Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive506

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Shabushabu violates WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA[edit]

Resolved: Blocked again, this time for more than a day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shabushabu has repeatedly stated that he alone should be working on a Singaporean Chinese TV drama article (The Little Nyonya), and that other people should not work on it ([1]). When I was editing the page in question to rewrite a section with awful grammar and English usage, I was attacked for having POV, and was accused of being a fan of the main actress of the series, even when the content or the context of the section was unchanged.

The user also sent me abusive messages, stating that it is "sickening" that I, as a user in Arizona who has never seen the series (wrong assumption on his part)([2]), have the galls to edit that article.

Truth is, thanks to internet technology, I was able to watch the series in question, and I have knowledge of the series in question.

Shabushabu, through edit warring and NPA violations, was banned for 3 hours yesterday ([3]). During the first hour of the block, he posted many unblock requests, stating that I abused my powers (what powers, as an editor in good standing?), and that I prevented him from editing ([4]).

The torrent of abuse from this user has exhausted the community's patience. I ask that an indefinite block be made to Shabushabu, who has already told us that he is unrepentant. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have they been disruptive since the block has expired? — Satori Son 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes. Rgoodermote  15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to Santori Son, yes. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's give him a chance to work on the article he just started and cool off. But, if he resumes his previous behavior, let's give him a long block. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth did not provide any source to the parts he wrote and the minute I removed it stating it is unrelated to the show, I got blocked. No explanation given on his part. I rewrote several sections and he just deleted it and edited to his liking although the whole idea of the article was totally distorted by him. I was translating based on the source which I provided and he just removed it to his liking, based on his own interpretation. Of course I am furious. Yes the show is based in Singapore, I have no idea why he is so enthusiastic about it when he couldn't even prove the need to make comparisons with another show. If you think I am unreasonable, for goodness sake, I am new. You don't give me a chance to learn the functions and you gave me warnings. This is a case of bullying on your part. I have edited the article several times and he is the only one giving me problems.

Read those articles before judging I am in the wrong. Shabushabu (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Shabushabu for 28 hours (31 hours minus the three from the original block, which IMO should have been a full 24 hours) for resuming this behavior. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First unblock request declined. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put a damper on your spirits, but now he's blanked the warnings on his page, and has replaced them with his version of the article, under the name: "How he stole my article". I think the block needs to be upgraded to he can't edit his own talk page. Elbutler (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to report at AIV because of multiple edit conflicts[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. GbT/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked, thanks. GbT/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews Importer Bot malfunctioning?[edit]

Is Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) malfunctioning? This diff suggests so, and the bot hasn't then corrected itself despite several hours in which it would notice the difference between the two pages if it were a one-off. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An unblock request that actually might merit review[edit]

Resolved: User unblocked.

User_talk:Anywhere But Home#Circus.2FIf U Seek Amy contains an unblock request that may (emphasis on the "may") actually be worth reviewing. Fairly new editor, caught up in a situation where they were arguably correct, but wound up edit-warring. Seems properly contrite after a short discussion. I will point out that he made a few ineffective attempts (for example) to get someone to explain to him why a source he considered to be reliable was a problem.

I'm not going to argue strongly one way or the other, but it would be nice for someone to accept or reject the unblock request.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First step should be to drop a note for the blocking admin, he might be amenable to unblocking. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right ... dropped a note there.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna vote for an unblock. There is no obvious sign the user realised what they were doing was against policy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with sandman, give him another chance. This can be a confusing place to new people. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Endorse unblock, certainly seems the best way forward. neuro(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked based on the edit warring, and reverting an admin in this edit: [6], not for whether the sources provided in certain edits are reliable or not. As for the issue at hand, I am willing to accept an unblock on the condition that the user agree to not edit war again and in the future and make use of talk pages. -MBK004 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an admin is now blockable? DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not in and of itself, but coupled with the ongoing edit warring, edit warring with an admin is certainly not something one should do. -MBK004 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No, reverting an admin is not worse than reverting anyone else. I've not looked at the situation, but edit warring is bad no matter who with, and "edit warring with an admin" could imply that the admin was warring also and needs a block.  Sandstein  22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think the original block for edit warring was fully justified, which is why I told Anybody But Home "... you simply kept adding your change in, over and over, which is unacceptable." This just struck me as being one of those cases where a little bit of forgiveness in the unblock cycle might keep a new editor from going over to the dark side.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kww has the right nose for this(Good thing we didn't make him an admin....sigh). The justification for the original block was proper, but some lenience is appropriate. Hopefully any disruption has stopped and we have gained a productive user. Remember, only a small fraction of unblocks are outright repudiations of the original block. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MBK004 said he would accept the unblock if another admin performed it. I think there's enough support for an unblock here that you should go ahead, obviously making it clear to Anybody But Home that he will be watched like a hawk for a bit, and absolutely should not rush in and repeat the edit.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, geez, I thought he was unblocked and this was the post-mortem. I'll unblock him now. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked for reasons noted above. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request for rangeblock[edit]

Resolved: Blocked as possible, deleted, oversight requested. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a range block hitting 88.108.87.105 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 88.108.112.101‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) feasible? A bit of harassment going on. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, see their deleted contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Now hopped to User:88.108.47.88. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This would require a rangeblock on 88.108.0.0/17, which would cause a lot of collateral damage. WHOIS reports suggest that a /17 block may still be insufficient for this user (Tiscali DSL). Perhaps WP:ABUSE would be a better venue? caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed a long-term abuse issue, I've contacted the harassed user privately and he will report this directly to the ISP. I figured it would be far too broad a range. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with a speedy delete please[edit]

Could someone please review the speedy delete at Timur Okutman. The article's creator and an anonymouse IP keep on removing the tag before an administrator comes along to review it. The article is a copyright infringement of [7]. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've actually reverted back to a version that User:Shanel cleaned up a few weeks ago where the copyvio was removed. The article needs some serious help with regards to sourcing, still, but there seems to be some notability there. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted this as an A7 but will userfy for anyone who asks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you made the right decision Gwen. I was just going to nominate it for deletion. I have access to several different opera magazines, journals, and other publications both in the U.S. and internationally. None of them have reviewed him. An extensive media and internet search has also yielded no sources. I don't think there is really anything out there to verify the article's content. Thanks for all your help.Nrswanson (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I saw some claims of notability, but didn't dig much. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If he isn't notable, I think he ought to be: this item provoked me to go to his web page, and it started playing music at me, and, well, what can I say? To say he has a voice like chalk squeaking on a blackboard is an understatement. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Learsi si natas's[edit]

76 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC): and buh-byeKeeper

userpage is a rant in which he asserts that the Israelis are worse then Nazis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And??? Brewcrewer removes sourced information from articles without discussing them first. What is more important? --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is your username really backwards language for "Satan is israel". Seriously? You find that appropriate? Keeper | 76 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
lol you figured my name out. And to answer your question, oh yes I do!!! ---Learsi si natas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
I'm going to block your account so that you can choose a new username. From what I've seen, you've got the wrong website. Fringe crap theories are thataway. Keeper | 76 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Blocked indefinitely, pending username change. Reviewing contribs... seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Detective Keeper: Good job noticing that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, seems like we were all trying to push the "block" button all at the same time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I recognize satan everywhere :-) Someone beat me to the block as well. I'm sure he'll just go away quietly, if my experience has taught me anything. </sarc> Keeper | 76 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Unblock request already :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was the one that managed to push the button first. Anyways, this is not the first username backwards that we have blocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Classic reply! seicer | talk | contribs 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I would endorse a full protect of the usertalk. It's not necessarily that it isn't going anywhere, it's just that it's already arrived at nowhere. Keeper | 76 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
.erehwon ta devirra ydaerla s'ti taht tsuj s'ti ,erehwyna gniog t'nsi ti taht ylirassecen ton s'tI .klatresu eht fo tcetorp lluf a esrodne dluow I seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You just missed out on full credit by failing to reverse your signature - had you gone the extra mile and signed "sbirtnoc | klat | recies" there'd have been a barnstar in it for you...GbT/c 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"sbirtnoc klat recies" sounds so naughty! Like Russian for "Dirty little monkey" or something. Just sayin. No "reflection" on you at all Seicer. Unless you want it. All yours if you want it. Call me. Keeper | 76 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Professor Backwards lives! Ya know, I thought America was "the great satan". I wish they'd make up their minds. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All jokes aside, I'd also suggest a Keeper76 inappropriate textstring addition to the auto-reporter for WP:SSP, given the eidtor's last comment about a proposed next name. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So would that mean my new sock couldn't be User:67repeeK? I'm not too worried really, but do what you want. Keeper | 76 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(ɔʇn) 9002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 8 '60:02 ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı – ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇı ƃuıop llɐ ǝɹ,noʎ 'ou
Now that's going to bug me...GbT/c 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ooooh, no it's not. Got it. GbT/c 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ooh. Crick in my neck from reading that! The "2" wasn't turned upsidedown by the way, so no winner yet. How do you do this backwards and upside down text anyway? Or is that a WP:BEANS thing? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Considering a block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsensical info into Bad Boys Blue page by a russian IP-hopper[edit]

Resolved
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User continues to re-insert a phrase (in german) to wikipedias of all languages. It was already reverted twice on english wikipedia, but the nuisance will most likely persist. Please intervene or monitor the page. Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that the edit says "Offizielle Website Herb McCoy" (no need to translate into English). Which is..actually very accurate however in German. Rgoodermote  22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. This should solve the problem. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rgoodermote, that site is in English, so, there's no need to use German spelling. I mean, why not use Japanese instead, then? The Bad Boys Blue page follows a format which acknowledges all 3 current formations. It makes more sense to keep all 3 external likns to to a corresponding formation uniform, rather than all in unnecessary and arbitrarily different languages.

Caknuck - Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it was proper (because it really was the official site) "however in German". I also want to say..I do not like how you addressed my comment. I don't need an explanation on something I already know. It's kinda rude. Rgoodermote  00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody asked you to translate something that I already identified myself what it was in my post at the top. But thank you for your thoughtful comments anyway. Lionscitygl (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I always comment/translate on these issues...probably don't need to..but I have been surprised. Anyways, nice meeting you. I wish you well here. I got one request, can you put something on your userpage? You don't have to, but..a red link causes misunderstandings. Man sieht sich! Closing Rgoodermote  02:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit-warring at Horus[edit]

I've been slightly involved, can someone else take a look? The long rambles on the talk page might inform or confuse. :-) Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else think a full-protect is in order? DARTH PANDAduel 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

please speedy delete pages by indef-blocked vandal account[edit]

Created by Witticism (talk · contribs), I can't label the first one because it's their monobook.js page.

(also, should I send his backlink-removal contribs to WP:OVERSIGHT, or would it be overkill?) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Why? Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably Enric think the WMF is afraid of being bombed or something. --NE2 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't see the contributions, just saw the two links. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Email sent to oversight. They can hide those revisions more simply than I can delete them. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You buy the paranoia? Shame on you. --NE2 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't, but many people do and the foundation has already said: we don't want our address on wikipedia. Rather than delete the mess myself, I'll just move it along to oversight. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering a block[edit]

Resolved

Anybody else agree that perhaps this user Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs) should be indef'd based on the very offensive talk page (deleted once already), the repeated attacks on User:Larsinio (deleted) and no decent edits except for a few minor ones last august--Jac16888 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since he was warned for personal attacks, so I'm not so sure a full block would be in order. In the case that he continues, a block may be appropriate. DARTH PANDAduel 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Upon further review, as seen in his visible contribs, a block actually may be in order. He has repeated incivility even after warnings. DARTH PANDAduel 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that '420' may be a reference to 20 April - Hitler's birthday (it's sometimes used by neo-Nazis in a similar way to 14/88). Considering this user's comments about Jews, I'd consider it to be a definite red flag. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Yeah sorry should have said, this came to my attention because he created the User:Larsinio page earlier today, as an attack, although its his only edit since Dec. I'll also add that his now deleted userpage was a racist attack, albeit not a full-blown one--Jac16888 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. This is a no-brainer. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reminds me a lot of Learsi si natas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was just blocked. As a note, I've indef'ed his page, after he inserted in the sockpuppetry bit. See also: WP:ANI#User:Learsi si natas's. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any way to stop him from creating new accounts? If he starts socking, this could get really ugly. DARTH PANDAduel 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any definitive reason to suspect Ssj and Si are one and the same? if so, I'll file an IP check and see if the CUs manage to ferret out anything more. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor censoring and vandalizing another’s posts[edit]

Resolved: Both editors given useful advice, life goes on.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And editor, User:Hex keeps on deleting my posts,[8] which are clearly not abusive personal attacks. Here is the post he deleted (in case he deletes it again). Please, this kind of behavior can’t continue. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd distortion of events. First, a torrent of abusive language, [9], which was partially removed by User:Ryoung122 and fully by me. Ryoung122 left Greg L a request on his talk page not to use such language, [10], which was summarily deleted by Greg L with the comment "grow up", [11]. Greg L restored a slightly less offensive but still inappropriate version of his comment, with the addition of a threat ("don't dare revert me again"), and accusing other editors of being childish, [12]. I removed it again and left a mild warning, [13]. Greg L restored his comment again, claiming it was not abusive, and accusing me of vandalism, [14].
The entire tone of Greg L's comments was rude, aggressive and totally inappropriate, and I stand by my removal of them. I was already on my way over to investigate filing a user RfC when I learnt of his comments here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Greg, while I'm not sure your posts are personal attacks (since they're not personally directed at anyone), they are....hold on I'm trying to think of the word....aggressive? Irascible? Certainly not civil. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the removal, but I grant that my opinions on talk page refactoring are slightly more liberal than the norm. Regardless of the merits of doing so in the first place, it's pretty clear that Hex isn't helping the situation (even if he is right), and it's probably better to just let the comments stand and the situation die, rather than be continually inflamed with an edit war.SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether they are personal attacks or not, instead of deleting the comments, the correct response of Hex would be to simply file a WP:WQA and let a neutral third party decide instead of taking matters into your own hands. I am against any kind of removal of talk page comments, unless there is a consensus for removing the content (usually at WQA). Tavix (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Let’s be clear on the facts: what he deleted (here) was not a personal attack nor was it as he claimed: “abusive”. It was simply “aggressive” in tone. So what? If he felt that way, he can try to shame me by telling me so. As I advised Hex with my first edit summary, “the proper response to bad speech is better speech”. Not even an admin on a power trip can just start deleting posts he disagrees with unless they are an outrageous personal attack on someone. You step in to protect others who can’t defend themselves. You don’t act like you’re one of Red China’s Internet *thought police* Greg L (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying if it was a personal attack or not (I didn't read the whole thing, it's pretty lengthy). All I'm saying that if he thought it was a personal attack, he should have taken it to WQA to get a second opinion of what to do. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to review this situation by Ryoung122 and I pretty much agree with Swatjester. Greg L, the debate is getting a little bit heated and, while I can completely understand why you would be upset, it's probably just best to learn from this... I might also recommend taking at least 5 minutes between writing your comments on the issue and hitting the show preview button... I myself have had many instances where I've hit that button and found myself regretting or justifying that decision in less than half an hour, even when I was 99.9% certain that that was what I wanted to say. I'm no prude, I swear like a sailor (to be cliche) in real life, but on Wikipedia, it's usually best to try and avoid it... it's likely to cause problems (since it's usually construed as (incivility), it rarely adds anything to the argument and it causes others to react poorly. Even if you are right, people may bypass that if it's phrased in a certain way. My advice to Hex would be that it was an act of wise discretion to not take any administrative action, but that the same policy should be applied to editorial action. I completely understand your rationale for removing the comment, but as someone so involved in the debate to begin with, it probably would have been best to alert someone else to remove it. It might remain there for a few extra minutes, but unless it's something that plainly violates WP:BLP (which is unlikely here), I'd say it's not worth it to remove it. If it's truly vile someone else will gladly deal with it... if it's questionable, it's best not to get your hands dirty with it.
Forgive me if I sound patronizing, but this WP:ANI, I'm the A and this is my advice. Neither user has committed any cardinal sins here, so I suggest taking a little advice, whether or not you hate me for it, and moving on while trying to abide by it. The issue at hand is complicated and emotional as it is... delays like this only make it worse. Cheers, CP 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • CP: That is all good, common-sense advise and I can’t argue with a bit of it. But there are three important principles I abide by that govern my worldview:
  1. The proper response to bad speech is better speech.
  2. Editors are wasting their time if they presume they can dictate to someone else—particularly me—how they may think and express their thoughts.
  3. Everyone here on Wikipedia deserves to be free from personal attacks.
After I cleaned up my “potty mouth” (as Hex called it—something every 2nd grader has heard), he deleted my post again even though there was clearly no personal attacks on anyone. This is an extremely important principle that can not be whittled away by acquiescing to “let’s all just shake hands and be understanding on the playground next time.” There is not to be censorship on Wikipedia unless someone is really protecting someone from something. Hex is an admin. As Tavix pointed out, Hex could have simply filed a WP:WQA over my second post (as if that would have gone anywhere). It should come as no surprise to anyone here that if we have admins censoring (deleting) posts like Hex did, tensions are going to rise in a hurry. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I was not involved in this discussion, but they appeared on my Watchlist page. These comments are little more than bullying and attempted intimidation. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane is not free speech. While your comments don't rise to the level of personal threats, they do appear to be both personal in nature and attacks upon another editor. Even forgetting the potty mouth, questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation, and is a personal attack, because it is not dealing with the issue, but attacking the person. Trying to put other people down and belittle them is attacking the person and therefore a personal attack. Lucky for you, GregL, that some of the commenters above didn't even want to read the entire post.Ryoung122 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ryoung, equating what I wrote to speech that causes a clear and present danger to public safety (Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane) is patently absurd. The issue, is not whether or not my post deserved a Pulitzer prize; it is whether or not an admin should have taken it upon himself to delete a post. Further, when I told him it was not appropriate, he wrote “bring it on”. Not only was he wrong to have deleted the post, he is juvenile. Finally, you wrote questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation. I did not do so in my post and for you to suggest as much is uncivil, as is outlined here in WP:CIVILITY, where it states that incivility includes Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Accordingly, since I consider your above post to be a personal attack, which belittles me, I’ve struck your post. I perceive no need to further refute your words or even start a Wikiquette alert over your post. I react to it with righteous indignation and will simply delete your thoughts because I think you stepped over a line and have decided you don’t get to have a voice. “Get it” now? Greg L (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Greg (whom I know well) might have been more restrained in his comments; however, regulars on the page know that this user's coarse references are not meant personally. I rather enjoy them in what is otherwise a staid environment (while not wanting to encourage them). Hex might have taken it all with a grain of salt. Hex might definitely have resisted the temptation to breach the talk page guidelines by removing Greg's comments: suggesting they be withdrawn or altered would have done the trick and avoided inflaming the situation. Can we all move on? Tony (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Nicely put, Tony. Hex's cut was ill-advised and on its face shows that he knew it was a bad idea for an admin, even though he did it without using admin tools. Greg's "The proper response to bad speech is better speech" is finely-tuned kettle-calling. His propensity for using foul language to trigger wikidrama is familiar to many of us, though I'm rather surprised that Hex took the bait. They both seem to be adults, let us simply encourage them to act that way. We all have our bad days.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Mooooooo! Oh, I'm sorry, you said "kettle-calling" not "cattle-calling". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don’t think there is anything more I want to say on this matter. I much prefer “Greg, don’t be a dick” versus deleting my post and silencing my voice. That, at least, would give me the opportunity to reply “Hey, that’s Mr. Dick to you.” Thanks to all for taking the time to respond to this and smooth things over. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool response. I see the 'resolved' tag placed by Goodmorningworld was struck. I hope the case can soon be closed? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Tim Allen, whose birth name is actually Timothy Allen Dick would appreciate that there's now a new (uninvited) member of the Dick family :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user Shabushabu circumvents block[edit]

Resolved: lengthened my existing block. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User Shabushabu, who was blocked by admin Daniel Case, circumvented his block by editing via the following IPs:

These IPs inserted essentially the same material that Shabushabu inserted in The Little Nyonya (diffs here), and also reverted my edits on Reunion Dinner without reason or explanation (diffs here). The user also accused me of stealing his article here.

Lately, 218.186.12.228 has resorted to vandalizing The Little Nyonya.

Violation of OWN notwithstanding, this user has severely, blatantly, and repeated violated NPA. This user is also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, a violation of the rules as well. Also, what this user is saying is absolutely illogical. Yes, I am from Arizona, but is it a crime to edit other country's articles here, as long as I am doing it correctly, and according to the rules?

I am hereby suggesting an indefinite hard block on Shabushabu. This has got to be the last straw. Arbiteroftruth 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lengthened his block to a full week. If he continues the sockpuppetry, it gets escalated and will reach indef soon enough

User creating account for defamatory vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Ghettoflava should be monitored for further unacceptable edits. User:Jake Wartenberg is active in the WP:ACC process and not responsible for the behaviour of the accounts he creates in this regard. –xeno (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a defamatory edit here [15] and warned the user here [16]. Noticed on the vandal's talk page that a user had sent them welcoming cookies. Then noticed on my watchlist that the vandal account had recently been created by User:Jake Wartenberg, who had then placed the welcome on the vandal's talk. Checked creation log, and Jake Wartenberg has created a number of new accounts in the past few weeks. Seems wrong to me, don't know if this is the right place to mention this, or what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not likely anything to do here. Jake Wartenberg is an account creator. The user's talk page would've been a better place to start. --OnoremDil 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know there was such a thing as an account creator. That's why I asked here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
An honest mistake. I've notified Jake of the discussion, but there's no further action needed except to keep an eye out for further unacceptable edits from Ghettoflava. –xeno (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Return of User:EverybodyHatesChris[edit]

Resolved: Blocks all around

EverybodyHatesChris has reappeared, this time as Cheers dude (as well as several IPs and accounts.) Unfortunately, he even managed to arrange mentoring for the "Cheers" account. I have just blocked Cheers dude, Coastme20, and the IPs 65.31.33.40 and 65.31.33.40. I'm short on time right now, so any help would be appreciated in monitoring the IP range and any new users that appear with a similar MO. I'll post more details when I have more time, as there also seems to be a connection with another, older banned account (User:ForestH2). --Ckatzchatspy 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The connection between the "Cheers dude" dude and IP 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) maybe should be reviewed also, as they share page interests and were both turned up in the Law Lord's RFC. One thing is the telling (and in-common and unwitting self-putdown) "goodbye" comment, probably just as they were being found out: "I've grown tiresome of users looking for trouble" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really much investigation needed on that one. See here. Can I also say I'm royally pissed to have been had by a sock? --Smashvilletalk 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And I just now checked that one. I love it when they out themselves. Saves a lot of time. Like the KingsOfHearts/Rfu23/etc. situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that Ckatz already got him. Never mind! And socks can hide, but they usually "out" themselves in some way, as they keep returning to "the scene of the crime". Although their "retirement" just before being indef-blocked reminds me of Larry Miller's "pub crawl" comment: "We decided to leave, just after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, we don't block IP addresses indefinite, as the block template states. The IP address was blocked for one year, so I amended the templates. And good riddens to Cheers Dude. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A year is a good stretch in the wiki-phantom-zone. And I've a hunch he's not so filled with cheer just now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, Cheers dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) replied: [17] [18]. Protected his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Good riddance. Funny, I was criticised for saying he was not a new user. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What a coincidence: I was coming over here just now to suggest that someone owes JzG an apology. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. That's one less user on my wtf list. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup - only 7,542 to go... unless your list is even longer than mine. :) MastCell Talk 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You might find the rant on 65.31.103.28's talk page amusing and/or useful. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IP talk page wiped and blocked by an admin. Taking the liberty of marking this resolved. Revert if you disagree. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MacRusgail[edit]

Resolved: No administrator intervention required. Leithp 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to talk about a complaint I have about User:MacRusgail. He is reverting my edits Scottish Chilean [19], Welsh Chilean [20], and Basque Chilean [21]. Those three articles were filled with original research, it had no sources, and with Scottish Chilean and Welsh Chilean the population is small and the contributions to Chilean society is also small while the Basque Chilean population is unknown. I found it appropriate to merge and redirect Welsh Chilean and Scottish Chilean to British Chilean, and merge and redirect Basque Chilean with Spanish Chilean. MacRusgail undid my edits without any explanations. I have reverted them back, but he undue them again. I gave him a message on his talk page [22] on why he is undoing my redirects, and he responded [23] with nationalistic rhetoric. I don't want conflict, but I don't know what to about him reverting my edits. I would like a solution to this problem. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit early for what appears to be a content dispute to be coming to AN/I. You were bold and redirected. No problem. MacRusgail disagreed and reverted. Still no problem. I think discussion should be given another attempt. --OnoremDil 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions[edit]

This editor (I assume all three are the same person) has been continually adding unsourced speculation into automotive articles. However, as far as I can tell the accounts haven't had any edits in overlapping time periods, so I'm not sure if I should report them to WP:SSP. This user has never responded to talk page warnings or discussions. All three accounts have edited Suzuki Kizashi, which was created by Wikipersonwiki (without any references, of course). Please help/advise! Thanks. swaq 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If none of the accounts have been on at the same time, that seems like it would make it more likely that they're the same person (unless someone's figured out a way to have multiple accounts online simultaneously); an SSP report is generally a decent idea if there's significant overlap in editing patterns, etc. GlassCobra 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:24.129.100.84[edit]

This IP user has been editing extensively in the area of animated films. He has been removing notability tags, often accompanied by a snarky comment (see here and here. It would be okay (minus the snark) if the user would add information that actually establishes the notability of the film, as the template requests, but invariably leaves the article unimproved and thus as mystifying to subsequent readers and editors why the article is included in the encyclopedia. The editor is tendentious and sarcastic here and here and has received several warnings concerning removal of the notability tags. Here.

Ah - since I began writing up this summary the editor is now engaged in an edit war and distinctly uncivil behavior. See this history. A brief block might be in order. JohnInDC (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With the escalation, I took this to WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 2 weeks by an admin and talk page protected. He's been blocked several times now: [24] Just the edit summaries are a case: [25] He must be a nice girl, though, he called the blocking admin "honey". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry on Talk:William Timmons; copyvios by User:Rtally3[edit]

I think this should be looked into. A user Hazeldell97202 (talk · contribs) has appeared and his first edit was to an obscure talk page Talk:William Timmons to argue on the side of Rtally3 (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked for sockpuppeteering on that very page. It could be just a bizarre coincidence but it seems strange that this user would appear just now when Rtally3's block expired and when he began forum shopping to continue deleting the sourced material on the page that he was previously using sockpuppets to delete. (for evidence of forum shopping see his posts here, here, and here, which are all about this same exact piece of information that he wants to delete).

On another note, the user Rtally3 has created two pages, The Merrimack Manufacturing Company and The 1819 Strikes, which contain verbatim text copied from the book What Every Amercian Should Know about American History: 200 Events, as a simple google search shows. These pages should be deleted and the user warned about the Wikipedia policy on copyright. csloat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update, the user has corrected the copyvio issue by changing the page and paraphrasing the one source he used; there are still major questions about notability, but the copyvio problem has been dealt with, I think. csloat (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for caring so much about me, csloat, but I'm afraid I'm not a sockpuppet. Just a bored academic at work, waiting out a snow storm. And I'm curious about why you two are so enthusiastic about this particular issue. Cheers, Hazeldell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeldell97202 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone who agrees with rtally3 is obviously a sockpuppet. What is referred to as "forum shopping" I think was really just using the noticeboards for what they were designed to to -- gather second opinions about an editing dispute and possible policy violations. I think the responses to those posts justify the concern, and use of the RfC's. Rtally3 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When supposedly "new" users know too much about how wikipedia works, and go to specific topics and dive into specific debates, it raises reasonable suspicions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand who are you? Not sure why you're monitoring this all of a sudden, but csloat has enjoyed accusing me of hiding my identity by using different accounts for several months (afterall, there can't be THIS many people that disagree with him!). Anyone interested in the proliferation of the rumors surrounding Timmons over the years might become interested in the development of his WP page as his name surfaces, and in my opinion don't deserve to be "bitten" [26] for giving their opinions -- especially when they aren't even making edits. If a new user appeared who happened to agree with csloat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rtally3 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come off it; I haven't "enjoyed accusing you for several months" -- I noticed you were using socks; a checkuser proved it, and you admitted it! You were blocked for it, quite appropriately, and you admitted having a meatpuppet as well. The minute you come back, this other user shows up, registers, and dives right into a heated debate on an obscure talk page, making essentially the same argument as you. It may be a coincidence, it may be a meatpuppet, it may be a sock puppet. If it's a coincidence, I apologize for any offense I may have created by voicing my suspicion, but my suspicion was far from unreasonable. Cheers, csloat (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your points make it sound as if it's been proven that I've made attempts to hide my identity by using multiple accounts, which has never been the case. Just because other user(s) might have been blocked around D.C. does not prove that I was using those accounts. I was originally blocked for meatpuppetry, and then circumvented the enforcement of what I think is a ridiculous rule by posting twice under a new user name, but still signed under my old user name. While this is technically using a sock, I wasn't editing and it was clear who I was in those 2 posts. I wasn't hiding my identity -- which is the very reason that using a sock is a violation. Yes, a rule was broken, and I "served the time", but none of my actions belied the integrity of WP. Rtally3 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It not only was proven by a checkuser; you admitted to it in the ensuing discussion. You just admitted to it again in the above comment after claiming that it hasn't been proven. I'm not sure what your point is here. csloat (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply untrue. The difference is that you are accusing me of hiding my identity to make it appear as if there is a consensus, which has never been the case. Every post I have ever made has been signed "rtally3". Rtally3 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is false; you had a few different identities at the time and you eventually copped to them being you, and then you created more after the block and signed them rtally2, but at first you tried to pass them off as different people precisely in order to create a false consensus. The second time it was to evade a block. It doesn't matter; using socks to break the rules is still breaking the rules whether you are "hiding your identity" or not. Anyway if you're not doing that I'm sure you have nothing to worry about anyway, and I apologize again for wasting your time. csloat (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What other identities are you accusing me of being? When did I not sign my post as rtally3? I'd like to see this. Rtally3 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin[edit]

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC

But, Jeremie, please note that you continue your previous flavour of edits that resulted in the 3RR. All I can see is that User:The Rouge Penguin is trying to point you towards discussing the new additions and articles you intend to create. prashanthns (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What he said. You're reverting without discussing. That is not allowed. You need to discuss. I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved}}, but it may be worth an admin looking into your edits to see whether you need another block for editwarring. //roux   03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As do you. I haven't seen anything uncivil from either of you here. However, you were, and are continuing to edit war on pages like Odd Della Robbia, Ulrich Stern, and Yumi Ishiyama. These pages have all been merged into Code Lyoko per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko characters and attempts to convince you of this, on Talk:Yumi Ishiyama, have all failed. These pages were merged by a common consensus and it is for that reason that The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) is trying to tell you to stop. His suggestion to put them in your userspace is a good one. DARTH PANDAduel 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that you are required to notify someone if you are bringing up their actions here. The user has now been notified. //roux   03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


what you guys are not understanding is how he's being highly rude and impatient, he needs to be dealt with Jeremie Belpois (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rude? No. Impatient? Yes. And with good reason. You have had multiple people telling you that you have to stop reverting and start discussing. You don't do it. Instead, you were blocked. And as soon as your block was ended, you started reverting again. He was trying to explain to you what you need to do, and you wouldn't listen. So he got impatient. Not rude. You need to understand that you must discuss, not keep reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talkcontribs)
He has not been rude, nor has he been impatient. There is nothing to wait for. If you wish to revert, you need to present your page, preferably from your userspace, and there needs to be discussion. You cannot just go ahead and revert continuously without discussion. DARTH PANDAduel 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If any background information is good, Code Lyoko has been a frequent battleground for quite a while, of which no resolution is or has been in sight. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well of course. References don't exist, but Code Lyoko is a very popular TV series and therefore, subject to much interest. I'd really prefer if new users were directed to policy, but I don't think this has been happening. DARTH PANDAduel 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To Jeremie, edit warring will get you nowhere besides another block. If you want to recreate the articles, then you must find sources on the characters that allow them to meet WP:NOTE. These sources have to be independent of the topic (can't be the source itself or something created by the publisher) and discuss the characters in a significant manner (beyond a name drop, a rehash of plot summary, or a throwaway statement). Then work, on the characters in your userspace and bring them forth for approval of the other editors that commonly edit the Code Lyoko articles. You will only move forward by following community consensus here and trying to change it in a method appropriate under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Continuing your current actions is simply going to get you blocked. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogue Penguin has done a pretty good job keeping Code Lyoko stuff "safe". Back in Sept, they had a run in with RhoLyokoWarrior who was essentially trying to do the same thing with characters, and was patient in keep WP encyclopedic, even in the hands of a WQA filing against him. I'll try and dig up the previous WQA, but you can see my comments to RP on their talk from Sep 28. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar: Since when did edit conflicts become a basis for user complaints? --Smashvilletalk 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed they actually meant "editing dispute" rather than "edit conflict". Terminology is sooooooooooo precise these days :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first: the complainant should have taken this as a discussion with the editor FIRST, and then to WQA SECOND. The last WQA report against Rogue Penguin that was related to Code Lyoko was here, which found no specific incivility against Penguin. Any concern by anyone else that Jeremie is a sock of the blocked-because-of-socks User:RhoLyokoWarrior ??? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's User:Rikara alright, figured as much when I noticed what the subject matter was regarding. treelo radda 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:HeadMouse circumventing block[edit]

User:HeadMouse who is indefinitely blocked for disruption, then came back and had several blocked sockpuppets posted again here. In it, he attacks Wikipedia and myself, in particular, through lies mostly. I blocked the sock and removed the post per Wikipedia:Ban#Reincarnations. Kurtisnelson, has reverted to keep this post in saying we need consensus to remove that from his talk page instead of policy. Can I get some other eyes on this situation? The user is not community banned in the voting on sense, but he is banned in the "no admin in their right mind will unblock" sense. So any posts by him should be reverted, especially if they contain attacks again Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Thanks, either way (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to leave the post but refactor the portion which is obviously a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF... so that's what I've done. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SaltyBoatr[edit]

At Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (also check the archives thereof), SaltyBoatr continuously makes accusations against fellow editors and is generally rude. He has been repeatedly asked to assume good faith, but rarely does so. I request disciplinary action be taken against that editor. SMP0328. (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On a quick skim (note the emphasis) SB seems to be patiently explaining a point of view and why he thinks it warrants a greater emphasis. I'm not (necessarily) disputing you, but can you point to any diffs of SB making accusations or being rude? Certainly nothing's jumping out at me. – iridescent 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with iridesecent that diffs are needed. While I do see him moving the goalposts some, and some odd discussion of how later decisions mean there's no need to cover earlier interpretations, which, by some of what I read in the back and forth there is POV pushing, most of what I see is a content dispute. I will say the question of footnote 67 and whether or not the source is legit seems ridiculous; we have editors requesting rare copies via InterLibrary loan and little good faith to wait and see, and the resistance to the continued inclusion hardly shows AGF about source or co-contributors. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmi Hugh on Proprietary protocol[edit]

Re: repeated deletion of sourced material. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. To me, it seems the user doesn't like the information in the source he is deleting. I have suggested supplying evidence to support his position on the talk page, but that hasn't happened yet so it seems like he's pushing WP:OR. Any advice appreciated. pgr94 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits controversially in a repeated manner is vandalism. Block Jimmi Hugh. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverting edits controversially is not vandalism: in Wikipedia vandalism is narrowly defined as changes that are made with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. Reverting edits controversially is edit warring—which is also against the rules. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you Looie. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Either way, that's a pretty good edit war that Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) and Pgr94 (talk · contribs) have engaged there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither Jimmi nor Pgr94 is over 3RR yet. It would be good to have more than two people working on this article. Maybe they can use WP:3O to get an outside view. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for the kind words. I always appreciate an editor who can take my perfectly valid reasoning, and instead of disagreeing with me head on, accuses me of vandalism and now of pushing a point of view, an accusation that hurts and irritates me to no end; despite the fact that I deleted the same section when it was pro-open standards and when it was pro-closed standards, because I'm simultaneously pushing both points of view. It all makes complete sense to me. My point of course being, my edits were perfectly valid (so far as conflicting edits go), whether you agree with them or not, and the reason I refused to waste my time on long discussions is that on the three previous occasions, you simply refuted me with the same incorrect points I'd argued before until you simply stopped upon realising you couldn't get your way. The second reason was due to the fact you accused me of vandalism, and I really don't want to argue with someone about policy, when they don't even know policy. So, on with the blocks, I assume it will be for both editors, and not simply the one who didn't go running to the admins first, and that Arbiteroftruth was joking, having actually bothered to check the edit history before making comment on blocking someone. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't but help notice that Jimmi Hugh is making many edits to the proprietary-technology articles. *Not one* of his contributions to these articles have been based on verifiable sources and worse still he has been deleting referenced material.
I totally agree with EdJohnston that it would be good to have more than two editors. I am pretty worn out by all this unconstructive to-and-fro-ing on Proprietary protocol and would welcome more input from others. pgr94 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Have just discovered Wikiproject computer networking and added Proprietary protocol in the hope this will get more people to read article. Also requested input from here. pgr94 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Proprietary Software/Firmware and Proprietary Protocol/Hardware, are entirely separate topics. The word proprietary in the latter two, simply means to own. In the first, it is used for the negative connotations in actions taken within the role as the proprietor. Hence the removal of the edits, I don't need to source the deletion of information that has nothing todo with the topic, and I'd hate to accidently force a redefinition. I have attempted to explain this on numerous occasions, I really am sorry that I have become so irritated over the matter that I refuse to simply discuss each edit with you. I don't get much free time to edit Wikipedia though, and I'll only contribute to the bureaucracy when there is someone on the other end who is actually listening. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and after having looked at that "evidence" of my disruption, I really want to swear at you right now, and it's hard to consider how to form a rational argument against someone who doesn't listen, or understand. Half of those edits were perfectly valid, and remain in the article because they made perfect sense. If you have issues with specific edits, I'd be happy to explain to you why I made them, despite my edit comments explaining it perfectly. You've now made at least 4 completely absurd accusations of bad faith against me, and your behaviour even outstretches my own in terms of negativety and anti-policy. I would really like you to retract each and every claim that my edits were disruptive, nonsense, or that taking an article to AfD with reason is in anyway an issue beyond the actual AfD discussion. More importantly, your inability read and consider arguments without making up the opposing stance is not an issue for admins. I didn't make the move an issue despite scholarly reference, and I've never denied the validity of the title. I expect you to take these claims back, and not just by editing them out. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay so I just looked over the talk page for this article and weighed in with my two cents on this specific issue. Looking at the diffs, I seem to notice some pretty strong leanings away from WP:NPOV, specifically noting the edit comments. In addition, I think both parties may have some fault for breaking WP:NAM. :-D I think if both pgr94 and Jimmi Hugh were to re-evaluate their comments from a NPOV, they would find some serious fighting words that they used, perhaps a bit inappropriately. I don't think a ban is necessarially warranted in this situation but I would advise Jimmi Hugh to try and be a little more neutral and both sides to assume WP:GF. QuackCD (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was indeed extremely inappropriate in the language used. However, once again, can you provide a single case in which I didn't show a neutral point of view? I've made edits that both open or closed standard advocates will dislike, because this article is *not* about open standards, it's about the word proprietary as in ownership. I removed information that has absolutely nothing todo with the term proprietary protocol, and the conflicting edits have been attempting to push a redefinition of "proprietary protocol" using the same meaning as in the term "proprietary software". - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI is not the place for you to continue a content dispute. If you and the other editor are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is not up to admins to solve the problem for you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking for resolution. I'm asking for evidence of slanderous accusation. My edits are entirely neutral, and the purpose of the ANI is to discuss accusations. I hate being accused of malicious intent, even when I've given valid (even if questioned) reasoning, and if I'm not allowed to respond to such accusations, what exactly is the purpose of this area other than as a place for people to make cruel and incorrect comments about me? The fact I've provided evidence that I was not only in good faith, but also correct, simply serves to help the editor retract his accusation. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
User:pgr94 charged you with 'repeated deletion of sourced material.' I myself see no evidence of any vandalism in these deletions, and I believe it is more a question of what can be validly inferred from each source, and what relative weight should be assigned. Admins do not rule on these matters, and a claim of 'deletion of sourced material' is not a slanderous accusation. It is just part of normal give and take in a content dispute. Nobody would regard User:pgr94 as being especially diplomatic here, but it's not a matter for us. Please pursue this elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I thought it was obvious, given that you replied to my comments aimed at QuackCD that my claim of slander was against his accusations that I edit with anything but a completely neutral stance, not the original allegations by pgr94. Sorry for the confusion, I had thought the location of the text would make it easy to work out. However, I have since made such statements against pgr94, which I assume the admins will take seriously. Especially considering he has accused 100% valid (unreverted, perfectly reasoned, and correct edits) of being "disruptive" and "nonsense" with absolutely no reasoning or evidence to his position. Such claims are obviously beyond questioning my good faith, and make it very hard for me to want to continue contributing, when I get threatened with blocks because I argue a case, and he is rewarded for making harsh comment against the contributions I make in my free time from a want to help the project, as opposed to pushing some agenda. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Jimmi, it seems like this whole issue boils down to your insistence that "Proprietary" means something other than that which can be found in the Oxford New English Dictionary. I agree with Pgr94 that "Proprietary" has been given connotation by conventional use and is therefore valid to use in contexts other than that which you feel it is most appropriate for. But most of all, I see that the edits in this conflict started out being really on par with what should be done, discussion in the talk page, etc. Then you both kind of went off in a weird direction. If you guys have issues with the content in the pages, make sure to discuss on talk pages and come to a consensus. If you need help, don't hesitate to invoke WP:3O. You can always rely on me to try to provide the most unbiased opinion on the topic at hand.
In a further note, I'd like to apologize to Jimmi if my comments made him feel that I was slandering his reputation. I meant no such umbrage. I think you are a great editor with much to offer the project, I just think you got too caught up in the heated nature of the debate at hand. Can we call it a truce and declare friends? I'd like to work with you on some projects in the future! QuackCD (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, certainly. Sorry, slander was a strong word, I've been touchy, and feeling perhaps I've messed up somewhere badly since this article [32], and I guess it made me a bit defensive. Ironically I was thinking I was the one on the side on the Oxford, but I'll definetly be prepare to discuss the meaning of the article before making further edits. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you QuackCD for looking into the issue and your input.
Jimmi, if you will agree to follow WP:V, and, before deleting referenced material you gain consensus through discussion on the talk pages, then I think we can put this issue behind us and move on.pgr94 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I will agree to discuss absolutely every single edit I make to any page labelled proprietary, independent of definition, if you retract all the incredibly harsh and uncalled for comments made against previous valid edits. Thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland[edit]

Resolved

I posted at the bottom and it was removed by User:Vintagekits. I undid. He re-deleted. Please would someone sort it. Thank you. Kittybrewster 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to report you here infact. Do you know what talk pages are for?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits is right; the talkpage is for discussing that article; notification of related discussion should be done via Wikiproject talkpages (which has been done), or notify interested editors via a neutral message on their own talk. Black Kite 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Irish wikipedians board already notified, Ireland project notified and the Northern Ireland project all already notified!! And I managed to use neutral language - unlike others! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:My2sense2wikip Is At It Again[edit]

My2sense2wikip (talk · contribs) was blocked last month by Protonk for repeatedly adding such irrelevant and unreliably sourced material here as evidenced again here.

After his unblocking expired, he returned and is adding exactly the same material again, such as here and here

Worse still, now he's actually editing others (mine) comments on the Talk Page to the exact reverse of the posted text, such as here.

As a refresher, before, he continued to add the source John Judge at ratical.org, which espouses the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources.

Despite explanations to him about Wikipedia policy on the matter, he before repeatedly added it several times, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.

He also promised to continue with this behavior, stating "These edits here won't end. I promise you." Which he has now done.

In addition, he has repeatedly engaged in uncivil dialoge, such as "stop being a liar" and "There was government complicity with Jonestown and you clearly have an agenda to discredit The Black Hole of Guyana by condemming it as fringe."

Finally, the user admits that the reason he keeps adding information about relatives of the author Deborah Layton to the article for the book Seductive Poison (information not relevant to the book, but perhaps notable to the author's life) is that he thinks that the redirect of the author's name to the book article is some kind plot to drive book sales:

"If someone had an entry article about Deborah Layton that didin't automically relocate to this article I would include these entries there and to this article . . . Someone who made that automatic re-direct probably had an agenda to plug this book and divert people away from her personal background."Mosedschurte (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours for edit warring right off the block again. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What would a 12 hour block do that his previous block didn't do? AnyPerson (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy uncivil accusation of wikistaliking is last straw.[edit]

Someone please get him under control.

diff

For context Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict

Accusation of wikistalking is probably related to Roof knocking, which is indisputably related to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, so the accusation of wikistalking is false, uncivil and ill-willed.

I have tried multiple times to establish productive dialogue with Tundra, and he has actually at times agreed with me, but ever since he decided that 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict was not about the topic it is about, he has gone the deep end in disruptness and filibustering. I didn't raise before because of overwhleming consensus opposing his views was enough, but his posting in my talk page is worrying and I wish to nip this kind of personal attacks at the bud. He must understand that an editing conflict is no reason for being uncivil and disruptive, regardless if his views are correct or not.

For your information, these articles are under discretionary sanctions from ArbCom. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had generally positive interactions with TBY. I think he tries to edit with a NPOV. The real problem here, imo, is User:Cerejota. After I disagreed with him at the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talkpage he left me a condescending message on my talk page how he was "disappointed with me". At the same time, he nominated an article that I worked on for deletion. He then proceeded, sans any discussion, to move the article and change the articel's focus. Still not content, he proceeded to plaster the page with a whole bunch of irrelevant templates (Take the uncategorized template for example. The article is clearly categorized). He finally "exaplained" the reasons for the tags at the article's talk page. A perusal of the article and the comments by an experienced editor will reveal that the comments are really a bunch of nonsense. It is not a content dispute. The tags are really inapplicable and disruptive. I ripped some hair out in frustration and went on to greener pastures of Tim Redding. However, I am now forced to respond because Cerejota has tuned the tables around and accused another editor of the very disruptions he is guilty of.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I see now that roof knocking was an article that was referenced in the article 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Thus the accusation that Cerejota was "following brewcrewer around" was indeed mistaken and not WP:AGF. I do apologize for that. I do, however, still feel that the numerous tags that he has added to the roof knocking article, as well as the AfD started on it, are not in good faith but reflect frustration over the Gaza conflict|article. It is hard enough trying to edit an article like this for NPOV, without slapping tags on or trying to delete, anything even remotely related to it. I admit to frustration with Cerejota as he has consistently reverted my (fairly few) attempts to edit the article for NPOV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
I accept the apology, and appreciate you seeing how it was wrong. No need to pursue this matter of the "wikistalking" further.
As to the rest of the things you both raise, there is no misconduct on my part that I see, and this is not the place to resolve editing disputes. However, I must correct Brewcrewer's impression that I acted without discussion: There is an AfD and I acted onw hat I felt he was arguing for in the AfD. When I acted, he revrted me, and that was it. I did place additional tags with an explanation ont he talk page of the article, which he requested in my talk page. He is saying I was wrong for doing what he suggested!!! Further discussion on content should happen in the appropiate forums (ie talk pages of articles and people). Of course, if you have any concrete evidence of wrongdoing on my part, please present it and lets get it over with.--Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are UK Wikipedians being proxied again?[edit]

As a FYI it appears Be Unlimited and 02 are proxying again as a result of WP:IWF. See: User talk:89.167.221.131 and here. Not sure whether another one of our pages has been blocked by the IWF.... but Be Unlimited and O2 are going through one IP it appears... D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think this proxying is IWF related? neuro(talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)...GbT/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Phoning Be now. neuro(talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) A lot of edits from the past few hours, some good faith not good not, hence I think that multiple users are being proxied..... D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. neuro(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. GbT/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. neuro(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Okey. Has anyone from the impacted ISPs checked virgin killer? Assumeing they are sticking with their no blocks widely disributed material locateing the targeted image could be tricky.Geni 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
appears virgin killer is visible. So this could be a problem.Geni 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. neuro(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. neuro(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. neuro(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. neuro(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been no contributions as far as I can see from any of the other proxy IP addresses previously used. Brilliantine (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a Virgin Media connection, from within the UK. I just checkusered myself and I am not editing through a proxy; I've had the same IP since 5th December. For the record, the secure server was always a method of circumventing the IWF block, so it doesn't surprise me that it continues to be one now. --Deskana (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't checkuser yourself in public ;) BMWΔ 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much we can do until we get more info. Only one ISP so could be a technical glitch but we shall see.Geni 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Two ISPs, unless I'm mistaken. I doubt it is a technical glitch. neuro(talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I recall those two use the same cleenfeed derived system and servers. Other ISPs use different servers.Geni 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Be is owned by o2 Telefonica. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The blocked IP hasn't edited it's own talk since 18:10, which suggests to be that the proxying was temporary, and may have stopped? Can someone check? D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative, still operational. neuro(talk) 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Telewest not affected, yet anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage the wp developers to get involved with this, adding code to detect this proxying and redirect all requests from IWF'd users through the secure server, including either installing a wildcard certificate on *.wikipedia.org or (if necessary, as I seem to remember there may have been a technical problem with using wildcards the obvious way) rewriting all outgoing wikipedia urls to use secure.wikimedia.org's mangled wikipedia url's. It's not just a censorship issue, it's also a privacy one since a creepy operation like that is likely to also be monitoring people's surfing habits. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk is OK for me. This has to be seen as a puzzle at the moment. It may be a technical problem unless evidence can be found that Wikipedia content is being blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm this is still ongoing on the IP mentioned above as of a few minutes ago. I suppose it is possible that it may have been done in error. Brilliantine (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Remarkable as it may seem, UK users of Wikipedia may be being proxied again. TalkTalk has revived one of the proxies in the 62. range on 7 January 2009, see [33]. Hopefully our friends at the Internet Watch Foundation are not playing silly b***s again, but things are now looking worrying. I am going to contact Jimbo about this. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, this was how it happened last time - gradually. Maybe the WP:IWF page needs updating? At least only two of the previously used IPs are active so far. Brilliantine (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to WP:OR issues, there is a need for caution here. There is still a possibility of a technical problem, although things are more worrying than yesterday. I have e-mailed the IWF for a comment (although I am not expecting a reply). However, if they are proxying for any reason, they will not be able to keep the lid on it any more than they were over Virgin Killer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant the informational page rather than the article. Brilliantine (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
They might be able to since this time we have no idea what is being filtered.Geni 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
TalkTalk is filtering Wikipedia again. It has been running like a dog today, and Special:Mytalk is showing one of their proxy IPs. Secure server is running fine though. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
hmm is there anyone who might tell us what is being hit? Doesn't appear to be any of the ususal suspects. so unless someone can do a complete autoscan not much we can do.Geni 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In the past few minutes I have been able to try a Virgin Media cable connection, and it appears to be OK. TalkTalk was fine yesterday, but is apparently being proxied through just one IP address at 62.24.251.240 today. Jimbo has asked me to contact Mike Godwin. Can anyone else report in on other ISPs?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to our previous IWF contact asking them to confirm or deny whether we've been blacklisted again.MikeGodwin (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, my phone is going to melt again. I've emailed a link to this thread to the