Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive449

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Fisc[edit]

Resolved: blocked

This seems to be a single purpose account solely being used to add promotional content and spam links. see Special:Contributions/Fisc The username may also be agaisnt username policy as it is the web address of the spam links http://www.fisc.com/ and the acronymn for the company itself. --neon white talk 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Just looks like SPAM. Should be a general revert of all changes. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, user page makes intention clear. I reported to WP:UAA --Jaysweet (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocked and seems to have had edits reverted. RlevseTalk 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and tenditious editing on Tucker Max[edit]

Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view. User's posts have been in the past tenditious. Initially engaged in personal attacks, he was the subject of a wikiquiette alert and the personal attacks have to his credit ended, however, the tenditiousness has not.

While I admit that this is borderline between AN/I worthy and a content dispute resolution, I'll explain why I think this is an AN/I issue.

Despite being a newly registered user, Theserialcomma has enough Wikipedia experience that he was able to go into the history of the Tucker Max article and retrieve a "criticism" section that was deleted repeatedly as a egegrious violation of WP:BLP. Theserialcomma's position through the entire incident is that the criticism is so important that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP [1]. He has been warned by others that this behavior was inappropriate [2] but has continued.

Within this section of the article, Theserialcomma was quite insistant on the inclusion of an interview that was again both a BLP violation, and a violation of WP:UNDUE as well. [3]. He then left a borderline harassing message on my talk page [4]. He also accused me of vandalism [5], and shortly after fought with me over the removal of a comment left by an IP vandal [6]

After myself and TheRegicider disagreed on whether the section should be included at all, we agreed to post it with a "neutrality" template and file an RfC on it.

However, theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section - most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [7] [8]

He is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. [9] [10] [11].

The reason I consider this an AN/I incident rather than a conduct dispute is because of theserialcomma's disregard for wikipedia policy and extreme tenditiousness. McJeff (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a SPA with a purpose. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have one of his comments a {{subst:spa|username}} tag. Hopefuly that will be suitable chastisement to aends his awful behavieur. Smith Jones (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most accounts start off as single purpose, I know I did. This seems like a content dispute. Also, I read diff 42 and it wasn't harassment, I don't even think borderline. I recommend dispute resolution. If he does attack you, and not your content, bring it back here. This is of course just my opinion. It couldn't hurt to suggest for him to edit other articles. Oh, and that is sort of supsicious about knowing enough to dig through the history. If anyone notices that his behavior matches a banned or known feetcover master, than say something. Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and anyone who supports the serial comma can't be ALL bad. ;) Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it looks bad enough. He's just not listening. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

however tedious this may be, (and for this, i apologise), i must respond to mcjeff's allegations on a point by point basis, because i think he has misrepresented the facts of the situation.

1. "Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view." response: this is blatantly false. you can easily check my history to see the other articles i've edited. to say i've 'exclusively' edited the tucker max article is a lie.

2. i edit with "a clear non-favorable point of view." response: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. the fact is, he is controversial, and he deserves a controversy section. that is what i am trying to do. for over 3 weeks of a consensus that there should be a controversy section, mcjeff would not allow it. just because i disagree with him, and because i think the article is balanced in favor of a person contrary to the facts, doesn't mean i am interested in only non-favorable points.

3. mcjeff claims i engaged in personal and harassing attacks on his talkpage. his evidence is [[12]] response: i don't believe this to be harassment or a personal attack. but i do believe that falsely claiming harassment, personal attacks, and WP violations is a form of harassment. please view this yourself and decide if it's a legitimate complaint.

4. mcjeff claims that my position is that, "the criticism (section) is so important (to me) that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP. this is another misrepresentation of what actually has happened. if you check the discussion page, you'll see that i talked about my edits first, and solicited ideas from others as to how to make it neutral. some ideas were offered from mcjeff, they were incorporated into the addition of the criticism section, and then mcjeff continually reverted every attempt i made to add it. even though we agreed a criticism section should be there, he still reverted every attempt i made at adding it, instead of trying to edit the changes to make it more acceptable.

5. "theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section -most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Max&diff=225470745&oldid=225427936] response: please view the diffs and decide if the intent and context are truly changed. this is a matter of opinion, but i think mcjeff just enjoys reverting any changes i make, and i don't think my edits changed the context or intent.

6. "(theserialcomma) is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. response: the sources are clearly invalid and the claim that he gets 1 million unique hits is clearly dubious, and it is not really up for debate if you check the discussion page where i cite the evidence. however, mcjeff responded that he shall revert any edit i make, regardless of the evidence. this is one of mcjeff's most egregious and obvious blunders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talkcontribs) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the problem is that Theserialcomma has got certain ideas in his head that he refuses to let go of.
For starters, the accusation that I don't want a criticism section. This is wrong - I was reverting out an improperly done criticism section per WP:BLP. I actually did want one all along, and I was the initiator of attempting to rewrite the section, as I will demonstrate with difs. [14] [15] [16]. His other accusations against my conduct also fail to take into account that as per WP:BLP they were to my underestanding the correct actions. (I have at various times offered that if an administrator tells me otherwise I'll cease and try to make amends.)
In regards to the "false harassment" charge, I find it harassing to have people speculating my motives, and I feel that it violates both AGF and CIVIL. But even if it violates neither of those, it doesn't support wikipedia's policy of "Address the edit not the editor".
In regards to the claim that he was editing exclusively on the Tucker Max article, I see that he has made a few edits outside that article since the last time I checked his contribution history. Still, it would be safe to say that the vast majority of the edits he made were to Tucker Max and the corresponding talk page, with most of the rest in individual talk pages.
As far as the idea that he is POV-pushing, I feel that in his very rebuttal to the AN/I, he has confirmed his POV, as he stated his intent: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. With the sourced criticism section added (which is undergoing an RfC at this time) I see no lack of balance.
Finally in regards to the controversy over the sources section - I do not think it's unreasonable to require extra opinions before allowing a long term tenditious editor to make controversial changes to an article.
McJeff (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think McJeff's characterization of TSC's comment on his talk page as "harassment" is a little over-the-top, but it was definitely a failure to WP:AGF, and I have advised/warned TSC accordingly. Unless the behavior repeats, I consider that aspect of the matter to be closed.
There is definitely a slow-burn edit war going on at Tucker Max. Early this morning/late last night, an RfC was filed. I think this is an appropriate way forward, since it is not abundantly clear whether there is a consensus or not. Until the RfC is completed, I would caution both editors to avoid edit-warring over the section in question.
I am not sure if there are WP:BLP concerns with the criticism section... I don't know enough about this topic to know if there are WP:UNDUE weight problems. If an uninvolved editor wanted to comment out the section until the RfC is closed, I would not have a problem with that. However, I would again caution both TSC and McJeff from further editing the section until the RfC process is complete.
Does this address both editors' concerns for now? If the edit warring continues during or after the RfC, then I could see administrative action being required; for now, though, I think we should just let the RfC play out and try to do a better job to assume good faith. Agreed? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, sorry. This is not a content dispute, this is over Theserialcomma's general tenditiousness. In fact, this would be a content disagreement rather than a content dispute if Theserialcomma weren't so pushy. In the mean time, the tenditiousness continues. Theserialcomma continues to call me out by name in talk page topics, in more rambling posts replete with accusations [17] and if that's not enough, he then copypastes these posts onto my talk page. Again, this is not a content dispute, this is one user being tenditious. McJeff (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The diff you link to is tedious, but there is nothing to stop you from ignoring it. My recommendation would be to stop responding to TSC and wait for the RfC to play out.
Failing that, what admin action are you specifically looking for here? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Theserialcomma continues to call me out by name and he posts his accusations against me in boldface type. This is difficult to ignore. The administrative action I'd like to see taken is for him to be sternly warned about BLP and CIVIL violations, and punished appropriately if they continue. McJeff (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nutsheller and Incivility[edit]

Resolved: Talking took place. Beam 12:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nutsheller is continuing to be insulting towards other editors, particularly me, for the last several days despite being warned about it. He has made personal attacks in the talk page of the article Pygmy Kitabu, which I originally visited due to a CorenBot alert and tagged for CSD for being a copyright violation. For some background: Pygmy Kitabu was created by User:Mbabane, who immediately removed the CSD tag and rewrote the article some[18]. I removed a final bit of copyvio, then tagged the article for notability for failing to meet WP:BK.[19]. Mbabane then disappeared from the article, and another new user User:Plannedobesity appeared and removed the notability tag[20]. User:NawlinWiki tagged it for needing non-primary sources, and Plannedobesity removed that tag and added a source[21]. I put back the notability tag and added a refimprove tag.[22]. Enter Nutsheller, third new editor. He removed both tags and added a new paragraph with two references[23]. There is an open sockpuppet case to see if these three are all the same, as all three edited the same three articles, with no simultaneous work and one picking up the edits of another seemlessly, etc.

In talk page discussions began "defending" the article by making personal attacks against me[24]. He implied I questioned the article's notability because I was racist saying: "There is already an extreme amount of prejudice against the Efe and other pygmy tribes of Africa (such as the Twa of neighboring Rwanda). Please disclose any prejudice you also may harbor."[25] He accused me of being on a crusade to remove information on the pygmy tribe from Wikipedia.[26]. Out of concerns of the seeming sockpuppetry going on, I attempted to request page protection, which he responded to by accusing me of "abusing an editorial position to assert my unsupported stance" that the book isn't notable.[27]. The reviewing admin suggested I just AfD the article, so I did.[28]. Nutsheller responded by asking for a 30, claiming I was "tagging maliciously"[29] (3O denied as there was an active AfD). In the AfD, Nutsheller continued the personal insults, accusing me of creating false facts and acting unethically. User:HouseOfScandal suggested a merge and offered some advice to Nutsheller on how to save the article and change his mind, but Nutsheller attacked him as well, ending by accusing him of making "it personal and involved your ego."[30]

Lengthy history done, for the most part I've been ignoring his insults though I did remind him a few times of WP:CIVIL and that his false accusations were inappropriate and I gave him one warning.[31] I figured he'd just be blocked once the sockpuppet case was done, as I am fairly confident they are socks. However, I'm not inclined to continue ignoring it when he plasters personal insults on his user page as well. First, in response to the sockpuppetry[32], saying I was "specious and small-minded". Then today, he changed it to say I "made this accusation just because [he] wouldn't use the letter c, the silly bunt."[33].

As we have been clashing for days, I didn't think it would be appropriate (or even useful) to warn him again or ask him to remove the comment. Posting here instead for some assistance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that isn't really uncivil. That's my personal opinion, I'm not really one to consider any negative comment uncivil. Of course, this has made me an enemy in the past, check my block log. So yeah, I'm going to give him a warning, as a disinterested third party, as well as link him to his discussion. Beam 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he's being a bit tendentious, but incivility is not strictly a blockable offense, and what you label as his personal attacks are rather borderline to me. The AfD seems to have been resolved, so to be totally honest, Collectonian, I'm not sure what admin assistance you require here. GlassCobra 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, most is borderline, but the user page attack goes over the line to me. I'd like a warning and it removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I talked to him, he hasn't responded. I also notified him as should have been done by you. Beam 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, sorry...I meant to do it when I post and got distracted. :( Long long week...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Noticeboard read user page comments read. Low key intervention appreciated. Collectonion is insulted by comments on my user page (not hers)? Oy vay.Nutsheller (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't considered this resolved as the insult still stands. Or is the end result that we are alloewd to insult other editors on our user pages? Am I allowed to turn around and add my views of the editors I have a disagreement with on my talk page as well? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not at all sir. If he continues than an admin action will be warranted. The first step in any perceived incivility is talking. This has occurred. It is simply resolved for now. Again, if he insults you further, and it's not borderline, admin action will be warranted. Beam 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Beam... Collectonian is a fem. — MaggotSyn 17:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's like the 5000th time someone has gotten that wrong, so she's probably used to it :p. As for the issue, come back if the incivility continues. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL, indeed I have. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know, how would I? And since I didn't know, I default to he, like the world use to back in the good old non PC days. memmmooorrrriiiieeeesssss Beam 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Viridae's ban of User:Dyinghappy as sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Accounts were confirmed by checkuser as sockpuppets of indef-blocked editor - Viridae's block is supported by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Dyinghappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for being a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Internodeuser. I don't know if User:Dyinghappy is User:Internodeuser as I am not familiar with Internodeuser or why he was banned but Viridae hasn't filed a sockpuppet notice or RFCU or responded adequately for evidence [34]. He hasn't posted a block notice on the users talk page or tagged the user page with a sockpuppet notice. It's not not obvious to me that he's a sockpuppet and it appears unseemly as they were both engaged in editing Wikipedia Review. I am concerned that Viridae may have turned a content dispute into an opportunity to block this user. In any event, Viridae should post his evidence, leave block notices on users talk page and template sockpuppets. The community needs to be able review his accusation of sockpuppeting and see if it has merit or whether Viridae was too hasty with the ban button on a relative newcomer. Dyinghappy doesn't appear to have edited improperly. Relevant discussions are on Viridae and Dyinhappy's talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you linked this thread from Viridae's page, but have you actually tried talking to Viridae about this? Seriously, all we can do is talk to Viridae for you, so why not just do that first and then perhaps you will not need further input(perhaps you will). 1 != 2 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If you read his talk page and Dyinghappy's talk page, you will see that the discussion has occured with a very dismissive comment. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on some of the edits made by Dyinghappy, I can see where there may be grounds for concern; there may be additional evidence that Viridae is not in a position to post publicly. It would be best if you discussed it directly with Viridae; he may or may not be willing to give you a full accounting, depending on the circumstances. Risker (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I am very familiar with Internodeuser given that he is Blissyu2 (think i have the spelling correct), a former admin of WR. Blissyu2 was somehow (forcibly or not) removed from his admin position at WR and sitebanned. I don't know the details, and I don't care. I very rarely enforce bans, because I am very rarely sure that the new person is the same as the old. In this case I am sure. Dyinghappy and Internodeuser share similar editing interests (see in paticular Port arthur massacre). The strongest evidence is that Dyinghappy added a link to the new version of wikipedia review, that blissyu2 started after he (blissyu2) was banned from Wikipedia Review - fair enough except that that forum has only 2 posts to it that aren't by Blissyu2 himself. Given that: similar editing interests (including knowledge of and interest in the founding of wikipedia review, adding a link to the new forum Blissyu2 is the almost exclusive poster to, interest in the port arthur massacres) and the tone of writing that is not incompatible with being internodeuser (not saying definite - just saying they are similar) i am pretty damn sure that is who I blocked him as. As to the charge of a content dispute - what content dispute? There is no content dispute - by and large I was pretty happy with Dyinghappy's changes to Wikipedia Review, until he posted the link to his forum and tipped me off about who he was. Banned templates are not required to be posted, I personally prefer not to label accounts with the sockpuppet and banned templates - at least until user and user talk pages are added to robots.txt - and there is no policy to force me to do so. The user knows why he was banned - it says so in the block log (which comes up in the message displayed when blocked). It also clearly states in the block log why the block was performed. I have been in contact with Dyinghappy via email, he has questioned his block, I have told him I know exactly who he is (and he hasn't actually denied it) I have also suggested that he can (as Internodeuser, Zordrac, Bissyu2 or Dyinghappy - the four accounts known to be used) appeal to arbcom or the community to get the ban overturned if he wishes to be productive - however he was given a year long block as a result of the arbcom case originally, which was extended to indef (and a ban) following sockpuppetry and legal threats. Finally (and I think I am going to get an edit conflict - this is a long comment) why wasn't this information requested on my talk page first? (incidentally I considered buzzing alison for a RFCU but the accounts are far too stale) ViridaeTalk 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It was requested on your talk page. You blew it off. [35]. It's rather presumptive to think that it was Blissyu2. Anyone reading the WR thread would have been pointed here which would have lead them to the link that you seem to think is the smoking gun. Considering the edits were productive, the lack of AGF is somewhat disturbing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What WR thread/look at the edit history of that article. ViridaeTalk 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I just got on-line here. Given the nature of the case, the fact that he's already blocked, and the evidence provided, I ran a check on the account mentioned and can state that Dyinghappy (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be a sock of Internodeuser/Blissyu2 - Alison 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Internodeuser/Blissyu2
  1. Myrrideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Akmereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Nova63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
and  IP blocked, as before - Alison 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ali. Can you please email me a bit of info about how that works - I thought those accounts were far too stale to be CU'd? ViridaeTalk 12:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Placeholder for DHeyward's acknowledgement (and thanks) for Viridae's correct and prompt identification and blocking of sockpuppet of indef blocked account LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, perhaps you should consider allowing others to challenge Viridae's admin actions on noticeboards in the future. Given just the state of this page over the last few days its clear you have a long running dispute with Viridae (as does MONGO), and I think we'd all appreciate it if you both refrained from bringing every action you can argue to AN/I. Avruch 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've only brought this single action to AN/I when I've personally experienced at least two others and have witnessed many more. Viridae seems to have a lot of questionable admin actions so even the good ones cloud the bad. Viridae claims we don't have a dispute. As long as Viridae claims the right to use the admin tools in articles that I am involved with, I think it's only reasonable that ANI is available to editors to report his abuse. Remember that all Viridae had to do was post his evidence but instead he said "go away" when another uninvolved editor asked him for his reasoning. --DHeyward (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)1. the editor didn't ask for evidence, he asked me to respond to Dyinghappy - which I did, by email. Had he asked for evidence I would have provided what I did above. 2. The other admin actions you have recently experienced are this protection, in which half a dozen people were edit warring over some wording (and if, as you claim, I am following you around I'm not very good at it - you hadn't edited that article for two days) the protection of this article, in which there was edit warring between you and and 2 IPs. You claimed that was Giovanni33 who had just been banned, but didn't provide any evidence to that effect (apparently I am supposed to be psychic?). I told you that if you have evidence, take it to RFCU, if that is a proven sock then the article protection will be removed and the sock banned. You responded by accusing me of following you around and looking for an excuse to block you. I told you to assume good faith, and indicated that if that was the case I am once again not very good at it, because I have actually unblocked you in the past. You responded by accusing me of wanting to wheel war with WMC more than I wanted to block you! Now in the case of the first protection, there was a clear edit war. In the second case also an edit war. If you had actually stopped and given me some evidence to evaluate when you questioned the protection instead of accusing me of following you around you might just have found the IPs blocked and the protection lifted... ViridaeTalk 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I didn't even know you had protected this. Just one more for the list. I was talking about Joe Scarborough for the other one. As for evidence of sockpuppetry, I gave it to you on your talk page. Others have commented there how obvious (WP:DUCK) it is. I then asked you to simply take my talk page off your watch list. Please do so. It's a relatively simple thing to do and will prevent you from abusing the tools again in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"prevent you from abusing the tools again in the future" - again?? I wasn't aware that Viridae was abusing the tools - he certainly wasn't in this instance - Alison 23:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Or any of the other protections you are refferring to. DHeyward, I am still lost as to what evidence you provided me with that those Ips were Giovanni? ViridaeTalk 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Personal Attack[edit]

Resolved: Final warning given. Beam 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

this little gem turned up on my talk page

Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=225628614

personal attack made by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fadiga09

block log for above user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fadiga09

I don't object the use of "fucking" but I don't like being called a tosspot or an imbecile. The above seems to be a blatant personal attack from a user who has already been blocked for a month for disruptive editing.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He was given final warnings almost simultaneously by User:Jaysweet and me. Please let me know if it continues; I will block him if necessary. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, okay, after an edit conflict... I was just gonna say, I am not 100% convinced a block is necessary at this time, but I would not fault anyone who did. The diff in question was beyond the pale, and the user's previous block (in early May) was lifted oin the condition he refrain from disriuptive editing. The only reason I am not convinced a block is necessary is because I could not locate any other recent breaches of civility or personal attacks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What the heck is a tosspot? Is it the same as a chamberpot? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume that a tosspot is something that you toss off (masturbate) into. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, ew!! However, no, "tosspot" is slang for a drunkard. Not sure of the etymology though.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Modern Drunkard Magazine Online: "This rather quaint name for a drunkard describes what they called fun: our 16th century brethren tossed back pots (a pot was a type of drinking vessel), much as modern inebriates throw back shots." So there ya go. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I am less offended now - at times I can be a total drunken tosspot. However, the imbecile comment was worthy of a block just on its own. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

em... no it isn't - not in current usage. It's very rarely used in that "quaint sense" - it's similar to "wanker" or dickhead. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you say to him to make him flip kittens? Beam 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was nasty enough to suggest that the goal keeper for Valencia was still listed as a player on the Valencia site, so should not be removed from the list of players on the Valencia article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That got resolved with a warning? Come on folks, we are being far to soft on nasty abusive comments like that. Abusive comments regarding content disputes are especially damaging to NPOV. 1 != 2 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the only recent uncivil edit anybody could find. The behavior is not ongoing, so the preventative/punitive issue comes into play here. That said, I reiterate that I am not prejudiced against an immediate block. The comment was egregious enough that it could go either way, and certainly one more slip-up in the near future would clearly result in a lengthy block. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I would really hate for the whole who is the goal keeper debate to be decided because one person decided to go to a website where they did not get abused and the other got their way. 1 != 2 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yah, let's stifle any possible future contribution over someone calling another an imbecile, and tosspot ONCE. Beam 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, 1 != 2 didn't necessarily suggest an indef block... in any case, we're all on the same team here, we all agree the comment was out of line and that Fadiga is on a short leash. Let's move on :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Flip kittens"?? Oh, I am SO stealing that!!! Gladys J Cortez 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, for a nominal fee of course... I'll take a barnstar I guess. Anyway, you're not the first one to steal it. I invented it while I was a camp counselor years ago. I was about to say "Flipped the fuck out" in front of 7 year olds, but I stopped myself mid expression and came out with "Flipped Kittens." Of course you can use it as "Flipping kittens" or the above noted "Flip kittens." Beam 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At least he didn't call him an upstart. Them's fightin' words! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ginascrew[edit]

Resolved: User Blocked. PhotoKGB needed...but this issue is resolved. Beam 23:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have a vandalism-only account here that should probably be blocked indefinitely, given the myriad warnings. --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Can someone a bit more fluent in image tags take care of Image:Sybgoffdownload.JPG and Image:Day26sybc.jpg? Looks like they have non-free templates, but no source, and improper rationales. GlassCobra 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals and personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: The dynamic IP vandals has been blocked by LessHeard vanU, Wknight94, Alexf. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) VANK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These below Japanese ISP users who have vandalised the articles have claimed that the organizations are terrorist organizations. They falsify information or put unreliable or no sources to articles. One is (e-mobile.ne.jp) and the other is ocn.ne.jp, but the first one edits the page with his or her PDA or mobile phone. The latter with the same ISP was blocked for a past vandalism on VANK.[36] There fore their same appearance and editing style, and bashing and false comments on talk pages, I think these two are the same one. I'm not tolerate at these repeated childish personal attacks : *It's plain and clear no room for lying. Kick out the lier from Wiki.

I checked on sources and other editors also reverted their vandalism, so the disruptive vandal do not deserve to edit Wikiepedia.[ Due to them (or him/her), Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was protected. Previous warnings given to them are ineffective, so I believe brief block could the articles have a peace from the vandal.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"...lier"? Do they mean lyre? Anyhows, I blocked the one ip that hadn't been got by someone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Was my account deleted?[edit]

Resolved: Moved to WP:HD Beam 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the "aldomedina" username before. But today I tried to login and get a "username doesn't exists" message. I recreated the account. I don't remember my editions, but I believe the "Click Mexicana" article was the last I edited. However, I don't see my username in the history log.

Was my account deleted? Why?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldomedina (talkcontribs) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Main discussion on help desk. Please continue any discussion there. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial AfD[edit]

Looks like this could probably use more input: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. GlassCobra 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have injected mylsef into this controversy. Hopefuly I will be able to reslve it and hammer out a workable concensus by the time the day is out. wish m Luck!! Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) :D

User:Bluegoblin7[edit]

See preceding archived section.

In short a can garuntee that he is NOT a sock puppet of Chris19910 and his block needs to be strongly reconsidered. I would like to know the evidence this so called sock puppetry claim was based on   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this section, he retired. Are we beating a dead horse here? — MaggotSyn 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, he is requesting an unblock now on his user talk, and I've personally questioned using off wiki evidence for blocks. Not to say it shouldnt be done, but rather, it appears that a responding admin doesn't even know what evidence to look at when considering the unblock. Gwynand | TalkContribs 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hes been unblocked. — MaggotSyn 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
He shouldn't have been unblocked. BG7 was busted on IRC by having the same IP as Chris, then after identifying to services, which means you have to be BG7, he proved that he was not an impersonator. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you further explain the direct link to BG7's wikipedia account? Gwynand | TalkContribs 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course. When you go on IRC and don't identify (type in your password), your IP is shown. Chris and Bluegoblin had exactly the same IP's. Then, when they both identified to services, they had something known as a wikimedia "cloak", which hides the IP information. For instance, instead of displaying your IP, BG would have had something along the lines of @wikipedia/BlueGoblin7. To get this cloak, you need to prove you are the same person as you are on-wiki, and you don't get one unless you do. So we have evidence that they use the same IP, they're not impersonators because they typed in their IRC passwords and BlueGobin7, after identifying on IRC, therefore confirming it was him, admitted the whole thing - not he denies it????? That's not right, and the unblock certainly isn't with overwhelming evidence (at this stage) that BG7 has undertaken massive sockpuppetry. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Personally, I would've liked to have seen some CU (from this wiki) on this case. As for Ryan's evidence; I can't comment not knowing the IPs used by Chris. BG7 has engaged in some strange behaviour but I'm unconvinced regarding sokpuppetry, GDonato (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
May I ask what my strange behaviour is? Oh, and I filed a RFCU as no-one has yet, despite speculation. -->Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7 BG7even 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Mainly, speaking to me on IRC (it was you since the IPs matched) and then denying it but I could never work out the motive for this, GDonato (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have never spoken to you on IRC. I do not know why the IPs matched. Could it be because I have a shield? If required, I can provide evidence from 3 other wikis run by Prom3th3an, above, after a similar investigation. BG7even 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No but you spoke with me directly. I can concur with all of this. He went on and on about he was the sockmaster, and it wasn't Cheminstrygeek, so unblock him please. This smells funny. — MaggotSyn 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd life to add that the block was in direct violation of the blocking policy and that I will be taking this up with the blocking admin and arbcom. They are not the same user, i have server logs and my own CU to prove it. Also Ryan Postlethwaite, YOUR A JOKE   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That was uncalled for. Comments like this will not help your case. — MaggotSyn 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not. I swear. I was not online, nor here. If i'm online, i normally edit a wiki. BG7even 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Were Kodster and I right?--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Prom3th3an, surely you don't have checkuser rights here so saying you have CU evidence is nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC

Everyone please calm down. I have unblocked Bluegoblin7 and submitted this matter for Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7. Checkusers have the necessary experience to distinguish multiple users on a shared network from a sockfarm. They will sort this out. Meanwhile, if Bluegoblin7 performs any disruptive edits, they can be re-blocked by any uninvolved administrator. I am uncomfortable with IRC channel ops doing the job of checkusers. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) )

It seems unlikely to me that Bluegoblin7 and Chemistrygeek are related. Unfortunately, when it comes to British IPs, there's not always a great degree of certainty. Additionally, I blocked Prom3th3an for three hours for civility issues, and said I would unblock him if he promises to be civil. Given that I'm about to go to the my doctor in twenty minutes and probably won't be back for quite a while, I'd welcome any other administrator unblocking him early if he promises to be more civil. --Deskana (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


(e/c with Deskana) I have no interest in whatever happens to this particular editor, but figured the evidence I used as the basis for my block would be helpful to people reviewing this block.

First, Chemistrygeek, an IRC account linked to blocked user Chemistrygeek (talk · contribs), logged onto #wikipedia-en-unblock from 78.150.24.185 using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and Firefox 2.0.0.15/2008062306 (an outdated and uncommon version). He engaged in some off-topic banter, and requested an unblock which was denied. Later, Bluegoblin7 also logged onto #-unblock from 78.145.147.133 using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and an unknown browser. It's important to note that he didn't log into his account (an on-wiki analogy would be editing anonymously but signing your posts as a registered user), so I thought this was a troll trying to joe-job BG7. Here's the confession they provided wrt running multiple sockpuppets:

click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[04:33:37] <Bluegoblin7_> Just so you all know admins know I framed Chemistrygeek
[04:34:59] <Bluegoblin7_> I do in actual fact have two email addresses
[04:37:37] <east718|away> Bluegoblin7_ > and?
[04:37:47] <Bluegoblin7_> I fooled you all last night
[04:38:11] <east718|away> is this about http://tinyurl.com/5b5nmg ?
[04:38:47] <Bluegoblin7_> yes
[04:38:58] <east718|away> nobody cares about what you do away from wikipedia
[04:39:27] <Bluegoblin7_> True but it wasnt Chemistrygeek that created the socks on en.wiki it was me
[04:39:47] <east718|away> which socks?
[04:40:05] <Bluegoblin7_> all of Chris19910 socks
[04:40:49] <Bluegoblin7_> you cant do anything to me because im off the wiki but you can unblock chem for not being a sock
[04:41:40] <Bluegoblin7_> Im the sock master not him.
[04:41:48] <SynergeticMag> his unblock will not happen without careful consieration
[04:41:59] <Bluegoblin7_> it was all me though
[04:42:13] <east718|away> more ducktales from you, i just inquired and found out that the checkuser "chain", if you will, stretches all back to the original account
[04:42:43] <Bluegoblin7_> ducktales love that word
[04:43:40] <Bluegoblin7_> Yes but the original account was mine.
[04:44:33] <east718|away> so let me get this straight
[04:44:40] <east718|away> you're user:chris19910 on enwiki
[04:44:50] <east718|away> and all of their supposed sockpuppets
[04:45:53] <Bluegoblin7_> yes
[04:46:22] <Bluegoblin7_> Im telling you this becuase I quit from the wiki so might as well.
[04:46:24] <east718|away> so who's chemgeek?
[04:47:35] <SynergeticMag> and somehow you chose to pm me first?
[04:47:46] <Bluegoblin7_> Thats not my account thats Chris who i talk to on msn he helped me set up my other wiki called bionictest
[04:47:48] <SynergeticMag> i'd like to know why
[04:48:38] <Bluegoblin7_> I was originally in the wikipedia-en and saw you thats why
[04:50:29] <Bluegoblin7_> the only reason they thought all of the socks were chems was cause he edits from the same ISP as me.
[04:51:08] <SynergeticMag> so your saying your not chem, but all of this socks are yours....
[04:51:10] <SynergeticMag> right
[04:51:27] <east718|away> Bluegoblin7_ > last thing
[04:51:32] <SynergeticMag> lol
[04:51:35] <east718|away> how do we know who you're saying you are?
[04:51:42] <Bluegoblin7_> il email you
[04:51:49] <east718|away> no, don't
[04:51:53] <east718|away> make a trivial edit somewhere on-wiki
[04:52:41] <Bluegoblin7_> my account was deleted though
[04:52:46] <SynergeticMag> Bluegoblin7_: but tell us before you make the edit
[04:52:56] <Bluegoblin7_> ok
[04:54:21] <SynergeticMag> Bluegoblin7_: which article will it be?
[04:54:40] <Bluegoblin7_> il do you talk page if you want or something to do with chemistry
[04:54:51] <SynergeticMag> go for my talk
[04:55:10] <SynergeticMag> [[User talk:SynergeticMaggot]]
[04:56:40] <Bluegoblin7_> ok
[04:57:29] <Bluegoblin7_> dne

This edit was made by Bluegoblin70 (talk · contribs), who isn't Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs). I blocked the former as an impersonation account, then kicked out the BG7 on IRC as for the same reason. Around a minute later, he came back into #-unblock from 78.145.147.133, using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and Firefox 2.0.0.15/2008062306. We then had this conversation:

click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[05:04:38] <Bluegoblin7> Hi east
[05:04:38] <east718|away> now identify to nickserv please
[05:05:35] <Bluegoblin7> who?
[05:05:38] <SynergeticMag> you
[05:06:07] <Bluegoblin7> who is nickserv? dont you mean chanserv?
[05:06:15] <east718|away> being that you're on the same network as chemgeek and that you haven't identified, i'm inclined to believe that it's you (chemgeek) impersonating bg
[05:06:58] <Bluegoblin7> how am i on the same network as chem?
[05:07:44] <Bluegoblin7> If you dont believe me who I am ask User:Xp54321
[05:08:08] <east718|away> you are on the same network, use the same browser, and the same IRC client

I kicked them out of the channel again, still thinking it was somebody trying to frame BG7. However, shortly later, BG7 popped into #wikipedia-en from 78.145.167.222, using ChatZilla 0.9.83 and an unknown browser. However, I have tools better than CheckUser at my disposal, and one of them gives me the ability to see when somebody logs in and from what IP address they do so. BG7 then logged into their IRC account (this requires a password). Now having established that the person behind this IRC account is actually who they claimed to be (per this edit), I had somebody who had just confessed to running a sockfarm and remained unblocked. Their IP address and browser version was the same as Chemistrygeek, the user whom they had just claimed to be, so I just went ahead, treated them as the same person, and executed a block. east.718 at 16:48, July 14, 2008

Well, I've just pooped on your lawn then, because my IP is 86.151.50.146. Which is what I have been using since i logged on. I do not know my other IPs, but I have never used 78.145.167.222 - i'm sure my CU will prove this. Therefore, i'm innocent. BG7even 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
IP addresses can change....--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not as simple as you may think. Does BG7 even act like Chris did? Does he have power issues with overuse of tools like Chris did? And why is it so important to you anyway? Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bluegoblin7 is telling the truth that his current IP is 86.151.50.146, which is British Telecom. All of the other IPs mentioned are Opal Telecommunications. Bluegoblin7 has never used Opal. 78.150.24.185 is the last IP used by Chemistrygeek. 78.145.147.133 was used by Bluegoblin70 (talk · contribs). The use of Opal and a particular user agent are common characteristics of sockpuppets of Chris19910. There is a new account created at 78.145.167.222 which is probably the next sockpuppet. There is no checkuser evidence tying Bluegoblin7 to Chris19910. I don't know whether the "real" Bluegoblin7 on IRC used an easily guessed password, or whether the fakes were using clever character substitution, or whether this is some kind of game being played by two people who share passwords, or what else might have happened, but I do not believe the situation is as cut and dried as it seems to East718. Thatcher 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Bluegoblin7 has had the same IP continuously from 21:30 on the 13th through 17:02 today (UTC). The only way he could have identified from 78.145.167.222 is if he has two different broadband ISPs serving his home, or that in between edits on BT as Bluegoblin7 at 13:52 and 14:55, he went to someone else's residence to use their Opal broadband. I think it is far more likely that Bluegoblin7's IRC nick and password was somehow compromised. Whether he is involved in some way in this series of events is beyond my ability to determine, but it seems highly doubtful to be straightforward sockpuppetry by one person. Thatcher 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Thatcher. We will monitor the account and take preventative measures should the need arise. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Single Purpose IP Account?[edit]

76.193.81.81 (talk · contribs) has arrived on the seen seemingly just to insert POV-ish wikilinks in various articles' "See also" sections. Please check the user's contributions. I am unsure how this should be handled, if at all. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Edit as if they were a good faith user. Maybe take the opportunity to review the entire see also section for reasonableness and conformance to relevant guidelines (e.g. nothing that is linked in the article text should also be in see also). It might just be someone who forgot to log in or whose remembered login is no longer valid. (If an editor checks the "remember me" box on the log in screen, that memory will lapse after a certain period of timeor if they clear their cookies.) If it becomes a matter of edit warring (and I see they have already reinstated two of their edits), then bring it up for attention again. GRBerry 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the guidance. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayub K Ommaya[edit]

I Dr.Muhammad Shirani made changes to the page Ayub K Ommaya and placed date of death at the same day.because I was his attending physician,since April 2008 till death.Just for your kind information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonjore (talkcontribs) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. There's nothing for administrators to do here, other than to say that we generally prefer secondary sources to confirm information rather than primary sources like yourself. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dicklyon#Psychoacoustics[edit]

This post is in all good faith, and I mean nothing to insinuate Dicklyon, but if you see in the post, he I feel that he does not make an effort to look at the reverts he makes. I hope someone will keep an eye on him.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing for administrators to do here: someone made a change, someone changed it back with an edit summary saying why, someone changed it back again, discussion ensued. This is what we call "an ideal state of affairs". ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture[edit]

I want to bring attention to the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture that degenerated from subject article into editor bashing. The editor/admin dab, who was already warned against pushing his POV, assails this editor for using term "Türkic", adopted in the UN publications, instead of his preference for semantically dissimilar "Turkic", falsely accuses this editor in sockpuppeteering, and threatens with banishment for my contributions. The editor/admin dab consistently avoids subject discussions, and instead uses forceful enforcement of his opinions without a need to back them up with any references. Instead of heeding the POV warning, and obstain from the field where he holds strong views, dab is systematically engaging in removing referenced materials, pertinent illustrations, and whole articles, impoverishing WP in Türkic-related class of subjects, and aggressively discouraging contributing editors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefact (talkcontribs)

This has been raised below. Hopefully dating this sig will prompt archiving. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Multiple recreation of speedied spam page[edit]

User Trudif (talk · contribs) has created Young, Gifted and Talented for a third time, after previous versions were speedily deleted (see apparent record) on the basis that they appeared to be blatant advertising. The user has repeatedly removed {{db-spam}} notices despite repeated warnings. Would it be possible for an administrator to examine the actions of this user? I would recommend SALTing the article name(s) and reprimanding and/or blocking the user. If I have reported this in the wrong place, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a notable thing and could be sourced to multiple reliable sources - but that version of it is pure spam. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
...Which is why I deleted it before seeing this. Agree that there might be an article there, but that this ain't it. The user has been final warned, and has not edited since. I also note that the editor created both Young gifted and talented and Young, Gifted and Talented, and both should be salted if there's consensus to do so. The fact that there may be some notability has me hesitant to do so, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if this works. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone able to point me in the direction of a good article on government education programmes - this is not an area I normally write in but I'll take a stab while waiting to see if I get a reply. then as the rampant deletionist I am ZOMG! I can AFD my own article when I move it into article space! --Allemandtando (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Education in the United States is a literal Good article - may be useful? EyeSerenetalk 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks yes. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RRaunak[edit]

User:RRaunak has started editing wikipedia on July 12 using this account: User:Rnkroy and gave it up. I busted him doing suspicious activities with User:Infraud and he said that was "his friend" because they were both editing their talk pages and copying. But now, User:RRaunak is trying to get himself more popular and it seems he activated the WP:Twinkle and the WP:Friendly gadgets on his preferences. After careful observation of his contributions, he made quite a lot of mistakes by putting inappropriate CSD or tagging in established articles. I have reverted his mistakes and warned him a few times. Edits such as this: [39] [40] [41] actually shows how unexperienced he is with the tools but what is blatantly wrong is that he put a inappropriate block template as a warning on a user page. [42] What is the course of action for him? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 12:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot! He also created a bot and put the {{Bot|RRaunak}} tag. It is located at User:Corebot. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 12:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Bot" usernameblocked. Looking at the user's recent edits, it really seems as though he's enthusiastically doing everything wrong that can be done wrong (such as nominating articles for CfD). Per WP:BITE, though, I think he just needs good advice, not admin intervention at this stage. Contact me or another admin if there's excessive misuse of automated tools.  Sandstein  13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Will do immediately. He's on close watch. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle hints have failed and I'd rather avoid screaming at him, so could somebody ask him nicely to choose a less obnoxious sig block? Thanks in advance. — CharlotteWebb 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to check his two half complete portals, finish them or delete them. —[DeadEyeArrowTalkContribs] 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did CSD'd his unused portals. They were empty. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
He raises his editcount by copying other people's userpages and adding it to his userpage. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasnt been already noticed, RRaunak has selectively deleted this ANI message on his talk page: [43] --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey its in archive did you see that--
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The edit was done by you for the purpose of removing a message and making it llook like it was something else; ot for archiving. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 12:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I have noticed is that he is too eager to do major edits and play around with templates, even if he does not have any editing experience. This hoax tag was totally uncalled for:[44]. And I seriously dont know why he wanted to add the flag here: [45]. From what I feel, he is tring to experiment with designs, scripts , bots and templates without understanding the consequences first. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet he continues adding AfD templates instead of CSD templates thus giving us more work. Should any admin intervene? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel a temporary block, now matter if it seems unjustifed; may be necessary. Maybe if he hits a wall then he will take some time to think about his actions. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest restricting his access to tools until he can demonstrate that he knows what he is doing with them? --Allemandtando (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey , dont block him now.. I have given him some advices and hopefully I can help him out with the tools and our policies ... -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 12:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I support this idea... We should restrict his access to tools. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, why did user:Infraud his "friend" vandalize user:Gppande's userpage by blanking it? I feel RRaunak(roy) should atleast explain what he and his friend (now blocked indefinitely) were trying to do? Unless they do this I don't feel its very wise to pardon them.-- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Blanking my userpage was nothing but pure vandalism. He also seemed to continue his experiments on some major articles like India. Check this version of India page. Why would a good faith user try these? --gppande «talk» 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I found that.The fellow is a bastard.I know him.He stays in my nextroom.but block wont do.he made something eaero today. as told to me.even his father doesnt care him .he is 16.wanna more info?
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Even I have tried putting the India flag behind the Wikipedia logo, BUT on my Userpage. Please use the WP:SANDBOX for experimening or make a Userpage like User:RRaunak/Sandbox to try these things. Also please don't insult User:Infraud, atleast not on Wikipedia. -- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! so you already have a /Sandbox subpage. Realized this after seeing my "saved" comment (don't use the preview button much!). So you know a lot about editing and stuff and your sig is another proof to it. I suggest you should channelize this "knowledge" in improving Wikipedia, responsibly. You have the skills. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also i feel like reposting the suspected sockpuppet tag on both of his old accounts. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that he is just a school kid with lots of Enthusiasm who didnt understand the seriousness of what he is doing. He has stopped his edits now Special:Contributions/RRaunak. I am giving a last try to help him and correct him ... -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont know.. Looks like the poor boy's account is used by his 'friends' :( -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If thats the case this is a clear case of "comprimising of user account". --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should these edits be deleted (especially the second one)?  Frank  |  talk  13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw! Come on! Do you seriously believe the room-mate story???? Ive heard it before[46]! And Im sure an IPcheck will find out if this roomate may actually be the same person.--Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a case revealing real-life identity. Shall I delete that from userpage? But it will still remain in history. --gppande «talk» 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll: Should this user's monobook.js be deleted and salted? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 02:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait and watch: I am tempted to vote yes, because I was among the first to warn him about sockpuppetry but he went ahead and created a third account. He has ignored other warnings too. If TinuCherian's efforts yeild fruit, it wont be necessary. If he gets back to it within 3-4 days, blocking his access to tools(temporarily at first) will be the only option. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Deepak D'Souza, let us wait and watch. But please watch for any similar editing patterns by any new users and let me know if any. I hope RRaunak doesnt make the same mistakes again. Gpande, delete 'the stuff' from userpage. I dont really think anybody will go to you page and check history in future -- Tinu Cherian - 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i will supervise him. If he does make mistakes again, i'll contact a admin to do some restrictions. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I.P. user going on revert war[edit]

Resolved: Issue resolved for the moment via WP:PROT and WP:RBI. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted a 3RR violation for an anonymous user (currently using the I.P. address 71.100.2.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) at 11:30, 14 July 2008 (and updated it at 17:26, 14 July 2008 and again on 18:42, 14 July 2008). These reports were placed on the "to-do list", seemingly the same "to-do list" that "restore /evidence page to the Homeopathy ArbCOM case" exists on.

Since the time of those reports, the user has made it his (or her!) mission to blindly mass-revert my edits (including the restoration of BLP violations like this), along with a substantial number of edits by L0b0t. Oddly enough, L0b0t made a report to AN/I a few days ago, which was dutifully ignored in favor of more pressing matters.

While it is somewhat disheartening that the amount of cleanup this user has made a need for could have been avoided had he been issued a block, it is my hope that this situation can now be remedied. Please note that this user uses a dynamic I.P. (see 3RR board for exact addresses), so a short anon-only account-creation-enabled rangeblock would probably be in order. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He seems pleasant, I'd suggest Dispute Resolution. Beam 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I'm obviously joking. I'd endorse a rangeblock. Beam 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution without first discussing it on the article talk pages!? Whoa, let's not get irrational here! ; ) But yes, I agree with your second post. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Here are some more diffs of his latest revert-spree. Just in case there's any doubt he's still active. I have no problem with spamming AN/I with every single diff as it occurs from here on out, and in fact I plan to do so until this matter is actually dealt with. =) [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] aaaand that's the most recent campaign, more diffs will be provided as his behavior continues. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you familiar with WP:POINT? While I have little doubt that field artillery will stop a rat, I am more than a little hesitant to block 65,000 IP addresses when a sprinkling of WP:PROT and a dash of WP:RBI will do almost as good of a job, but with 99.999% less innocent causalities. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you familiar with "grain of common sense"? When a report on AN/I gets ignored due to it belonging at 3RRV, and the 3RRV gets removed due to some utterly fucking retarded beaucratic reason (it evidently "wasn't clear" to whichever admin "handled" (term used loosely) it what the I.P. was reverting to, despite four diffs, each one of them the exact same basic reversion, and the fact that checking the page history would take five minutes, tops, and that's if the admin had to read each edit summary aloud to himself in a deeply pondersome, reflective manner), and a second 3RRV gets put on the backburner for eight hours for no evident fucking reason, and a second AN/I is basically ignored (with all due respect to Mr. Beam) while later threads (such as the one immediately below this) are quickly resolved, I was just under the impression that it was due to lack of diffs! Whoever could blame me for such an innocent mistake? Playing whack-a-mole with clearly-dynamic I.P. addresses and throwing out pp-semis seems counter-productive - a /16 rangeblock, with account creation enabled, would be much better, methinks. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User Space[edit]

Resolved: User page deleted, user contacted. Beam 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP has not given me clear guidance on this, so can someone review User:Polly.White? There are two possible issues:

  1. She has given a full birthdate, which indicates she is a minor. It was her choice to put it there, but should the full birthdate be removed?
  2. The page is obviously full of misinformation about forthcoming film and tv roles. WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Romance_Kiss shows she is aparrently doing this in article space too; this is more clear-cut but in user space. What is the standard here - does it have to be true and can it be challenged?

Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies such as WP:OR don't apply in the userspace and so the user has not violated any policies by putting misinformation on teh user page. Regarding personal details however, such as date of birth, although this is not policy, I would strongly recommend the user to remove such details for the user's own safety online. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As the information is clearly either COI self-promotion or a hoax (or a mix of both) I have blanked the user page pending deletion. There is no need for this. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've deleted the page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much Theresa. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've left a note on the user's talk page. Ros0709 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it again, for the same reasons mentioned above, and left a note. Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Exiled Ambition[edit]

User:Exiled Ambition (previously known as User:Darin Fidika) seems to be unimpressed by earlier requests not to add material sourced to another wiki, or indeed by later requests. I'm inclined to block him for disruption, but instead I'll let somebody else do this (or of course argue against doing so). -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For just about a year now, I have tried to assume good faith with Exiled Ambition/Darin Fidika. I have tried to gently correct his sometimes near-unintelligible writing, and I have tried to add more source material to his undersourced articles. I have tried to suggest more books he could acquire, I have tried to suggest he change his tone and writing, I have tried many things. After the first discussion that Hoary referenced above, I thought-- hoped-- he'd listen. But all he's done since then is just continue using that other wiki, and continue to defy requests that he stop. Then there's the issue of the non-free images he keeps adding; in this argument, he keeps insisting that uploading video game pictures is not only important, it also doesn't violate copyright. I know there's Fair Use guidelines, but as far as I've seen, copyrighted images or segments of images used under Fair Use seem smaller and not as high-resolution...but I'm getting off-topic. Exiled Ambition has, for a long time now, been very difficult to work with; every time I talk to him I feel like I'm being talked down to. Hoary and I did our best to ask him to stop using Samurai Archives/Samurai Wiki, but he will not listen. We can't keep just asking him; firmer action must be taken. Thank you. -Tadakuni (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous at this very point that you allegedly state I use SamuraiWiki; such controversy has been settled by other administrators long before, and the solution is using multiple references either from respective English sources such as Sturnbull or Japanese sources in addition to Samurai Archives. If you continue to disdain and ignore the evidence that I am using a reference as highly credible as Samurai Archives, as opposed to the unreliable SamuraiWiki, you are only making the circumstances become ridiculous for everyone. I have already taken into consideration many secondary references, so it would be best to assist me in this cause if you want anything beneficial to come out of such one-sided controversy. I would appreciate it. User:Exiled Ambition July 14 2008 (EST)

Ludicrous? You created Toriyao Iwami no kami on 11 July 2008-- Samurai Wiki has [64] this article on him-- your article starts Toriyao Iwami no kami--his given name unclear--was a retainer.... Samurai Wiki's article on him starts Iwami no kami (his given name is unclear) was a senior retainer.... Can you still insist you don't use SamuraiWiki? Be honest with us.-Tadakuni (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the length of this disruption and the many pleas and warnings this editor has had over the past months, I have blocked 24 hours for disruption. Had the block log not been empty, I would have blocked for much longer (72 hours to indefinite). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. (NB while EA's block log is empty, User:Darin Fidika's is not.) In the meantime, I've deleted Toriyao Iwami no kami as a mixture of plagiarism (SamuraiWiki is copyright, not copyleft) and gibberish. -- Hoary (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Noted, these are old enough that they wouldn't have swayed me much. However, altogether, if the disruption carries on after this short block that will likely change, quickly. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I hate to butt in this way, but I'm going to up this to indefinite. Darin Fidika was blocked indefinitely and reappeared on Wikipedia evading the block. Nihonjoe and I discovered this later and ultimately decided not give him a second chance, which he has clearly squandered. Mangojuicetalk 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Given how this user responded after the block, no worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noted all this on the user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you further for your repeated attempts to make EA aware of a few simple facts -- for example, that if he objects to a block he can post a template presenting his reasoned objection, for consideration by some unrelated admin. Clearly what you were saying failed to sink in. Viewed in the light of Fidika/EA's long history, the failure comes as no surprise. Communication difficulties seem insuperable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Mangojuice's extension of the block to indefinite. This teenager is just not learning from his past, refuses to accept any sort of critique of his (this possessive is debatable given his contributions to date) work, and refuses to change anything. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes yet again[edit]

Joss Stone[edit]

Could someone smarter than I am look into this mess? I stumbled on it on NPP when I saw a snarky edit summary...then looked at the history. It appears to be an ongoing edit war over the genre of the singer. I placed 3rr warnings on both parties and reported to 3rr and they denied saying there wasn't anything going on after the warning. When they went back at it after the warning, I went back to 3rr and they cleared it saying it was settled. Well, now it appears that there is IP socking involved and I don't know where else to turn. Help? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks, to stop the edit waring. Try getting them to head to WP:DR in the meantime and let me know if it needs to be extended. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's gone beyond that now...one of 'em filed an SSP on the other Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie arghh LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

expand a range block?[edit]

Please could someone expand a range block or something, a few days ago we had Special:Contributions/93.107.68.59, now there's Special:Contributions/93.107.72.250 -his range must've changed enough for him to be free of the previous range block. The first IP from a few days ago was confirmed by Alison as User:Gold heart. Sticky Parkin 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah it's ok, I hear WMConnolley has done it, thanks WMC.:) Sticky Parkin 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious...[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the place to bring it up, but...

I seem to have picked up yet another spoof troll account. There is a new account User:Adolphin79, which was recently created (2008-07-08T12:49:09). After looking into the logs and contributions, I believe this is a sockpuppet of User:PPduo. The new account was created after I had reverted some of PPduo's vandalism at Pete Knight High School, and had given PPduo 2 warnings... The new account's only edits so far have been to the same Pete Knight High School, and 2 other articles that I had edited around the same time... Without having access to checkuser, I have no way of confirming that this new account is PPduo. But, I have a 'gut instinct' that it is, and I believe the new account was created to mock my username... Is there anyway someone with checkuser abilities could check on this for me, and possibly block the sock account for me, before he/she/it causes harm? If possible, I would then like to usurp the account as I have with my other spoof troll (I know this part of it would be an issue to take up with WP:CHU/U)... I'm asking here instead of posting a report at WP:SSP because without the checkuser I don't have any hard evidence, and I don't care if PPduo is blocked or not, I just want the spoof account taken care of... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs for use as visual aids, my revert of PPduo's vandalism, Adolphin79's creation, PPduo's contribs, Adolphin79's contribs, Piano rock, Ed Begley, Jr.... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, you don't need RFCU evidence to file an SSP. –xeno (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So should I just transclude this and file a report at SSP, cross my fingers that one day the sock gets blocked, and then after that file a report at CHU/U as I did for my first troll? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
At the moment I'm inclined to let this slide; you've presented enough evidence to convince me it's fairly likely they're the same person, but they're not doing anything that appears to be urgently and inherently abusive at this time. If they start up vandalizing, or continue to follow you from article to article, that may be actionable. As far as usurping imitators, I have to admit I don't see the point. I'd file this in the "do something if it gets worse" category, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can categories be speedy-deleted as reposted deleted content?[edit]

Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography was recently deleted as a result of this CfD. However, Conc782 (talk · contribs) has now created the essentially identical Category:Non-LGBT people in lesbian pornography and begun populating it with articles previously in the deleted category. Should this category be speedied as recreated deleted content? Kelly hi! 03:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G4 is a general CSD so it can be used on a category. MBisanz talk 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this category should not be deleted because it is different in that people like Nina Hartley who identify as LGBT are excluded from it.--Conc782 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a POV-fork'minded end run around the deletion; little doubt a 'LGBT people in lesbian pornography' category will show up soon. Delete as POINT-y, and remind the editor there's a great big internet out there, he can find all the lesbian porno he wants out there, and leave WP behind. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Taking this one to CfD to better gauge consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jordanson[edit]

I tagged an article he created for Speedy Deletion, as I didn't think the person was notable enough for an article. Georgi Karakanov. He reapetedly removed the tag and continued editing without placing hangon template. I warned him twice, and he refuses to stop.--Islaammaged126 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to excuse his incorrect removal of the template, but the article is about a footballer playing for a team at the highest level in the nation, which is an assertion of notability. It's not a CSD candidate. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I didn't know that. Please excuse me wasting your time :(.
WP:ATHLETE contains the relevant guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to BBC, ITV programme and related biography articles[edit]

An anonymous editor (various IPs starting 76.* and 75.*, for example: 76.216.20.17 (talk · contribs), 76.216.21.205 (talk · contribs), 76.238.138.35 (talk · contribs), 75.36.202.202 (talk · contribs), 75.36.201.24 (talk · contribs)) has been making multiple changes over the last couple of weeks to a number of broadcasting related articles, for example: BBC News at Ten, BBC Nine O'Clock News, ITV Lunchtime News, ITV Evening News, Trevor McDonald, Alastair Stewart, and others. These appear to be lots of minor changes or addition of un-sourced and poorly written comments. These edits never have edit summaries and as their IP keeps changing it is difficult to discuss anything with them; no response has been made to requests on article talk pages. Each IP makes about a dozen edits (usually confined to one evening) before it changes. Can anything can be done to prevent these edits from happening?

I've been reverting ones that appear to be definitely vandalism, as have several other editors, but the anon editor seems insistent on making changes. If these edits are confirmed as vandalism, it would seem to be appropriate to semi-protect some of the articles in question. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not really a heavy vandalism load. I would also note edits from the 78.* range making suspicious changes to dates. We don't block large IP ranges except in extreme emergencies, and we normally don't s-protect articles unless they are being vandalized many times a day. Maybe another admin will be willing to s-protect the articles, but I don't see the need yet. -- Donald Albury 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand your argument, but I guess that the anon IP wins then, because I haven't got the time to spend half an hour every day reverting the edits from a changing IP who is unavailable and unwilling to enter into any constructive discussion about their edits. Whereas he or she appears to have plenty of spare time to make these edits every day. Perhaps someone with the "mop & bucket" could sort this out? I've lost track of what the last "good" text for these articles was anyway. This is not the first instance of an anon IP appearing to "win" a dispute simply because they refuse to discuss edits and cannot be blocked. In my mind, it forms a good argument for preventing anon IPs from editing (although I know that's a big discussion which has been done to death elsewhere). Regards. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As you known, the community feels that the value of allowing people to edit without having to log in outweighs the vandalism performed by anon IPs. If vandals are IP hopping, we can't do much to block them, as blocking large ranges of IPs causes unacceptable disruption to good-faith IP contributors. It is also consensus that we don't protect articles unless the vandalism load has become heavy (generally, that means at least several times a day on a regular basis), or there are important concerns about attacks on living persons. I recognize the problem you cite; I have a number of seldom visited pages on my watchlist, and I often seem to be the only one to notice vandalism on them, but giving anon IP vandals their opening is the price we pay for having an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which is the premise under which Wikipedia was founded). -- Donald Albury 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Santhosh George Kulangara and Saint Thomas Christians[edit]

Just wanted to bring the attention to edit wars seen on Santhosh George Kulangara . See see this -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits since June 20? Certainly not any edit war now. What were you looking for us to do? -- Donald Albury 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The last edit was today. Not a daily edit war. Looks like two established editors have moved to IP address reverting each others' edits. Another case in Saint Thomas Christians . See this -- Tinu Cherian - 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in either article that merits admin intervention. For content disputes, you should first try to discuss the issues on the article talk pages. If that doesn't work, try soliciting input from other editors by posting to the projects listed on the talk page. In the case of Santhosh George Kulangara, if you feel that the policy on biographies of living persons is being violated, you can list the article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Issues that cannot be resolved on the talk pages should be taken to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:El_C[edit]

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

El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Can a sysop please sanction this one for being disruptive?

This so-called admin continues to assume ownership of the WQA page (see page-history-here). The entire purpose of that page is to gain third party input, and we don't archive disputes just because one admin thinks it's okay. We have a clear history of trying to reasonably resolve disputes within the minds of the parties, and if one third party disagrees with another in how it's being handled, we don't close it. Non-sysops have been handling these disputes reasonably in the recent past.

Yet, User:El_C has persistently been trying to archive disputes prematurely (IMO), edit-warring on the page, and using his position as an administrator to state "I am more than qualified to handle those" [66] - that has nothing to do with it. He has also been removing comments from other people's talk pages.

Further to this, he has also had a recent record for making a smear campaign against me personally on WP:AN. I wouldn't be surprised the only reason he's come there in the last day or 2 is to be disruptive, knowing my active participation there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that he's been using revert-warring as a technique, and despite my reopening of a WQA report that I'd closed, he continually recloses it. [67] [68] Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe El C mentioned that dispute resolution was taking place elsewhere regarding the same issue or person, which if I understand it correctly means there's no point in doubling up reports. Why not just let it be archived and dealt with elsewhere? SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He failed to acknowledge certain points relevant to the dispute (imo), and I have been personally engaging with one of the parties to try to have it reasonably resolved. It wasn't resolved. (I'm not talking about the WQA report where a User-conduct RFC was occurring - I agreed with the closure of that one and reformatted it. I'm talking about the other WQA complaints.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm experienced enough to deal with those reports. I am already engaged with them at the respective pages, so there was no reason for Ncmvocalist to unarchive them. Especially seeing our somewhat negative interaction, where he termed my comments "disruptive trolling" and now goes on to mischaracterize as a smear campaign (i.e. all the more reason not to overturn my reports). El_C 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would you term your comments? No, what would a third party term those vindictive comments? It's all the more reason you stay away and stop trying to cause trouble. How often have you been handling WQA reports btw? Can someone please look into the history, even prior to July 1? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing "(Undid revision 226170173 by El C (talk)) (undo)" on the history, and a less-than-collegial comment or two on ElC's talk. I'm not seeing any need for this to be brought here, as what adminstrator-ly action is required? - brenneman 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no consensus to close, you don't just close by pointing out you have had a mop for a while. That has no relevance to the handling of WQA during WP:DR. He needs to cease being disruptive, and stop assuming ownership of the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"I wouldn't be surprised the only reason he's come there in the last day or 2 is to be disruptive, knowing my active participation there"

Bad faith assumption. My last edit to WQA before yesterday was on July 1. I've been away from Wikipedia, from July 1 till yesterday. El_C 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
See reply above - it's hard to assume good faith when you make comments like which you did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Also looking at that diff, you clearly see there are 3 third party views being expressed - we've never prematurely closed them when 1 does not agree with another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have those reports under control, just go do something else, unrelated to myself. El_C 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Given contributions like this, I don't think so. You do not own the page, and the dispute is not resolved (and therefore it should not be closed in