Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive491

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

Noticeboard archives


Name change for West Paterson, New Jersey[edit]

On November 4, 2008, a ballot initiative to change the name of West Paterson, New Jersey to Woodland Park, New Jersey received more yes than no votes and many articles reported that the measure had passed. In response, a number of editors had changed the title of the article and changed the name within the article. After further review, a number of editors agreed that there were circumstances that argued that the name change was not yet official and that the status quo ante should be maintained. This discussion took place on user talk pages and was summarized at the article's talk page. User:Woodlandpark has made a series of edits to effect the name change to Woodland Park. I have tried to explain the issue within the article and on the talk page to little avail. User:Woodlandpark has argued that "The name change is official...time to let it go and move on" (here) and that "there are no issues except for people not liking the new name" (here), neither of which are particularly strong arguments. He most recently appealed to " its on the borough's own website, the name is changed." (see here), thoush a review of the borough's own web site shows that for Election 2008 "UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (11:12 pm, Nov. 4)" for "Change Name to “Woodland Park”" were "Yes – 2,125, No – 2,094". Underneath, the site notes that "Results include Absentees. 101 Provisional ballots not counted when above results were tallied." The Borough does not consider the results official. A source provided in the article from The Record shows that the results are not official, that it may still take another week and that the borough has to determine when the name change will take effect. User:Woodlandpark's most recent edits (see here) not only changed the name, but removed the source demonstrating that the name change has not taken effect and replaced it with the statement that "The name change is now official." While I believe that my case is justified, I am already on the cusp of a potential WP:3RR issue and will not make further edits without further guidance. While User:Woodlandpark has already violated WP:3RR, I believe that he is a new user who believes that he is doing the correct thing and that he believes he is acting in good faith. Any assistance in this issue will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Kbdank71 already took care of a little holiday in Woodlank Park West Paterson. -t BMW c- 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Disregarding the issue of the block, the article remains with User:Woodlandpark's edits unchanged, with the name change to "Woodland Park" as if it were in effect. Please review the sources at issue to ensure that the change is justified before restoring the status quo ante. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The quick checks I did show that it's not yet official, so I reverted. -t BMW c- 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all involved, especially Kbadnk71 and Bwilkins, for the prompt intervention. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Idenitifying data for a child[edit]

Resolved: Removed, note left. Black Kite 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashfreak261 needs deleted, with a nice explanation as to why children shouldn't give out their full name, city, and age.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The user is 13. I believe we only remove information like that for subjects under the age of 13. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I've removed them and left him a cheery note. Better safe than sorry. Black Kite 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
13? Not saying you're wrong, but where do you get that from?—Kww(talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - for example, my daughter's 12, but no way would I let her leave her details on-wiki until she's quite a bit older - certainly not 13. Black Kite 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Tiptoety talk 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was getting the 13 thing from Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, as I am guessing that that is the most applicable law, have seen that used here before, and as 13 certainly seems to be the age when websites start accepting people without parental consent. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the relevant details have been oversighted. --Deskana (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[edit]

. . . . points here. [1]. Which is cute. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that can't be right. Everybody knows that Wikipedia is Communism. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to be exact, it points to Sarah Palin, which sends a slightly different message. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Should I be worried about loggin in on that website? --CyclePat (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I wonder who owns it. According to WHOIS the owner id appears to be blocked by the provider. I wonder who would get sued in that case? --CyclePat (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
[ec]It shows me as already logged in when I go to it. That said, it doesn't just redirect, because that giant "donate now" banner shows up- which I have turned off in my preferences. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) If people want to point domain names to silly places, they're welcome to - free advertising for Wikipedia. Maybe Sarah Palin would worry about this, but I can't see why we should. ~ mazca t|c 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... L'Aquatique[talk] 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO a proper action would be to notify Sarah Palin, so that she may demand the take-down. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, and replied by their mailbot. `'Míkka>t 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Depends where is hosted, of course ... European servers tend to ignore DMCA requests (a la PirateBay) ... Black Kite 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I discovered this care of the God fearin' parody lovin' folk over at the Landover Baptist Church Forums. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'll just drive downtown and see if she's in her office. "Sarah, guess what? leads to your biography!" She's probably not in her office though. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor keeps removing AFD notice from article[edit]

Resolved: Speedied CSD#G4; AfD to be closed likewise --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restore the AFD notice on the article Shadow Yamato X three times within the last few hours. The first two times, the AFD notice was removed by an IP editor[2][3] and then by the article's creator, Mvdgo (talk · contribs).[4] The artilce has already been deleted though a previous AFD discussion as a hoax. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise! The website claimed as a source doesn't exist either. Ho hum. All in a day's work. --Rodhullandemu 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I MfD's his user page since it's a copy of the article. This guy should just be indef'd. JuJube (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's starting to look like a case of Whac-A-Mole. --Farix (Talk) 01:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the IP editor that kept removing the AFD notices from the original article is within the same range as the single IP edit on Mvdgo's user page. This could very well be the same editor. --Farix (Talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


A new Atdm (talk · contribs) persistently adds an essayish piece to the page Glasnost and ignores warnings in the talk page. While formally he does not violate the 3RR rule, despite restoring after being reverted by several other editors, I feel that it is time to issue a preventive block, (because I suspect he is not aware of talk pages), so that he takes time and reads the rules and policies. I cannot do it myself, since I am involved in editing of this article. `'Míkka>t 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps try an actual discussion with him instead of just repeatedly throwing templates. Saying look at WP:V, WP:OR and WP:CITE and expecting him to understand what's wrong isn't going to work. I've warned him with an explanation. I'm doubtful he will care but if not, I'll block him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with cite web template[edit]

There is a problem with the {{cite web}} template. The accessdate= section is not displaying dates properly. Entering accessdate=2008-11-14 should display "Retrieved on 14 November 2008" but instead it is just displaying as 2008-11-14, which looks terrible. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed at Template_talk:Cite_web#Arbitrary_date_format_change. There were some changes to the template overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Nothing to see here... L'Aquatique[talk] 08:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going offline in a sec, so I don't have the time to really dig into this too thoroughly, but this user's Log shows some very strange activity. Marking obvious speedy pages as patrolled, and creating a slew of new accounts, which he then greets as though they're someone else. Can y'all please take a look? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 07:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He's the one listing them for deletion. It makes sense to mark them patrolled so nobody else wastes their time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That still leaves the accounts.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Request an account? I'll shoot an mention of this though.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say resolved, Skunkboy has an account there.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's also on his userpage (in icon form). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence and User:Mercenary2k[edit]

Resolved: Advice given (seek DR). Nothing for admins to do. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried engaging this user in constructive editing on MANY occasions, both on their talk page and on the Discussion page of the article in question. They have continually deleted my comments, ignored attempts at discussion, and reverted to their "own" version of the article, citing "removing vandalism" repeatedly. I have exhausted my patience, and am requesting administrator action on this article. I am open to suggestions.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user, on their talk page, of this discussion. It will probably be deleted, as all my entries on their talk page have been.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have warned against edit-warring on both CSHunt68, Mercenary2k and the related IP address. Even though you have not met the 3RR threshold, reversion after reversion after reversion ad nauseaum is not permitted. The changes by Mercenary are "bold", and yes need references. Why not discuss the changes and how to properly reference them before simply reverting. Mercenary does need to understand WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF -t BMW c- 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"Why not discuss the changes"? I have. Repeatedly. "The changes" are mine, not Mercenary's. He feels the article was (is) his, and disliked the BOLD changes _I_ made. I remain open for suggestions.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note the most recent revert on the article by Mercenary2k, with the "revert vandalism" tag, and the following comment on the discussion page: "CSHunt68 stop your vandalism. I know you are an Indian in disguise trying to undermine this article. Get a life. All the missions and rest of your reverts have proper citations. Dont know why you are so obsessed with this article." Also note the deletion of the edit-warring warning from Mercenary2k's user page. ... I await suggestions. If none are forthcoming from administrators, I will revert to the version I have worked on.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted Mercenary2k's talk page to the version showing him the edit-warring warning, and with my notice of this discussion on WP:ANI. He still has not posted constructively on the article talk page (nor here, nor on his talk page). If nothing is accomplished by morning (eight hours, my time), I will revert the article to remove this user's unwarranted edits.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to excessive edit war (16 reverts in the last 6 days), I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your disputes in the article talk page. Thank oyu. --Ragib (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above? Sorry, but your "solution" is totally useless. Please see the article talk page for more. Another solution is required.CSHunt68 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like it to be clear to and from the administrators. If I ask for discussion on the article talk page, and get no response for a week (as it so happens, this is the length of the article protection), am I free to make BOLD changes to this article? If so, and my changes are reverted without discussion, am I free to revert? Must I post in the article talk space and wait (probably in vain) again? Am I going to be warned about edit wars if I revert again? Is the article going to be protected if I ask for changes, get none, and revert - and am reverted back, ad infinitum? Do you see a pattern? ... Because this is what has already happened. I asked for talk. I got none. I posted desired changes, and waited a week for discussion. I got none. I made changes. I was reverted. ... PLEASE OFFER CONSTRUCTIVE ASSISTANCE, or none at all. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues. Administrators are not empowered to step in to blow a whistle between editors who disagree. We can, however, advise, and our advice in this case is that you attempt to talk to the other editor calmly and rationally (this means not using templates and not using the undo function). If the other editor fails to respond, dispute resolution facilities are available and can be tried. Only after dispute resolution steps have been taken and an editor remains unresponsive can administrators then step in. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a content dispute, and is better resolved via discussion in the talk page of the article. The page has been protected to stop the ongoing revert war. Please take this 1 week to discuss your differences in a calm, logical manner. --Ragib (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Redvers, I HAVE attempted to talk to the other editor calmly and rationally. I did not, until VERY recently, use any warning templates on his talk page. At one point, BEFORE I implemented my proposed edits, I gave him a week to respond (which, based on his history of ignoring me, insulting me, and deleting my comments) was EXTREMELY generous. When he didn't respond AT ALL, I made BOLD changes, as per Wikipedia policy. He has done NOTHING but revert these edits, ignore me on the article talk space, and delete my comments on his talk page. He has since deleted the comments of other ADMINISTRATORS from his talk page. I am asking for available facilities which can be tried, since the other editor has ALREADY FAILED to respond.
Ragib, I have already tried this. There is NEVER any cogent response other than "reverting vandalism - stop editing this article", as should be apparent from the relevant talk pages. Please suggest something else. Thank you.
Once again, I would like these questions answered: "If I ask for discussion on the article talk page, and get no response for a week (as it so happens, this is the length of the article protection), am I free to make BOLD changes to this article? If so, and my changes are reverted without discussion, am I free to revert? Must I post in the article talk space and wait (probably in vain) again? Am I going to be warned about edit wars if I revert again? Is the article going to be protected if I ask for changes, get none, and revert - and am reverted back, ad infinitum?" It is no response AT ALL, Ragib, to say that if this happens you will just protect the page for a longer period. NONE, AT ALL.
That this is the case will be evidenced by your monitoring the talk page of the article for the next week.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is third on the left down the hall. Go there. We cannot help you except for protecting the page in question. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is going to end up in arbitration, I guess. Either one of you could have, perfectly simply, answered the questions I posted, rather than just read from the script. *shrug*CSHunt68 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom won't even consider the case until you have proceeded through dispute resolution. Which you're not doing, in favour of moaning here. It's up to you to do something: admins are not your mummy and won't come running to sort out a problem between you and the big kids. Self help. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks, Dad. I'll take my chances elsewhere. Consider this discussion closed.CSHunt68 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, was this maybe a little WP:BITEy? -t BMW c- 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed portions of the Talk page for the article, I did note that the comment related to being an "Indian in disguise" and being "intent on vandalism" was well beyond incivility (ie racist). Because of the related edit-warring on this page, and overall animosity, I have put a level 3 incivility warning on Mercenary2k. Feel free to disagree. -t BMW c- 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem - Maritime disasters[edit]

Help! Article Maritime disasters. There is an IP address there, and now I cannot make changes and record the history. Try it yourself! The article seems to have been corrupted. Can you remove the IP address entry? Wallie (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was able to undo the edit just fine... --Tarage (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look under the history button. Your name "Tarage" is not there. That is the main problem. History is not being recorded. Wallie (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but why is there a wallie and wallie1 on that article history..--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought there may be a problem with user wallie (my id). I put up a second id as wallie1 to see if that had the same problem - it did! Wallie (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this before the cut-n-paste move was fixed, or after? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems resolved. I just made a spacing edit and reverted it. Is there a further problem? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked indefinitely. AdjustShift (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jazzmand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has moved YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s user and talkpage to I am an Asshole. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I've moved the page back to where it should be (I never knew that I could move a page back until now) but Jazzmand should be dealt with for the personal attack which was also vandalism and disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked. Already blocked once for vandalism-only and was unblocked under a promise to start discussing. Moving people's user pages like that is beyond the pale (besides, it's not like his discussions at Talk:Sanskrit were remotely civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree and thanks for the reply. I support the Indefinite block. I've listed I am an Asshole‎ and it's talk page up for speedy deletion. This may sound a little bitchy but could someone fix the deletion log? As "and the only contributor was Bidgee" sounds as if I created the page which I didn't (Just happened that my name was the only one listed even though it was created by the blocked editor.). Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Good block. It was a vandalism-only account. AdjustShift (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's a way to fix the deletion log. Perhaps this is a good time to remind adminstrators making log entries (deletion, undeletion, blocking, etc.) that the templated reasons may not be what you want to appear in the permanent record? In this specific instance, templated reason G6 with an additional comment "reverting page-move vandalism" would probably have been the best option on the part of the admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed Acorn AN/I endlessly being reopened[edit]

Further upthread you'll find a discussion involving a bunch of socks who had been editing at The socks got indefed, admin closed the discussion. Then Rebroad happened along, and reopened the closed discussion to ask questions/complain. Admin reclosed. Rebroad reopened. Admin re-closed. Now, along comes Noroton an oft-blocked edit warrior (over the same topics that led to the blocking of the Acorn sock army) who says he returned to wikipedia after recieving "emails" about this matter. He reopened. I reclosed and asked him not to do it again on his talk page. He reopened. I reclosed again, asked him again not to do so on his talk page. He's now accused me of edit warring. I did leave Noroton's own new text alone, but outside the previously closed and resolved discussion. I'm uncertain that this is appropriate, but don't much care. I hope an admin can cool this down. I guess the adminstrative sanction i'm seeking is for Noroton to be told to let closed AN/I's lie, and that rather than reopening to soapbox over this or that, he should open new reports (or appeals of his friends bans) by the appropriate channels. Thanks and sorry for the drama.Bali ultimate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Just because one person closes it doesn't mean everyone feels the issue is done. Closed or otherwise the thread will be archived after a day of inactivity if you think they're trolling don't respond to them. They're under no obligation though to start a new section for a related issue when one is here just because someone felt the need to arbitrarily close a discussion. They say it takes 2 to tango and letting them make their statements and letting the thread drift in to obscurity would have been far less drama inducing.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
an oft-blocked edit warrior This is the second time on this page that Bali ultimate has wrongly characterized another editor as "often" having done something (previously Bali attacked Rebroad: This user rebroad has an extensive history of blocks for socking and ban evasion -- 01:35, 13 November 2008). I was blocked twice for the same, single set of actions last month. Prior to that I hadn't been blocked in a year. Rather than characterizing me as an "oft-blocked edit warrior" who is "reopening to soapbox", why can't Bali just let me state my concerns without delivering a personal attack (WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.) against me? Bali ultimate also removed a comment of mine when Bali reverted [5]. It should be restored. Now I'd rather address the actual subject up above. -- Noroton (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Noroton's block log is here: [[6]]

The problem Crossmr is this user has returned to canvass on behalf of five banned socks (or at least it seems that way. he says he received emails notifying him of this issue, though he doesn't explicitly say from whom). He is taking much the same tone as the five banned socks (who wasted hundreds of hours, at least, of editor time). His return to wikipedia after a months absence closely followed the indef-banning of a sixth sock, ImNotObama, who came to canvass on behalf of the 5 socks in question shortly after their accounts were blocked. ImNotObama was found to probably be a sock of the puppetmaster for the original 5, BryanFromPalatine who has accumulated an impressive list of confirmed socks over his long career. [[7]] At any rate i've said my piece. Wikipedia's tolerance is admirable, but it often feels a bit much.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance is a bit much, too. "Canvass" has a specific meaning related to WP:CANVASS. Perhaps Bali could state just where I canvassed against policy -- or even canvassed at all. Nor have I disagreed with all the blocks of the accused socks. He is taking much the same tone as the five banned socks -- is there any disagreement that Bali finds acceptable? What are we on, now, the third, fourth, fifth personal attack against me by Bali in the last few hours? This is what I get for politely bringing up sincere, cogent concerns and questions. -- Noroton (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
One more thing as colombo used to say. If one wants to understand the traditional tone of Noroton, just go to his edit history [[8]] and look at his edit summaries. It's funny, these editors seem to want to make it about the other editors when on article talk pages, and make it about the content when on AN/I.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack #6. I'll stop counting, now. What do Bali ultimate's attacks have to do with my point? Or with anything? My "traditional tone" can be found in my 35,000+ edits, not in the last dozen prior to my block. Trying to make me lose my temper again, Bali? Not gonna work. -- Noroton (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Your record speaks for itself. I find the AN/I discussion of you from October to be instructive. Anyone interested click and scroll down to "Noroton again." (yes, i'm crap at the coding). [[9]]. I'll speak plainly. I believe you've been given far too much rope as it is. I don't know if you're a sock/a friend of the socks/or just an oddly single-minded and disruptive person. But you've as much as said you came here because you got email from the puppetmaster and I'm firmly convinced your presence here (especially having read that october discussion about you) is to advance some disruptive game-playing agenda or other, not to edit articles in a productive manner.
Regardless Bali, what you need to take away with this is don't edit war over closing discussions. Far too many people want to end a discussion when they think its done and not when its actually done. Edit warring over it only serves to create drama. The drama would have been far less had you not done that. As well I find the characterization of Norton as an "oft blocked" edit warrior to be false, and a borderline personal attack. I would suggest you clean up your own language before you continue.--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the discussion is over and has become a troll magnet. Noroton is disrupting again. It would be best if a respected neutral administrator closed it and told everyone to go home.Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Closing it doesn't prevent anyone from posting in the section, they can post outside of the closed text. I've seen closed sections in the middle of discussions before. If you want it to die, let it do s. Edit warring over it doesn't make anyone "right".--Crossmr (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Bali needs some time out in the time out room. He has attacked me several times in the last two days. I warned him on his talk page and he erased them . He makes assumptions of bad faith everywhere and mendiciuosly sees sock puppets everywhere ( has accused me of being one of BFP. He has bee asked by other users to chill out (Even wikidemon has asked him) but he persists. I'll collect the diffs if an Amin would be willing to view them.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
if you can provide the diffs for a coles notes version that'd be good.--Crossmr (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever Bali's exuberance and rate of false positives in dealing with the sock swarm it is not a current issue that would need administrative attention. There were socks everywhere, and now we have threads here defending them after they are blocked. In an atmosphere without socks, there is no sign Bali would have a problem at all. Wikidemon (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You know in my old age I sometimes have trouble reading wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but perhaps you could show the place where it outlines that particular exception? You build a good community all the time, not just when it suits you. If he can't operate appropriately in an atmosphere of socks then he shouldn't be here. On wikipedia there will always be socks. That's like excusing his reckless driving because he doesn't drive well in sunshine...--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If someone has a complaint or report to make on me, I invite them to please make it and not soapbox here or anywhere else (if my conduct has been bad, that would not serve to forgive other people's conduct.) I'll be happy to respond to any charges against me in the appropriate place. I won't feed the trolls on this thread again.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

← I'm going to suggest closing this thread as unproductive. Noroton is within his rights to ask for further review, and he did so in an appropriate manner. MastCell Talk 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. My opinion( not necessarily MC's): This has been another abuse of the ANI because of disagreements that originally stemmed form content questions. The only conduct I can see that you would have any objection to is that people wanted you to stop personally attacking them , Bali, and we ceratinly don't ask anyone's "forgiveness" for your lasck of good faith assumptions18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful typographical changes?[edit]

Would someone please review the edits of User:Leandrod, who's been replacing the standard apostrophe (') with what the editor says is the "proper" apostrophe (’). Unfortunately, once this is done, words in which he has replaced the apostrophe cannot be found by normal browser search functions. For instance, in this version of the article on The Magnificent Ambersons (film), a search for the word "can't", which is in the second paragraph of the "Plot" section, comes up empty. (Leandrod's remark to me that "can't" should be avoided in an encyclopedia article is true, but irrelevant to the problem here), as does a search for "mama's" (second paragraph of "Plot") "George's" (last graf of "Plot") and "RKO's" (first graf of "Production").

Whatever the theoretical merits of the change Leandrod is making may be, clearly it is not helpful to make a conversion which puts ordinary words outside the reach of regular browser search functions. (I checked this under both IE and Firefox.) The changes, which seem extensive, should probably be reverted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, WP:MOS says: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended." (although it's ugly.) Fut.Perf. 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Y'all are going to have your work cut out for you, as he's on a crusade of some kind. He's also been on here since 2002, so he should know better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on the user's page pointing him to the manual of style. AniMate 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(out) I restored this from the archive, as the editor, User:Leandrod, has replied, denying that the MoS calls for straight apostrophes, refusing to revert his changes, and also using non-Roman letters (for instance, Anglo-Saxon thorn) in his responses, making them extremely difficult to read. In total, this behavior seems both WP:POINTy and potentially disruptive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree. This seems like someone who has some personal literary issues they're trying to work out on wikipedia and this isn't the place for it.--Crossmr (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur that his behavior is disruptive, and needs to stop. Editing single-mindedly like this, in a way that is against long-standing conventions should not 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
His comments suggest he might stop any new changes, but that he won't bother to undo the damage he's already done. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Insults and threats on talkpage[edit]

I was recently the recipient of the following message on my talk page:

Dear Sir. I wish to express to you my extreme distaste at your person, and to verbalise the shame I feel to call you a fellow. What it comes down to is that a genuinely decent, hard-working, constructive contributor and a good man has left our numbers, and you could have prevented it merely by adopting a half-way reasonable attitude. Congratulations, for you have incurred my considerable displeasure, and I shall see you removed. You, sir, have been forewarned. Good day. DBD 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of his opinions of me, this commentary is personally insulting and contains evident threats against me. I hope this will incur the appropriate reprimand. --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned by this behaviour, however as I understand it he is a little upset regarding the loss of a friend from the project. Yet that does not warrant these comments and cannot be used as an excuse. He is establishing a vendetta against G2 which will, in irony, see any efforts to "remove" G2 fail...perhaps its all hysteria- but he needs to be warned. Gavin (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, yep. I left a friendly notice on his talk page, another less involved admin may want to leave something a little more substantial. L'Aquatique[talk] 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never understood these "I'll see you that you be blocked!" threats. Now, I admit, I have in the past gotten so pissed off about another user's actions that I was determine to see them blocked even if it meant a lot of hassle for me, e.g. filling out a 3RR report which, let's face it, is a pain in the ass. But actions speak louder than words. I have never said to someone "I'ma get you blocked!", and I'm so glad I haven't. In cases where the user is behaving in a way that will result in them being blocked, I just report them and they are blocked, and that gives me all the satisfaction I need. ::::And in a couple of cases, I've checked contribs but seen that, despite the conflict with me, the user in question had no questionable behavior, and in fact in one case that eventually led me to decide my initial impression of that user had been all wrong. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if I threatened to "have him blocked"!!
Nah. No matter how pissed you are, don't threaten to have someone blocked, because there's only two outcomes: They get blocked, in which case you've got your "satisfaction" anyway; or they don't get blocked, in which case you look like a tool. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the threat wasn't a smart move. Particularly as it spoiled the effect of a well worded reaction to G2's recent behaviour. It can't be excused, and I hope that the author will offer an apology. As it happens he didn't need to "have him blocked", because FutPerf was already onto G2, and has blocked him for 3 weeks for stalking.
Having said that, whilst it can't be excused, it can be understood. G2 is like a kid poking a cat just slightly for many hours on end. Eventually the cat turns round and scratches, and the kid feigns innocence.
Goading people into attacking, then reporting them with righteous indignation is a game that G2 plays, and it is a game that is losing us editors. Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, G2bambino has left Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax sorority[edit]


Could someone look into this hoax sorority and the user who created it. There's also some defamatory content, but I don't want to post it here. I also put it up for speedy deletion as nonsense (would vandalism have been better)? Iota alpha pi ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • If it's a hoax, it stretches to Google Books as well ([10]). I've removed the speedy tag (note that speedy deletion tags shouldn't be used for hoaxes anyway). Black Kite 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(not an admin) A quick-and-dirty google search turns up resources that seem to indicate this is a genuine, now-defunct sorority ([[11]] and [[12]], for instance). The page is definitely not nonsense, nor does it appear to be blatant vandalism. I also do not see any anti-Semitic content, with the possible mind-twister of "in the early 20th century, they used the initials JAP, which now are used to mean a (mild?) slur". keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Sorry about my mistake and thank you for investigating. I hope you can understand why I reached the conclusion that I did. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a note about the text that threw me so others won't be similarly misled. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to comment. Thanks again for checking it out.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Resolved: anon-blocked one month --Rodhullandemu 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) posting in my name: [13]; [14]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


R12056 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - removing links form my user page, and adding {{cleanup}} to it repeatedly, after being warned on talk page not to do so; seems to have spent the last hour removing red links from articles, and user sigs from talk pages, too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing since the last warning. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Child's personal data[edit]


User:Q8love needs deleted with a nice explanation. 12-year-old this time, so no controversy as to whether it qualifies.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. — Dan | talk 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The return of User:Infoart[edit]

The Saatchi Gallery and Charles Saatchi pages have been the subject of much attempts to rewrite them in a more favourable light, generally lead by User:Infoart. Yesterday he attempted to do the same under a sockpuppet account, User:Sharpen16 which was quickly banned. He's uploaded a bunch of images, all apparently GFDL licensed by the Saatchi Gallery (which is nice). However both as the banned user Sharpen16 on that talk page and as InfoArt on Talk:Saatchi_Gallery he seems to insist that an "official Wiki representative" contact him to make changes to the page. Given that, as InfoArt he waved the legal wand around a little before it would be remiss of me to not flag that he appears to be wanting to control edits again, and is yet again making COI edits and removing content critical of the gallery. --Blowdart | talk 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to contact Cary Bass, as I understand he was very recently dealing with a senior staff member of the Gallery and may have a more detailed understanding of the standing of Infoart in relation to the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the pointer. --Blowdart | talk 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to this as far as any special handling. As I told them, they're welcome to edit the page so long as their edits conform to Wikipedia policies. They don't have any special ownership of the page, nor does the Wikimedia Foundation have any special interest in the page for any legal reasons. Bastique demandez 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
After reading the talk page, I want to point out that there is no such thing as "an offical Wiki representative." They don't want the Foundation, as we have no authority over content. If someone wants to be helpful and contact them by phone, that's fine. There are a few editors who are willing to do that. Bastique demandez 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I did try to explain that. On the sockpuppet page as well *shrug* Fair enough, I wouldn't get involved either. If someone gives me a shiny badge that says "ofishul" I wonder if that would work? --Blowdart | talk 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to contact the Gallery, be prepared to deal with "legalese language"... I tried and very quickly directed them to OFFICE - where they apparently were handled by Cary Bass (hence my "understanding"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

←As an uninvolved admin that has sat back and watched all this unfold, I am sick of seeing this and would support an indef block as a disruptive SPA and a community ban because they clearly do not intend to abide by our policies or edit in good faith. -MBK004 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has been going on for over two years with a number of accounts all trying to achieve the same aim. See Talk:Saatchi_Gallery/Archive_1 and AN/I discussion. The ban should be applied to any new editors that make the same kind of blatantly promotional edits. Ty 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this meet with support, or are there any other suggestions? Ty 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I support an indef block as well. He knows that there is no such thing as a representative and is likely just pushing for us to create some way for him to bully a single individual to get what he wants. Also, someone needs to check his image uploads as things like Image:SaatchiGallerySensation2.jpg are probably not GFDL. That makes me concerned about all his image uploads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all that. Perhaps we could ban them from the articles but allow them to contribute to the talk pages, so long as they don't try to take over, which is clearly a risk. They are uploading images under the GFDL, which is great in principle, but I don't think we have any bulletproof proof that the images are being licenced by somebody who has standing to do so. They should put the images on a section of their website with a GFDL licence declaration. That way we could use the ones we want without risk. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else want to comment? -MBK004 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya and insulting comments[edit]

Could someone pls comment on User:Sarvagnya's comments during my interaction with him today. Here it is, last paragraph. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks.

It is not an isolated incident. Pls see this edit summary. rm unsourced bullcrap.. cite the nonsense if you want to bring it back.

He was also recently warned by User:Hersfold during his interaction with User:Fowler&fowler. Please see here.

I would appreciate some input on this. It just makes working with him difficult. Thanks a lot. Docku: What up? 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm what? Someone said my name (or something close to it; I fixed the link above. User:Hersford is in fact one of my doppelgangers.)
For better context, the "bullcrap" edit summary was partially what led to the previous block I placed. I would note that the incivility in edit summaries does appear to have slacked off. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry for the typo. Docku: What up? 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The editor has a long history of harassment, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. He was warned about incivility earlier this year due to the long term disruption he has caused since 2006/2007, and Nishkid64 made an assurance at the time that future instances would result in blocks. I'm troubled by the fact that a warning about incivility in edit summaries did not deter him from incivility in general. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Troubling revelations of consensus on the Barak Obama talk page for other presidents' pages[edit]

Recently there was a discusion on the Talk:Barack Obama page on what the name should be in the information box. Somehow the name Barak Hussein Obama was all of a sudden a controversial issue when it came to wikipedia. I will not retransmit the entire argument, but I will say that part of the argument was that the Obama page needed to be in line with WP:MOS and with the other presidents pages. Some editors, whether in good faith or bad, decided to begin changing the info boxes of some of the other recent presidents in order to proove a point. Here at Ronald Reagan [[15]][[16]], on Bill Clinton[[17]][[18]] at George W. Bush[[19]] and others, if anyone cares to look. The deletion of the middle name on the Richard Nixon page is telling [[20]][[21]][[22]]. Notice that one of the edits states that consensus was formed. Where? Not on the Nixon page, but on the Obama page. The name Richard Milhous Nixon also seems to have survived two years of consensus, since it has been that way, since 2006.

As far as I know there is no precedent for forming consensus about other pages on another articles talk page. Nor does WP:MOS exclude either use of the names. Consensus needs to be reached on each articles talk page, each page stands alone regardless of how much we like to make them all look the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like garden variety wikigaming. Whoever is doing it ought to be told to cut it out, and the names restored to their prior versions. A bigger concern is the ongoing edit warring on the Obama page itself while people are trying to figure it out. How many times has Obama's name been reverted in the infobox? People should have the discipline to leave things be while they reach a resolution. I have absolutely no opinion on what the resolution should be or what guidelines apply, just that the edit warring is not a good thing. I would hate to see the article protected again or editors blocked over such a trivial matter. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Obama edit war has spilled over to the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and James K. Polk pages as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Get your WP:TROUTs out, I think we have trouble!Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Issue warnings and blocks for 3rr violations, otherwise, let them fight it out in our content dispute resolution process. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Both Threeafterthree (talk · contribs) and Everyme (talk · contribs) have been blocked, one for edit warring, the other for incivility. Either way, they seem to be the two biggest problems. Tiptoety talk 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kudos. That should cool their jets a bit. One problem, though, seems to be a lack of clarity on how the infoboxes should read. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is an issue for the talk page, and for community consensus. Until that time, I see no other administrative action needing to be taken. Tiptoety talk 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Before it got going hot and heavy on the Obama page, most of the Presidents' pages had the full names in the infobox. FDR and LBJ had only middle initials, and Obama started out as first and last names only. Some users claimed all the Presidents had full names. When it was pointed out that that was untrue, someone changed FDR and LBJ to full names in order to claim a precedent. Then the Obama skirmish began, back and forth like pingpong. One oddity is that there is a line for "birth name" in the infobox, so the infobox for Obama thus contains the full name twice. This is all rather silly, yes? And not helped by the baiting of user Everyme, who claims that anyone who questions the full name at the top must be a racist, and pretends not to see the redundant full name later in the infobox. This nonsense is why I gave up trying to help on that page. That, along with the "African American" question (or "endless loop", in reality). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping out. I just did not see how consensus reached on the Obama page somehow meant that the same consensus ruled on the other pages as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The birthname line isn't that unusual if it's only used for Presidents whose names were changed (Clinton and Ford come to mind). Are they filling it in for all presidents or only for the ones who had their names changed (and Obama)? --NellieBly (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Most notably, the recent ones, but I saw a change as far back as Polk.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I find this quite troubling. Traditionally each WP article found its own consensus -- now a handful from one article seek to impose their rules on others? Collect (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not really what's happening. I don't think anyone wants consensus at Barack Obama to apply everywhere; it's just that some editors are willing to edit other articles as a means to an end, i.e. to get changes to Obama's. In the absence of definitive guidelines on the subject, a bunch of editors have fallen back on the more basic notion of (depending on your position) consistency across articles, or WP:OTHERPRESIDENTEXISTS. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no precident for consistancy, nor do I wish to have one, and since WP:MOS does not take a position either way, each article should have its own consensus. Editors need to stop arguing consistancy.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[rantstarts]As I am the one being BOLD and I'm up to no good, slap me. I'm smelling awfully fishy right now. When taking the time to read the archives of these presidential pages, prior consensus invariably went something like this. What's the best name. Oh, I know, it the official presidential name, or something like that. So what we have had is a de facto "official name" rule that has migrated across these pages. Policy allows for the guidelines to be bent, but I'd like new consensuses on these pages. I'm willing to argue content on any or all the pages. But its basically the same argument and there is more than enough room to accommodate, compromise, etc. I am willing to discuss this on any page with any and all concerned editors. If any of my effort to make a major improvement (trivialized by some and overblown by others) is not warranted I'll I'll I'll, just thank you for all the good fish.[endrant] Modocc (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen please. No one is accusing anyone of acting in bad faith. Especially you. I have seen enough of you edits for quite a while now to know that you are one of the good ones. I know that you are an outstanding editor, and you always have the best intentions in mind when making edits. My argument is that the consensus that was formed on the Obama talk page should not be binding to the other pages. Although no one or two editors own article pages, and everyone is welcome to contribute, each page always has a few dedicated editors who are more involved and are working hard to maintain an article. It just so happens that myself and a few other hard working editors have, in just the past few weeks, did a major clean-up of the Nixon article. I just today placed it in nomination for WP:GA. My only concern is that the current dispute may hinder the process.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible reformed vandal?[edit]

It's rare, but it isn't impossible. Case in point: User:The Nice Hollaback Girl. This is the individual that was doing those strange edits to Jimbo's user page and who is now requesting a chance to contribute meaningfully. From my experience with this user, he's a "he" despite the name. I guess he likes Gwen Stefani. :) I'm willing to give a benefit of the doubt and I left word on the talk page. Just thought y'all should know what was up. If this guy is sincere, it's a real victory. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and welcomed him. If this is for real, I gotta tell you, it feels good. I like outcomes like this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
How touchingly naive. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing this site for nearly seven years under two different usernames, so I'm not exactly naive in the ways of this site. I've been thrown under the bus by users who suckered me in, but even more so when I've fought against vandals. If he acts up, block him. If not, let's AGF. He can't hurt anything. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet eh? :) Just kidding. I think your assumption of good faith here is admirable. Not just that, but it's something we all should aspire to. Be well. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
All he said was "DO NOT BLOCK ME I WANT TO START ANEW!" and you call it "a real victory". I'd say that's naive. Anyway, shouldn't he be blocked for block evasion or at least impersonation?--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, X. To answer you, Atlan: Normally, I would agree with you. When I saw that name on the new user log, I spat out a string of curses which I won't repeat here. But when I signed in and saw the message, I figured what the heck. Like I said, if this person is playing us for fools, his plug gets pulled and I'll slink to the nearest corner to wipe the egg from my face. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Us"? Who is this "us"? I like my omelette served on toast not me face. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the mouse in my pocket. :) Gee, try and be nice to a vandal and look what happens. Pronoun trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. That's the spirit kid! Onwards and upwards!. :D X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, buddy! Full throttle, pull back on the stick, wild blue yonder, here we come! Gotta run, but I'll keep an eye on the situation. If he acts up, I'll run up an AIV or ANI report. Later! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here... but, if this were me and I really wanted to reform- I ditch the obvious name and try to really start anew instead of choosing another name that obviously draws attention to me. Maybe he really does want to reform, I just think it's sort of odd... L'Aquatique[talk] 08:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If it was me, I wouldn't consider my monobook the first thing that needs to be taken care of. Ah, well, we'll see how this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having faith in me i guessThe Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Faith in you? It's a mixed salad. Personally I think you should be blocked as an obvious vandal/troll. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Going well so far: [23]. I'd like to point out that someone who was making the edits that they were (and yes, I can confirm it's not an impersonator) is very clearly aware of some of the politics of Wikipedia, and no doubt this is some kind of game or power play. So yes, do feel free to keep playing into their hands and wait for them to bite back. Or not. Maybe they'll just dispense with biting back and eat you completely, so fast that you won't notice. End of sarcasm. --Deskana (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yairs. Very true. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hollaback Girl: why should we have faith in you? You've spent the last G-dknowshowlong disrupting and socking and causing an awful lot of trouble, but when you inexplicably decide to turn it around we're supposed to just take you at your word that nothing is afoot? Sorry, doesn't work that way. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to block the account myself, but I would endorse or support any block on this account. The general practice is for people who break the rules to first prove that they intend to stop breaking the rules before sanctions are lifted. Edit warriors who go for a long time without reverting can have 1RR restrictions removed, but only once they have proven themselves. Likewise, and relevent to this case, sockpuppeteers should only be allowed back into the community once the prove they will not create new accounts in violation of the rules. Again, I will not act to block this account, but I have strong reservations about allowing long term disruptive sockpuppeteers to continue to edit when one of their accounts says "OK guys, just kidding about all of that" and we accept that as enough. 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, all is so far so good. I agree the monobook edit is a bit strange, but the other edits seem legit. I am all for a block of this account as well as a range block if he steps so much as a millimeter out of line. Believe me, I'm watching. I got burned big time trying to mentor the likes of User:Wiki brah and that SuperDude character whose username I can't totally recall. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emmanuel[edit]


Could someone uninvolved go over there and take a look at User:TPaineTX's edits? If I weren't involved, I'd have blocked him for edit warring, incivility, calling me a vandal, etc, etc. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 48 hours. I'm writing up the notice to him now. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably resolved. Some of the edits he reverted were blatantly unconstructive--not textbook vandalism, but not good content edits (the ip edits in the middle). But that didn't change the rest of the reverts/edit summaries/etc. He hasn't posted an unblock request, but I'm open for review by anyone lurking here. However, assuming the block was ok, this can be marked as resolved. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV WP:Undue weight WP:Fringe Wikipedia:Recentism and perhaps others.[edit]

The Grossmont Union High School District article had so many potential problems, I didn't know where else to post an alert on it. Edits made after the election [[24]][[25]][[26]][[27]][[28]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I revertd, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. I mulled it over for a few days and decided to ask about it on this page, rather than to four separate notice boards. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. Please feel free to leave comments on the article talk page, since I don't think the other editor knows about this notice board. Thank you in advance.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive school project?[edit]

Articles in need of review after editing (in either 2007 or 2008) by students of Dr Graham Meikle at the Department of Media at Macquarie University