Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive443

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

Noticeboard archives


Lebanon related afds[edit]

Hi, there are some Lebanon related afds running that would benefit from the attention of some admin. They are being target for vandalism (just as well as the articles) and had recently even been closed by one of the editors involved (non-adminm, of course). The afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiing in Lebanon, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi. See the history of these afds and their respective articles for knowing the users (and anons) involved. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a related dispute seems to be taking place at Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Damiens.rf 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps take to WP:AIV? If editor has removed any more AfD tags after this diff Although it appears stale per this diff on my talkpage. . Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Dallas spam[edit]

New "article" Mosaic Dallas by a single user looks somewhat like spam. --Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (albeit unreferenced). Will clean it up a bit. – ırıdescent 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, cool article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
neat picture! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone knows anything about Dallas, can they have a look at this one? My cleanup of it has left it with more issues tags than article at present. – ırıdescent 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed that, all it needs are some references and expansion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandal[edit]

A few minutes ago I noticed this edit to the backgammon article. I googled Patrick Nikodem to see if I could find any evidence of notability. I didn't, but I did find the same name mentioned in completely unrelated articles.[1] [2]. I'm looking through histories as I'm writing this and have found two IP's adding the name to a lot of articles, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I also found the name mentioned at this Wikipedia mirror site entry. I haven't tracked down the IP responsible for that one yet. I suppose I can search for the text string and revert other instances I find, so perhaps no admin action necessary except a heads up.

On a related note, has there been any talk of banning certain text strings from Wikipedia? I know there's been a problem with vandals adding an unlinked URL to a large number of pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Grouphappy (talk · contribs) and this edit, which adds "Pat Nikodem" to a list of sea captains. The IP used to add Pat Nikodem to that article is owned by the University of Pennsylvania, where there is a Patrick Nikodem majoring in Finance (email included in Google results). Not sure there's much we can do, but you could always send him an email. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone check if Phil Jagielka's middle name is really Nikodem? (added here by IP) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I see (un)reliable sources stating his middle name is "Nikodem", quite a lot, actually. There's also a Polish tabloid Super Express which uses it: [3]. But nothing reliable - not even Everton's site nor UEFA's. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think that Phil Jagielka's meddle name might be Nikoden, Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)???
I don't know if it's right or wrong, just that there seem to be many places that use "Nikodem" as his middle name. He does have a Polish ancestry, apparently ([4]) and Nikodem doesn't sound English - perhaps his middle name is Polish? x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask, Smith Jones, is that Patrick Nikodem is the name that a few IPs have been subtly vandalizing with, as you can see by looking at my first post in this thread. Since that middle name was added to the Jagielka article by an IP, I thought that might be vandalism, too. But now that I've looked into it, it seems quite plausible that someone from that part of the world, might have that middle name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


What should be done about this. The title says it all, but it was one of a number of foul pages introduced by Volapuks (talk · contribs). Should this threat be acted upon? I have asked for oversight for a number of the pages, but suggest that someone else also sends one as my e-mail can be temperamental. Woody (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this (admin only) its apparent he knows this place. RBI. Right thing has been done and he'll probably return again one day doing exactly the same. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the one that deleted them all, I presume oversight don't deem them to be personal information worth deleting then. Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Please keep an eye on the article Communist Party of Pakistan. Jamco (talk · contribs) repeatedly fill the article with promotional coi material, and possibly hoaxing. Except for perhaps seeking to make the user understand wiki norms (a previous posting by another user on his talk page hasn't resulted in any change so far), perhaps some disciplinary action is suitable. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The content is not appropriate and his edit warring to try to force it in and then claiming some kind of special privilege as the "spokesman" of CPP is not acceptable. Sarah 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review[edit]

Resolved: Block has expired

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support block. G-Dett is under civility restrictions from the ArbCom case, and was repeatedly using uncivil terms ("troll") to refer to another editor, despite repeated requests from administrators to stop. Further, she was using this kind of inflammatory language in relation to articles that are already powderkegs, in the Palestine-Israel topic area. If G-Dett would like to point out concerns with an edit, or editor, she has the right to do so, but she must do this without the incivility and name-calling. --Elonka 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is this here and not at AE? Not to mention that truth is always a defence, even in "powder-kegs". Elonka, you've already made at least one article worse through over-application of discretionary sanctions, please don't do so with others. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Truth is indeed a defence, but if it's expressed in an aggressive fashion that raises genuine issues with civility. I'm sorry to see G-Dett get blocked for this, since in my (admittedly limited) experience of her she's been a productive and very lucid editor, but I can understand the reasons for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think Khoikhoi and Elonka acted very decently here, and I agree with Chris' comments above. I do hope that people will look into the situation that sparked this, as it will need to be addressed at some point, with or without my dulcet-toned reminders.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reporting possible vandlaism, WP:CANVASSING, or other vioatlion of WP: policy???[edit]

Resolved: Straightforward vandalism, already blocked 24 hours

8 (UTC) User: has ben making a handful of wierd and offensive posts to myslef [5] and [6] <--- dozens of other users with schauch speed that her posts seem tobe automated. I am not sure twer this report should go since i am not sure wehther or not this is a result of some sort of edit dispute i was invovled in the past or some sort of vandalism/spamming atempt or a WP:CANVASS scheeme. Any help rendered here wil be appreciated and thasnk you for reading. Smith Jones (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Do IP's not require warnings before being blocked (even if it is blatant vandalism)? Angrymansr (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting specifically on anything, but as this section of the blocking policy states, warnings are not an absolute requirement for any blocks, of any users. Although, most people (including myself) find it courteous to make sure the users know what they're doing wrong, and to inform those users by means of a warning or warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided seems to highly urge warnings but not require it. I was confused because back in my vandal fighting days I would report IP's to AIV and a few times the responses from admins were the user did not have sufficient warnings recently, though many times the page was filled with them over a long period of time and no action would be taken until many warnings were issued within a few days. Thanks for the information. Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That range does not require a warning, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal information. They have been at it a while now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information[edit]

Resolved: Range softblocked one month, hopefully this stems the tide of vandalism. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) posted someone's phone number in a bunch of talk pages. Should this be taken out of the history, or just reverted? (Note:similar vandalism has come from similar IPs) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an Anon IP with nothing better to do. If the number is a issue an Admin will remove it from the history. Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an ongoing problem from this IP range. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Friendly IP and the history. They have been hitting several pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to force the IP range to edit with an account and not via an Anon IP? Then again we may still have the same issue. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked that range for one month. That range is in Southfield, Michigan, on AT&T's DSL network--has anyone contacted them yet? Might not do much good, since we've got a lot of abuse from anons on that network (most notably Mmbabies)--but it's worth a try. Blueboy96 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted them twice over the past week but nothing seems to have happened. I think they had a few accounts, Blackbeltpussy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Blackbeltstinky (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), but I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with my troll?[edit]

OK, so a couple weeks ago while patrolling recent changes, I reverted a simple NN edit to List of computer scientists [7]. I gave the user a basic test1 warning. He then undid my revert. I reverted again, with a more descriptive edit summary [8], and gave him a test2. He then signed out of his account and undid my edit again as an IP user [9]. After that, he began trolling pages that I created or had recently edited, sometime blanketly undo'ing perfectly reasonable edits of mine [10], [11].

I asked him to stop trolling my edits, and that I felt he was harassing me [12]. After this he seemed to stop editing, and I thought everything was over. Until today. He started off his editing today with a pointless edit just to revert something I had fixed [13]. Recognizing my troll's IP, I reverted this edit, and left him a test2 on his talk page [14]. He then proceded to make bad faith edits to articles that I had created [15]. His only edits today have been to articles I created. All of this had been done with absolutely no dialogue from the user.

Attempting to remain civil, I even offered to let him put his name back on the List of computer scientists article if he would just quit harassing me [16]. And now for the first time he's posted something on a talk page, apparently just to further mock/harass me [17].

I'm about to run out of civility with this guy, and I don't know what to do. Could someone please let me know what to do in this situation? A third party's neutral POV would be greatly appreciated, even if the response is that I could have handled the situation better.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's hard to block for long since it's shared and belongs to a US gov agency. It's sad but true that when this kind of thing happens, the most helpful way to get rid of it is to edit as if it doesn't nettle you at all (pay it no heed) and maybe quietly revert a day or so after the vandalism. This will tend to be highly boring for whomever's behind it and you'll likely see less of them soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a sad state of affairs, I originally thought this was just some kid getting pissy about my removing his name from a list, but come to find out that this is not only an (educated?) adult, but someone that works for/at the FAA? Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing, wait til he is no longer active, then go through and revert... considering that out of the entire FAA range, this is only coming from one particular IP, I'm considering contacting the FAA themselves about this. It would be one thing if it was a rotating IP within the range, but it looks like there are only 2 IPs in that entire range that have been used to edit wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp ignoring policy[edit]

User:Andycjp knowingly disregards Wikipedia's overlinking guideline, and to a far less problematic extent, that on red links. When other users ask him to reconsider his modus, he merely argues. My interaction with him consists of User talk:Andycjp#Overlinking and his replies on my talk page. I don't know what to do; the reason I seek intervention is that it seems easier than reverting the massive numbers of unconstructive edits he makes on a daily basis. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request to his talk page, asking that he read the WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED pages. He's replied to my message, saying that he will read them. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed been reading: he has tried to edit the policy subtly, in addition to continuing with his nonstop link edits (Special:Contributions/Andycjp). I had already made it clear that he must use the guidelines' talk pages in order to challenge them. He has kept up his argument with me, including the cheeky overlinking ("'Relevant' is subjective"), although he mollified his plea of innocence. Given his activity since your message, I can only see his reply to you as devious. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 Ceedjee is claiming that the article is AfD while making incorrect allegations. The events occurred as referenced. Secondary sources have been used. Exodus does not imply war. also he has not notified me by placing the tag on my talk page and I can't find it on the AfD log page. So where do I get to argue my case?

The Afd page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please. I assume numerous people went from here to go and give their mind. There numerous references in that article but not a single one of these talks about a Palestinian Exodus that would have occured from 1949 to 1956... Ceedjee (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

I am me93 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi. Please see here here, I'm not suggesting they are, but they seem similar and I am just putting this here to your attention if nessecary and to see if you think that they are similar enough or not so that if nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cali567[edit]

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[18] she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Need attention on Barack Obama talk page[edit]

An IP-hopping editor who has struck before is editing Talk:Barack Obama to add the n-word to discussions and edit summaries.

The editor struck a few days ago too. Playing whack-a-mole by blocking the IP accounts after warnings isn't doing any good. For the moment we probably need semi-protection of the talk page and/or immediate blocks on the affected IPs. We ought to delete the edit histories as well. As Hate speech this is hurtful, particularly given the subject of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think deleting the edits is necessary, and given the size of the page history it would be painful. MastCell Talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! Maybe we do something about the one edit that uses the N-word in the edit summary? Just being there is hurtful.Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Practically impossible without developer intervention. With 12479 edits to the page, it surpasses the maximum number of a revisions that an admin can delete (5000). Oversight is possible, but there's no personal information or libel in the comment (even though it is a disgusting comment), so I doubt they would be willing to use the tool for that edit. I'm suggesting we ignore it, but someone may disagree. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay ignoring it but it must be disheartening to African Americans (and some others) to be called racist names in a public forum. You can't see them without being reminded that you're not fully welcome or safe. The thing about hate speech is that like libel, threats of violence, privacy breaches, etc., the words themselves are the injury by their presence. I guess we're done then, assuming it doesn't pop up again. Thanks again. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If more people archived by phsycially moving the talk page over, this wouldn't be a problem. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required. —Travistalk 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Chris Long (American football) there is bee na lot of rancor. Now, in an effort to achieve real consensus an Adminstrator editor, User:Baseball Bugs, made an WP:UNCIVIL personal attack against me. I ask that since he is an Admin and should be held to a standard that he be civil and that this incident not go unpunished. Saying it is obvious that English is not my first language us unhelpful, untrue, uncivil, un-wiki and un-becoming of an adminstrator editor. This makes it impossible for the past to be the past. In a heated atmosphere which Bugs has done little to dimish that. As an Admin he can reduce the rancor by being civil. The old axiom applies, if he's not part of the solution he's part of the problem. It makes me wonder if he's reall interested in the Long article or if he is there to stir sh!t. I cannot assume good faith with an Admin edit taking a personal shot about my lack of language skills. (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs isn't an admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
My error, I thought he was. For that mistake I apoligize. My complaint against him still stands. (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything actionable here. It may not be the best observation to verbalize, but questioning whether or not English is somebody's first language is not a personal attack. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Beg to differ. It was not "questioning" is was a statement:
"Well, it's obvious English is not his first language. That hasn't stopped him writing long, incomprehensible diatribes. That's why I'd like him to explain in 25 words or less. In English or Spanish, either one is OK. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "
A statement is more than a question. It was a cheapshot, no? I am not suggesting a block, just a warning or something72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It appears to be in response to Ksy92003's comment "I'm anticipating about 95% of that response to be in Spanish".[19] - auburnpilot talk 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As AuburnPilot says, not actionable but I will concede his comments could have been more civil, GDonato (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem, as I and others have told this guy, is that he writes lengthy diatribes that don't make sense. I would just like for him to explain in 25 words or less why the item he keeps pushing for is special enough to be in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, he can post as much as he wants. When I see something that I can't be bothered reading then I simply don't read it, GDonato (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't know this guy's history with this article, or you wouldn't be saying that. He's in constant battles over it, with a variety of users. Someone asks him why some obscure speech is notable, and he responds with a broken-English, rambling essay that makes virtually no sense. That's why I would like for him to explain briefly and then maybe it will make some sense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The user's address is in New Mexico, I don't think that Spanish is his/her mother language. Ksy92003's comment was out of place, even if the user speaks Spanish mocking him won't make him disappear. Anyway, was resquesting help from a Spanish-speaking user that hard? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want him to disappear, I want him to explain in a way that's readable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GDonato, although I tend to be a little more proactive. I don't see a problem with asking people for brevity, so long as it is done in a civil manner. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This being the English wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect its users to write readable English. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In kind of an ironic twist, the IP address has now bought himself a 3-month block. [20] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He says I'm mocking him further, but all I wanted was a straightforward answer to a question. I'm not sure why he was specifically blocked, although it does come on the heels of a 3RR block about - you guessed it - that same article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
He was apparently caught in a range block trying to net trolls, and has now been unblocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is resolved and I will withdraw this report of this incident. I think there were a coupld of folks who said that Bugs should have been more civil and I think that serves as a warning enough. (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise agree it's resolved, as I'm done talking to this guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and appears to speak English acceptably well. Most of the errors I saw were more consistent with a failure to proof-read than with poor ESL fluency. Either way, if you know somebody is sensitive about their level of fluency I would suggest not provoking them. Of course if you really have no idea what they are saying you might ask them to rephrase it, but I had no difficulty understanding the general meaning of any of his posts. Of course his attitude is a whole other story... — CharlotteWebb 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He writes the way Bush talks. Either way, it's painful to hear. I tried to get him to answer a simple question, and he won't do it, so we're done. I'll let the collection of other users that he's annoyed deal with him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I see my comment has been called to attention. I didn't intend to insinuate that the IP doesn't speak English. My comment was in reaction to Baseball Bugs asking the IP to explain the situation in 25 "English" words or less, and I joked that he might respond in another language to circumvent that request. I didn't intend to offend anybody or to infer anything. I apologize that my comment was misinterpreted, albeit understandably. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows about copyright/images take a look at this[edit]

See this revert: [21]. The images are claimed as permission obtained but *shrug*. ViridaeTalk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(oh and I got edit conflicted when starting a new section - I thought that wasn't supposed to happen) ViridaeTalk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio/unfit fair use to me. Commercial URL on the image, no license, no fair use rationale, everything about these images seems wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I've speedy deleted them, and warned the uploader. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the rest that the supposed author removed. The Other two images seem suspect too, but I've tagged them with nld instead of speedying them right off the bat. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal[edit]

Will someone take a look at this? I would post the diff but I can't for some reason. While patrolling the recent changes I ran into three of these which all take you to this page. If you try going to the article, or click the diff it takes you to that page, whatever it is I have no idea. It's the edit to the Solomon Islands article. Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused, it is fine now and his edit was reverted. I couldn't even pull up the article's history, clicking the diff or the link to the article turned the page into an animated page with vulgarities seconds afterward. Landon1980 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the edit by the IP, because it just happened to me again on a different article. Landon1980 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this relates to vandalism at Template:Commonwealth realms, I've now protected the template. Melburnian (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Cheers Landon1980 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It was a Grawp vandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting protection[edit]

I need help. I made an edit, got blanked, came to ANI and the admins okayed it:

However certain editors continue to blank out these edits:

This is not the first time this has happened:

I would like to request some protection. If I've done something wrong please let me know. Thanks. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The normal place to request protection of a page is WP:RFPP. Enigma message 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password[edit]

Resolved: Par for the course, unfortunately - make sure you have a decent password and ignore them.

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly hi! 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Wikipedia. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)
for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty narrow view of the possibilities. While most of these attempts may be harmless, this issue goes far beyond Wikipedia. There's something called Social Engineering which may allow hackers to gain entry to your e-mail without changing any passwords, and then they can come here and click e-mail new password and the account has been breached. Sounds far fetched? It happens all of the time. I don't think blowing it off as "impossible" is the right answer. The U.S. Gov't can't avoid being hacked, but somehow Wikipedia has it figured out? The right answer would be to ensure that you have full control of your e-mail and wiki account, and to change your passwords if you deem it necessary to a strong password scheme. Also advise not to use the same passwords for your e-mail and wiki account. Angrymansr (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the techniques of social engineering, and asking for new passwords has nothing to do with it. For more information, visit this site and log in with your Wikipedia username and password. --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, if the user's e-mail has been hacked via social engineering or by any other means then their wikipedia account can easily be breached using this tool. It's not impossible. Angrymansr (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly hi! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly hi! 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I get these e-mails too, and I've been avoiding anything remotely contentious on Wikipedia, so I don't think it has to do with editing disputes spilling over into retribution through hacking, or even a deliberate attempt to annoy. I notice that Neil, Kelly, Sarah, and Daniel all have common first names as user names. It would not be surprising if new editors registering accounts for the first time often try to choose these same user names, without knowing that they are already taken. When that doesn't work, the software presents several options, one of which is a password reset over e-mail. And the most universal approach to solving computer problems is to try every available option and see what happens. They may click on the button without really understanding what it means. Rather than malice or hacking, I think a simpler explanation is a bit of confusion in signing up for an account. So I don't worry about it. --Reuben (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The IP address is already disclosed in the email. There is a bug open: bugzilla:14630, to log this IP somewhere reviewable as well, so that if there are incidents in which someone is harassed by a lot of these attempts, there is information available to further an investigation. This bug has support from a number of current CUs... ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


User: Mizbiplob[edit]

Mizbiplob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - I don't know where else to put this. This user appears to be acting in good faith, but contains to make up categories, add uncited "facts" and roll back corrections made to his english. I've tried leaving messages on their talk page including help on categories; but they simply don't respond; instead claiming they don't understand on the user page. It's all very weird; and a ban would be over the top; but correcting every edit they make is getting tiresome. Any advice? --Blowdart | talk 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I reported to AIV due to the nonsense pages. The user has been blocked twice and persists in creating nonsense pages, despite multiple warnings. See their talk, and an admin can see how many pages it has created that got deleted. I'd say close to ten. Enigma message 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I had thought about AIV; but most of the nonsense, to me, seems to be due to the lack of a decent command of English, and no understanding of what is notable. --Blowdart | talk 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom page[edit]

Hi. On the United Kingdom page there is a box over the page that says stuff about grawp. I managed to 'hack' into the history of the United Kingdom page but it is not down in the history! thanks!-- (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Pararubbas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Despite numerous warnings, the user consistently removes external links, references, stub templates and other valuable information from articles. I think a temporary block may be appropriate. Cheers! BanRay 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Desmond Hume99[edit]

Desmond Hume99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to create an article on Spoilertv, a non-notable website. He has since brought the matter to DRV, where it was revealed that the user is evading a block [23]. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have salted the article and indef'd the account as a block evader. Since there is an ongoing DRV I would not oppose any unblocking to allow participation if considered necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassin' (no pun intended!)[edit]

I just received this rather interesting message on my talkpage. It's from an editor I've never interacted with, on a subject I know nothing about. I can't be bothered to look into it, but someone else might want to, it looks as if others have been spammed/canvassed too. Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing - it doesn't seem to be written in a way to influence the outcome; it's mere notification of a community discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
But it's being given to loads + loads + loads of totally unrelated contributors, on a non-wide issue (as in, not deleting the Main Page, just a routine DRV-type thing). That sounds like canvassing to me, or at the least spamming. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


It's weird if TreasuryTag has never had any interaction with the user and/or the article. I know on at least one occasion I mass-Talked about 20 or so users who had participated in a particular AfD discussion, because a discussion relevant to the previous AfD was taking place and both sides of the discussion were concerned about making sure any interested parties were made aware... but I'm not sure how I feel about pinging random users to get more participation. It's not canvassing, for sure, but... I dunno, that's weird. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi: Thanks TreasuryTag! This will hopefully get a few more editors over at the deletion review for the Alan Cabal article: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal I have seen too many of the same people from the AFD there so I'm trying to get a fresh group to opine.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Manhattan Samurai is trying to have the article on Alan Cabal undeleted, but all the references provided in the DRV are blogs, blog comments or trivial mentions. He has also refused to accept userfying the article, insisting that it be in mainspace while he works on it. Finally, he has resorted to direct insults in the DRV, which I already warned him about. I refrained from !voting in the discussion because of that, but this is quickly becoming tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I now see that Manhattan Samurai has already reached his final warning for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
He was just addressing editors active on other subjects on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3‎, (I was one of them) as he wanted some independent opinions. Maybe he took things too personal, but I believe that everything has been settled. [24] Cst17 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand (up to 4 blocks now)[edit]

As noted at the top of the page, I've moved discussion of Betacommand's most recent blocks to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. Just a reminder since I've already had the obligatory complaint about the subpage move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


This user User:Wikidas is going around posting nonsense into the Muhammad article [see users contribution] further this user is adding content without discussion in talk page [users discussion]. User provides poorly scholared information and seems to be into editing war with bringing sock puppets to revert article. --Veer87 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Veer87 the edits you object to are not "nonsense" or unsourced as you claim. You are engaged in an edit war despite receiving a final warning for you not to continue to remove sourced material from articles. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this case? I believe Veer87 should now be blocked for edit warring and vandalism of the Muhammad article. I am recusing myself from taking that action to prevent even the appearance of a mis-use of the admin tools in a content dispute - though I don't believe this is one. Gwernol 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User Arcayne & His Multiple Oxford Degrees[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
IP blocked for 48 hours for harassment; no other administrative action necessary; further such attacks on this user from dynamic IP's should probably be dealt with expeditiously in the future. MastCell Talk 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to discuss the posturing use of "Superior Authority" on Wiki? Arcayne, a self-proclaimed poly-degreed Oxon with 18,000 edits in 22 months can be, indeed is, a formidable Wikipedian exerting a vast influence on the quality and tone of this entire project. Here is the meat of the complaint:

Editor Arcayne (talk · contribs) has claimed not one, but Two, degrees from Oxford - and has claimed to have written several books [The two, of several he lists on his User page that he claims to have been published are Love Songs and Other Mysteries (1991) and Bad Choice (1989) - For which no ISBN numbers exist to link to ...] and has made just a hair under Eighteen Thousand edits[25] in 22 months at Wiki.

As he has frequently invoked the "Superior Authority" of his multiple Oxford degrees and education and on numerous occasions brandished his Oxford academic honors to defend and enshrine his edits in Wikipedia and to eliminate the need for discussion, this is having a very strong influence on many articles and editors - and are riddled with ignorant errors:

"With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[26] - Arcayne

"Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. - Arcayne 14:34, 3 July 2008"

"I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted"[27] - Arcayne

These are the two degrees Arcayne previously noted:

the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. - Arcayne
The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. ... it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE. Kapowow
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,'' ... - Arcayne[28]

Surely Wikipedia has a policy for those such as Arcayne, who are able to place 18,000 edits in 22 months using his Superior Authority" as an Oxfordian with multiple degrees to bluff and cajole in an effort to "Win" for winnings sake.

Wiki must have greater, more idealistic, purpose than to simply be a place to facilitate and support fantastical self-aggrandizement. (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
How come al of these nonregistereds hate User:Arcayne so much?? Its kind of creating me out!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take a giant leap of faith and assume the initial post here is sincere. If so, the solution is simple. Cease being intimidated when people mention their degrees and the institutions at which they've studied. It's not that hard, especially on Wikipedia where the default position is suspicion of any sort of real-life expertise. MastCell Talk 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm the only non-registered user to post here RE:Arcayne. My purpose in participating in Wiki is to move the project forward without regard to the Social Networking uses of the site. My complaint regarding Arcayne is that he damages the mission through the false and self-centered nature of his words and actions. Fraudulently misrepresenting oneself in an effort to further ones effectiveness and "win" - while employing patently false arguments based soley upon ones claim to "Superior Authority" is a violation of all social norms and is a gross violation of Wiki trust. It is unacceptable behavior that harms the very foundation of Wikipedia. It is in and of itself a profound violation of the communities trust that one operate in "Good Faith". (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that in each and every one of the examples from Arcayne above, he brandishes his purported advanced academic credentials to support a position that has no greyness - he is simply, utterly, and childishly wrong. The EU is not an NGO, Arcayne's multiple post-graduate Oxford Degrees in Political Science and International Relations to the contrary. Nor does Penultimate mean Climax, no matter how much Arcayne wished that it did. Utterly and completely wrong, told so by large groups of fellow editors and he still forces the point based upon his "Superior Authority" as an "Expert." It harms the Wiki mission and violates the communities trust that others operate in Good Faith. (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Talking about "Wiki trust" is quite interesting when we take under consideration that you have been using a lot of IP addresses to edit war with him, you wouldn't believe how many times I have seen the "sysop abuse" drama-magnet being used here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've claimed all of my Dynamic IP's. As was fully noted in your link. There is no violation of the rule, or even the spirit of the rule. All I am guilty of is not joining the Social Networking side of Wiki. My edits stand or fall on the merit of the idea's contained in them. After overcoming the institutional skepticism placed upon them as anonymous contributions. (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming sockpuppetry, you already admited working on these addresses. However, when the contributions of these accounts are reviewed its obvious that you aren't a victim like you claim in your argument, its evident that you two are involved in a content dispute. That being the case this is not the place to work with it, after all "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department", try WP:DR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no content dispute. It's simple: Arcayne claims multiple advanced degrees from Oxford and uses this as the basis to close discussion and "win". The claims he has put forth are ludicrous and make a mockery of his purported intellectual pedigree.

That he makes these claims and by doing so forces false information into the Encyclopedia while bullying his fellow editors with lies is harmful to the mission, principles and spirit of Wikipedia. (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you expect to hear from someone involved in a content dispute, it should be noted that I actually reviewed the contributions of your other addresses, there are a lot of "Undid x version by Arcayne..." in them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the anon's fifth unwarranted AN/I complaint against me. Clearly, he doesn't like me (not that it really matters to me, but I guess the 500-lb gorilla in the room needs to be noted). In each of his prior AN/I whine sessions, he has been advised, somewhat stringently that he needs to stop interacting with me. I have not sought him out. I have not created multiple IP account after multiple IP account - almost a dozen that I could find. And each one, almost without exception are attack pages directed at me. For an assumed superiority I feel from having attended the Ox and worked my ass off for two undergraduate degrees. Honestly, the only reason I would feel superior to any user is if they are solely content to use Wikipedia as an attack forum or to grind ut a personal agenda. This person has been proven to be using it as both since at least April of this year.

I would like to propose for the second time that, as the user 75.(et. al.) has used his post block time to create attack pages and generally disrupt Wikipedia, that his IP range be blocked. His continued personal attacks are simply disruptive. No one creates five ANI's against a specific user and devotes 8/10's of all their posts in attack. The most recent canvassing at the [of Oxford] and well as adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox pretty much proves the point. I would very much like this particular troll shoved back under the bridge and the span covered in an indef ban. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Why would anyone be impressed by someone having a mere two college degrees?Edison (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually Arcayne claims three. In addition to the Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and the Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations" he claims an unspecified Associate degree as well. Perhaps Cambridge?. Only one small problem ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[29] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed something. What administrator intervention is anyone looking for here? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

None. this is a vendetta by a non-reggie against User:Arcayne. There is nothing that any amdin could do hear except to try and take away Arcaye's college degrees whjich we cannot do as per WP:D Smith Jones (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Lying about ones academic credentials while using them to claim "Superior Authority" during article editing in order to mislead editors and enter patently false prose into the Encyclopedia is a gross and flagrant violation of "Good Faith". It undermines the mission of the project and fosters a culture of dishonesty. Administrators must choose to either accept that an editor with 8,000 edits in 22 months may lie at will without reprobation - and the insidious harm that results from it, or they must censure the individual and take a principled stand on community standards and the projects purpose. (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had been clear when I asked twice before; I am asking for the user to be range-blocked.
  • The user has created no less than a dozen IP addresses (and admitted to by the anon at two different RfCU and previous AN/I), and virtually every edit from these anonymous addresses attack me personally or my edits.
  • He has wasted this noticeboard's time in having filed or contributed substantially to no less than five frivolous AN/I complaints (1, 2, 3, 4) since April, and all of them are attacks towards me me. Of course, the anon has pointedly avoided notifying me of the AN/I posting.
  • Luvasfbr also noted that a wikiquette alert was also filed by the anon a few weeks ago, though I was never notified of its existence (again) and cannot find it in the archives.
  • He has disrupted Wikipedia with his multiple attack accounts, including going to wikiprojects where I have never made a single contribution ([30]) (he was correctly named as a troll there) and then further disrupting wikipedia by point-style adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox.
  • He appears to be seeking personal information about my educational background by questioning it (ie, calling my earned degrees "advanced" degrees knowing that the correction of noting they are undergraduate degrees). Because of this, I am very concerned that the attacking of my educational credentials is a subtle attempt to gain personal information about me.
These attempts are additional nuking expeditions by the anonymous user to poison the well of wiki opinion by calling me a liar, an "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander, etc. For the most part, the users here have suggested the venue of DR or simply walking away. To date, the anon has 'never pursued any avenue of DR, instead following me to articles and discussions where they have never contributed before, and then only to contribute stale arguments.
It was previously suggested I simply ignore the anon's effort, which, until recently, I have. However, I should not have to overlook the continuous, bad-faith efforts by an anon who pointedly refuses to set up a public face to his edits. He has argued in the past that as a public editor, he is doing this for ideological reasons (a reasoning strongly criticized by both Ed Fitzgerald and Bzuk in the previous AN/I's) or is encountering ISP problems. However, a careful look at his contributions notes that he only switches IP addresses to avoid restrictions placed upon his editing behavior. Despite the "ISP problem", he has managed to contribute with the same ISP here for the past few days - following exactly the same pattern his previous times at AN/I. The user can maintain a single IP address - he simply chooses not to. It is in this way that he is able to escape admin scrutiny and oversight and continue his attacks largely unabated.
I feel that even though range blocks are a fairly blunt instrument, it is required here. The user has used their post-block period to do little but attack another user. As the focus of that user, I find myself a little concerned for my personal safety, as the user appears to be seeking personal info about me. I am also concerned that the user has tried five different times to have the noticeboard, never once having notified me; a clear indication that the user is attempted to have me back-door blocked. It cannot be confirmed, but is reasonable to suspect, that this renewed attempt by the anon was inspired by Edokter's retracted block of a few days ago.
In conclusion, the anon user is not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia; they are interested in attacking me and having me removed from Wikipedia. Almost all of the anon's contributions have been personal attacks. This doesn't represent the goals that we set for our editors. The anon should not be allowed to continue harassing me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A rather lengthy reply which conveniently fails to address in any way the most important point. In addition to an unspecified associate degree you claim an Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and an Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations". Except ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[31] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, if I choose to be a little vague as to how my degrees are specifically noted (or that my associates' degree may or may not have been earned at my alma mater) in order to protect my privacy, I will do so. That you have taken a lot of care to explore my educational background demonstrates the need for that non-specificity. You aren't getting anything more specific, anon, no matter how many ANI complaints you fabricate. Hope that is clear enough for you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Portal:Current events[edit]

There is a lot of trouble with at least one IP removing perfectly good entries from the portal. Trouble is, they defend their actions and seem to feel that they fall within policy. Can someone more delicate than I (I'm getting kinda anoyed by now) have a go at putting things straight? Because the portal is rapidly ceasing to be the good at-a-glance update that it has always been. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted entries restored. Reasons given by IP are too vague to warrant such action. If the IP elaborates, then we'll reconsider, but in any case, the IP can't revert or it's a 3RR violation. —Kurykh 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not perfectly good entries! Read guideline. Stories without English reference are not properly referenced. Stories about shooting in US is of regional or topical interest. And they don't belong to main pain of current events portal. Don't like the rule? re-write it. You don't like my reasoning? You don't give any reason at all! Am I elaborating enough? -- (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At it again. Request someone uninvolved to get involved and sort things out, please. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the item about the Stockholm museeum being destroyed by fire. If that's not "important enough", we'd better scrap Wikipedia altogether. (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Milwaukee shooting is particularly world-news-worthy. Corvus cornixtalk 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions by User:JeanLatore[edit]