously participated on, and how he showed up to thwart you. Given this mediation case, I am more inclined to guess that you two just have a shared interest in military history, and that's why you butt heads so much. But maybe I am wrong. If so, you need to prove it to me with diffs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Jay, that would take more patience and time then I have. Pick an article, any article I created. It would be hundreds of diffs, thousands even. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and its true that we do share the Mil Hist interest. Originally I offered to collaborate, but that soon came to a conflict off-wiki. Currently I rarely edit the articles Buckshot06 is mostly concerned. So far as I can tell he has never edited the Napoleonic Wars articles, which is why I decided to go there to see if he would follow, and he did. Besides that I have tagged and did minor (and occasionally extensive) edits on new articles from random areas of the Project and Buckshot06 is always there. What is more, his apparently gnomish behaviour is sometimes accompanied by biting remarks which are only a hair's breath away from being personal insults. I am not going to sit here amassing diffs. So far I am not aware of having done anything wrong in regards to any Wikipedia policy (except occasional loss of temper).
Guidelines and conventions are just that. Given an option of rigid guideline observance and waiting another 6 months for consensus, or getting 20-odd articles to a higher quality of content, I have no problem doing the later. My previous experience with Buckshot06 is that he is not able to offer a reasoned discussion backed by constructive suggestions that focus on improving Wikipedia as a reference work, but is more concerned with strict observance of what are usually not policy issues, but his own sense of what is correct.
As far as consensus-building is concerned, for example I recently brought up another issue on categorisation two days ago which to me is at once essential and obviously in need of a consensus, but have not receive any comments, not even from Bucksot06, so its not like I have not tried. Strange that of 100 editors on the task-force not one was logged in over the weekend. Stranger still that no one seems to mind using two category syntaxes for at lest a year now, and not doing anything about it.I guess I'm just a lot less willing to sit here and wait for someone else to do the work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, if it would take more patience and time than you have to present the case, dunno if I'll be looking into it too much ;p BTW, if you have not already done so, it is customary to notify Buckshot06 and any involved parties using the {{ANI-notice}} template. This will give us a chance to hear both sides of the story.
If I may try to paraphrase your complaint: The thing that specifically bothers you is that you butted heads with Buckshot over WWII-related articles, so you switched to Napoleonic Wars-related articles in order to resolve the conflict, and you feel he followed you there? Is that the gist of it? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but decided to go to sleep finally so did not respond.
I sent Buckshot06 the notification almost immediately
Its not just to do with Buckshot06 following me to the Napoleonic Wars area. He persistently follows me everywhere by watching my posts and interludes in my discussions with others, invariably in opposition, but usually lacking any supporting sources, and basing himself in guidelines and conventions while failing to appreciate that they are not policy. My academic background is strongly predisposed towards factual evidence to support statements, an I find lack of this in Wikipedia (despite policy) quite unsettling. How much more so when aside fro having to dig up reference for articles, I am forced to do so on talk pages also. Being gnomish is one thing, but from my perspective Buckshot06 is as close to being disruptive towards me personally as I think is possible without actually crossing the line. I have no problem if his activities in respect to my edits were gnomish, but they are not just that--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this matter Jaysweet. Might I encourage you to contact user:Kirill Lokshin, user:Roger Davies and user:Woody. All three are coordinators of the Milhist project, all administrators, and are in a more neutral position to comment on Mrg3105's actions, which I believe are harming the encyclopedia (though most recently Roger issued him a block warning). Mrg has been involved for months in a string of bitter disagreements with Milhist and religious editors on article naming, categorisation, deletion debates, WP:RMs, article introductions, and other matters and has usually been in a 1 versus all other users position. WP:Consensus appears to have no meaning for him whatsoever. I started monitoring his edits because he was working on subjects I was interested in; now I do so because he's warping wikipedia and usually doing so without regard to anything anyone else thinks. Buckshot06(prof) 01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, everything Buckshot06 says is completely true, with one significant omission. All these disputes were, and are centred on the non-use, use and mis-use of sources. As a reference work, Wikipedia can not include in its articles information which is not referenced properly, and in each and every case that has been the issue. It is still the issue. Lets be clear about what Wikipedia is supposed to be - a work of reference that has public trust. Currently most academics tell their student not to use Wikipedia. One can not add content to a reference work by consensus. Consensus is only required to evaluate the validity and verifiability of sources on which that information is based. One can not for example establish by consensus that 2+2=7.43, or that the capital of Australia is Alice Springs.
If I contribute to Wikipedia, I want my contributions read. If I want them read, the quality of Wikipedia needs to be brought to a level where it is not just trusted, but recommended. If I, and other editors, have to drag the others kicking and screaming to a level of higher quality of produced articles, so be it. If this does not happen, than Wikipedia has no right to existance. It is just that simple. I am not liable for actions or inactions of others. I answer for my own actions, and so far, with one exception, I have nothing to be sorry about in my participation in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 can not seem to fathom that beyond the daily grind of editing there is a strategic goal for Wikipedia we are all supposed to be focused on
Roger's block warning was directly related to Buckshot's activity. Most of the bitter disagreements have been with Buckshot06, and several groups of highly nationalistic editors, something I will address elsewhere.
It is true that I am "warping" Wikipedia...into shape! Currently the coverage by the Project is out of sync with other Projects within the area of Humanities and the discipline of general History. Its articles are disconnected, uncategorised properly, many core articles are unreferenced and unsourced and the subject areas badly organised. This is largely because there is a lack of awareness of the big picture, and a lack of direction. I accept this to be the nature of Wikipedia participation, but that also allows me to contribute in the way I see best fit and within the policies of Wikipedia as they relate to editing. So far my only cardinal sin has been in in being uncivil to people who usurp these policies and stack consensus discussions to really warp the process by which Wikipedia is created. If Buckshot06 can't see this, I suggest he is not really paying attention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Core damage frequency[edit]

Resolved

Core damage frequency articles also needs moderation to avoid an edit/revet war. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Both users involved have been notified of a possible WP:3rr violation. DustiSPEAK!! 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project. DustiSPEAK!! 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosprings user page and piracy[edit]

User:Cosprings keeps linking to blatant sources of copyvio on his user page despite being warned. The last time he was advised by an administrator here, he removed a slew of bit torrent links. I just deleted two of the music piracy blogs from his user page, but even his own personal blog ("Silentsprings, the official blog of Sybylys") is nothing but links to torrents containing complete discographies of musical artists. Someone stop this guy from flaunting his user page as a one-stop illegal download hub. Also, his personal music he's linking there is admittedly in violation of copyrights via sampling. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using Wikipedia as somewhat a webhost, and the history of his userpage is full of torrent links. I'll crosspost this to WP:AN/I which is probably a better venue. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Cross-posted from WP:VPP#Cosprings user page and piracy x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I was one of those who advised him to ditch the torrents in the first place, but in light of this latest info I believe more aggressive action may be appropriate. I'm tempted to MfD it, but I figure waiting for comments here first is better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the torrent links and the link to his torrenty blog. If he readds any links, I suggest a short block. Neıl 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems he disagrees. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Neıl 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone suspect that page is almost like webhosting or advertising, links or no? x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and some hours before your post I deleted the redirect from his userpage to that page for just that reason.[5] The subpage should probably be AfDed or MfDed or whatever. (IP editors can't AfD for technical reasons relating to the article creation "experiment".)
Since his October block for "disruption",[6] this user has a history of incivility, failing to communicate, inserting plagiarism of copyrighted text into articles, making changes without consensus, removing AfD and speedy tags from articles he created, removing "no rationale" tags from his images, and repeatedly misusing CSD G7 in his speedy deletion requests. Have a quick scan of his talk pages since January. [7] [8] Really a problematic editor. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


User subpages deleted as advertising (G11). Userpage selectively deleted to remove copyright infringement. — Werdna talk 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


user Cardiff123098[edit]

Resolved

Hello,

This user Cardiff123098 is an habitual vandal. If you check his edits on many topics you will see his edits mostly get undone pretty soon. We have tried to help him but he just takes it personal and carries on regardless. Thanks harris 578 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

cardiff123098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) DustiSPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If it is ok, I would like to work with this editor to see if I can possibly steer him on the right path? DustiSPEAK!! 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes OK. No problems. harris 578 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz edit war[edit]

Disruption by Sahyadhri[edit]

Sahyadhri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, is continuously making disruptive edits in the article The Hindu and repeatedly violating WP:NPA. This user is continuously inserting non-RS and WP:SYNTH which I have described in detail in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits.

Edit-warring by this user:

Another IP Special:Contributions/59.145.142.36 is probably a sock of this user. Administrator Nishkid64 removed the non-RS and SYNTH in this edit. But the IP reverted admin Nishkid64's edit. I said to discuss the issue in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits, but they are not willing in any discussion, blindly reverting others' edits. The user was warned two times - first by administrator Nishkid64 and then I issued a warning for repeated insertion of non-RS. But the warnings are ineffective. This user repeatedly called me "eulogist". I request a block of this SPA. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Colors8 to report on material[edit]

Resolved: no admin action needed, taking to talk

Carolyn Purdy-Gordon is listed on Wikipedia in the movies she's been in, so why would my submission of her be considered useless information, she's an actress just like Drew Barrymore or anyone else.

Also, The Initiation is a film listed under list of horror films, I even put an external link proving that it was real, I've seen it, and now I've reviewed it, only to have it be deleted, why?

For one thing, "reviewing" a film on Wikipedia violates WP:No original research. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the actors or actresses I create a page for, may not be considered big time movie stars to you, but they're still actors, what if there are curious people out there who don't know who Cooper Huckabee, Michelle Joyner, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, or any of the other people I listed are, and would like to know who they are?

I'll explain on the user's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WLRoss[edit]

Hey guys, what do you think of this user page? It's a bit over the "couple of pages" of personal information specified in WP:USER but it's not so obviously excessive as to warrant deletion. I haven't looked at enough User Pages to form a definite opinion as to whether this is excessive so I figured I'd ask here first. So... whaddya think? Is this actionable or am I just being too rules-conscious? --Richard (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit too pedantic rules-conscious, in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
He's not hurting anybody. — Werdna talk 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit much for me but otherwise looks like nothing to bite over. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii[edit]

Following a checkuser user:Fonez4mii was found to be preteding to be two seperate people is a block not in order?--194.217.118.50 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the checkuser only uncovered his IP and the user has said he had already acknowledged this and was not trying to pretend he was two people. The account has only been editing since 18 May and this all may have owed to making some posts while not logged-in, then not handling the outcome whilst clued-in to the community's take on WP:SOCK. I'd AGF for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan[edit]

EvilWendyMan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is, according to his userpage, 9 years old. Or so it said before the older versions (containing birthdate and school, among other things) were deleted and hopefully by now oversighted. (just looked - they have not been oversighted) However, at this tender age he doesn't seem to understand copyright, and has been uploading logos, tiny photos from the web, and huge blurry photos that add nothing to an article, all without any copyright information whatsoever. He's been warned and bugged about this, with zero response, and just continues reuploading the files (sometimes two or three times on the same filename... and sometimes before they're even deleted)

Normally, I'd hit a user like this with a 24 hour clueban to give them time to respond or read the policies, but in this case, I'm hoping someone more familiar with how to deal with young kids has either a better answer or response. Any ideas? --Golbez (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess taking their toys away and sending them out of the room is the appropriate response... which translates around here as a 24 hour clueblock. I would suggest that they are advised of the block by something other than a templated message, with some friendly pointers toward the help and policy pages but with a clear message that repeated behaviour means they will be told to leave the room for longer next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
After the flock of warnings on his talk page, he seems to have stopped for now. I'd suggest oversighting the deleted edits on his userpage though, they went way too far. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because he is a child doesn't mean he has to be treated any different to anyone else. He should be blocked, yes, 24 hours for the first time as is usual. However, if this user is as we think, 9 years old, then LessHeard vanU has made a good point. Instead of the blocking template, maybe a much friendlier message, and some help. Thats as much as we can do - he may not even read those if he takes no notice of repeated warnings. But a block should be used all the same, for Wikipedia's sake. Lradrama 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If he's really 9 years old, then I'm the Easter Bunny. Which I ain't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol, far too many people lie about their age on this website when pretending to be children. I'm sure of it. The amount of vandals who say I'm only a kid is frequent. He is an extremely bright 9 year old if he has developed internal link & other wiki-skills in only a matter of days, I might add... Lradrama 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If we take a look, and this is just an assumption on my part, at his contribs, I don't know of a 9 year old with this form of vocabulary, but maybe I'm just not out there enough. DustiSPEAK!! 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, he did edit Spongebob Squarepants, after all. I highly doubt this is another nine-year-old, based upon the contribution history... pretty damn good English skills. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, all this could be true. Either way, I wouldn't want to block this user myself, for now, since he's stopped after the final warning on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes OK, well we'll wait. But if he continues.... Lradrama 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky & Sweet Tour[edit]

Resolved

There seems to have been a large amount of vandalism to this article and it has now been semi-protected. Could someone who is familiar with this subject please take a look and correct any errors, as I am definatley sure that there are some. :). Thanks and Happy editing, DustiSPEAK!! 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In related news, there are definitely errors on the other 2,476,328 pages. Can someone take a peek at those too? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Um....Keeper, I believe your wrong there. 2,576,327 as I'm sure one was just deleted :). DustiSPEAK!! 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So, you added 100,00 articles, and then took away one? (look at your number again...) :-). My point is really that the article is only semi-protected. Any autoconfirmed editor can edit it/improve it including you. Not really an "ANI" problem, as admin rights aren't needed to edit it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, not appropriate for ANI - Tan | 39 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and ScienceApologist[edit]

After a long discussion (and much drama), I am closing a thread about Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). The result is a restriction on both editors that is intended to force them to disengage from their long-running dispute, by specifically sanctioning certain problematic actions. It would be sincerely appreciated if a few uninvolved administrators could provide a cluecheck for the resolution, and indeed it's almost certainly needed. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been reminded about the disengagement restriction mentioned above and Martinphi has been reminded about his ArbCom restriction. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that restrictions be put on Vassyana from discussing anything about MartinPhi or ScienceApologist because Vassyana is being unfair and should leave both Wikipedians alone. Thanks. QuackGuru 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The undertow and related dispute[edit]

Following events today and arbcom list consensus, The undertow (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 9 months. Because the matter has gained some communal interest, a brief summary of what's gone on in the background follows. A lot will be common knowledge.

A dispute primarily between two administrators (the undertow and Swatjester) boiled over a few weeks ago on the wiki, over discussion and accusations against the undertow. (A few others were swept up in it somewhat, especially two other users (one of whom was at RFA at the time) who also had similar accusations made against them, by others close to the case.) None of the parties was in the right in their conduct. Roughly speaking:

  • Undertow had tried to make a point in a contentious area, and wanted others to agree with definitions he felt correct on the topic, which he knew in the real world were often viewed with hostility and would often be rejected. It backfired badly.
  • Swatjester (and others) felt the definitions in question were unacceptable, personally, and stated on-wiki (rather than taking note that personal issues should be left off-wiki) that the undertow should be desysopped.
  • Undertow responded by parody and such [12]
  • Others created WP:POINTy userboxes and made comments that caused them problems in turn, at least one user reimported comments from an off-wiki blog to build a like case against another user.

The matter was dropped on-wiki, but off-wiki Undertow stated intent to take action against Swatjester for his words. Most times, WP:LEGAL ("If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels") is the best guidance to follow, especially since in most cases, claims are unlikely to have substance, and are "puff" by persons who weren't able to get their way. In this case by contrast, and exceptionally unusually, both parties were deliberately keeping the matter largely off-wiki, it was not likely to be an ongoing cause of on-wiki disruption (Swatjester had pledged to keep it off-wiki, the undertow at that time was also doing so), and talk seemed more likely to resolve the matter for the benefit of users and the project, than the possible escalating effect of a block.

The undertow had also emailed Arbcom that he would probably need up to six months to sort out some personal matters contributing to the situation (he gave considerable detail in private), and that his tools would be given up voluntarily for the good of the community; if in six months he was able to act effectively as an administrator once more, he proposed he could ask for them back.

Over the course of the last few days, a number of developments have taken place that make us feel we are less likely to make headway in resolving it. Separate to this, the undertow has escalated the matter. It was off-wiki; today it was brought back on-wiki specifically to further the dispute. If ignored it may fade; equally it now looks like it may not. There's a difference between ignoring a dispute when it isn't impacting the wiki, and when it is. A large amount of detail was given by all parties in private which I'd as soon not make public unless they wish it, and which would fill in the gaps in the above - please respect their privacy on this - but it may be that dialog cannot do much more. This dispute should not have been brought back on wiki, and that decision to keep it off-wiki -- now gone -- was what was holding off the block last time. An arbitrator consensus therefore now exists, that todays events have led to an extended period of blocking, with regret.

Our hope is that in time he will understand our action as an attempt to balance the needs of the community, the needs of other editors to not have off-wiki disputes imported, and compassion for the undertow himself, that his off-wiki stuff sorts itself out, and understand we have tried our utmost, and strained matters at times, to try and find a resolution that was better for the project and for all even if non-standard. It should be stressed that a number of people acted poorly, all parties recognize things they did wrong, and the situation escalated quickly enough that perhaps no realistic handling could have really prevented it. We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it. Private dialog will continue if wished. Should the undertow handle this well, and resolves the personal off-wiki matters he describes in his email (not related to the dispute), and it becomes clear this is all "old stuff" at the time, then he would be welcome back. It's entirely up to him.

Given the privacy and legal issues, this is not an easy one to write up - if it is vague or ambiguous in part, or some stuff is completely missing, that's why (as happens in many cases these days), and hopefully for the same reasons speculation can be avoided where possible.

Finally, be aware that we have had to check a number of purported points and claims made by various parties and users in the course of this case, both in private communications, off-wiki, and on-wiki, and verified a number are/were not reliable when examined in depth (though some might appear to be without careful investigation). No details, more just caveat lector. Also there are a number of other factors and minor issues that arose in the dispute, and a few other users who acted in a problematic manner - not everything has been gone into. It may be that some aspects will need addressing further.

As a personal comment on a block and the prior dispute, rather than a formal Arbcom statement.
FT2 (Talk | email) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting the full rationale here: this is a very complex dispute, and I think it's appreciated that the arbcom have handled it (I for one do). It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, and not the outcome everybody would have hoped for, but it's now apparent that it is a necessary course of action. I am simply disappointed that these are the thoughts of a single arbcom member, rather than a statement from the committee as a whole: one would hope an en banc statement would be offered in a situation like this, sealed and agreed upon by the committee as a whole. Anthøny 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The block summary or subsequent messages, I can't remember which, state that the block was agreed upon by the unanimous consent of the ArbCom. I think they just leave it up to FT2 to write the long tedious emails.
I'd first like to say thanks for posting this. I'd rather these types of blocks be posted right after though, as ex admin blocks could likely always get communal interest. I'd also, for clarity, like to point out that the events that transpired today were not made with any effort to escalate a dispute (as far as I've seen). But once again, thanks for the post. — MaggotSyn 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The actions of the arbitrators were not made to escalate the dispute, but to defuse it. The actions of The undertow specifically were to escalate it. Please have faith that the arbitration committee has more information about the whole of what his actions were than you do. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't imply they didn't know more or that they escalated the matter. I just happen to know exactly why he created an article on you (off wiki communication), and seen the article (as I edited to it). Upon seeing the article, I did not notice one thing that could resemble anything defined as a dispute. I am of the opinion that he should not have created the article, but it was written with neutrality. I don't wish to drag this on any longer than it already has on other talk pages SWAT. :) — MaggotSyn 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I never questioned the neutrality of it. Did you watch his video he made in which he articulated his reasons for the article's creation, punctuated with a remark to the effect of "It would be a shame if someone's kids found out their father died on Wikipedia."? SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I've seen it (its on facebook for anyone to see I believe). What he meant was, we have set up precautions such as WP:BLP in the event, and in his example, in case a child finds an article on their father and reads it as saying he is dead and its possibly wrong. I'm wondering why you would bring this up, as it doesn't appear pertinent here (if you'd rather discuss it on my talk maybe, you're welcome to it). I'd like to request an outside viewer archive this now. Thanks. — MaggotSyn 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Riiight, it was unrelated. Just like how for the Mafia its unrelated when they say "It would be a shame if someone were to wake up with cement shoes on the bottom of a river". Implicit threat is implicit. Considering the entire rest of the video was directed at me, what makes you so sure that it wasn't, keeping in mind that he's made implicit threats to me before?SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being directed at administrators rather than the editing community at large? I'd like to echo Anthony's suggestion for en banc statements and further suggest a dedicated page for explanations of non-transparent Arbcom actions (i.e. at an WP:ARBCOM subpage). Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: the above question is seeking a normative rather than descriptive answer. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be better addressed at arbcom's talk, citing this specific thread. — MaggotSyn 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Duly addressed, thank you for the suggestion. Skomorokh 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick answers: 1/ The drafting took a lot longer than I thought (due to privacy/non-escalation/"real-world" concerns balancing with "being useful to the community"). The problems moving back on-wiki needed attention sooner and was addressed as soon as consensus was clear. An "agreed draft" would have taken longer and added little. 2/ The purpose of the article is fairly transparent given recent directions in the dispute. There was no good-faith reason. It was created for no reason whatsoever beyond serving a targetted personal agenda, and using the wiki to do so. 3/ Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, is there a link to the facebook video for those who havent seen it? :D DustiSPEAK!! 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I support this action or maybe I would've said an indef block until he showed signs of recovery at least, as his actions have been a bit random recently to say the least and I found the video disturbing. Dustihowe, I will email you the link, assuming no-one already has- well you can have the pleasure of it twice if so lol:) Sticky Parkin 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had made it pretty clear at WP:NLT that off-site legal action didn't matter as long as the user didn't discuss the matter on-wiki. And unless there's a case involved, it doesn't matter what arbcom thinks about this. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, seems this isn't "arbcom authority", but simply it was those on the arbcom mailing list that were trusted with the personal information. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I take of it, and trying to not say too much, I take it Undertow did do something on-wiki related to the legal actions. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't sure on this at first form the summary above. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There was an escalation of the trouble with posts made on-wiki. And that's when arbcom though it was necessary to issue the block. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain, for the benefit of those not clued in to the jargon, what is meant by "off Wiki" in the above comments. IRC channel communications? U.S. mail? E-mail? Postings on a blog somewhere? The court system? Stepping outside and duking it out man to man? Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
In this case, Off-Wiki refers to any communication that takes place in any venue or form other than the editing of a Wikimedia project such as Wikipedia, including its articles, talk pages, project pages, or any other type of page, and edit summaries associated with same. Off-Wiki communication includes (but is not limited to) personal contact, phone calls, postal mail or e-mail, IRC or other chat communications, Skype, blogs, and most specifically discussions on other websites. I suppose a fistfight would also qualify. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Please[edit]

Amacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Allisonmacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

more about the timing than the actual blocking. I blocked User:Amacmunn for repeated copyright violations. She requested unblock which Sanstein declined. Then User:Allisonmacmunn popped up, editing the same accounts. I filed a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Amacmunn (although Twinkle hiccuped on the puppet), indef blocked the 2nd account and upped the block time on the primary. I *think* this was what I was supposed to do, but I'm not certain. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I'm also headed offline so if anyone wants to keep an eye on the favorite articles for other edits, it would be appreciated. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious, I was cautioned against biting, however is blocking a sock created to evade a block really a sock? I've also asked [[User:Smith Jones] for his input. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Your actions look correct to me, both the indef on the sock and the extended block on the main account for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
it just sems harsh to indefinitely block someone without even talking to them to try and ifnd out if they are a sock or not. thats why i gave the welcome so the user if she is not a sockpuppet wouldnt be compeltely discouraged from editing consturcitvely in the future. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed Johnston. SmithJones, did you look at the master account and second one? I don't think there's any question about it not being a sock, the last name is the same and it's just a question of first initial or full first name. As far as editing constructively, neither account has so far done anything other than copy paste from their own website and has not shown that she's understood the related copyvio issues. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another one[edit]

Resolved

Currently unblocked but a whois of 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) shows it to be the Titan offices. Continued to edit Titan Worldwide after I blocked Titan 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for repeated spam. I'm not sure about protocol of blocking what appears to be a static IP in this case if it's enough for block evasion. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted Titan Worldwide. seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was leaning toward. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the protection will expire next month. If you're going to lock an article into deletion, it's best to put an expiry so that someone else can write Titan Worldwide (according to the guidelines, of course) after the protection time is up. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive edit warring[edit]

Pardon me if I'm a bit short, but the last three times I have posted to ANI, I have been wholly ignored. It concerns Dr.enh (talk · contribs) - see the post here. I have repasted the contents below:

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., [13] [14] [15]).

The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has NOT edited past the "final warning". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I gave a final warning, though I forgot to put in the word "final" (the editor has been warned several times already). I've removed the resolved put up by a non-admin tag because in my experience a "final warning" from a non-administrator is not a final warning at all because it's impossible to ever get an administrator on this damned board to look at one of these cases unless it's been looked at before. (I near guarantee any successive postings would result in another warning or be ignored). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
User has been warned. If he/she edits again in an inappopriate way, he/she should/will be blocked. Resolved? Not much else that can be done here. DustiSPEAK!! 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Since this editor is clearly edit-warring against consensus with a side order of snide personal attacks in response to attempts at engagement ([16], [17]), I think the last warning has been given. If he continues edit-warring or attacking people on the talk page, you can let me know directly for a potentially faster response. MastCell Talk 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Sock[edit]

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jet_Delivery. The article's creator Bbarbata (talk · contribs) and Jbarbata (talk · contribs). 5:15 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, the usernames seem similar, and possible meat puppetry or sock puppetry, both users only edits are to that AFD, however, the arguments given for keeping the article are rather different. I'd say a checkuser would be needed here, but what do you admins think about this? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like definite meatpuppetry, realtives of some sort. I assume barabata is their last name. No sockpuppeteer would be so stupid to create usernames so similar. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that Michael Barbata is the CEO of the company, meatpuppetry seems likely. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to point that she replied and admited a bit of COI. Article wrote by her brother and CEO of the company. If the claim about findinding the seconday sources is valid it could work. Although with major rewrite due to the intense [[WP:COI}}. [18] Samuel Sol (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, this community is pretty sharp! Like Icewedge said, if I was trying to create a sockpuppet, then why would I use names that are identical in syntax and differ in only one letter? The truth is, we are brothers and share the same last name. Jbarbata and Bbarbata are unique users and were not created to deceive the wikipedia community in any way. Bbarbata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We appreciate your ringing endorsement, but the edits between the two of you still violate the policy on meatpuppets. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user talk page protection review[edit]

I just page protected User talk:Keysoft‎ after its 5th unblock request. I feel like this is such a dramatic step that it should be reviewed automatically. --Selket Talk 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked Res judicata, since I had no idea what the hell it meant... but other than that, I concur with your decision, if only due to the username. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I see is that they probably should have been directed to Template:Autoblock after the second unblock request. Protecting the page was a good idea though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I replied to their email, confirming mostly all that has subsequently been said (I commented that COI didn't mean they couldn't write about themselves - but they needed to be very careful about NPOV) but emphasised that notability and verification were at the core of the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags[edit]

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)
Thread has been dead for two days. Adding timestamp here to let the bot archive this section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Caspian blue[edit]

I had requested Adoministrator's comment for Appletrees, the previous name of User:Caspian blue gaming conducts.[[19]]. And he and I are both preacehed by adomin. And so I delete his gaming conducts on my talk page, then he say not to say gaming conduct on my talk page. What can I say to him? His gaming conduct was already recorded, and so he was preated about it. I can't understand his comment on my page. He didn't feel apologetic for it? [[20]]. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz81089 (talkcontribs) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident please be more clear in their description of what the problems are? It's almost impossible to tell what the issues are from the above comments. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was preated by admin for because of not familiarity with terms, I wasn't preated for gamings. And you, Appretree (Caspian blue) was preated for gamings. And I deleted your gaming conducts on my talk page, and write edit summary. Your gamings are already recorded as this[[21]]. It's a fact. You should read the page again. I can't understand your writings on my page. Jazz81089 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_15#User:Jazz81089.27s_inflammatory_personal_attack According to this admin The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Caspian blue (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident kindly be clearer in their description of what the problems are? The above still makes little to no sense to the general English reader. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
>User:Badagnani. In short, I am personal attacked that I did personarl attack. But as it was, what I did is to write a summary of edits on my talk page that was already recorded as this [[22]]. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I see. That editor frequently does that, yet for whatever reason has never been disciplined for it (most likely that for admins, there are always "bigger" issues to attend to). But, as our project is collaborative in nature, it really is important that we try to keep our rhetoric moderated and not incendiary, as I've often seen with certain editors. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'm the one who heard his personal attacks, and you came to retaliate me for Korean cuisine artilce. You frequently attack me per your history. And then this is clear evidence you've been stalking me as usual--Caspian blue (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I can know that I am not only one done by him like this. I try to keep them. Thanks!Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Jazz81089's repeated personal attack[edit]

  • Summary Some Japanese OCN ISP anon has vandalized manhwa article over a year, and also appeared at the same article about one weeks ago. After that, the anon went to Blade of the Phantom Master and removed the mention of artists' nationality and manhwa. The work was actually created by Korean manhwa artists and published in a Japanese magazine in Japanese first. Shortly after or almost simultaneous, it was also published in South Korea. The adapted animation was jointly created by a Korean and Japanese company as well. However, the anon replaced the manhwa related mention with manga and emphasized it.

To avoid disputes and NPOV, I suggested the anon to participate in a discussion or RFC and then presented a sort of compromised version as "cartoon and animation series by Korean manhwa artists published by a Japanese manga magazine as manga. However, the anon refused any compromise but just kept reverting and the behaviors were very similar to a banned user Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). Suddenly, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) appeared to do the same edit as the anon after his 8 month break and looked like violating 3RR with the two accounts. So I reported to RFCU, but Jazz81089's edit numbers were not enough for checkuser to examine anything. At that time, WP:RFC and suggesting a discussion were no useful (no response at that time), so I filed to WP:3RR on him, but the both were blocked for edit warring. However, after that, Jazz still produced inflammatory comments against me at the talk page of Blade of the Phantom Master and his talk page too. As a result, I gave him a WP:NPA warning, then he reported to ANI previously as if he was a victim. What a lie.

Admin User:Moonriddengirl intervened the case, and everything seemed okay and going to be settle down peacefully. However, the usr kept making personal attacks on me and reverted to his preferred version with no consensus, so I let the admin know of his personal attacks. The admin gave him a warning for his disruptive behaviors and edit warring. Jazz complaint that the article is not removing manhwa mention and emphasizing manga-centered. I was busy dealing with other things, and Jazz and I actually did not contribute to rewrite the article much since the dispute occurred. As Jazz deleted his sockpuppetry case and warnings on his talk page given by me, he wrote the insulting comment against me at the summary field regardless of his previous warnings. So I gave him a NPA warning, and left notes about his behaviors, then he reported here. What a good gesture.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You apparently gaming the system again to report here. Since the dispute is between you and I, I titled as such. (This is not fair to use only my name, since I was attacked by you. You intentionally wrote to mock me at the edit summary over and over and the administrator at that time said you're the one gaming the rule. Besides, it is a courtesy to notify me, and you did not. If you think reporting first is to justify your POV, that is not good approach. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. 2008-06-17T04:50:57 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (Your gaming conduct was already recorded, read it again.)
  2. 2008-06-17T04:41:50 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete Caspian blue's gamings)
  3. 2008-06-17T04:40:32 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete. Appletrees gamings)

The editor did not edit the disputed article but complaint or attacked me at the summary field, so I gave him waring and left notes. I feel very absurd this disruptive behaviros of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs).--Caspian blue (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your gaming conduct was already recorded as this [[23]]. And I only wrote edit summery on my talk page for the reason already reported above. You looks you don't feel apologetic for your conducts. It's repugnant of you. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nay, the admin said you're the one gaming the rule and then you're the one who received the formal warning from her. You just prove that as you keep making personal attacks against me, and then victimize yourself. That is too pathetic. Nope, everyone at the talk page of the article said that you're always complaining and not helpful for the article. The previous ANI is the evidence of your gaming Wiki rules, not me.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand your saying. I editted my page, then why it was my gamings? It's edit summrery of deleted of your conduct which was already reported. It is impossible of being my gamings, and the editing summry was already reported as your gamings. You don't feel apologetic for them? Jazz81089 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Who are them? You do not make any sense. Personal attacks do not justify anywhere within Wikipedia. After your highly inappropriate personal attacks, you do know that I will see your talk page for a while as you checking my contributions. Somebody who wrote very inflammatory and personal attacks on his own page was indefinitely blocked because of his user page. Your excuse "Oh, I only wrote so on my talk page" is not plausible rationale. You intentionally wrote the personal attacks (not even true) at the summary field. It is so possible you're gaming again as the admin said so and gave you a warning. I sense that you're deeply related to 2channel again per your weird usage of "apologeitc" and disruptive personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You did gamings as this [[24]][[25]] that was reported in here [[26]], and the editing summery is short comment of the reason. If this is a personal attack, your writings is a personal attacks too. You say I did gamings, so it's personal attack as you said. You shoud apply same rule on you and others. It's contrariety of yours. Jazz81089 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the admin who looked into the case said, you're the one who gaming the rule. As the result of your blatant disregard of consensus and the previous attack, you received the final warning from her[27][28]. Beside, the admin warned about your edit summary as such[29] "The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them." --Caspian blue (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly sense that you're one of banned users by checkuser, or Furf, or Rlevs per your very unique usages of English, and the implausible rationale. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you seem like Opoona (talk · contribs) or Princesunta (talk · contribs),Limited200802th (talk · contribs), all of which are related to Japanese 2channel and indefinitely blocked, especially Opoona. Your 9 edits in 3 years and your return after 8 months break do not still make any sense. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it Short and Simple[edit]

Fellas... if you keep sniping at each other back and forth on the Administrators' noticeboard, you are not going to get anyone to actually look at your concerns. I suggest each of you summarize your problem in 100 words or less, providing the diffs you feel are most representative of the conduct in question, and then just shut up for a few hours so an admin or other user can take a look and respond. As it is, I just see a whole bunch of ranting about "gamings" and "preated by adomin" (I had to look up "preat" on urbandictionary.com -- does that make me old?), with a few diffs thrown in with no context that don't tell me anything. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Jaysweet here, even though I do know the context of much of this. :) The first thing you might do, Jazz, in response to your first question here is stop antagonizing Caspian blue. I advised you in the continuation of the last ANI thread at my talk page, archived here, to keep "your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them". At this point, since you acknowledged yourself that he found the term upsetting in that thread, you seem to be taunting him. There is no good reason for you to keep referencing that term other than the fact that he told you there that it bothered him. Please review civility. In the last ANI thread, I did not confirm that Appletrees (now named Caspian blue) was gaming the system. Gaming the system is a deliberate effort to subvert the system. I explained to him why his actions could be interpreted that way, but in the lack of persistence did not assume bad faith. Caspian blue, please try to ignore his edit summaries. If he expands the behavior, including it in edit summaries at the article or talk page, then you have a clear case of harassment. In the meantime, if you did not respond to them, they would probably go away. The article in dispute here, Blade of the Phantom Master, is now being addressed by additional editors who are helping to find a consensual version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel like Jazz's reporting appears to be deliberate and looks like my name have repeatedly exposed to ANI regardless of his absurd behaviors (I'm the one who got his mockeries again) Besides, Jazz looks like one of Japanese disruptive offenders who harassed me for while and then banned for the reason or meat/sockpuppetry, I think filing sockpuppetry on him is really needed.
>Moonriddengirl. I will read the gaming the system and assume bad faith, and will understand them. I understood that was a gaming system and I think I only wrote a summery what was told in ANI page[[30]]. So I was astonished by Caspian blue's conducts, and then I can understand what he is, and what I should do by you all, especally thanks for Moonriddengirl and Badagnani.Jazz81089 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, a malicious filing (I'm the one who should report Jazz's gaming the system and his possible sockpuppetry). Per the admin's advice, I will try to ignore the person who tries to produce bad dramas. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Motofan[edit]

Previous ANI discussion
I'm starting to think he doesn't get it...
I know absolutely nothing about Formula 1, but I'm having a hard time believing that the few contributions this user has made on the topic make the rest of their contributions worthwhile. --OnoremDil 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is in order per this personal attack. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's what we'd normally consider a personal attack... I'm assuming that it's his recently blocked friend, User:Flyhead's, new account. Either way, he's been warned about that type of edit. --OnoremDil 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh... maybe you are right. Within context, maybe it is a compliment? Block is in order anyways. This is disruptive editing, previously strictly warned. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Using racist language should always lead to a block. Corvus cornixtalk 20:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have enacted an indef block, giving my reasons on the editors talkpage here. I invite review of my block and rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorsed, clearly. Long history of attacks, disruptions. Tan | 39 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ya, good block, very good block. 1 != 2 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was at first contemplating the block, but looking at it again in more detail, yes, good block. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the block. Ever since I had to revert one of his edits, he's been nothing but trouble. TheChri