Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive435

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Checkuser note: Beh-nam rangeblock[edit]

Hi all. Just a short note to say that one of Beh-nam's usual IP ranges has now been blocked AO/ACB for 1 month. The range is 70.48.244.0/22, revealed here per checkuser policy due to the nature and extent of this editor's disruption. To ensure a certain balance, NisarKand is likely to be next on the list. Enough people are tired of both of these banned editors warring against each other and filing checkuser reports. Beh-nam has other ranges, but this will likely slow him down a bit and we can address other ranges as necessary. This particularly narrow range has been checked and there should be little or no collateral damage whatsoever - Alison 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this rangeblock went on, Beh-nam switched ranges to one of his other usual ones and began causing a nuisance and made various attacks both here and on other editors' talk pages. Please also add 67.68.52.0/22 1 month AO/ACB rangeblock to the above comment. This narrow range is almost 100% Beh-nam, with very little else. There are maybe two other established accounts on this range, which will not be affected by the softblock, and all anon edits - all on this range - have been Beh-nam. Just about everyone is tired and bored with the Beh-nam and NisarKand show & this timewasting and disruption needs to stop - Alison 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those and NisarKand's rangeblocks! Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever it takes Alison. These two are some major problem disruptors and we don't need them. RlevseTalk 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Request block of anonymous and new editors on Gerald Guterman‎[edit]

For persistent and suspiciously biased edits, I request a block on anonymous and new editors on Gerald Guterman‎. Someone seems more interested in protecting this real estate magnate's reputation than in having an objective encyclopedia article. For example, a link to a New York Times article critical of Guterman has repeatedly been removed. The anonymous editors seem to want a sunny advertisment for the businessman, rather than an encyclopedia entry. Smilo Don (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, requests for page protection go here. I looked at the history and I don't think it warrants page protection, usually when its only one or two editors they are to be individually discussed with about their edits. But if you think it still needs page protection, put it in at WP:RFPP. Best Wishes! BoccobrockT 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tennis scores 2[edit]

Would an admin please review this SSP? This user is a block-evading sockpuppet with no useful article edits, but I am nonetheless hesitant to support an indefinite block. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Spebi[edit]

The admin Spebi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blanked and fully protected their user and user talk pages. (Noticed this when I attempted to leave a message about an image copyright problem.) Kelly hi! 04:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they are busy and feel that full protection is better than not answering talk page queries. You could try emailing them or contacting a fellow Australian (say, on Australian noticeboard) who may be able to tweak fair use criteria. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Can any editor get their talkpage fully protected if they go on wikibreak? Also, it wasn't a fair use issue, it was an image with a bad source that I'd like to save by resourcing it if possible. I'd prefer to do this by talkpage as opposed to e-mail, I didn't think admins were supposed to protect their talkpages unless there were vandal attacks or something similar, and that only temporarily. Kelly hi! 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I don't know Spebi well and I no nothing of the reasons for his reduced activity but it looks like he stopped editing around March, so the protection came quite late in the peace. I see it as a more productive way to prevent others posting and getting frustrated with a lack of an answer. Given he is Australian, I am second-guessing the material he has posted may be as well, which is why I suggested the Australian WP noticeboard. I will have a look at your contribs to see which images you're worried about. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Corey Taylor slipknot.jpg. Kelly hi! 05:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I can see your problem as only he will know.... To give benefit of the doubt, I'd sent an email as we can't assume much from a dead link. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Casliber - I also requested unprotection of his talkpage at WP:RPP so this doesn't come up again in future. Kelly hi! 05:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:Dicklyon[edit]

Dicklyon has engaged in persistent harassment, incivility, and edit warring, as detailed in the following.

  • Dicklyon makes accusations, refusing to back-up those accusations or to report them through proper channels (using such accusations, I believe, as an intimidation tactic):
  • Dicklyon falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet (user:BarbaraSue) [1](see bottom), [2]; when I recommended he employ the appropriate channel (checkuser)[3], he refused [4]. (The other account turned out to be someone else’s sockpuppet [5].)
  • Dicklyon falsely accused me of “blatant COI” [6]; when I suggested he employ the appropriate channel for pursuing that charge[7], he declined.[8]. (He deleted the accusation[9], after I pointed out that making accusations of COI for harassment or other reasons was a basis for being blocked [10][11].)
  • Dicklyon uses inappropriate language, including “this is bullshit” [12], [13].
  • He was warned by an admin that he violated BLP[14] with his edits to Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior[15] because they insinuated without evidence that the journal (or its editor or its editorial board) engaged in unprofessional handling of a manuscript[16], [17]. Dicklyon repeated the insinuation on another page[18]. I reminded him of BLP [19], but he reinstated it nonetheless [20].
  • Dicklyon violated NPOV, selectively quoting sources:
  • He put on a page the half of a sentence that was negative[21], and omitted the positive half[22].
  • He posted a newspaper’s negative quotes about a living person[23], but omitted the balancing information from the same newspaper article (e.g., “Naturally, it's very disappointing to me that there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. It's not that they distorted my views, they completely reversed my views."[24].
  • Dicklyon adds text on the basis of unreliable sources including self-published blogs, [25], [26], [27], an internet petition [28], [29] and a student newspaper[30]. I pointed out that such sources violate WP:RS [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. An admin also noted that student newspapers were not reliable (with regard to the topic in question) [40], but Dicklyon reinserted it[41].
  • I asked Dicklyon to seek input from WP:RS/Noticeboard and Third Opinions: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Dicklyon did not respond.
  • Within our mediated discussion, some progress was initially made, but Dicklyon never agreed to any text he did not himself author, including refusing to agree to text recommended by the mediator (multiple diffs through here[51]). He appears now to have withdrawn from mediation altogether; at least, he has not participated in several days, while still making edits to disputed pages and elsewhere in WP[52].

There are other problems, but these do not fit within the word limit recommended here. I can provide them upon request.

The related pages on which Dicklyon’s disruptive editing occurs (of which I’m aware) include:

  • Andrea_James
  • Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior
  • Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory
  • Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory_controversy
  • Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health‎_
  • Deirdre_McCloskey
  • Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
  • J._Michael_Bailey
  • Lynn_Conway
  • The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen

I believe Dicklyon should be blocked from editing pages related to sex, gender, transsexualism, and related biographical pages.
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marion, thank you for bringing our dispute to the attention of more admins. I was intending to do the same. I presume that anyone who examines our respective histories will be able to see that you are a WP:SPA promoting the POV of the editorial staff of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and the staff of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, including attacking the biographies of those who have crossed them. I am prepared to lay out the WP:COI case when I can find the time, but I've been pretty busy with other things. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to work with the people here, and I have the impression that several of the parties involved on various sides have sufficiently strong POV that it inhibits neutral editing . The material on the journal that was reinserted was in part justified on the talk page, and was not contradicted there. In any case, the proposed limitation is absurdly wide--we do not make topic bans of this sort after this relatively mild sort of disruption. I thought of suggesting a one-month moratorium on all of the involved editors for the immediately involved topics--except that I'm sure the same would continue then. These articles need the active involvement of neutral editors--but I'm not sure any neutral editors are sufficiently interested to decipher the complexities. I know I am not. DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I certainly agree with DGG that POVs can interfere with neutral editing such as with the present topics; however, I do not believe that all POVs are created equal. Neutral reflections of reliable sources can still be had when editors follow the applicable policies, which Dicklyon has largely not, as detailed above. For example, when one editor repeatedly requests that input from outside parties be sought and the other editor repeatedly ignores it, there is little hope for a solution regardless of anyone's POVs.
It is also true that I have not contested the current material on the journal page (nor the DSM page). This does not reflect agreement with that content; rather, it reflects a recognition that leaks cannot be addressed until the main problem is addressed.
I am entirely open to proposed solutions other than the ban I recommended above. I have agreed, I believe, with every recommendation DGG made in the aformentioned mediated discussion. (In fact, I am disappointed that DGG did not make any recommendations in his comment above.)
Finally, I agree also that the content issues in dispute are complex. Judging adherence to WP policies, however, is not. Dicklyon has never claimed expertize in transsexualism or related issues; his familiarity with Lynn Conway and the surrounding controversy may come from his long-standing relationship with her [53], [54], [55]. (I recognize, however, that Dicklyon's relationship with Conway is not in itself a violation of WP:COI; it is specifically his behavior that I contest here.)
I remain open to suggestions. I do not believe a solution can be found without admin input.
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I am adding here the following text that Dicklyon has just posted to our aforementioned mediation page. The edit summary was "It's still bullshit."[56]
I am not willing to accept the biased text by MarionTheLibrarian, a blatant WP:SPA with clear WP:COI, because it lies by not admitting its role as an insider in the cabal that asserts that "Dreger's article underwent standard peer review, but the commentaries did not." I'll make the case on the COI noticeboard when I get around to it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Marion is correct that I have no experience or expertise in the sexuality topic. I got involved by removing clearly incorrect WP:BLP violations from the bio of Lynn Conway, whom I have known for over 30 years (without knowing that she was a transsexual, for most of that time). I have no particular POV on the transsexual issues, but Marion's POV is so clear, and its editing actions so biased, that I have been trying to counter some of that. It has rewritten many of the above articles completely, essentially unchallenged, to spin them to the biased viewpoint of its institutional affiliations. As far as I know, none of the little quibbles it points out above is a policy violation; it just doesn't like it when someone calls it on its bullshit. My involvement started in late May (see Lynn Conway edit history), fighting Marion and its IP variants such as 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Some of its edits are clearly outrageous, such as this one, and almost all show the clear POV-based bias. If someone else would take a look, and help restrain it, I could back off. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


The difference between 're-writing articles without being challenged' and 're-writing articles so that no one has a problem with them' is in the eye of the beholder. Several editors have demonstrated that they have been following my changes by correcting typographical errors and other minor changes. That the pages have been stable is hardly a basis for a negative assessment of my contributions to those pages; the only pages which have been unstable have been the ones on which Dicklyon participates.
That Dicklyon has not violated any policies was not the opinion of the admin[57]. Moreover, whether the totality of the behaviors documented above merit action (rather than any one in isolation) is the very question I pose. It is my opinion that they do.
Finally, I would be more than happy to have someone to participate in producing appropriate text and to root out POV, no matter what its source. I have successfully worked with several people on controversial (sex or gender related) pages, give or take a disagreement along the way. Repeatedly engaging in the tactics noted above, however, can never accomplish that.
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG's impressions and comments. I think a RFC or third opinion may be appropriate to get some additional feedback. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am all for BrownHornet21's suggestion to seek Third Opinions and other venues for additional input. By my count, I suggested it myself six times during the discussion. (Diffs listed above.) Because that suggestion went repeatedly unheard, however, what is it exactly I should have done that I did not? Although I remain open to input, what suggestion do you have, BrownHornet21, that would help request number seven succeed where the prior six failed?
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you need Dicklyon's consent to initiate a third opinion or RFC. Why not go for it, and see what other editors have to say? At the very least, it might start help building a consensus on how to portray the issue(s) in as neutral a manner as possible. BrownHornet21 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not following you on how that could help very much. Third Opinions would not stop repeated (false) accusations, personal attacks, and leaking disputes to other pages, for example. The issues that could have been helped by Third Opinions pertained to Dicklyon's use of non-reliable sources (listed above). The WP policy, however, is that the burden for evidence is on the editor who adds new text to establish that the source is a reliable one. (That is, Dicklyon would be expected to demonstrate a consensus for questionable sources.) WP couldn't function if things worked the other way around: One can add unreliable sources very quickly, but demonstrating a >lack< of consensus takes time.
Perhaps I would understand your point better if you gave a specific example of an issue you observed while moderating that could be addressed by third opinion or RFC. Because Dicklyon has refused the suggestions for neutral text made both by you (the moderator) and by DGG (an admin who was providing input), not to mention by me, I am skeptical that suggestions received from still other sources would be of much use either. Nonetheless, if a specific recommendation could be had, I am willing to try it.
MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems very odd. You suggested six times that I should seek a third opinion, and now you're not so sure it's a good idea? I'm not so sure myself. I've tried several times before in other disputes, as well as an RfC in this dispute (Talk:Lynn_Conway#Plan_for_after_protection_expires), and they generally never result in any response at all, or just a trivial response. So I wasn't inclined to waste more of my time that way. Probably should have. It's not too late, but it's hard to find a person who can take the time to learn what's going on in an area and express a sensible opinion about what they find, which is what I believe I have done with respect to TheLibrarian's rampage over the sexuality articles (an area that I admittedly have no prior expertise or interest in, but my attention was drawn via the BLP attacks on Lynn Conway by TheLibrarian and its aliases). Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
At this point, Dicklyon is in violation of 3RR on the article Archives of Sexual Behavior. (1st reversion, 2nd reversion, 3rd reversion, 4th reversion, ranging between the hours of 03:20, 18 June 2008 and 05:00, 18 June 2008.) MarionTheLibrarian, too, has reverted multiple times, but under the umbrella of BLP. Without looking into the extensive history here, I must note that in this case, at least, Marion's position has merit: as BLP indicates, we are to "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." WP:V elaborates on BLP that "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." It's fairly evident that a student newspaper doesn't count as a "high-quality news organization". If there is no more reliable source than that alleging that ethics charges have been brought against these individuals, then the material does seem problematic by BLP. In any event, Dicklyon was warned against edit warring by DGG on June 6th at the article's talk page, here. Whether Marion's reversions were properly protected by BLP or not, there is no valid reason for Dicklyon's violating 3RR. (And, having been blocked twice before for this, Dicklyon should know better.) Whatever the history between these two and even if Dicklyon is correct about existing bias on Marion's part (please note that I am not presuming he is), he is clearly moving beyond the proscribed bounds of Wikipedia behavior in addressing it. I have not blocked him for his 3RR violation (although I am going to remove the material until a reliable source is provided), but I think this violation is worth noting here in discussing the situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is now at AN/3rr, as the user has reverted again. Since his last reversion is of me, I will not block him myself, but will leave it there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←I've been discussing some of this with Dicklyon at his talk page and have suggested that WP:NPOVN might be a good place to seek wider feedback. I agree with User:DGG above that neutral editors are needed to help out here. (I would try to help out myself if there were more transparent sourcing and if my current work schedule were not so erratic.) Having read through the mediation, I have to note that I stand impressed with your efforts, BrownHornet21. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thank you both for your help. BrownHornet is a pretty good mediator, and naturally eager to find a compromise, and I realize that I have made that difficult, as I have felt less like compromising as TheLibrarian has continued to do such awful POV edits in other articles while we had the Lynn Conway article on hold. Anyway, I'm hoping someone will get interested in dealing with my COI complaint, though based on my past experience, I don't hold out a lot of hope that that will happen. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IP check for Falcon9x5 and SeanMooney[edit]

IP check for two editors (User:Falcon9x5 and User:SeanMooney) suspected of sockpupettry. they are editing the same articles, pretty much the same way, and are trying to disrupt consensus on article discussions like Talk:Haze (video game). an IP check could be useful, thanks. Cliché Online (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to request this, please report the users to Checkuser. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!! 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. βcommand 2 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, ok, I do have to admit it doesn't look good. It does look like there is the possibility of the two editors being the same, I would support a checkuser. DustiSPEAK!! 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like to make clear here the consensus is not with Cliché Online. In fact, we were the only two users having a civil discussion - User:SeanMooney joined, and Cliché immediately responded with a sockpuppetry accusation. I've been explaining my reasons for most of the day for reverting his edits, and he's ignored them. Thanks! Fin© 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and he's the only user involved in the discussion (apart from myself and Sean), and the suspicion of sockpuppetry is his alone. "disrupt consensus on article discussions like Talk:Haze (video game)" is completely misleading, as it's the only discussion page we're both (Sean and me) involved in (as far as I know). Anyhow, Thanks! Fin© 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you give some background information on the whole issue? I'm curious. DustiSPEAK!! 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Basically, Cliché has been adding resolution sections to videogame infoboxes for the past few days (maybe longer). He edited Haze (video game) a few days ago, changing the resolution from 576p to 720p. I reverted it, as the creative lead stated in an interview that Haze's native resolution is 576p. Today, Cliché restored the 720p resolution. Sean reverted, and so began a mini-edit war. I added 576p with the source (Eurogamer one) and pointed out his mistake on his talk page. He then reverted with (what I feel is a less reliable) source while I tried to explain on the article talk page and his own talk page that the interview trumped the comment from a developer (which was his source), and anyway, the developer said Haze runs at 720p (which it does), but the native resolution is 576p. I kept pointing him to articles on sources and upscaling, but he continued to rant on about how it displayed on 720p on his PS3. Anyway, eventually Sean reverted one of his edits to Haze, I noticed this and pointed him to the discussion on Cliché's talk page. Sean responded on the article talk page, basically telling me not to bother arguing, Cliché responded with an accusation of sockpuppetry, and that brings us up to this moment! Phew! Thanks! Fin© 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you've mentioned a lot of reverting. Please remember this rule. In addition, this seems to be a content disupte. I'm going to point you to here unless someone else has any other thoughts. DustiSPEAK!! 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP:3O is good, also WP:RFC or WP:DR. I find it highly unlikely that there is a sockpuppet issue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I added it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games before I came here. Thanks! Fin© 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
so what, User talk:Falcon9x5 (Fin) comes here because he is watching my contributions log and ask to not be IP Checked and everything's is settled. What a joke! :) Cliché Online (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do an IP check or what ever has to be done in order to satisfy Cliché Online. He refuses to admit he's wrong and instead accuses us of being the same person. There is now a third editor (and administrator), User:KieferSkunk, telling him he's wrong (wonder if he'll be accused next?). The only thing me and Falcon9x5 have in common is that we're both members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games which means we both edit video game articles (obviously). SeanMooney (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a suggestion to both editors Falcon and Chiché, please go to here or here or here. Chiché, if you wish for an IP check to be done, as I stated above, you should go here. DustiSPEAK!! 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I second the IP check (though I know this isn't the place to request one!! =)). Also, no need for RFC, 3O etc, it's been resolved (or rather, decided what the article should include) here, with input from two senior editors. Thanks! Fin© 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
two senior editors? i am a senior editor. Cliché Online (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser note: NisarKand rangeblock[edit]

Hi all. As above with the Beh-nam case, this is a short note to say that NisarKand's usual IP range has now been blocked AO/ACB for 1 week. The range is 119.30.64.0/20 revealed here per checkuser policy due to the nature and extent of this editor's disruption. There likely will be a certain fallout from this as it's a reasonably wide range of Pakistani IP addresses. There are a number of already established accounts on this range, which should not be affected. There are also a mountain of IP addresses used by NisarKand and by very few other people, so this will now stop. I expect there should be a small amount of account creation fallout and I'm hoping that the unblock process and the mailing list should be able to handle this, per usual. There should not be very many. This is only a week long, as an experiment, but if things work well, we can extend this for longer, similar to Beh-nam's block above - Alison 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, see comment there. RlevseTalk 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Although I think both users have had different ranges over different periods of time. We'll see how this works though. Khoikhoi 06:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison, if you decided to put a /3 AO/ACB range block to stop these editors, you would have my support. You have been more than patient here. Just remember to avoid getting angry about it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala[edit]

Please advise how this should be handled. User:Avala, party to an editorial dispute about facts and sourcing pertaining to recognition of Kosovo independence internationally, has chosen to:

  • Remove other user's comments from the discussion, including flagging that Avala's editprotect request was contested
  • Falsely and anonymously labeled in bold (just above the text in question) other user's comments as not pertaining to the English Wikipedia content dispute, when in fact, in main part it does.
  • Chooses to employ the {{editprotect}} template engaged, even though there is opposition on the page to the proposed edit and the template text clearly says not to use it in such cases.
  • The user is a Serbian Wikipedia administrator, so his questionable edits cannot be explained through inexperience and assumption of good faith, as he is making these edits in order to force a partisan edit (pro-Serbia government). The editprotect was commented out with an signed anotation that that there is opposition. However, this was simply removed by User:Avala, as was the informative annotation "(contested)" added to the section title.
  • Diffs: diff1 diff2--Mareklug talk 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I've posted a note to Avala about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
please note, Gwen Gale did not start this thread as it seems to read. It was started by User:Mareklug, here. Gwen refactored the title and notified Avala, that's all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for that misunderstanding.--Avala (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Avala's later responses (interleaved into the above)[edit]

    • I contested the previous edit request with three other users. No one cared about it, no one opened the administrators noticeboard.--Avala (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I made an edit request on locked article here and the user which posted opposition said this (so I made a notice that it addresses image on commons (which is not used in article) as it does):

Oppose. I just discovered that since making this editprotect request, User:Avala has altered the Commons map designation for China (having dones so earlier already for India) on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map. It is evident that his proposed editprotect forms the sole justification for China and India map changes with respect to recognizing or not officially Kosovo. I think that this is an unwise, slippery-slope way of changing crucial Wikipedia content, and I oppose this editprotect request on those grounds.

Nothing in the proposed editprotect explicitly informs the reader that these 2 countries have performed an official refusal to recognize Kosovo's independence. If that is the case, the editprotect should make this clear, instead of failing to do so. The communique that purportedly speaks for all three countries and comes from the mouth of the Russian Foreign Minister and is quoted here from a Russian newspaper/website, seems to stop short of that outcome, as it calls on both sides, Belgrade and Prishtina, to carry on negotiations within the UN 1244 Resolution framework. The color on the Commons map legend for this reaction is orange, not red.

I cannot support in good conscience an editprotect that introduces ambiguities in the English Wikipedia only to be used in turn to justify different Commons content changes, which happen to be displayed by several Wikipedia projects which use this map for illustration. In effect, the proposer is proposing one thing in the English Wikipedia, while effecting different changes on other projects -- all on the basis of the same information. This sort of editing is not justifiable.

As I said in my comments, India and China should be explicitly and clearly sourced to their respective governmental statements. If such statements are not available, the two states' positions remain de jure unsettled. Using Russian newspapers to imply that these states have officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence constitutes therefore original research.

Extraordinary implications require making explicit statements, carefully, noncontestedly, officially sourced -- for any country, let alone China and India, which have highly evolved and continually updated official websites. Russia does not speak for anyone but Russia. Normally, joint communiques are made available from all offcial webpages of the governments that took part in such. Why aren't we seeing this replication in this case? Perhaps that is because a PR event is being sold as official policy. --Mareklug talk 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    • You are repeating yourself for the third time.--Avala (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Avala, can you undo the interleaving of your comments within the complaint of Mareklug? It makes it difficult to follow who is saying what, and disrupts our ability to evaluate his comments and yours as a whole. AvruchT * ER 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I put them under " ". I don't know how else to explain my point as Gwen Gale addresses that issue. Basically 1)Mareklug contests (with that text I posted before) the edit request because the map on Wikimedia Commons was changed but this map is not related to the article. 2)I add a notice for admins (Other users do the same, take a look at that page and my comment on previous edit request, Mareklug himself added a notice on my comment for admins, I just copy/pasted his style [58]) doing edit request that this opposition from Mareklug is not really about the article as it is about the image on commons. That's basically it but Gwen Gale I must say popped out of nowhere and made this ANI while I haven't made it on the same issue regarding me nor has Mareklug made it regarding him. I don't think anyone here needs a solicitor. --Avala (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved some comments around to make it clear who is saying what - hopefully your response is adequate for your purposes without being inserted inside Gwen's (and before her sig)? AvruchT * ER 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Note, I haven't addressed any issues here. My only involvement was to inform Avala about this thread, then note that here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Aye aye, was just about to "fix" it one last time before you did. ;) Thanks, Avruch 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who will read my comment, which User:Avala himself quoted here, will see that it pertains to the issue of editing English Wikipedia to one effect while using this edit to back up different content on other Wikipedia projects. The reader will also notice, that I object in principle to sourcing India and China official reactions to a Russian article that is quoting a Russian Foreign Minister. Furthermore, I said, that if India and China in fact do not officially recognize independent Kosovo, this should be stated explicitly and sourced to these governments' websites, which exist and contain statements about Kosovo independence.
  • User:Avala continues to misrepresent my opposition to his editprotect request, even while quoting it in full here. IMHO this is flagrant abuse. So is his persisting in using the {{editprotect}} while there is opposition and removing indication of this opposition, or adding anonymous emboledened text above the opposition's that seeks to disqualify it on false grounds. This is unethical behavior, as is insisting on using the editprotect template when the proposed edit is actively opposed. User:Avala did not undertake a discussion and then used the editprotect -- he arrogantly used it outright, and then proceeded to remove/deemphasize my contesting input. And still does so here. --Mareklug talk 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not a clue what these editors are talking about, except that it has to do with nationalist bickering in the mainspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read with understanding. I am not bickering as a nationalist, for heaven's sake. I am objecting to having my objections in a discussion suppressed and falsely labeled (anonymously at that), and I am objecting to improper sourcing of important content, as well as to attempts at leveraging implications being introduced on the English Wikipedia in order to back up radically different content on other Wikimedia projects. That last item is a methodology complaint -- it's an unsound practice. And I am objecting to the misuse of the {{editprotect}} -- that's a policy issue, where the editor is misusing intentionally Wikipedia process. Is this explanation helpful? --Mareklug talk 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
With all respect (and I'd like to help), when I read the word suppressed, I want to reach for the back button. What admin action are you asking for? This looks like a content and sourcing dispute to me. Maybe this would be more helpfully handled in a request for comment? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I follow one of the issues. Without commenting on the merits I see: Avala adds edit request template. (missing this diff.): Mareklug [59] comments out template, marks section contested: Avala [60] reverts this. So I believe the contention is that beyond the underlying content issue there is a behavior issue with regards to "supressing" the contestation.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, Avala was mostly in the right, albeit a full rollback was heavy-handed. While there is nothing wrong with Mareklug contesting the request for edit protection, he should not have commented out the template. The template just means that one or more editors has requested protection -- if Mareklug notes his objection, any admin evaluating the request would take that objection into account.
In a perfect world, Avala would have left Mareklug's other comments, but uncommented the template. That's my two cents. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time Mareklug abuses that talk page, so I am kind of frustrated and my action indeed wasn't appropriate but someone had to try to put attention on misuse of that page. Mareklug in short contests every edit request for a locked (permanently) article and this led into several perfectly fine edit request failing because admins wouldn't read why is he opposing. He makes an extremely long reply talking about wikimedia commons files or about some previous issues completely unrelated to this one and when admins come they see a block of text and think "whoa this is something controversial, I'll leave it until they reach consensus." Edit requests for India, Bolivia and some other countries have failed because of this and information in the article is therefore distorted and not up to date. Before he also used to write something like /paraphrase/ - "I oppose, Avala has falsified and skewed the quote from the source" and when I asked him to point at the single letter I changed he would go silent. It's all in edit history. I shouldn't even mention that Mareklug was blocked temporarily on commons for insulting other users (he also kept on blanking some content and I kept on reverting and then I got a block for a 3RR but the block was removed when I pointed to admin why I was reverting, but in a hurry I failed to write it in summary). Mareklug also has got dubious manners. He: compared me to a horse ("if you took off those eye shades they put on horses..."); told me to shut up ("shut up and learn"); implied that I was stupid ("Are you pretending to be stupid, or teasing?"); called me a sophisticated computer loop ("In fact, why don't you just commence debating yourself, because I get the strong sense I'm talking to a sophisticated computer loop."); called other users questions stupid and recently even bullshit ("Any more stupid questions and explications?"). It's all in edit history and talk archive. Go and check. I wouldn't normally bring this up as I forgave him but it's not nice to attack someone after he forgot your misbehaviour. --Avala (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


@Jaysweet: This is not about requesting edit protection. We are talking about uncomenting (with explanation, signed) the {{editprotect}}. Please read the template to see that it is to be used only for noncontroversial, unopposed edits. It is not a request for page protection, but rather a mechanism for flagging an administrator to carry out a needed (unopposed) edit within an already page-protected article. --Mareklug talk 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
@Gwen Gale: Suggested admin actions, since you asked:
  1. Warn User:Avala not to misuse the {{editprotect}}
  2. Undo User:Avala's removal of my writing from the talk page which you yourself removed from this complaint's header.
  3. Warn User:Avala not to prepend false and anonymous annotations before other editors' comments so as to discredit them, when in fact said comments are highly relevant and opposed to his proposed edits. This sort of editing on talk pages in unethical and a warning that it won't be tolerated is in order.
  4. Warn User:Avala not to inject unstated implications on the English Wikipedia in order to back up outright changes in the Commons content, and through Commons, altering content on other Wikipedias by stealth. Edits on controversial topics should be transparent, aboveboard and explicitly sourced to neutral sources. Any deliberately ambiguous descptions in order to imply without stating (because outright stating is not supported by sources, for example) and any non-neutral sourcing is working to damage the Wikipedia project. --Mareklug talk 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug, none of these are "admin actions". — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on Avala's talk page, asking him not to rm, hide or refactor the edits of others. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

edit abuse at Blackburn Rovers F.C. possible evidence of multiple accounts[edit]

Please could someone take a look over at Blackburn Rovers F.C. and give some advice on some pretty petty edit warring. I am not a regular editor of this page but came across an edit by User talk:River 3 on June 17, 19:51 hrs involving the removal of citations which appeared to be disruptive having also been reverted the previous day by User: Bill a regular editor who had described it as against consensus. So reverted here and gave a warning. River 3 ended up reverting 3 times and was blocked for 12 hours for 3RR as at 16:21hrs today ( 19th june). Meanwhile in an exchange on User Bill 's Talk Page Bill advised that it was possible that River 3 was a sockpuppet of User:Brfc97 who had been blocked indefinitely on April 5 2008 for having mulitple accounts and had also been editing disruptively. At 16:38 today just after River3 was blocked, Edgar E a new user with no edit history again reverted as per River 3 see here. Assume this is another account being used by the same user. From some earlier discussions on the Talk Page there is some previous evidence of reversions related to the use or inclusion of rival blog / forum sites. Not quite sure what else I should do as the regular editors Bill excepted seem uninterested to participate in resolving this! Tmol42 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cliche Online blocked for gross incivility, physical threat[edit]

Just a heads-up that I have blocked User:Cliché Online for gross incivility for a period of 1 week for comments he's left to myself and other editors on Talk:Haze (video game), User talk:Cliché Online, and User talk:KieferSkunk, among other pages. I felt that a quick block was warranted particularly because of this comment, in which he made what I interpreted as a threat of physical violence toward myself. As a result of this, I would like to ask whether other admins on this board feel that a longer-term or indefinite block of this user is warranted.

Background: My involvement with this editor began as a result of Talk:Haze (video game)#correct resolution 576p or 720p, in which it's pretty clear that Cliche has been strongly pushing his pro-PS3 POV and attacking other editors by claiming they are unduly biased toward the Xbox 360. I attempted to help in the content discussion, but also told Cliche that he was stepping over the line with respect to civility policies. He became more belligerent, and when I told him he was being a dick, that apparently resulted in the threatening language he used on my talk page. It's obvious that he does not want to work constructively with other editors (myself included).

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block, but I do have to mention this is yet another reminder that WP:DICK should never be referenced in regards to a specific editor (I reference WP:DICK on my User page, but in a general way, which I think is okay). It only ever serves to inflame things. I mean, did you think that when you referenced that essay he was going say, "Oh, now I see the error of my ways. Let me clean up the mess in your neck, screw your head back on, and give you a back rub"? hehehe ;D
Bottom line though, I for one don't see a problem with the block. If another admin is bored, it also might be worth it to unblock and reblock with the same duration, just to avoid the appearance of a retaliatory block. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Confer with the above 100%. The block perfectly fine, and I never have seen the need to undo a good block simply to swap blocking admins. I also agree that one should never reference WP:DICK directly about another user, as it is, as stated on its own page "something of a dick move in itself". So good block, but just be aware of not attacking other users; telling someone they are incivil or violating NPA is fine; calling them a dick is not fine. However, his response was out of line, and the 1 week block seems measured and appropriate given the severity of the attack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I'll refrain from referencing that in the future. Though given the situation, I doubt it would have mattered what I said - it's pretty obvious that he would have gone off on me anyway because I was threatening his ability to push his POV. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Threats of physical violence do not win friends and influence people on Wikipedia. The comment you cited is certainly worth a one-week block. This editor has done some serious article work. See Wangan Midnight (PlayStation 3 game). In spite of the positive contributions, if the extreme bad attitude continues further an indef block would be justified. Let's see how the one-week block works out first. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
While the article work is great, the editor seems to have a real problem responding to people offering criticism at all positively. I count plenty of quite rude editorial comments on his talk page, and note a previous civility block. The threat above is totally out of bounds, and I'd suggest a longer block if that kind of behaviour continues. (If there's a need for an admin who he can't call an "XBox fanboy," feel free to ping me, I'm PS all the way. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Category:Admins who are XBox360 fanboys, Category:Admins who are PS3 fanboys? Do we need to add a separate one for Category:Admins who are XBox360 fangirls? Or should we just change the whole thing to Category:Admins who are XBox360 fanchildren? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL! How about Category:Admins who like all the video game consoles?
BTW, if it hadn't been for the threat, my block of this user would have been 72 hours, having noted the previous civility block. The threat pushed it up to 1 week. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana[edit]

The situtaion at this article is becoming derganged beyond words. User:RajivLal, User:Jookti and User:Padan appear to be sockpuppets, certainly of RajivLal, who has already been convicted of socking, and almost certainly of User:DWhiskaZ, who seems to have been fringe-bombing this page and others (eg Mahound) for months with his proofs that Muhammad was predicted in all world scriptures. This issue has already been raised here. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive404#User:Abecedare. What is most bizarre is the fact that the reversion started when I initially just cleaned up the prose of this editor. I didn't even change the meaning, but raised it for discussion on the talk page. The various "users" who keep reverting are simply restoring incoherent English. I guess they just assume that any changes must be designed to conceal Their Truth. It is impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with this/these editors. Paul B (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt belong here this should be posted at the WP:Sock puppets with supporting evidence. --RajivLal (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008

(UTC)

There's nothing wrong with posting it here. It's not a simple sock case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I do wonder a bit at the recent contributions of RajivLal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Today's edits appear to include one revert, one (red) wikilink, and about a dozen edits to add or remove whitespace. I'm not sure what the purpose of the whitespace edits would be, beyond padding the editor's contribution history. The comment about 'incoherent English' seems off the mark. The revert (diff) that RajivLal made appears to have reintroduced errors of grammar, changing (for example) "It states that Muhammad will redevelop religion..." to "It further regards Muhammad to re-develop an religion...". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It was never discussed in the Talk Page. If user Paul Barlow wanted discuss grammar situations it would have been dealt with --RajivLal (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I said they were "restoring incoherent English', which means the same as "reintroduced errors of grammar", so I don't know why my comment was 'off the mark'. As for 'introducing blog content', this is nonsense. RajivLal is referring to a talk page weblink provided for convenience, that was never in the article, as he well knows. The content he deleted was from a scholarly text published by New York University. [61] Paul B (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry—I misread the signatures; for some reason I was thinking that RajivLal had claimed that he was fixing grammatical errors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if you read that book it sure should state there were two sections one was done by Rishi Vyas and one was attributed to Rishi vyas. The Rishi Vyas summary is mentioned and the attribute summary was supposed to be mentioned in the date and text section. Going off topic if you had problems with grammar issuses you shold have brought it up in the talk page. --RajivLal (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Vyas is a mythical figure. The issues of language were raised on the talk page. The central issue is your disingenousness, repeated sockpuppetry and misrepresentations of evidence. You are behaving here in the same way that you - in a previous incarnation - did in the Abecedare case. Paul B (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You are again going off topic. Wikipedia is not an Chat Room you are providing an dead closed sock puppet account and can discuss issues on my talk page or the article talk page.--RajivLal (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries by User:Say nesh[edit]

Resolved: indefinite block Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Say nesh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi) has been editing since 18 May 2008. In that period, he/she has made about a dozen personal attacks, slurs, and uncivil remarks against or about other editors in edit summaries. That editor was nicely advised to tone down the edit summaries on 6 June and that was seconded on 16 June. An uw-npa2 warning was placed on 16 June, and on the same day, I placed an uw-npa4 final warning based on a persistent pattern of WP:NPA, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:AGF violations. These all can be seen on users' talk page.

This user has used highly pejorative terms and multiple homophobic slurs in edit summaries on multiple articles. Faggot, or a version of the word, was used eight times: "editfags", "syntaxfags", and fagfucks (misspelled as "fagfukcs"), and plain "fags". The phrase "english motherfucker do you speak it" was used twice. The slurs "motherfuckers", "assfuckers", "spastics", and "idiots" have been used against other editors. The specific examples can all be be seen on the user contrib page, as they are all edit summaries. Other than the edit summaries, I found no problems, in fact there have been constructive contributions to WP otherwise. If these slurs had been placed on the talk pages, this issue would have been handled by now.

On 17 June, user acknowledged warnings by creating edit summaries as follows:

  • i have been discouraged from casting aspersions on the work of editors who are unable to write in coherent English. Diff [62]
  • censorship has prevented me from commenting on how massively this edit demonstrates the failure of the Wikipedia model. Diff [63]

Finally, this edit summary was left on 18 June after the final warning in which the users' sole comment was: "fags fags fags"

I request that this user be long term blocked until he/she learns to play nice with other editors, or indefinitely, as I find the nasty words, insults, slurs, homophobic insults, general incivility, and lack of good faith in edit summaries disturbing and disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New blanket reversion by User:RedSpruce, after warning[edit]

Resolved

After User:RedSpruce's acknowledgement that he has been removing what he agrees are "good edits" made to the articles in question (this diff), he had shown signs that he might be a tad more selective in removing sourced material, and had indicated that he would respect a warning on blanket reverts (this diff). Since then, he has made a number of blanket reverts, such as this edit to William Remington, which simply blanket reverts and removes sourced material back to back to the same point as this revert on the 17th and this revert on the 15th to what he has described as a "better version". He has also done another blanket revert at G. David Schine (this diff], reverting back to this revert from the 16th, which in turn was a revert to this version from the 15th, this version from the 5th, this one from the 4th and (my favorite this one from the 2nd with the edit summary of "RV to version _I_ choose to call 'stable'". Not a single edit to these articles in this period has added any content or source; all of these edits have simply removed sourced content. Unfortunately, the edit war continues unabated despite the promises. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed by Elonka on Talk:G. David Schine#Edit warring and Talk:William Remington#Unnecessary repetition via footnote quotes. Further edit-warring against consensus on those pages, at least, will see RedSpruce blocked. Marked this as resolved. Neıl 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Board Elections[edit]

Admin's are no doubt aware that the voting closes tomorrow for the elections to the board of trustees. If you've got a spare twenty seconds, consider dropping a note off to a couple of wiki friends to encourage one and all to vote, and if you haven't voted yet yourself go do it! (click if this is your 'home' wiki, otherwise, head to meta wiki for more info... Privatemusings (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson[edit]

Resolved: NewUser7 was blocked 12 hours by PhilKnight. EdJohnston (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please look at activity on the above article? I don't know how this article ended up on my watchlist, but it seems to me that a person using dynamic IPs (and now a new account - NewUser7‎ (talk · contribs)) is trying to push POV into the article. I really don't want to edit war - have done everything I can to get the person to the talk page. I can't really report to 3RR because of the dynamic addresses, and I don't want to request protection because the person may have a valid point that can be arrived at through compromise and consensus. Kelly hi! 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this person continues to vandalize my userpage.[64] [65] Kelly hi! 04:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the vandalism to your talkgpage. Smith Jones (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Translator wanted[edit]

Resolved: Images deleted as copyvios and uploader warned

Can anyone translate this? It's being used as the grounds for including a number of images on Wikipedia, and I don't know what permissions, if any, it's granting. --Carnildo (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Things such as this better fit at the Help desk, no need to bother the already overly busy admins with it ;)
Nevertheless, I hope this helps you out. With some luck a translation from Arabic to English will appear. Species8473 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Translation from Arabic to English: "The rights are dedicated to all the children of Jenin, wherever they are, in the country or exiled from the land. And we wish them success wherever they are. The story of Jenin was taken from the Book "Jenin's Tale", by Harb Hnaiti, published by the Arabic Organization for Education and Sciences, a branch of education sponsored by the Palestinians freedom organization. Some pictures were collected from the internet." (Signed by Raed Idrees) -- Many thanks to Dhiaa Alyousef from Saudi Arabia for the translation. Species8473 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't notice you are one of those busy admins, hope you forgive me because I provided a translation. Species8473 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like more work for busy admins, then. User:Abdazz uploaded about a dozen images citing that as permission to use on Wikipeda. I'm out for the night, so someone else will need to deal with this. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
All copyvios, all deleted. User warned. Neıl 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was I blocked[edit]

I had requested for a diff which could substantiate the block on my account. But no-one provided any diff or any violation of any wikipedia policy by me. Here I am requesting once again to demonstrate the worthiness of block on my account on wikipedia. here is my contribution [66], kindly provide a diff before 10 May 2008.

Responsibility has freedom associated with it, and freedom does not come for free, it comes with accountability. --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all detailed at User_talk:Cult_free_world#Blocked_.282.29. Neıl 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This thread User_talk:Cult_free_world#Blocked_2 is pertinent. RlevseTalk 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Note six different administrators reviewed your block at varying points, on your talk page alone, and concurred. Neıl 11:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You have conflicts in editing articles, including the Sahaj Marg page. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


But no-one has still provided any diff, from my contribution [67] before 10 May 2008, when my account was blocked first. I had requested for the same in my unblock request. Kindly provide the diff, which constitute disruptive editing on my part. Or was it because of lobbying from certain members of a religious cult ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You were given diffs on your talk page (e.g., [68]). Please stop wikilawyering. What do you want to happen here? Neıl 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"Or was it because of lobbying from certain members of a religious cult ?" You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Regardless of whether your suspicion is founded or not (evil forces are a very convenient, and usually wrong, explanation when you don't understand what's going on), you won't be taken seriously if you make that impression. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Which statement in the diff you have provided violates any wikipedia policy ? and what would you call this [69] ? keeping in view the controversial aspect of the subject, I was working on the same subject in my user-space [70], which was suddenly published in main-area by one of the member of the same religious cult [71]. The reason for this discussion is to bring forth the need for neutrality of admins and not getting emotionally motivated while issuing any block ! Responsibility has accountability, if admins have the authority to block or unblock user's on wikipedia, they should be answerable for their actions, good or bad. You have blocked my account for one month, and the diff you have provided does not violates any policy, be it WP:RS or WP:V or WP:NPOV, including WP:DE as input i had given was based on last version on my user-space, from where it was moved into main-space. --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were first blocked by May 3 with an explanation by the Administrator:

I find your behaviour to be disruptive. Your edits are tendentious, tending to advance an agenda, your comments ascribe motive where none is necessary and you show every sign of simply discounting every request to be less aggressive. I have blocked you for 48 hours to give others a break, and will be discussing this on the admin noticeboards.

I checked your contributions during this time backwards. I found out that you really have problems in editing Sahaj Marg. For instance, you reverted/changed the article vastly by using only the explanation in edits summaries such as WP:COI, which was given attention by one of the editors of that article, as reflected in your talk page. Besides from that, you have problems in talk page regarding the edits: here and here. Hope that partly explains why you were/and should be blocked. --Efe (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Explanation for Efe's comment is here [72] and lobbying aspect is here [73] why was the page moved from user-space to main-space when it was still controvertial ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But your edits before or during May 3 explain why your account was blocked. Also, regarding the moving of the content, I don't see any traces of User:Sethie in the article's history adding the user-space content. --Efe (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not, as I had placed exactly the same material which was under construction in my user-space, if it was not suited for main-space, it should not have been moved !! if it was moved by members of same religious cult, and if we assume good faith, same material should go in main-space which was last version in user-space, when that was added, how come it constitute WP:DE ?? Does the one month block indicates lack of admin's understanding of the situation ?? --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. Alternately, it may reflect the fact that your behavior is counterproductive in a collaborative environment and violates site policies in the determination of multiple administrators. You seem to be requesting a post-mortem on a block which has since expired and which was amply reviewed at the time it was placed, which is virtually always an exercise in futility. OK. Now put yourself in the shoes of a volunteer administrator committed to the site's principles who happens to be reviewing your request. You open with a lecture about freedom and responsibility, and then admit no other possibility than that you are a blameless editor victimized by shady undercover cult members and oblivious admins. What response do you expect? What response would you have were the situations reversed? MastCell Talk 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


And i would argue that "multiple administrators" did not reviewed the situation independently, since every user with admin privileges, has same responsibility, thus to maintain the integrity of diverse wikipedia, each admin must review and act independently. this [74] is definitely not an independent view. About "postmortem" why is it done ? to get to the root cause. Since i feel that the block was unjustified, and response to unblock request were also not justified , but it was more driven by lobbying by cult members, such as Reneeholla, sethie, etc.. which is very harmful for a project such as wikipeida, and if people with authority are not accountable for their actions, this might not help wikipedia to move in its intended direction. Emotions should be kept out from admin actions, fixing accountability is the intention behind this discussion. Each and every user on wikipeida has a POV, but how best it is put as NPOV is the name of the game, and that is why we have policy such as WP:RS. what is not referenced here [75] ? Lobbying should be done in senate houses, its better there, i doubt it is useful on en-cyclopedia. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, you should stop lobbying. If you truly believe the block was unfair, and you were treated unjustly, then given the response here has been unanimously against your interpretation of things, you need to take your case to WP:RFC. Neıl 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
RFC is not that what i guess will yield any result, rather an ArbComm decision might serve as a guideline, as I am looking for change in thinking process on wikipedia, which I guess is getting more solidified, that’s only after we do not come a conclusion here, mindset I am talking about is response here has been unanimously against your interpretation of things we both view this from absolutely different angles, but are viewing the same thing!! Which is block of one month on my account by you, where I guess you failed to read and interpret the situation? I have given a diff above which explains the lobbying against one person by cult members on this very notice board, and then you don't find any difference in that approach and my approach which is quite generic rather then person oriented ! --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock?[edit]

The talk page at Talk:Abdul Hadi Palazzi is blanked by a dynamic IP daily. The page was protected but once protection expired the blanking resumed. Is there any way to range block the IP in order to prevent this vandalism? --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think the answer is an unfortunate no. The IPs involved:
  • 82.49.197.142
  • 82.49.198.252
  • 82.51.158.112
  • 87.10.22.178
  • 87.10.235.188
  • 87.16.231.74
  • 87.17.224.134
  • 87.17.234.28
  • 87.19.223.106
  • etc.
Even if we only blocked 82.49.*.*, 82.51.*.*, 87.10.*.*, 87.16.*.*, 87.17.*.*, and 87.19.*.*, you are still looking at something like 400,000 IP addresses. Unfortunately, a rangeblock is out of the question here :(
The IPs complaint is that the talk page contains "libelous and unsourced information"... and it does seem some of what he is blanking amounts to personal attacks. Perhaps we could find out what he has a problem with and see if it ought to be removed anyway? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Abdul Hadi Palazzi has a lot of problems itself, in terms of both verifiability and possibly even self-promotion (I don't like that there are external links to his "publications"...) This might require a closer examination. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That talk page is a BLP disgrace and should probably be deleted instead of protected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some references and tried to clean the article up a bit. He seems of no notability in academic circles, but is a popular pundit in the Israeli media and right-wing US publications. Probably notable just due to the controversy surrounding his arguments. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not surprised the talk page was being blanked, given its content. I have blanked it, and asked people commenting there to adhere to WP:BLP in future. Neıl 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on temazepam and abuse of Twinkle privileges[edit]

This was the latest installment in a slow-brewing edit war between an anonymous editor and two users, Thegoodson (talk · contribs) and Literaturegeek (talk · contribs), on benzodiazepine-related articles. This particular episode led to the article being protected, final warnings all around, and the anonymous user being briefly blocked (erroneously IMHO) for vandalism. It is clear from the article history that Literaturegeek used Twinkle to label a content dispute as vandalism and break 3RR (in under 15 minutes, no less). After a brief discussion (1 · 2) with the protecting admin, we decided that removal of Literaturegeek's Twinkle access for a reasonable period of time was in order. I have accordingly done so, let Literaturegeek know, and am now asking the community to let me know whether this was good or whether a {{Minnow}}ing is in order, since I may be considered an "involved" party here. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think two weeks might have been a bit on the long side, but Literaturegeek doesn't seem to have a big problem with it. I would be inclined to restore Twinkle privileges as soon as the content dispute underlying the edit war is worked out (assuming that is <2 weeks, heh). Clearly it was abuse of Twinkle, but it also looks to (probably) be a one-time incident. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Cut and Paste move....[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. Bobet 06:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa - folks, I have just exacerbated a cut and past move on Trouble in Mind‎. Previously it was an article about the Elki Brooks album. Another editor cut and pasted that to Trouble in Mind‎ (album) (I moved it to that title to fix a typo in previous title). Trouble in Mind‎ was then turned into a disam page that I subsequently cleaned up. Obviously the page history of Trouble in Mind‎ still has edits for the original contents. I should have checked the edit history before diving in, any chance that an admin can straighten this out. Thanks and sorry. – ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! I will now write out 500 times: "I must check edit histories". – ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blogsd[edit]

I've been having a problem with uncivil (to the point of obscene) edit summaries and edits from editor Blogsd. I placed a note at Wikiquette alerts and received this reply from Jaysweet:

Okay, so yeah, if this user ever bothers you again, just copy-and-paste this to ANI:
  • Gross incivility: [76] [77] [78]
  • User warned against personal attacks: [79]
  • User threatens to use sockpuppets to evade block: [80]
  • User continues to disrupt after final warning and threat to user sock puppets: [insert diff of anything else he does here]
Put that in a new section at WP:ANI, and he'll most likely be indefinitely blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "insert diff of anything else he does here" in this case is here[81], showing that Blogsd intends to continue this using sockpuppets, as stated in a note left after Jaysweet's warnings to him. Following Jaysweet's recommendation, I'm posting here. Thank you. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the user should be blocked. But don't overlook the humorous aspect, as the user seems incapable of spelling any English words correctly, including the obscenities. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the user was blocked for only 24 hours [82] and the previous complaint (restated above) was archived. [83] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence to suggest he's going to change his approach - all he's been doing is removing comments and the block notice from his talk page, rather than responding to concerns or making any assurances. It should increase straight to (at least) a week if it doesn't stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As Ncm says, it will indeed increase if he doesn't stop. As he hasn't continued the bad behaviour following the block thus far, wait and see. Neıl 11:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if I'm reading the clock right, he's only about halfway through his 24-hour block, so it stands to reason he hasn't done any new vandalism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but he could have acted up on his talk page, and has not (yet). Neıl 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Good point. How quickly I forget. It's too bad, though. I was looking forward to some more of his almost-English rants. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I put together most of an ANI report to recommend to Brilliant Pebble, since I had to go and wouldn't be able to keep an eye on the user. Then I got a message on my user talk page that I didn't appreciate, so I filed the ANI report -- but then I had to leave in a hurry, so I didn't get a chance to mention to BP on the Wikiquette Alerts page that I'd already filed it :) Sorry for the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani - Baseball Bugs = Sockpuppets?[edit]

Resolved: I don't think so. seicer | talk | contribs 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User Badagnani has a history of edit warring and it appears that this user is using the account Baseball Bugs as a sock puppet.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for being wrong in suggesting you are a sock puppet Baseball Bugs.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Apology accepted, on one condition: Start signing your posts, by adding 4 tildes afterward, so the bot program doesn't have to do it for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation[edit]

I am willing to put up with a lot from other users, since they often have to put up with a lot from me. :) But one thing I will not stand for is attacks on my personal integrity. The above IP address has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. I don't do sockpuppetry. Whether I'm judged right or wrong in any given situation, I stand on my own at all times. [84] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bwahahaha. This is the funniest accusation I've heard in a long time. These two couldn't be more opposite. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009[edit]

I've got another dicey SSP for a couple of admins to review. I'm not in doubt that these users are sockpuppets, but what should be done about it? Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that this is a sock case - what is the next step? Tvoz/talk 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
For starters, someone should block the socks (the accounts indef and the IP and sockmaster for shorter periods, I suppose). Enigma message 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Would if I could. Need an admin. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
A no-brainer. I will indefblock all these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock of User:Nasrulana??[edit]

New (?) user's (User:Notika) who's only contribution so far is spreading of Jewish terrorism categories through Wiki and indef blocked sock's userbox preferences (such as support for complete destruction of Israel) are stuningly alike [85] [86]. Please investigate. M0RD00R (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see strong evidence of sockpuppetry, but I only looked at each user's contribs for a minute or so. If you have diffs that show strong evidence of socking, please provide them.
M0RD00R is right, though, that Notika (talk · contribs)'s sole edits to mainspace have been to add Category:Terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists to the articles on past and present Israeli government figures. I gave him/her a level 3 NPOV warning, but I am very skeptical it will do any good. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My point is that userbox selection by indef banned sock Nasrulana and User:Notika is unique, and I'd say there is almost zero chance that it is a simple coincidence. M0RD00R (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, geez, I'm sorry, for some reason I didn't realize that one of the diffs was Nasrulana. I swear, I did click them too, but I guess I just spaced out. My bad, not a great day for me over here.
Ordinarily, I would say maybe they just copied the user boxes, but since it was not from User:Nasrulana, but rather from User:Nasrulana/Box, I ain't buying it. Definitely a sock, and User:Nasrulana/Box should be deleted. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Can we also do something about deleting Category:Israeli terrorists, which this sock created? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the userboxes and the category, both per G8 (Attack), as they were created to attack the subject and for disruptive purposes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that attack pages are G10 ;)
Are we going to do anything about the likely sock? Take it to WP:SSP I suppose? It will be tough to provide evidence, because the strongest evidence is now a deleted contrib... (User:Nasrulana/Box) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC

I'm not so much concerned about the puppet as the puppetier. Nasrulana was a part of sock farm by User:NAccount. See this case[87]. M0RD00R (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Notika hasn't been blocked yet. Corvus cornixtalk 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
And in the meantime Notika does it again [88], and again [89]. M0RD00R (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Woah. I'm didn't add the categories to cause any disruption. I thought that if they were labeled terrorists by the British and by their own governments, they should be included. I stopped now and I don't want to waste time arguing about the issue. And please don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I copied Nasrulana's page because I liked the userboxes. As for how I found the page, I searched for userpages linked to the flag of Hezbollah and I found the one that I liked most. Regards. Notika (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Notika (talk · contribs) has made just 18 contributions to main space as of this moment. All but one of his contributions have been reverted. This might be one index of the POV nature of his edits thus far. Should the pattern of POV editing continue, that might be enough to justify a checkuser on Notika. Since there is a very recent case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn which confirmed that User:Nasrulana was a sock, the checkusers should still have good data to use for comparison. I don't see enough behavioral data for a conventional SSP identification yet, since there are so few edits. For Nasrulana's behavior see the SSP report on Klaksonn. Notika and Nasrulana both appear to be Hezbollah supporters but could still be different people. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I really think Notika should be banned Radical-Dreamer (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105 Layout[edit]

I have posted a warning to User talk:Mrg3105#Warning on Layout.

On 13 June 2008, Mrg3105 made an edit to Hundred Days where he altered ==Notes== to ==References and footnotes== and altered ==References== to ==Sources==. I reverted this change back to the names used in WP:LAYOUT and (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings -- Neither guideline recommend using the name "Sources" as a section heading -- with the comment "More cleanup of the citations and References. Added "Further reading" for authors not cited. Mrg3105 if you do not like the names of the sections take it up at WP:LAYOUT"

20 minutes afterwards 11:43 13 June, Mrg3105 added a section to Wikipedia talk:Layout called "Notes and references sections" as can be seen neither of the two editors who replied in that supported Mrg3105.

Today I noticed that the headings on Zieten Hussars were "References" and "Sources" so I changed them to "Notes" and "References" as WP:Layout suggests Mrg3105 changed back, with the comment Sources and references are mandated by policy and guidelines, notes are not. Mrg3105 now seems ready to edit war over this.

On checking Mrg3105's contributions for the 19 June Mrg3105 changed 30+ articles claiming that the change was "article support sections reorganise per WP:LAYOUT" see for example Battle of Château-Thierry (1814).

I have warned Mrg3105 that such behaviour is disruptive, but said that I would post a message here to make sure that administrators who are not involved editing any pages which Mrg3105 has changed, agree that it is disruptive behaviour and that the warning is reasonable. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The main thing is to let the primary editors of an article call their sections anything that makes sense. In short, don't fight. Personally I like "Sources and notes" and "Further reading" best as it is more clear. But when the referencing style is to use inline notes to identify page numbers and the details describing the book itself are separated, then a notes section and a reference section also make sense. But you could have both in one section called "Sources and notes" or call the reference seection "Sources". Each to his own. Those are only guidelines. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, in this case Mgr3105 was going through multiple articles that he had not substantially edited and changing the section headers. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No Philip, its called contributing productively.
References, is what the writer referrers the reader to. Not the entire book, but a specific page number.
Notes are those additional expansions to the article content that are not mandated by any guideline at all.
Basing an article on a verifiable source is however a core Wikipedia policy. Ideally every article should have at least one source, and every statement in an article that is possibly questionable should be referenced to the page in the source.
Do you have a problem with this? I suspect not.
What you do have problem with is that I had the gall to go into the Hundred Days article, which I suspect is one of your "pet" articles, and fix the mess that its Sources section was in.
The above problem would not occur if editors had used the guidelines as suggested, and cited page numbers. That way a reader, such as myself, could tell which titles cited were actually used in the creation and editing process and which are just recommended reading.
If this was done, many many articles would also not require missing citation templates if sources were found by at least by attempting to use the {{find}}, and used to edit them, because having such missing citation templates on an article bring the article, and with it Wikipedia's credibility into question.
Now, what is it that you think I'm disrupting here that warrants your threats of blocking me?
I suspect that somewhere in the archives is a hard-argued section on the names of the LAYOUT sections, but I do not care to read archives. I care to reflect the reality of the sorry state of many articles and the reality that many editors have no clue as to how to cite sources, so I was bold in applying common sense--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For those interested, this is how it works--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, if someone is going through and changing the names of end sections in "established" (whatever that means) articles, that's a violation of WP:POINT. I'm being quoted to say the opposite of what I said: mrg says on his talk page (User_talk:Mrg3105#Warning_on_Layout) "I agree with Dank55, namely people have to learn what both sets of words mean". What I said, at WP:LAYOUT#Notes and references sections was: "Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean NOW Dank55.
However I am not advocating wholesale change of section titles in articles. I am advocating editor education.
Then why change many articles in one day adding a section called "Sources" when neither WP:LAYOUT or WP:CITE suggest using such a section header? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no specific reason to have a Notes section, and clearly people do not understand that References ought to come with page numbers, what that [1] feature on the edit window is for.
I dare say that Philip is far from a confused editor. So far I had one other disagreement over the issue, and left that alone because the editor of several years is not keen on referencing the article using page numbers and I lack the time to invest in the discussion
Not that that is relevant to this dispute ... but where have I added citations from books which did not have page numbers? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Philip has not discarded my edits on the source citation, so he is not entirely disapproving of my contribution, so who is making a point here? Renaming the sections was the after-effect of fixing the citations, but what is Philip trying to say? Guideline doesn't sound like a policy to me
It seems to me that renaming article support section heading is a cardinal sin worthy of blocking threats, but non-existent sources and their citation is ok? Seems a bit twisted so far as logic goes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mrg is blocked now for 48 hours (for another matter concerning an Arbcom ruling), so I won't watchlist here. Let me know if I'm needed, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin blocked[edit]

Resolved: Blueboy96 is not Moulton and I'm an asshole (apparently). Simple misunderstandings.

On a recent jaunt into the blocked users section of the special pages page, I stumbled across this;

13:31, 20 June 2008, User:Blueboy96 (Talk | contribs) blocked #958018 (expires 13:31, 21 June 2008, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "User:Moulton". The reason given for Moulton's block is: "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here".)

I am not sure if I understand. This means that these two people are using the same IP address, which implies that one is the sockpuppet of the other. I don't mean to stir up controversy, and if I am wrong, let this be stricken from the record, but I think someone should look into this a bit further, as User:Blueboy96 is a sysop, and if he is a Sockpupeteer, then that would be bad for the project. As I said, I am just going by what I judge, so if I am wrong, let us never speak of this again. Will Thompson (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96 is the blocker here, not the blockee. See [90] for every block he's ever gotten. It's shorten than mine [91] but just as damning, eh? WilyD 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I was already trying to figure out how Moulton and Blueboy could be the same person and/or use the same IP address if one is at MIT and the other in North Carolina. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well then I was wrong, it does look like he was blocked though, just saying, how it is set out. Will Thompson (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
WilyD, you sure do cuss a lot in your blocks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That asshole deserved it. ;) WilyD 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me test my autoblock knowlegde: I think it means either 1.) Moulton was trying to edit at 13:31, 20 June 2008 and that's the autoblock, or 2.) Moulton tried to edit at some point after 13:31, 19 June 2008 triggering the 24-hour autoblock and someone else tried editing from his same IP at 13:31, 20 June 2008. Am I right? If so, do I win anything? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That IP was used by Moulton, and then somebody (Moulton or otherwise) tried to edit from it shortly thereafter, yeah. WilyD 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to Blueboy for accusing him, won't happen again/ Will Thompson (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my old neighborhood, autoblocks were defined as those things you put a car on while waiting to work on it. Hence the Jeff Foxworthy observation, "If you have seven cars in your yard, and none of 'em work, you might be a Redneck." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I like "If you mow your grass and find a car, you might be a Redneck." —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There ya go. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Voldemore[edit]

Hi guys,

Recently, User:Voldemore. was nominated for deletion (see here for MFD). Five users (Crevaner (talk · contribs); OldRightist (talk · contribs); AmeriCan (talk · contribs); Deaniack (talk · contribs); Thefreemarket (talk · contribs)) all voted keep at the MFD. Suspicions about sockpuppetry were raised (see this sock report for more). On that page, Cevaner made these allegations (diff [92]).

Any ideas on how to handle this?

5:15 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So, to test my understanding here... nobody any longer believes that there is sockpuppetry going on here, correct? However, we do believe that the users in question unwittingly engaged in a bit of meatpuppetry. Is that about the size of it?
If so, I would suggest we just point out WP:MEAT to the users in question and let it go. Voldemore (talk · contribs) has already removed the content that resulted in the MfD, so in my mind the matter has pretty much resolved itself. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

User:Karabinier[edit]

Karabinier (talk · contribs) repeatedly deletes entire section in the Estonia article, which also are the best-cited and least controversial (based on Statistics Estonia) sections. He replaces some of them with non-cited statements that conflict with the deleted citations. He has reverted the article many times, including here and here. He has been challenged multiple times in the article talk page, but he refuses to participate in the talk page or explain deletions. His frequent deletions are a nuisance to contributors in the article.Turkuun (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Karabinier did attempt to engage Turkuun on his talk page [93], but Tuurkun's response wasn't very positive, templating Karibinier's talk page [94] in response.
Dispute seems to be essentially about style and layout, I'll volunteer to mediate between these two. Martintg (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manuela_Testolini[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manuela_Testolini Can someone fix this improper non admin closure? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Completely improper closure. Corvus cornixtalk 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the AfD was placed on the article by an anon, who can't create the AfD page, and, as is appropriate, put their comments on the article's Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, completely messed up. Will revert all changes, apologies for the inconvenience caused. Guest9999 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Contextflexed harassing Wikipedians[edit]

As threatened on various talk pages, and outside Wikipedia, this banned user (see AN/I archive 404) has contributed to a 'zine called Haters Magazine a roaring "expose" of the evils of Wikipedia, with concentration upon "outing" various WP editors he has a hate on for, and (since I'm not anonymous) mercilessly mocking me, my union, my unique sense of style, and my occasional SF fanzine. Bizarrely, he did have the "courtesy" (if you can call it that) of dropping off a copy of the relevant issue of the 'zine at one of my places of employment. Contextflexed is also known as Robert Goodwin or "Flipside" and is a pretty strong hater. He is particularly engaged in a vendetta against