Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Tbsdy[edit]

Resolved: No further comments or actions necessary. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See this. The links present in this comment pretty much constitute an enemies list, which usually isn't allowed. The comment was removed once, but an admin restored it for some reason. Can we perhaps remove it again?

PS. I've not notified Tbsdy of this discussion, as I'm almost certain he would not appreciate any sort of communication from me. Anyone else can feel free to do it. Equazcion (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree it's an enemies list; it looks like a genuine cry of distress on exit. And this thread looks like giving the hive one last good whack. But that's just my opinion. Others' mileage may differ. REDVƎRS 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Overreact, much? So he's made some links to users he doesn't get along with in a comment. Doesn't look like an "enemies list" to me, especially as the names are only visible as pipelinks. This AN/I post is unnecessary drama, especially as the user is claiming to have retired. I've read the preceding AN/I post and it's pointless drama too, though that time instigated by Tbsdy. Do some editors not have anything better to do than bicker at each other? Fences&Windows 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Whatever TSBDY decides to do, I will support. However, his rubbish and attacks I will not [1]; if he wishes to be clever, then he needs to find another forum. I am more than hapy to be banned over this myself and break 3R if need be, he implies he was driven off by 3 editors. In his dreams, this may be so, in reality it was not, so I do not see why those three editors have to pay the price to protect one "Admin" who should have been desysopped months ago! I was pursuaded against my better judgement not to over-react to him over the BP fiasco, I kept my temper and sanity over the latest outpourings from him. Now, enough is enough if he wants a fight he can have one! I am happy to oblige, I will not be emotionally blackmailed!  Giacomo  17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, do you want to wind the rhetoric back a little, Giano? REDVƎRS 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Whatever you mean by "emotional blackmail", you clearly want to let someone else manipulate you and your emotions. A reasonable, calm person would simply ignore the comment and move on with his or her life. Instead, you are deleting a comment, leaving behind strange edit summaries. Since when is it okay to delete a talk page comment just because it contains a link to deleted material? That's just bizarre. -Rrius (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano, I think it would be best to leave it. And that doesn't mean I'm defending what happened. But there are a few user pages with not nice stuff about me on them, including one from someone who refuses to edit until I'm desysopped, though that person continues to edit, I continue to admin, the user page continues to note the false prediction, and we've all survived. TBSDY was here for a long time and is clearly upset, so a small parting shot can be overlooked. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As someone else on the enemies list, I'd be inclined to leave it alone, per SV. If you just can't bear to do that, consider redacting the links to Giano's now-deleted subpage, and his username, and anyone else who doesn't like being listed (e.g. Equazcion, I assume), rather than the whole thing. But otherwise, it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. The matter should have been dealt with ages ago, and as usual it falls to me to ensure it is. Where are the Arbs who claim they are monitoring this odd situation? Nowhere to be seen. As usual we have clueles admins runing about like ants. TSBDY obviously is watching like a hawk wanting some excitement in his life, perhaps we should give him some! Or do you seriously imagine he is honing up on the finer points of Baroque architecture as he claime the penultimate time I hade to take his rubbish. Nope the matter needs dealing with, or he wil be back in 5 minutes wanting his precious bit back - a bit that should have been forcibly removed months ago! I have been an example of patience where TSBDY is concerned, no one's patience lasts for ever, certainly not mine. The Arbs had better sort it - or I will! I have no fear of bans and blocks beter that than being attacked by TSBDY every five minutes.  Giacomo  18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Still not winding back the rhetoric, are we, Giano? I know that you're always given lots of rope on WP, but, really, there's being a drama magnet and crossing the line into making drama. Please don't cross that line. Please. REDVƎRS 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Redvers. The mattter has now been resolved by an Arb. Please do not use double rhetoric when talking to me, one of us is quite enough, and I am the master. The matter is now resolved to my complete satisfaction, you may all resume your content work now.  Giacomo  18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done, Giano: the thread ends with my opinion of you unchanged. And we've got a new essay out of it. REDVƎRS 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"An arb"? Do you mean an "admin"? Of course you're happy, an admin protected your preferred version. -Rrius (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, I meant an Arb, I always say what I mean. Oh and Redvers, I am distraught, your opinon matters so very much to me.  Giacomo  18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
By Wikipedia's only certain law, the version protected is always The Wrong VersionTM. Nothing can be assumed from the version protected. REDVƎRS 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
How is the person's arb status at all relevant? Unless you are holding out on us about a relevant arb discussion, the only thing relevant is that an admin protected page in the midsts of a content dispute. I suppose you are desperate to put some official imprimatur on your case, so nice try. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's a coincidence that Newyorkbrad, an arb, on the same talkpage instructs that the page remain deleted and now Risker, another arb protects it with the edit summary: "will reduce when this issue is resolved"? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, did you actually read that edit summary before pasting it? It clearly says "when this issue is resolved". That means it is not resolved. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Does it have to be resolved for the Arbs to be looking into it? I thought that first they have to deliberate and then they resolve. Maybe you have another idea of how this works. Anyway do you think it a coincidence that two arbs have come to this page? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On closing this discussion: I'd just like to point out that the talk page was protected to stop the edit warring, presumably pending the outcome of this discussion in order to decide the fate of the content in question. Closing this means the page either remains protected, or the warring starts again when protection is lifted (one could reasonably predict). IMO the discussion should be allowed to continue. Right now it's just bickering between involved parties, but when more outside involvement comes along, I think this thread could indeed resolve things, at least to determine where consensus lies on the content. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't consider myself an involved party. I was at this page for another reason, saw this discussion, and weighed in. When I read the "offending" user talk comment the second time, I saw that Giano had reverted it as a personal attack, and was himself reverted, then reverted it again with the nonsensical edit summary, "Removing links to dleted content. For the 2nd time. Please follow a link before claiming it is not deleted. This edotr says he does not want to edit, please help him!" That is a bizarre thing to say and in no way justifies the revert. -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that no one doubts that you were "at this page for another reason, saw this discussion, and weighed in.". However, it all resolved here now, for the time being, so please do not let us delay you from that "another reason."  Giacomo  19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I realize you wan't to bring the curtain down as fast as you can, but the matter is not resolved. The relevant page is protected, and you still haven't bothered to explain how it is a personal or attack or how it is invalid to link to articles that, if you "follow the links", have been deleted. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good evening Rrius - that's an interesting spelling - how should one pronounce it, I am fascinated by language and pronunciation should one roll the "r", it sounds a little Welsh to me - is it?  Giacomo  19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) At this point, I'd just leave it alone, per IAR if necessary. There's no need to get into a fracas about it at this point. Tbsdy doesn't look like he's coming back- if he does, then we can worry about it. But let's just drop it and leave it be until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Leaving a user talk page in a protected state when there was none of the sort of user misconduct that normally precipitates such a step is not a suitable resolution. That is especially true where, as here, an editor alleges a comment made on that talk page by the "owner" of the talk page was a personal attack, but where no one has agreed with that assessment at the AN/I raised about it. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is nothing left to discuss here, comment is gone. Please allow the user closure. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no objection.  Giacomo  19:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the comment is only gone because the page is protected, which is a temporary measure to stop the edit warring. Protection presumably needs to be lifted at some point, so consensus should be determined on the content prior to that. Equazcion (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If we need consensus here's my 2 cents. Let's not split hairs about personal attack or almost personal attack. Is there any benefit to the comments remaining there. It certainly doesn't help content wise. It doesn't help those angered at being named. And frankly it doesn't help TBSDY who self admitedly needs to disengage. I don't care what you call it but the way it is currently resolved IMHO is best for all involved and uninvolved. (If we don't need further consensus consider this endorsing resolution.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to close this, the issue is over, there is nothing left to talk about. Any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unarchiving this section as not resolved. As was pointed out, the protection of the talk page does not solve the issue, and is ostensibly only in place until it is. It is not acceptable to have a retired editor's talk page permanently protected, not when it is supposedly being done to allow him closure, but in the act removing his closing statement, and especially not when it has been done at the request of his wiki-enemy, who declares he will be happy to be blocked over the issue. Sorry to have to put this so blandly, but I have an admirer here myself it seems, who has taken a liking to removing my posts without even the simple courtesy of telling me. MickMacNee (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy retired while blocked, got his user talk page deleted against policy, and then continued to use his talk page to score points (while its history is hidden from some of those he chose to link to from it). He seems to want to have his cake and eat it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've corresponded by e-mail with the user concerned and as they couldn't do it themselves they agreed to my suggestion to place 'retired' templates on the user page and user talk pages. I've also reduced the protection on the user talk page to 24 hours, but not removed the protection entirely given the potential for further disagreements here. I would suggest that this thread is now marked as resolved, as that is the best way to let this user disengage from Wikipedia. Any further comments can be made at a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Semi protection of Paul_Gray_(American_musician)[edit]

Resolved: Page is semi-protected now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is being vandalised several times a minute, it'd be good if it was protected ASAP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even know where to revert to. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The page is such a massive fucking mess I can't even find a valid revert point. HalfShadow 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be semi pro-ed quick, there is so much vandalism and EC's, cant keep up with it. Full of obscenities, etc. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL, someone got it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been reverted to previous good version and all relivent information readded. So all is good. I think this can be marked as resolved for the time being. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad my reversion to its state before today worked :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should have a particular rule concerning newly deceased people: semi-protect the article for 24 hours following knowledge of their death. I realize this sort of falls under 'no pre-emptive protection' but 'dead famous people' tend to be a vandal magnet. (See also Ronnie James Dio) A 24-hour semiprotect might curb this. HalfShadow 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Recently deceased people should not be allowed to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked user evading his block[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked

The account Samofi was indefinitely blocked by administrators a few days ago for disruptive editing and POV pushing, however his IP address (User:78.128.181.9) was not, therefore the blocked user continued to edit in the same disruptive way, (i.e mostly ethnicity related edits) which is WP:EVADE. Please compare their contributions. Note that Ip 78.128.181.9 confirmed (User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) that he is blocked user Samofi. His sockpuppet (User:JanVarga) was blocked yeterday.--B@xter9 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of image[edit]

Nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: Bullshit sense...tingling... HalfShadow 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Several editors expressed their opinions on the image in question, and the end result was looking like a clear "Keep" consensus. However, user:Edgar181 then stepped in and trumped these votes by stepping in and deleting the image, before closing down the debate. Furthermore, he wrongly summarised that the result of the vote was "delete" despite it clearly being otherwise. This is an abuse of administrator privileges/community process here, and I must bring this to your attention. 79.75.230.195 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Strangely enough, even a single Delete vote trumps the ramblings of a group of anon editors who couldn't string together a decent rationale between them. I'd suggest you stop wasting everyone's time here. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Before BK beat me to it, I was going to post that Edgar's decision may have had something to do with the fact that the only "keep" votes were by anonymous IPs whose only recent contributions were the deletion discussion itself and one or two related discussions (such as this one). – ClockworkSoul 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the log entry, the file was deleted under CSD G3 as "vandalism". The only problem I see here is that Edgar181 didn't mention this in his closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And having looked at the image and judging from some the comments on the FFD, it's probably speediable under WP:CSD#G10 as well. Oh, and all but one of the IPs is probably the same user. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
More than likely.. and clearly trolling too.. as I refuse to believe that they sincerely thought admins would be stupid enough to not see right through this lame attempt at gaming the system. -- œ 07:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I second the above IP. I came to offer my thoughts and am disgusted they have been disregarded in such a callous manner. This seems to be very much a typical conspiracy of anti-stabbing activists as can be found all over the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.143.69 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010
"anti-stabbing activists" = law abiding citizenry? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
IP blocked for trolling. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that XFDs are a discussion, not a vote. MC10 (TCGBL) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the best laugh I've had today, which gives you an idea of how the day has gone. A string of "Keep" votes, all from IP's, several of which appear to be on the same subnet, following by "Result was: DELETE". As if the admin were saying, "Thanks for your input. See ya." Fittingly followed up with an illustration of the WP:Plaxico Boomerang effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:Plaxico needs to be an actual redirect...it's just too funny. — Scientizzle 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I've been persuaded that it's a BLP violation, or more to the point, others consider it a BLP violation, and it's not worth fighting for. Also, too often we've had to explain it, which kind of undermines the joke. So we're transitioning to the more broadly recognizable "boomerang" effect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I second it being the funniest thing I've seen today, its not often that you get 6 IP's (+1) voting on the same XFD and than accusing the closing admin of misconduct.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I blocked the OP after he resumed at Edgar181's talkpage. They've posted an unblock request ... Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I I think you'll find that only legitimate edits have been made by me over here at this IP... Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.113.18 (talk)
And the story continues, forged sig above, but no escape from SineBot. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I may not have won this battle today, but mark my words, my day will come! THAT IMAGE WILL BE ON WIKIPEDIA, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. There is nothing you can do to prevent this in the long run. 79.75.155.145 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] You OK? ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Important notice[edit]

Resolved

towels have been issued to the towelness, and trowels to the easily gullible. SGGH ping! 10:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All administrators should ensure they know where their towel is before taking admin actions today.

That is all.

Guy (Help!) 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this frood may have an undisclosed conflict of interest here. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Malke 2010[edit]

Resolved: user takes responsibility, now unblocked thanks to great work by SGGH and others. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. The user has been on a bit of a spree lately making accusations against others and general WP:TE, recently blocked and unblocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'd appreciate a review of this block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. To help narrow my search, is this all to do with Michael Collins again? SGGH ping! 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In general, but not limited to it. A related post above is User:RepublicanJacobite_Personal_Attacks_and_Removing_edits_from_Article_Talk_Page where I first encountered this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, even I would find [3] this a bit offensive (I happen to know something of Irish nationalism and its history myself) but Malke has a history of using the talk page for what it isn't for [4] [5]. User has previous for disruptive editing and has a rap sheet with 1 week block(s) there before. Perhaps as a 'cooling off' block the period may have been a bit long, however there is the WP:TE and general disruption in the face of consensus to consider. A difficult one, as he is a busy defender of his own viewpoint but doesn't know when to let it go. SGGH ping! 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to discuss it with the user on email and see if they will accept some points of order, and then the block can be shortened with certain... assurances? With a bit of know-how on Irish history 1880s-1970s I might be able to engage him in a useful way. SGGH ping! 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest anyone reviewing the block takes note of the hectoring by this editor at User talk:RashersTierney#Personal attacks, where they repeatedly assert that another editor using the phrase "convoluted logic" is making personal attacks and seem to have great difficulty dropping the stick and moving away from the dead horse. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke was poked with a stick too many times and she bit the hand that poked her (naturally) RJ needs to back away as well and both parties need to leave each other alone. Perhaps a topic ban in Irish related articles can keep them away from each other?--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Today's incidents have little to do with RepublicanJacobite, other than him being involved in the underlying article dispute. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
O Fenian, you are absolutely correct, the block today had almost nothing to do with RepublicanJacobite(I won't claim it had absolutely nothing to do with it, since it was probably a spark to the current situation), and everything to do with the exact reasons Toddst1 gave for the block. One just needs to go through Malke's edits today(particularly the ones directed at Todd and RashersTierney. Dave Dial (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a talk first, if others permit, I might be able to talk a way through before topic bans and things come into it, anyone have any objections? SGGH ping! 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Just as long as both users leave each other alone with no exeptions.--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
None at all. I would strongly oppose any topic ban for RepublicanJacobite, while he may have made a few over-the-top comments during heated discussions (such as this Malke was just as, if not more, abusive) he has acknowledged it got out of hand, a few incivil comments do not justify a topic ban. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have left a message offering a talk, but stating that there will be some changes that are not negotiable. If the worst comes to the worst all we will end up with is a blocked user, which is what we have now. I'll let you know, but if there isn't anything further this can probably be closed down for now. Agree? (And I think I just got an email) SGGH ping! 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
To me, and regardless of this current situation, this block is long overdue. This editor attacked me out of nowhere recently on a talk page [6], then when I asked them to strike or collapse the segment, they got even nastier [7]. I honestly do everything I can to avoid them now, because I just don't want to deal with them. Their editing can be quite off-putting, and they need to learn how to edit in a cooperative manner without resorting to attacks and tenditious editing to get their point across. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Blasted software deleted my email, had to write it again, but ball is rolling. SGGH ping! 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with White Shadows. The block was good, but having seen this unfold earlier, I think there may be a more peaceful solution to this. Without slighting the blocking admins in this case, I'm slightly curious as to why Malke was blocked earlier and not RJ, whose comments seem to have been probably about as undesirable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got a answer to that question though many people won't like it, RJ is likely friends (or more respected by) to some extent with the blocking admins. (proven otherwise) He recieves a meager warning and Malke gets a week block. There's a fine example of admins useing double standards for you...--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't this area still under probation restrictions? --John (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke is a keen writer and from what I've seen, always edits in good faith. However, since her first edits last summer she's been drawn to only the most high traffic political topics, which are prone to more disagreement, dodgy, sometimes awful widely published sources, edit warring, sniping and sundry banes to enyclopedic editing (open or not) than any other areas on en.WP. Much of her contribution history is one of ever more tendentious editing whilst seeking behavioural sanctions against editors with whom she disagrees as to PoV. Going by her edits, in my outlook she gives heed only to what she might skim from quick reads of policy shreds which she then wields to forward her own editorial goals (which I don't claim to understand), towards which she edits unwaiveringly and at such speed that when she runs into big editorial and other bumps here, she becomes careless. Taken altogether (from the outlook of en.WP's policies) she seems to have wholly muddled truth with NPoV. For Malke, this has rather much the same outcome as baiting: Editors whom she has badgered wind up posting weary comments about her which would otherwise be taken as straightforward snark. Some editors give up spending their volunteer time trying to deal with her and hence are driven away from articles. I was hoping there was a way to skirt a long block like this, but I've foreseen it for some time and believe it to be preventative. I'd like to think there's still hope she can make a big shift in how she edits here but if she doesn't, a siteban is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've ascertained some things from my email communications from Malke so far. I am largely inclined to agree with Gwen Gale's assessment above, which I find very perceptive. It seems that she does plunge head-first into controversial topics, and I think she takes some negative comments on her editing as personal attacks a little too seriously. She then, of course, retorts. She also appears to have a tendancy to escalate things a bit too readily (she made a logical argument regarding the inclusion of a Category:Cathilic people (or similar) along the lines of "what else do you have to do other than be Catholic to be in the Catholic people category" however she then threw away the logical with the very next sentence: "this is religious discrimination" and then something about the "Irish Holocaust". This kind of escalation is going to attract negative comments regardless of what the original logic is. I do feel that she is not the only guilty party, I have found some of the comments regarding "trolling", her intelligence and capability to be somewhat offensive, and a couple even I of the thick skin would have considered an attack. Yes, she has failed to drop the stick on occasion, however I also believe she (with her rather forthright, uncompromising editing style that needs tailoring) has hit a hard group of editors who have issues of their own and may in fact be suffering from a bit of WP:OWN. Unfortunately, she is one of a number of people who treat Wikipedia as a place of academic debate, when in fact it works differently to any academic or research environment I have ever worked in. Instead, she was barraged by that familiar line of three-letter-acronym blue-links that we are so fond of (WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH, WP:TROLL, WP:RS, WP:V) and it has all gone downhill from there.
I am going to email toddst1 for some diffs, not because I disagree with the block but because I want a couple of specific examples that drew his/her attention, so I can help the user further. If this should be successful, I'm going to suggest for discussion reducing the block to a day or two. Thankyou, Gwen Gale, I may email you too. SGGH ping! 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not uninvolved, having had a number of run-ins with Malke2010 on the Karl Rove page last fall. Count me as one of the people who left off attempting to edit that page rather than deal with this editor. As recently as a few days ago I warned Malke on my talk page to "learn to walk away". Now we are here discussing Malke's latest block. Malke2010 really shows no desire to learn from mistakes.
Frankly, I hold little hope that Malke is salvageable, though again I don't pretend to be uninvolved. I have great faith in admin Toddst1, admire his efforts, and completely agree that the reasoning for the block under WP:BATTLE and WP:TE is both correct and proper. But this needs to be said: Malke2010's block is long overdue, and in my view, if anything, is far too short. Jusdafax 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
So, your not uninvolved and you think Malke's block should be longer and you think that his account in un-salvageable, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
To put your comment in perspective: A quick look at the Off2riorob talk page shows that in fact just two days ago you warned Malke2010 (in terms remarkably similar to my own to Malke2010 on my talk page) to learn to withdraw, and further that you two appear to be in off-wiki communication via email, just so the record is clear in this thread. Comments are being sought about Malke's latest block, and after full disclosure, I have every right to respond based on my numerous highly unpleasant experiences with an editor now found, by Wikipedians in authority, to be tendentious. Jusdafax 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You can respond but you are overly involved with edit war history and in such issues, experienced editors and Administrators move to a neutral position and attempt to help the issue, your involvement and inability to disengage make your comments detrimental to neutral discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax has every right to inform ANI of his views, particularly since he is happy to acknowledge his own position. Trust the admins to see his position, particularly since he has stated it. :) In the mean time I have sent Malke the diffs Toddst has provided me with, however I have made it clear that I am not willing to campaign with her for the reversal of the action, just willing to assist her in preventing it from happening again. SGGH ping! 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My thanks. Jusdafax 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea...thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, when I look at the diffs that have been provided here, I see this as 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. The majority of the diffs I looked at have baiting and aggressive edit summaries that accompany some equally unacceptable comments by the other editors involved. Comments like "This is not a forum for your ranting about British hatred of Catholics." and "Rubbish; as usual, you are being evasive and showing your intention is disruption." as well as posts that are designed to denigrate the recipient [8]

and the history discussed on Malke's talk page about an editor telling her to lob off and not post to his talk page but followed that up with templating the regular speaks to what this editor has to deal with and wind up blocked when other offending parties are not for the same type of behavior. There seems a disparity in handing out blocks to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it there are other parties who should have a share of the responsibility, however I do think Malke has some other issues regarding her editing, however at the moment our email contact may be reaching a more promising conclusion. SGGH ping! 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SGGH in that some situations, other editors may have a share of the responsibility. However, Malke wasn't blocked for one single act of incivility. There's a history of behavior here, as evidenced in the comments of Jusdafax and my own diffs above. I've never made a personal attack against her, and her venom was sufficient that I took an article off my watch list. Whether or not she was "baited" on one article, there's still a history there. She needs to understand policy, and simply disregarding her own personal attacks while blaming other editors for conflict isn't going to lead to harmonious editing. Dayewalker (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur, and I assure you that I am not disregarding her actions in this. I have made it very clear to her that "Wikipedia will not change for you" and that if she does not agree, she shall not get help. I have pointed out that she is highly culpable. SGGH ping! 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke said she was sorry on her talk page. Any longer block is punishment, which is forbidden. If the sorry turns out to be a trick, then re-block is possible. Punishing others is not using a mop. It is using a gun. Any evidence that the sorry is not genuine? I haven't done extensive diff research but AGF means we accept sorries without being paranoid or doubting good faith. 03:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorg (talkcontribs)

For the record, after Malke's latest unblock the user went to SGGH's talk page to make a dismissive comment, which shows, in my view, a patent lack of contrition. That this was comment was made even before this ANI thread was archived speaks volumes. As Dayewalker notes above, "there's a history of behavior here", and I submit Malke shows every sign of going right back to WP:BATTLE mode. Jusdafax 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Retaliation by blocking administrator[edit]

I made a neutral and polite comment above. Immediately afterwards, the blocking admin, Toddst1 made a personal attack on me accusing me of edit warring on a page that I haven't edited in days and am not fighting. This is an excuse. Todd is harrassing me. This is really abuse of power and intimidation.

I, therefore, withdraw my comments about Malke. I support Todd's block. Malke's block should be extended to 1 year, not 1 week. I 100% support Todd and fully oppose Malke now. Todd has my full support. Please accept this apology and do not follow me around or pick fault at my edits. Asorg (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the duck. Can you be more specific?
As for the alleged retaliation, I had tried to address this on the article talk and my talk but apparently I didn't. Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I used User Compare on the two. They both have similar, if not almost the same, editing times. I'll get a print when I remember how to access the index.— dαlus Contribs 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked along with some other socks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User Vranak - disruptive editing and incivility[edit]

Vranak (talk · contribs) - I had thought this was a new user, based on editing behaviour. I encountered the editor at EverQuest, and the editor assures me that wp:consensus and wp:pillars are not as important as doing what the editor determines to be best for WP. There is a section about editor behaviour at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#more User:Vranak, and various warnings on the editor talk page.

However, when I decided to open an ANI incident today, I saw the editor was indeffed here back in 2007 for sockpuppetry and incivility, and the block log shows the editor was allowed to return to editing after expressing understanding and assurances that behaviour would not be repeated. Those assurances have not turned out to last through to 2010.

While I am certainly not known for kindness, this editor's abuse of those who don't hold opinions acceptable to the editor is way overboard. While I agree that Ref desk talk is not the place to discuss a block, calling the other editors fascists is not acceptable. I have placed a template notice for the ANI thread on the editor's talk page, and will add a point to it at the (misplaced IMO) discussion at Ref Desk.- Sinneed 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed, you are a fascist. Plain and simple. Personal attack? You're damn right it is. Stop being a fascist though, and I will stop calling you one. Vranak (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 3 days per that last comment as well as similar ones. Such stuff is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 18:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Editor response was to attack the blocking admin. - Sinneed 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ignore the idiot. WP:ROPE. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sinneed, I did notice the WQA posting at the time - I don't think uninvolved perspective will assist in this particular situation. His most latest comment during his block suggests that he made a conscious choice to adopt this sort of approach. Other than echoing what Guy said, all I'd suggest is to remember WP:NOTTHERAPY. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Well, misguided I would buy into, and unacceptably abusive. Sometimes, a stern voice, uninvolved, explaining that "This must stop." can help some editor who might one day make many useful contributions. It doesn't seem to have helped in this case. I do apologize for not linking the WQA thread, I had intended to.- Sinneed 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Vranak does not seem to be gaining either coherency or civility during his block. See this post where he starts with fantasizing about making a death thread (against Sinneed?), and ends up speculating on Sinneed's astrological sign! APL (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
All I can say is don't feed the trolls. He's only digging his own hole and is well on his way to another indef block. –MuZemike 05:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This is in no way acceptable, particularly given the other edits he has also made during his block - if an administrator went to indef block the user, I'd endorse it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Meh. He's currently blocked, and seems to have stopped his post-block trolling many hours ago. If after the current block, problematic behavior restarts, we can revisit the idea of an indefinite block (and by revisit, I mean drop one as fast as humanly possible). At this point, extending the block would seem to be retributional, if you ask me... --Jayron32 06:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayron. Blocked users often get angry and throw tantrums on their talk page . If mentioning death threats and calling editors Fascists continues until the end of the block, then perhaps his talk page should be protected for the duration of the block. That would be preventative, not punitive. Extending the block because of his ranting there doesn't seem wise, psychologically. Yes, I know WP isn't therapy, but there is no need to make an angry person even angrier unless it really serves the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My thinking was that an indef block would help extract a guarantee for the long term that the user will change their approach for X Y and Z reasons...if it restarted after that, then at least the next course of action is simple (outright community action). Technically, the indef block need not take longer than the current block, unless the editor has no interest in changing the approach that led to the block prior to the trolling. That was the preventative side I was looking at. That said, I can appreciate the hesitance/disagreement in adopting that approach, and of course, the fact that where people feel a block is unjustified, they say things in anger (not sure if that really was the case here though). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I didn't see that point. In Vranak's case, I am not sure of anything either, including what exactly motivates his behaviour. One thing I remember, however, is that he has socked at the reference desks before, and I guess I'd prefer having his edits (which, to be fair, aren't always this bad) out in the open. We already have a couple of sockmasters trolling the desks, and it is bothersome, because they aren't always recognized immediately, and occasionally even succeed in getting constructive editors at loggerheads with one another. (The desks as well the trolls feed off our policy of assuming good faith, though in different ways). I certainly wouldn't want to add another shapeshifting nuisance to our list of "regulars". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Judging by his comments on various pages, it seems Vranak believes Vranak is always right. He doesn't care about citations or Wikipedia policy, he believes he is in the right and will not be persuaded otherwise. He's either a very subtle troll, or really does not "get" how Wikipedia works. Either way, I expect he'll be right back to the same behavior when his block wears off, and we'll be right back here talking about an indef/ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna fan still proving problematic despite a previous recent ANI[edit]

Ok some of you might remember this ANI report from April 25 about user Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). His/her last comment was "sorry! ... i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused." This follows comments i had about about him/her refusing to listen to the community consensus, take heed of warnings and follow protocol. Since then its been a non-stop uphill battle against the user:

From Iluvrihanna24's talkpage there are lots warning from myself and other users. I just dont think he/she will learn. I ask him/her yesterday did i ask him to refrain from MOS:NUM violations and asked him/her to clarify if he/she had a source for this edit and i also reminded him/her of the previous ANI and thought that the way things were going i would notify them that it might be appropriate to open another. He/she has not responded though its obvious from [this edit that they were active after recieving the message. i think its time for admin to intervene as the user is tendiously editing. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to repost this because i posted it several days ago without any comments from any administrator. there is genuin concern here that we have a tenditious editor who's been the subject of past ANI's and recieved many final warnings but simply hasn't learnt. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Back from traveling tonight, and will look into this tomorrow. At first glance, I'm concerned that it's going to be impossible for me to act on because it's hard for me to identify behavioural guidelines or policies that he has violated.—Kww(talk) 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, looked it over. Problematic? Certainly. Blockable at this point? I can't see hitting the button as being the proper solution. Two solutions come to mind. First, choose a single aspect of the behaviour you find problematic (unsourced material, for example), and systematically step through the warning cycle, building a clear case that the editor ignores properly formatted warnings and repeats the behaviour after a final warning. Do that, and it will be a case that nearly any admin would intervene in. Alternatively, look into WP:RFC/U. My preference would be the WP:RFC/U route: this editor doesn't strike me as being a vandal, just someone that doesn't quite grasp why some of his edits are inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okies well basically he/she is constantly violating WP:crystal, WP:verifiable, changing sourced information, multiple insertion of unsourced information, MOS breaches and he/she promised in the previous ANI to discuss their editing more which they failed to do. hope that helps. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Pilz[edit]

Peter Pilz (talk · contribs)

Have removed unsourced, poorly sourced, and possibly original research material introduced by Peter Pilz (talk · contribs) on three different pages. Requests for better sourcing have been ignored, and reverts continue. I do not wish to violate 3RR, so am bringing this matter to the attention of administrators. Again, this is occurring on three separate pages:[9] [10] [11]. Akerans (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that this is a new user who hasn't discussed any of this. I've left a note on their talk page - hopefully they will be willing to discuss this. ETA This material amounts to accusations of illegal activity and as such I think it needs to be redacted. Second opinion? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done a temporary redaction; I went back to Akerans' last version, then protected the article for 3 days (admin edit only). At the very least we need better explanations and sourcing on the claims. Normally in content disputes we are ok with protecting a wrong version, but obviously potentially defamatory claims are an exception... I recommend discussion on the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Would an intelligent administrator please email me?[edit]

Okay, I don't want to start another drama thread, so would an administrator please email me? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI is made by drama ;). <redacted> Kalakitty talk 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to assume bad faith, but you're edits are suspicious as heck for a newbie. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I have off-wiki edits in a few Wikia projects. :P <redacted> Kalakitty talk 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry for the ABF then; blame the sockpuppets. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You'll probably have to change the signature, though. I'm well aware of what swastikas represent in different cultures (PLEASE don't give me a lecture, I'm an Asian History major in school), but that's not a good idea. Even if you aren't a sock, that'll attract a lot of attention; the last time someone came here with a signature like that (see here), it turned out to be a sock here for trolling (I was an IP at the time). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't want it to be a problem for me in the future so considered it removed. ...' Kalakitty talk 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Just as I thought there's no such thing, Wikipedia:Intelligent Administrator. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No one intelligent has ever become an administrator; because if you were intelligent, you would know better than to volunteer. –xenotalk 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. Nobody intelligent would go through an RFA --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you notice how the title suggests some administrators are not intelligent. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not really meant to mean that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Laugh out loud for real, good to see there's still a sense of humor within the Wikipedian population. ;) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the redlink. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kalakitty[edit]

Kalakitty's immediate knowledge of signatures, AfD, edit notices, and AN/I does ring alarm bells, and using a swastika in their sig reminded me of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Main_Edges_use_of_swastikas_in_signature. Fences&Windows 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed from Kalakitty's user page wikicode which overlaid the title of the page (i.e. "User:Kalakitty") with other text, something about being bad with computers, on the basis that the page is not Kalakitty's to alter in a manner which makes it hard for other editors to identify it. Considering the swastika, the editor's obvious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia (AN/I, AfD, sigs etc.) and this bit of obscure wikicoding, I suggest that the editor is not a newbie, and is probably a sock of another editor. User:Main Edges turned out to be a sock of Pickbothmanlol, and it may be that Kalakitty is as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to ruin the fun, but I believe that this account's purpose is no longer needed. As you already know, I am learning from my mistakes. I happen to have another account that I edit from my aunt. I have a account already about to be over one month old that you will not find unless you know what town from North Florida I am using to evade your stupid blocking. Go ahead, block this account, it will be the last easy one you will get. Either way, I have won because CheckUser depends on I.P. Kalakitty talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy the barnstar Ken. Kalakitty talk 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, okay. Blocked. —DoRD (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Metal Storm[edit]

The Metal Storm page was, as far as I recall, deleted a week or two ago as being advertising. Shortly after, the Metal Storm (webzine) article was renamed to Metal Storm since there was no longer any disambiguation needed.

Now the original Metal Storm article has reappeared in the original place - the webzine has moved backed to it's place, but the talkpage for Metal Storm (webzine) is now attached to Metal Storm.

I can't see from the history of the article who did all the deleting and undeleting so I am leaving a message here. Weakopedia (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it was just that the talk page wasn't undeleted when the article page was; there was a redirect from the move of the magazine article (to make way for undeleting the article), but the article talk didn't come back.
I undid the redirect and am looking for any deleted revisions of the Metal Storm weapon talk page.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Something odd happened with the history undelete. I don't understand what happened at this point; any experts about history undeletes in the house? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the outcome you want? Stifle (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Last night, the 78 ish revisions I clicked "restore" on didn't show up in the history when I checked, for about 15-20 min after restoring it. They're there now. Not sure if someone did something, or if there was a cacheing issue, or if I was just being a n00b and missed something obvious last night. But all appears well now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't mind knowing how it got from being deleted to reappearing, as I cannot tell from looking at the history. Weakopedia (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Fastily (talk · contribs) or John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) would be able to shed some light on it for you? [12]B.hoteptalk• 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spammer[edit]

Resolved

Smith1656 (talk · contribs) appears to be a spammer - every single edit, back to July 2009, is spam. Could someone please deal with him? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and find none that aren't the insertion of inappropriate links, often spamming and promotional, including putting in adverts in the form of prose, I have indef'd the account as spam/promotional only. SGGH ping! 09:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What's interesting is that he edited on 3 different dates for 3 unrelated companies. Might be a "spammer for hire". The first one is disturbing because he was spamming directly for a large and otherwise respectable company, not just a small time affiliate/reseller. Back in my nanae days we used to call this mainsleaze. If true I have to wonder if North Face knew that they hired someone who was going to spam Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
North Face haven't spammed Wikipedia. The content of that site is merely an excuse for displaying adverts. MER-C 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He emailed me with an unblock request, I told him to use the template. I can't help him anyway, being the admin which gone done the thing that he takes issue with. SGGH ping! 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian VC Featured Article has been vandalised on the home page version[edit]

Resolved: Total awarded: 0. Agree that it's a confusing statement to make that "it can be awarded more than once" but continue to say "it's never been awarded": this should be raised at WP:ERRORS. –xenotalk 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It says 'The Victoria Cross can be awarded more than once, but no one has received the Canadian medal since its inception.' It should say 'The Victoria Cross can be awarded more than once, but no one has received the Canadian medal more than once since its inception.' (as per the article itself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalised, I believe it is an error by an admin tweaking it. I think WP:ERRORS would have been a better place to report this though. Fixed it. SGGH ping! 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The Canadian award has not been awarded at all to anyone. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That option hadn't occurred to me and is a credible alternative. But it would be a complete non-sequitur to a sentence that begins "the CVC can be awarded more than once"! That it has never been awarded is by far the significant point and it is only this that should be in the lede. I'll take it to the article page. Thanks for tip re WP:ERRORS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change related RfC requiring closing[edit]

Is there an admin who has not edited any Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming article, of some little fortitude, who is willing to close the merger RfC at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Straw poll? The poll is quite respectfully conducted, and should be fairly easy to determine. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Please? There are cakes and ale on offer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Heh, I was planning to ask for my cakes and ale, but now I read the hidden comment I see I should have checked the small print first... Peter 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:152.98.218.27[edit]

Contributions mostly vandalism: [13]

Just a note for the future: If you wish to report vandalism, users or IPs, then you can do it at WP:AIV. Treylander 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloyd Bankes[edit]

For some reason that I don't understand, the Lloyd Banks article is being hit hard with BLP violations against John Corso/John Zandig. As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the two, but the Corso attacks are being made on the Banks article. Now, a new User, Lloyd Bankes (talk · contribs), has shown up, note the name, attacking the Zandig article. This guy needs to be perma-banned. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If more socks emerge, a checkuser may need to look for a rangeblock. Thanks for calling this to our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio question[edit]

This edit, where the user removed the copyvio tag, may very well be legit. But I'm not sure. How can I know? — Timneu22 · talk 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As a starting point, you might try leaving a note on the editor's talkpage and ask him or her for some backup information. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well their edit summary says they've emailed the OTRS permissions address, so I'd say keep an eye on it and if nothing happens after a few days, re-tag it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The instructions at the copyright area (which may not be entirely clear) is to use {{subst:copyvio}} in cases like this so that the pages are blanked pending verification of usable permission (and follow the steps on the resulting blanked page to notify the user and list the page at the appropriate daily WP:CP page). I have done that for this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pernicious vandal[edit]

Resolved: page was protected-IP was rangeblocked as sock of Swamilive

For the love of all that is good, someone please block 216.26.213.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Warned up to the limit and reported on AIV but it's taking forever for someone to review the report. Take a look at the history of Brigadier general for an idea of how annoying this is getting, even for vandalfighters. — e. ripley\talk 02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it. Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This is serial vandal Swamilive. I have in turn rangeblocked 216.26.192.0/19 for 2 weeks and semi'd some of their most targeted pages. If any administrator feels this is too excessive or too soft, please feel free to unblock or extend the block. Elockid (Talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A "terrorist" user[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already filed a report at WP:UAA about User:DonkeySheepTerrorist and I have left a note on the users talk page. I wasn't sure how to report this but this user seems to have some kind of love for terrorism. The only edits are in fact on inappropriate pages this user has created about terrorism. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:AIV but I think an admin should give some kind of opinion. Best, Treylander 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone for a UAA violation, SPA and vandal only account, heavy POV and extreme lack of understanding on what Wikipedia is. Quite a resolute action to take, however given the content I feel necessary. The user is free to create a new account. SGGH ping! 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as the user edits constructively, I have no problem with them being here :). Treylander 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
He can request an unblock if he wishes, but hell have to demonstrate he has learned what Wikipedia is first. SGGH ping! 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 and Afterwriting to be disciplined[edit]

There were several non-registered users who expressed their opposition to the content of the [Catholic sex abuse cases]. Their contributions to the article content quality discussion are deleted by these two users and the non-registered users marked as 'edit-warring sockpuppet trolls' , vandals', and other flavours of the street language

Here is a number of their talkpage content removals and personal attacks:
here: in principle to including any information added by such an offensive and edit-warring sockpuppet troll who constantly flaunts policies for his own ideological agenda.
here:removing rampant trolling and soapboxing
here: deleting soapboxing
here: Not only is this anonymous editor a persistent troll but he is also a persisent sockpuppet as a little research has demonstrated. I really don't understand why some editors are continuing to feed the troll - it's a waste of time and energy and only encourages his continuing abuse of policies and intimidation of other editors. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here:96, per your past editing suggestions and constant soapboxing, we all know quite well that what you just said about your motivations is not even remotely true. You tried to get all positive wording, and all defense of the Church removed whole-sale from the article multiple times. Do you really expect us to believe that you actually want an accurate representation after moves like that? And to others who may be familiar with the user, does IP96/IP71 remind you of Giovanni33?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here: cut the crap [14]:Again, the phrase evidence vs propaganda is completely unacceptable in an encyclopedia (Actually here he removed well sourced addition to the section)

Such behavior of these two users is below any tolerance and Wikipedia guidelines.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've attempted to request mediation on this matter with the Mediation Cabal whether that is the appropriate venue to solve this something I'm not totally sure about, but some sort of mediation for Catholic sex abuse cases would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is not several unregistered users. There is one IP hopper - the one who made this report. The editor, who has edited from the 71, 96, and perhaps 69 "regions", and behaves IDENTICALLY no matter which IP they're editing from. They are repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article, which we of course have to remove, and utterly refusing to discuss their changes to the article on the talk page except to mock us for disagreeing or accuse us of trying to whitewash the article, which I personally find interesting as I don't exactly see how one could whitewash an article of this nature. They also have an obvious familiarity with wikipedia, which makes me suspect that they are a logged out editor. Personally, the editing style reminds me of long time banned user Giovanni33, but that might just be me. Let me say, and I fully understand that this may make any sanction against me even more likely, I would whole-heartedly accept a block of my account if only this accursed WP:TROLL get blocked too. That way the rest of the editors can go back to editing productively instead of having to spend all their time on the IP hopper. I've never seen an editor warned so many times before without getting blocked, even an anon. (and if you're wondering where the warnings are, the IP hopper deletes them all from the IP's talk pages almost immediately after they are added.)Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Semi protect the article so the IP can not disruptively edit. Ah, the article has been fully protected for two weeks. Difficult to block him, keep the article semi protected so that any hoppers can not edit the article and then if the user sticks to one address then use warnings and policy to deal with any disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The same street language used to escalate pointless accusations: 'repeatedly adding BLP violations' which is just a figment of imagination of this person based on his arbitrary interpretation of a Wikipedia rule; 'utterly refusing to discuss their changes' while this person removes my explanation of changes in its inception.'cut the crap', 'troll', 'soapboxing' 'puppet' - is it the way of 'go(ing) back to editing productively'? --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
As you are an new user I just posted you a menu of links on your user page and suggested you familiarize yourself with a few before getting into edit conflicts and you simply deleted it, are you not interested in our guidelines and policies? The only article you have edited is now totally locked to editing for two weeks, perhaps you could take the time to get an understanding of how things work round here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am telling you that you do not see, or not wanting to see, what is the real problem here. Your comments are here and there (talkpage) are just continuation of the attacks on me and others I am complaining about here. Therefore, for being malicious, your comments on my talk page were deleted. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
When I am in similar situations and can't see what the problem is I take myself off to the bathroom and take a good look in the mirror. It is in no way malicious to post a set of helpful links to our policies and guidelines to a new user that is getting into disputes, perhaps you are not interested but I suggest you take the time to read some of them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Then do what you advise. A self-promoted advisor forgets the basic ethic rule - advise others only when you are asked to. As to this case, I restored the parts of the talkpage which are deleted by Farsight001 and you accused me for 'Talkpage revert of other editors comments. (TW)' Now you went even far: you (a self-promoted judge now) found me guilty as being a 'new user that is getting into disputes' and who is 'not interested' but 'I(i.e.you) suggest(ing) you(me) take the time to read some of them'. Tell us what you have seen in your mirror.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It is amazing and truly illuminating that you are jumping down the throats and accusing of incivility and attacks even the people who are just trying to help you out. (and no, I'm not talking about me. I originally was, but that is long past) Off2riorob was simply posting a list of helpful links to your profile because he got the impression that the problem was infamiliarity with wikipedia policies, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and you delete it, and call him blind and "malicious". As for a basic rule of ethics to advise others only when asked to - that is absolutely ridiculous. Should I advise my nurse regarding her almost giving meds to an allergic patient only if she asks for said advise? Because if I did keep my mouth shut unless she asked me to say something, we'd have more than a few dead patients here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Response from Afterwriting: This complaint against me and Farsighting has no credibility. It is simply a continuation of the unacceptable behaviour of just one anonymous user who keeps changing IP addresses. This user has persistently ignored BLP and various other important editing and behaviour policies. Anyone reading the edit history should easily be able to tell by the edits themselves, the edit summary comments, the article's discussion page and the constant blanking of IP talk pages, that this is just one anonymous editor - not "several" at all. Unlike myself and Farsight, who try to be responsible editors who respect the BLP policies, this anonymous user instead chooses to blatantly ignore the BLP policies and persistently misuses the article to attack the Roman Catholic Church in general and to vilify the Pope and others in particular. His current complaint against both me and Farsight is just another part of his ongoing campaign to intimidate other editors and to impose his soapbox POVs on the article. Just going by his responses above it should not be too difficult for any reasonable person to detect that there are significant problems with this user's attitude and behaviour. Requests to have this persisent anonymous BLP policy abuser blocked have not been acted on. Had he been blocked weeks ago - as he clearly should have been - then we might have avoided the history of edit-warring. Just go and read the edits and comments of the anonymous editor in recent weeks ( using about four or five different IP addresses ) and it won't be difficult to see the problems that Farsight, myself and other responsible editors have been confronted with - just one anonymous editor who has been constantly seeking to intimidate other editors and impose his POV on the article. His false "complaint" against us is just another part of his personal campaign. Afterwriting (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel on talk page[edit]

User Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at Genesis creation narrative has been removing sourced statements ([15] and [16]). On talk page, refusing to provide sources ([17], [18], [19], [20]), upon insistense to do so, assumption of bad faith and personal attack. DVdm (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
At least three other editors removed the same bit from the article after I did (yesterday) and it's a consensus issue. I am being singled out only because of what I'm saying on the talkpage, but I'm not edit warring on the article today, and I'm not going to leave the discussion page today much as some editors wish I would. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That is correct. You have been "singled out" because only you are disrupting the talk page and making personal attacks. All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This boils down to: Til Eulenspiegel (a) disagrees with some other people and (b) is responding to their intemperate comments with equally intemperate comments. Everybody needs to chill. This is Wikipedia, nobody dies because a page temporarily reflects The Wrong Truth. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well my personal advice on the talk page has been to ignore discussions that are not based in policies and guidelines. I do not think it is fair to characterize the situation as simply two sides of an intemperate discussion. One side is frustrated by the fact that Til is consciously ignoring policy while that side produces sources in good faith to back up their position. But like I said I think its better to ignore the disruption this causes.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this person from making his WP:POINT? See [21] and [22]. DVdm (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I might ask that you be summarily stifled too, but I don't think wikpedia works the way you imagine! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Til has explicitly stated his entire point on the Talk page is to "protest," I've reminded him that being WP:POINTy is something that can result in a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahujapawan[edit]

Resolved: Issue seems to be with the editors understanding of copyright (or lack thereof). Useful links left on their talk page. TFOWRpropaganda 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahujapawan has made no useful edits. I reverted or marked for deletion all edits not already deleted. Acts like he is 6 years old. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rahujapawan

Notified of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: not looked at all their edits (there aren't that many, maybe 10?) but this set look like someone who's not sure about copyright, rather than an out-and-out vandal. Is there a good "copyright 101" template or text I could either dump on their talk page or point them towards? TFOWRpropaganda 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright is a good place to start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe {{Nothanks}} is a good one.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:COPYPASTE is another copyright specific one that's a little lighter reading than WP:C. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I went for WP:COPYPASTE with a suggestion that Wikipedia:Copyright was useful background reading. I'm liking {{Nothanks}}, but felt a less templatey post might be more helpful this time. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Using refactoring to stifle criticism[edit]

There's a long-standing conflict ongoing at Talk:Elvis Presley. One recently reported incident still remains on WP:AN/I as I write this (#Onefortyone). In that discussion I make a reference to an analysis of conduct of various editors on the Elvis talk page (#Statement from meco). Now, go to that page and try and find it! Can't find it? It's there, just try a little harder.. Still can't find it? Well, about 4/5 down on that discussion page you will see a big yellow box and below it on the right side of the page it reads [show]. That's how you get to see the information that used to be easiily accessible on that talk page. I request that appropriate censuring measures be applied towards the editor who "refactored" this information, basically into oblivion: PL290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This blatantly self-serving censoring (as my findings strongly pinpoints this particular user as one of the sources of the poisoned atmosphere on that talk page) is done in this edit, marked as minor, with the edit summary reading: "reorg to clarify for newcomers--too many misunderstandings already". __meco (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "long-standing conflict" is ONE TROLLING EDITOR (141) pushing tabloid junk about Elvis over the last 5 years or more. He's now being aided and abetted by this Meco guy, who despite being on wikipedia for also about 5 years, couldn't find the collapsed endless-loop stuff, in addition to arguing 141's case despite his apparent total ignorance of the guy's behavior over 5 years. I had to show him where the collapsed section was. We seem to have the troll leading the incompetent, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
And I might point out that Baseball Bugs is also one of the users who would be particularly well served by having the section of analysis on the Elvis talk page kept well hidden. __meco (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would not be well-served either way. I'm neither an Elvis lover nor an Elvis hater. However, wikipedia would be better served by not having this tabloid garbage in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this, I support the collapsing of the thread. That section is so long as to be unreadable. Uncollapsed, it chokes the entire page. Consensus seems pretty clear on the topic, in any case, and I support it. I haven't read all of the above section here at ANI, but it seems that a small contingent of editors who support fringe viewpoints are flooding that page. More eyes on it would probably be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose meco would also consider the archiving of discussion to be "refactored... into oblivion"? The alternative to putting such a long discussion behind hidden tags is to move it off to its own archived page. Regardless, either way that discussion is over. Time to move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
However, the fact remains that some important threads relating to the topic of the Onefortyone case on this noticeboard and including much material in support of my view were made nearly invisible by a another user who is deeply involved in the content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley. This suggests that the changes weren't just made in good faith. Onefortyone (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"Made nearly invisible" is a complete falsehood. It's right there, under a "Show" button, which is common practice with long (especially off-topic or circular) discussions. If nothing else, a diff can be given to the specific comment that's at issue. If it's not a specific comment, people can be pointed to the collapsed discussion. This is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring[edit]

Mbhiii's IPs have crossed 3rr today at Tea Party movement:

  • [23] Continuing to force in an image over another
  • [24] Revert
    • [25] Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert
  • [26] Revert
  • [27] Revert
    • [28] Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert

The above is a violation of 3rr and and looks like it could be an attempted circumvention of 3rr. The IPs have also been used in a way that could be given an allusion of support (WP:ILLEGIT) at Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation) and the article in question.

It has been all but established that 74.242.231.200 (and similar IPs from the Raleigh area) and 12.7.202.2 are Mbhii. #12 was essentially admitted to here. In this diff, a similar IP to 74.242.231.200 which is close to #12 making contentious edits on the same page. Instead of listing everything, please see the archived sock puppet discussions.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight/Archive (please note that JustGettingItRight was not checked and is no longer accused)

I personally have been annoyed by the IPs continued reverting, refusal to allow for the IP notification shared IP template on his various IP talk pages, and violation of nonfree image policy so I am not the best editor to listen to when it comes to argument of his disruption. So please see the user's talk page where numerous editors have expressed concerns over a misuse of IPs and reverting over a period of more than a year: User talk:Mbhiii#3RR Warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Sock, etc., User talk:Mbhiii#September 2009, User talk:Mbhiii#Sockpuppets, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit war warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring is bad. - This is 3 warnings, and all are level 4 warnings., User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring and IPs,User talk:Mbhiii#Your edits at War on Drugs have been reported at the 3RR noticeboard, and User talk:Mbhiii#Reverting. Again. Again.. Even the IPs have several warnings but they are always blanked.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notifications at User talk:12.7.202.2, User talk:74.242.231.200, User talk:74.162.153.141, and User talk:Mbhiii.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Five reverts today on Tea Party movement from sock 12.7.202.2 (talk · contribs), w/ edit summaries:
  • [29] Undid revision 364124067 by 65.41.106.90 violates wp:npov
  • [30] Undid revision 364057180 by Boromir123 for whom "nice" trumps relevance
  • [31] Undid revision 364091022 by Cptnono per Talk
  • [32] Undid revision 364112560 by Arzel deciding, by himself, that a reporter's commentary on an academic study from a large university, constitutes proof that it is "flawed"
  • [33] You are, of course, correct, EXCEPT when presenting direct evidence of an ongoing corporate sponsorship of Tea Party activities. How better to show this?

TETalk 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued misuse of socks and crossing 3rr at Hyperbole today:

And at Sunscreen controversy with a single IP (including removal of a copyvio template)

A few pages of massive reverting and violations of the sockpuppet policy. How long has this been going on?Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A complicated one. I've looked into the various links etc above and I agree that the three IPs are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked each for 1 week per WP:DUCK. The Mbhiii account hasn't edited since the 13th March but I agree the edits are of a similar nature and the IPs are very much in the same range as those formerly used for socking, so I've also blocked that account for one week. Due to their apparent battleground mentality and long history of falling out with other editors, edit warring, and socking, I believe that if a subsequent block proves necessary it will likely be indefinite.
Additionally, due to the amount of recent edit warring I've protected Tea Party movement (fully, though thinking about it that should perhaps have been semi only - I'll go and change that in a sec). I don't think it's worth protecting the other articles yet, though obviously if socking resumes - which does seem likely - that's an option too. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Langenstein's edits on Waddell and Reed[edit]

Langenstein looks like an SPA whose sole purpose is to remove negative information from the article Waddell and Reed, and has added promotional links to the article. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Langenstein, you will see that this user removes all negative information that has been added whether it was unsourced and needed to be deleted or was sourced and should have stayed, even the information about Reuters' accusation that Waddell & Reed accidentally triggered the recent flash crash by selling enough E-mini contracts into a market nobody knew was illiquid before the sale. I restored and sourced the accusation and also added information about it denying the accusation. Langenstein then removed all of that. I have done a bit of removal myself, though it was links I felt were spam. Later, I discovered that Langenstein was responsible for the apparent spam links. I left a {{Welcomespam}} message on this user's talk page, but he or she continued anyways with the deletion after I properly sourced the accusation and denial.

Could someone else here come in and help me with this situation? I do not know how to continue without starting an edit war. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides templating the user, did you make any effort to engage them in meaningful dialogue? The text of that template reads like a formletter and is easy to ignore. He may be unaware that what he is doing is wrong, and also may be unaware of how to edit Wikipedia the right way. Before admins act, what effort has been made on your part to see that he has been given the opportunity to learn how to do it the right way? --Jayron32 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow. That was quick. I left the Welcomespam notice because I am not good with words on social matters thanks to my Asperger syndrome, and am challenged to try to come up with something more suitable than that. I am much better with words when dealing with technical matters than when I am stuck with a social matter like this. I also left a notice that he or she was being discussed here on the user's talk page. This is why I asked for help. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As soon as I added the citations and the denial, I felt that I could not consider myself an impartial third party qualified to try to deal with the conflict. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You're doing fine. I've added the article to my watchlist. — e. ripley\talk 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as my back is turned...[edit]

The boomerang came back. Blocked 2 weeks as block-evading IP sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI confirmed suspected). Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again an administrator has visited the sins of another contributor on the citizens of London, and denied them editorial access to Wikipedia. Did he/she not notice this [36] before going for the block button?

In this field, everyone has the same editing style. Compare my contribution [37] with Chris Bennett’s: [38]. The objection will no doubt be raised that I can’t prove that I prepared my contribution completely independently of Bennett, but I will gladly show to anyone interested my copy of Simon Cassidy’s analysis of Harriot’s work printed from the net on 19 May, 2010. Unfortunately I can’t put it on commons because of copyright restrictions.

If you’ve not been following the saga, I am the person whom Bennett, in his more printable comments, describes as "the intercalary fool". The abuse, from Bennett, Jc3s5h and Joe Kress, all first level editors who should know better, has been ongoing for three years, accompanied by blatant meatpuppetry. Occasionally the campaign planning is done on – wiki . See [39], [40] and [41]. Mostly, however, it’s off – wiki: [42] (Jc3s5h blanking Kress’s talk page). Bennett is quite candid about it being a joint enterprise [43] where the phrase "we’re all out to get you" implies a minimum of three people.

Bennett was exposed as a sockpuppeteer and vandal [44]. 3RR is ignored, but sometimes there is an attempt to evade it, with one doing two reverts then handing over to one of the others to continue. Jc3s5h breaks 3RR with [45], [46], and [47]. He starts up again with [48] and [49] then avoids a 3RR violation by passing the baton on to Bennett’s sockpuppet 71.136.67.20. Bennett is then reverted by an administrator [50]. Bennett then comes out of hiding [51] and avoids a 3RR violation by passing the baton back to Jc3s5h: [52]. Bennett then switches sockpuppets to 71.136.34.7: [53]. He switches sockpuppets again: [54]. There is then another switch of sockpuppets to 69.241.124.150 [55]. Having run out of sockpuppets he comes out of hiding again: [56], [57]. To avoid a 3RR violation he then passes the baton back to Jc3s5h: [58].

Mercedonius

Bennett violates 3RR with [59], [60] and [61].

Julian calendar

Bennett makes reversions: [62], [63]. To avoid a 3RR violation he passes the baton back to Kress: [64]. Jc3s5h claims OR in 2010