Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Three Strikes and You're Out?[edit]

Resolved

I think maybe its time for admin intervention with Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for repeated WP:IDHT

Previous ANIs (relating to this matter)

Today he's recreated the article in dispute at (I Only Know Him) In The Dark and despite repeated warnings he's added unsourced information to the parent article Can't Take That Away from Me. In this edit he uploaded an album cover which was of HQ and 1000×1000px (too big) as well as adding information about leaked songs and used twitter/youtube as sources for speculated information. Funnily enough after I reverted it an IP address made the same edits here without the change to the album cover. Lilbadboy has been warned before about uploading inappropriate images and I believe he simply cannot understand/comprehend or follow wikipedia rules. He has even uploaded a watermarked image here which he has claimed under fair use for being his own work yet on flicker the same image has even more watermarks and is clearly marked as "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED".

I rest my case. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking at your difs and the editor you mention, I think enough is enough and a block is needed or even a ban. I am especially concerned with the copyright problems and lying about it. No, we can't have editors behave like this. Definitely need to stop this and now. I would also recommend salting the article the editor keeps recreating to stop that from happening too. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - Lilbadboy312 has caused enough disruption to Wikipedia and has utterly failed to understand the rules in a collegiate manner. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse blocks[edit]

Resolved: The SPI request shows they are socks so nothing more is needed at this time, accounts are blocked. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I blocked Uachtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and CanadaNoveScotia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for making the same inappropriate talk page additions as PLehany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to talk pages loosely related to Child sexual abuse. It seems an obvious attempt to pretend to there being multiple editors supporting the changes, but it seems unlikely that new editors would make the same violations as WP:TALK without making exactly the same edit, using WP:UNDO.

As I have been involved in content editing in some of the articles, I'm putting the blocks up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The edits have also come from 86.42.13.231. [1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't going to mention IPs, but 86.44.252.83 was also used. (Do we need to inform those IPs by {{ANI-notice}} now?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably not, it's almost certainly the same person each time anyway:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I support the blocks. Maybe the IP or if it's multiple ones though I only saw the one, should also be briefly blocked (unless it's one that doesn't rotate than also block it permanently). --CrohnieGalTalk 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, by the way I submitted an SPI request, in case the editor is sophisticated enough to have created additional socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly disruptive to spam the same post across several article talkpages, using different accounts to possibly evade clean up. I am only concerned that the project is not being suckered into allegations of pro paedophile censorship, since the content of the disruptive edits may indeed be suitable for placement in the appropriate article. I am noting this concern in case the situation does arise, but otherwise I think WP:BEANS applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this can be closed now. The SPI that Arthur Rubin set up confirms they are socks and they are all blocked except of course the IP's. I don't think anymore is needed here unless there is more problems going on that have not been added here. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP hopping vandal[edit]

Since December 2, an IP has been persistently vandalising various pages, especially those related to Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Some of the vandalism is fairly sneaky, such as wikilinking random words[2] or changing spelling, eg "Vain" to "vein".[3] Other vandalism has been blatant, like changing the gas in "Lilly's "Green Gas" science project" to "Dirty Tan"[4] and then to "Dirty Blonde".[5] Other examples are changing female names to "Chanel"[6] and there's just plain ridiculous stuff.[7] The random wikilinking is a trait exhibited in every one of 122123 edits so far made by this editor, who has used 1314 different IPs so far,[8] all of which are from Verizon's pool.

IPs used so far
new entries

There are too many pages affected to protect them all. Would a rangeblock be appropriate? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I'd think you need two or three. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Kids across the USA are off on Winter Break, apparently. Let's get the rangeblocks in there if we can. - Burpelson AFB 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And we have another one to add to the list. I see it's back to changing names to "Chanel" again.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Verizon needs to be informed of the abuse, don't they? Shouldn't they? 123 edits is pretty ridiculous. Dusti*poke* 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So they could do... what? No ISP is going to give a crap, sadly. However; perhaps a very short rangeblock for the holidays might suffice. --Errant (chat!) 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We have some options for the rangeblocks. We can get all the IPs with:
  • All IPs listed starting with 108.32.x.x = 108.32.0.0/20, - 4,096 addresses
  • All IPs listed starting with 108.17.x.x = 108.17.96.0/20 - 4,096 addresses
We can go smaller with rangeblocks for the addresses starting 108.17.100.x and 108.17.105.x, but there's no way we can get the rest of the IPs listed without blocking 108.17.x.x. What should we do, and for how long? - KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'd really like more input before I place these rangeblocks. In the meantime, I semi'd List of Hannah Montana characters, as it's certainly had enough recent IP disruption. I looked at the other articles in that genre and they haven't received nearly as much recent activity.

Thoughts, anyone? - KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is winter break. I say we just hard block the entire USA. That way the little kiddies can't attack Wikipedia. I'm joking obviously. I'd say that someone file an Abuse Response thing to contact Verizon. Isn't there a bit much collateral damage on those rangeblocks? Sure the IP isn't using a proxy of some sort? I'd block for 3-5 months. If vandalism continues after the block is lifted, switch to 6-8 mo. If it continues after that, which I doubt, just block indef. Someone could file an sock puppet thing on this, if you think it would help. Mr R00t Talk 'tribs 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
That's why I haven't done it. :-) The smaller ranges, 108.17.100.128/26 and 108.17.105.0/24, block 64 and 256 addresses respectively, but his dynamic IP has changed from the 108.17.x.x range to the 108.32.x.x range just today. I agree that WP:ABUSE is a good idea, but they're backlogged and short on volunteers. Should I just semi all those pages? That's not as big a sledgehammer, but still... - KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting. Different IP, different country, no mention of Chanel but the rest is all still there. Is there some airborne virus they haven't told us about? And the first post by this IP was made only 22 minutes after the last post made by the last IP listed above (108.17.100.183). That seems too coincidental. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
While I'm concerned that protecting the pages might just force the IP to go to other pages, another has just hit List of Hannah Montana main characters so I say go ahead and protect away. These pages don't see (m)any positive contributions by IPs usually, so nobody is going to suffer because of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't see any dissension here, so I've semi'd those that have been hit so far for one month, to get the entire US campus crowd back in school, which won't be until the start of the third week of January (guess how I know that?). If he/they does/do go to other pages, let me know or list them here and we'll get those too. I think this is more effective and with less damage than playing whack-a-mole with them. - KrakatoaKatie 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
As I feared, the IP has moved to Cory in the House. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Semi'd it and gave him the final warning. Feel free to final warn the rest of them, if they vandalize again. We can still block him the old-fashioned way, without a rangeblock. KrakatoaKatie 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock[edit]

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: [10]. Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

66.71.97.32/28 would be the range to block here. It's pretty small, but perhaps it would take care of this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, do you think there is any chance this editor will do anything useful if unblocked? The history is somewhat difficult to parse. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
HA (the blocking admin from SPI), thanks. Looie, I'm conflicted about this. It really looks to me like this person just wants to edit in WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and they did some medium-competency work on Calcium reactor in the past. So, when I first got involved, my hope was that they would make a clean start and become a policy-abiding contributor. And there does seem to be some perception on this person's part that no one except me is willing to listen to them, and they just want to put their past behind them. But you will see at their talk that I tried very hard to get them to do this the right way, and they are pretty determined to ignore my advice. And I don't know the whole story of what got them blocked originally (the SPI archive seems to be incomplete). So I'd be hard pressed to endorse an unblock at this point. Previously, HA suggested to me at his talk to use WP:OFFER, but no unblock any time soon, and I suppose I could be talked into agreeing to mentor them if they came back under a pretty strict editing restriction (ie, no editing outside of aquarium fish), but I'm not confident about that, given what has happened so far. I'd be very much influenced by what other, uninvolved, community members think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(I haven't done the rangeblock yet; I'm curious to see that others think as well.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
About that rangeblock, I should note that they say that they are at that IP through the end of the month (probably university semester), but will move to another IP in January. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I also found that somewhat cryptic, but I think it refers, not to anything done since I started communicating with them, but rather to when they were first blocked, before the socking in response to the block began. I think they put a request to review the block on their talk, probably not very well thought out, and the reviewing admin (very likely correctly) declined, and that's what this is referring to. I've tried to go back and figure out what that was all about, and I'm afraid I haven't been able to piece it all together, because some of the record seems to have been deleted. I've seen mention of something about bad bots, no idea what that was, and I've seen the user make some incivil comments about those who blocked them.
I, too, am coming to the conclusion that this boils down to WP:CIR. But if you look at the last few diffs at User talk:66.71.97.39, the user may have made this decision for us, saying that they've decided not to edit here any more.
My advice at this point: go ahead with the IP rangeblock, including blocking new account creation, since we have no guarantee that they won't try again to come back. And then consider the matter closed and done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Re: "I went back to my account and protested the block", User talk:Antony1103 has been blanked a number of times, and looking at previous versions reveals a number of old unblock requests, which I'd guess is what that comment refers to. Is there no possibility that this is someone who genuinely wants a clean start? Is there no way anyone can try to help rather than just saying "You didn't do it the right way, so go away" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, I appreciate you saying that. As I've indicated above, I've been going back and forth on what I think about this question, and I'd welcome input about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdel?[edit]

Do any of the recent edits here by USer:XMAS2010BITW (now indef blocked) warrant revdel? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've the removed the abusive edit summaries, and removed the vandal's talkpage access. Rd232 talk 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And apparently I shouldn't have bothered, since checkuser now says the vandal is actually a sock of the account being abused, so both idef'd... Rd232 talk 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, how bizarre - thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on though... Are you sure that's not a shared IP? Iamred1 was complaining about an autoblock before, and I don't believe XMAS is the same person. Grandmasterka 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, it does seem odd. I've asked the checkuser (Muzemike) to comment here. Rd232 talk 20:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not look like a public IP (i.e. from a computer lab or anything). Otherwise, it looks like it's all coming from the same computer to me. –MuZemike 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This also supports my findings. –MuZemike 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong[edit]

Moved from WP:AN § User:HelloAnnyong: GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: It's time to drop the stick. (X! · talk)  · @870  ·  19:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
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.

I am requesting review of User:HelloAnnyong admin actions in relation to this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia - The sockmaster had been blocked for previous socking and was vandalizing the integrity of the wikipedia with adding a hoax - a picture of himself to an article, User:HelloAnnyong at first gave him a three day block, I complained and he tells me to settle down like its my fault and then he raises it to two weeks. The user is quite simply a disruptive repeat offending sockpuppeeter hoaxer and is detrimental to the project yesterday , tomorrow, in two weeks and indefinitely , which is how long his block for these actions should be. Please review, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're coming off like a four-year-old whose brother's just been grounded for a day when you wanted him grounded forever. Settle down is right.  f o x  18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, WP:NPA? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, that's not an attack. He's escalated this far too quickly.  f o x  18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And you couldn't have pointed that out in a way which doesn't attack his character by comparing him to a four-year-old? I'd think that's pretty insulting by anyone's standards. It's likely o2rr needs to back off from this, but that was just a completely unnecessary comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I asked for a review not a personal attack. What is too quickly? I went to the trouble to make a report and it is poorly actioned by this Administrator and then after I complain to him he raises it to two weeks and I complain again and he doesn't reply, I am able to ask for review of the Admin actions without being attacked? I don't need to back off anywhere, I expect decent administration, when it is not given it is so self defeating and just makes the whole thing seem a waste of users time, three days - what was he thinking.Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I love how you're taking a harmless analogy as an attack. Anyway, HelloAnnyong is an administrator, not a judge. It's up to him how he deals with it. Take it up with him, don't just suddenly out him in the stocks.  f o x  18:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Since as an uninvolved editor who thus far agrees with you that this has been escalated too rapidly, I was the one to point out that comparing someone to a four-year-old trying to shit-stir, surely that's an indication that you could have chosen a rather less offensive "harmless analogy", Fox? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That was at both of you. Edit-conflicts. And really, if that's offensive, then, wow.  f o x  18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Um.. wow. First off, I've been busy looking into other things both on and off-Wiki, so I apologize for not replying immediately to you, I suppose. In terms of the case, the master had been blocked back in May for a week for puppeting using one of the accounts that came up again in this case. The case wasn't reported, though, and it seems to have been just based on behavior. So here we are seven months later, and the case actually went through a checkuser and was confirmed. Perhaps three days was a bit light given the user's block log, but since this is the first time the socking has been confirmed, I thought not indeffing would be slightly less bitey. Anyway, I increased the block to two weeks, so this should be moot now. I'm not really sure why this needed to go to review, though, all because I didn't block enough. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • - Even raising to two weeks is not enough for a user that has this - I have been very bad in the wikipedia community for the past years, but I'm going to change my ways, have you know.' - on his userpage and is a vandalistic hoaxer who uses sockpuppets in editing that is detrimental to the fabric of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Rob, what on Earth are you chasing? An apology, the chance to be proven right, or for HA to step down? It's hardly clear.  f o x  18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
O2rr: So you think that the worst case scenario, having to block the user indefinitely if they resume after two weeks, is worse than dragging the community through this mess? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want an apology, I don't want to be proven right, I don't want anybody to stand down. I want this administration action to reflect the users actions, imo that is a thankyou - goodbye - indef restriction Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well thus far it seems that the blocking admin and three uninvolved editors disagree per WP:ROPE: so again I ask, why does this warrant a trip to ANI with hardly any discussion with the blocking admin? Or indeed to AN, where the thread was originally placed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:ROPE. There's never much of a problem if the block is too short. One of the 1699 other admins can block them again when the problem starts up again. No big whoop. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comment makes it seem pointless to make any effort to take the responsibility of making a report. Oh don't worry three days would be ok, if he does it again someone will block him again. Reports need actioning with a degree of reflective expectation or user, well I am, will get disheartened and not bother removing hoaxs and not bother making reports as its not worth it and for expecting a decent level of administration and for questioning admin action am called and likened to a four year old child. I could get more than a three day block for telling an Admin to fuck off. This user wanted indefinate block and I would have done that immediately, if three days was correct and I am wrong to complain then I disagree completely. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Please drop it. Reblocks are easy and there was no need to bring that here, much less the way you brought it here, to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I discussed with the admin I asked him to increase the block he didn't reply, I told him I was going to request review and I notified him that I had. I am able to request review without being attacked. It was very poor administration and I reject it. No worry, I won't make any more SPI reports if this is the way they are treated.Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Just as a clarification, you gave me eight minutes to respond to your comment before reporting me. I apologize for not staying in front of my computer for those eight minutes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't checked how many mins but you knew a situation has arisen about your admin action and you should have stayed and dealt with it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds to me like, at the very least, you came here to stir things up when an admin didn't answer a post fast enough for you. That's not on. The account was already blocked, there was lots of time to deal with any worries you may have had. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Asking for a review of admin actions is allowed isn't it? Or am I just supposed to accept whatever they do? If you disagree and have a little chat and then notify him, its perfectly within allowances isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Not how you've handled it. You badgered HA from the start and then kept on, bringing it all the way here. Most editors watching this now are likely much more worried about your behaviour than the two week length of the block, or how HA handled it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I will, request review of admin action if similar situations arise, in the same way, so if you think I shouldn't do that then you are welcome to restrict me now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Requesting review is ok, give it plenty of time though and please, if you hope to be heard, be more careful with how you word things. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (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.

Long-term abuse vandal[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much speaks for itself. Netalarmtalk 19:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User blocked. Elockid (Talk) 19:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda328[edit]

I'm not sure where to report this, but this seemed like the most appropriate place. If it's not, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

I've been having an issue with Propaganda328. They've been inserting content into the Rafic Hariri article that I consider fringe conspiracies cited to a non-English source whose reliability has not been established. The content was originally inserted by an Iran-based IP address, 94.182.19.94, which is slightly troubling as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been implicated in the assassination, and I'm not even sure if Propaganda328 can read the Russian source they're reverting back into the article. I've removed the content three times; Propaganda328 reverted me three times. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining that I considered the source to be of questionable reliability, the content itself sounded like a fringe conspiracy, requesting a translation of the non-English source, and explaining that the verifiability burden was on editors attempting to insert the material. Propaganda328 replied that "All theories are to be included," and proceeded to reinsert the material. I then opened a discussion on the user's talk page, explaining the issues with the content, noting that I wasn't interested in edit warring over the material, and requesting that they self-revert, lest we have to go through the noticeboards. The editor refused, replying simply "Temper Temper".[12] So, that brings me here.

To be clear, I'm not here to discuss the content. I'm not asking if the source cited is reliable, I'm not asking if the content added was a fringe conspiracy, and I'm not reporting the editor for edit warring the material in. I'm here because of the editor's behavior. They've continued to push the material, while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the article talk page or any sort of consensus building, failing to establish the reliability of the source they're citing, and failing to provide a translation of the Russian source they're citing, despite my explicit requests. Would appreciate if someone can look into the issue or advise. Thanks. ← George talk 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonable content edits in the contrib history, but major issues with interactions with other editors. I suggest an "official" warning regarding their communication behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I don't care, I just don't know how to prove that a reference is reliable on wikipedia. And as for the translation, can't you just copy and paste into Google Translate? I mean you already know it's in Russian(that's what I did to read it). I know it wouldn't be translated perfectly, but it will be readable.
You should watch the other side's news channels from time to time, the French Guy, Xavier Laroche, was in an interview on Al-manar a few days ago. I already knew about the Uranium missile long before I saw the Russian Magazine reference on wikipedia. However, it should be noted that if you use google, you will get a hundred links to many news sites, which all reference Odnako for the theory(including al-manar site<ref , scroll down to the last bit), so can the source be that bad for wikipedia when so many news sites use it? Even when you write in the article "Explicitly according to Odnako and none else"?
Okay, now I know what you're thinking: "Ohhhh! This guy is obviously a propaganda tool working for those Iranian Hezbollah trying to spread lies all over the internet to cover up that they killed Hariri! I must fight for the truth!". But okay now, really, I don't care who killed Hariri, because as far as I'm concerned, he's not a martyr, he's an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality. So if you think I don't want Hezbollah to be implicated in his killing, you're wrong, cause I'd consider it the greatest honor if Hezbollah were the ones who executed him. But I just wanted that text included because I'm 100% positive the theory has enough weight and popularity among the population today to be placed as a side theory on wikipedia, whether I like it or not.--Propaganda328 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at what you've just written:
  1. You don't know if your source is reliable, nor how to find out if it is (despite my explaining, twice, that you should check that at WP:RSN), yet you're edit warring to include it.
  2. It appears that you're either unable or unwilling to provide a translation of the source you're citing. Do you even understand Russian? Did you include the source based on a machine translation of it? Or are you just adding the source because you think it says what you want the article to say?
  3. You said that there are "a hundred links to many news sites" that support your content. And yet you failed to link to any in either discussion I've opened, nor even mentioned them. The only one you've now mentioned is al-Manar, a Hezbollah affiliated news organization, whose reliability, especially in this instance, is highly questionable.
  4. Do you understand what WP:FRINGE says? Do you understand that extreme fringe theories should not be included in Wikipedia articles? Based on what you've written, it appears you don't believe that, even though I've told you three times now.
I don't think that (or care if) you're associated with Hezbollah. However, based on what you've written here, it's clear you are very personally opposed to the subject of the article, assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, whom you describe as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish... and is the very definition of corruption and immorality." I don't like or dislike him, and I don't know what an "2irish" is, but you definitely should not be editing this article. After reading that, I'm hoping an uninvolved administrator considers topic ban you from this article, and all articles related to Rafic Hariri. ← George talk 02:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block[edit]

This user User:LouisPhilippeCharles is blocked. But he is editing under his old account [13] User:Tbharding. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have hardly caused a problem my fellow Wikipedians. If this is good bye, Adieu </3 The One And Only (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Indef'd the old account for block evasion. If they'd like to come back or have the block shortened, they need to work that out with their current account. Shell babelfish 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously blatant block evasion is not acceptable, and I know there have been a series of issues in the past, but I'd welcome a further attempt to reach a better resolution with this user if that is possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is socking while blocked suddenly no big deal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The sock puppeteer acknowledges he has no intent or ability to restrain his edits to comply with admin restrictions here. And why should he? Even as a pitch is being made on this page to reach a "better resolution" allowing him to resume editing, he is using yet another sockpuppet to evade the one-month block as seen here. This sockpuppet needs to be blocked, as do the others that have or will be used next. FactStraight (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
IP has been blocked for a week. I support indef block for LouisPhilippeCharles. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Once they agree to abide by the policies and guidelines of the project, and those restrictions applied to their account to better ensure that they do so, then they are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia. Socking because they feel they have a greater need to edit than to comport themselves to the will of the community does not indicate that they are capable of editing in the collegiate and consensual manner that is required of all contributors. I suggest resetting the 1 month block presently, and am willing to be proven wrong when they return. Any more of this nonsense, however, and I think Favonian's suggestion may be taken up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support indef block and further attempts to reach a better resolution with the user. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eustress' block of Racepacket[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: Everyone makes mistakes. It is important that we learn from them. Nothing further to do here. --Jayron32 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am calling for a review of the block made by User:Eustress on User:Racepacket on the grounds that Eustress was clearly involved in the content disputes at hand.

For the reasons explained above, I feel that Eustress' block of Racepacket was inappropriate and, even if said block was justified (which IMO is not), to say the least another uninvolved admin should have blocked instead. –MuZemike 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I blocked Racepacket for the following reasons:
  1. edit waring (continuing to push a preferred naming of the ILR School despite warnings 1, 2, and 3 to wait until the WP:REQMOVE he initiated is closed and since his behavior has now spread to multiple articles 4, 5, and 6)
  2. disrupting the community (tag bombing 7)
Because I didn't see anything at WP:NAS saying that an involved admin cannot exact the block, I went ahead and did it myself. If it was inappropriate for me to do it myself, I apologize. I am, however, more than happy to discuss the validity of the block. I feel MuZemike's allegations above are false and likely attributable to an altercation he and I recently had involving Racepacket (see here). Any help and consideration is welcomed in this matter. —Eustress talk 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of WP:INVOLVED. I suggest the block be lifted. In these cases a block of an established editor by an involved admin (whether the block was correct or not) can do more damage than an erroneous block by an uninvolved admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This block by an involved administrator should be reversed immediately, and Eustress cautioned never to do this again. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked I was unaware of WP:INVOLVED, so I have since lifted the block on Racepacket. However, I still feel the block justified. Thank you for your help. —Eustress talk 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How is someone who passed RFA 71:1 6 months "unaware of WP:INVOLVED"? The mind boggles. More helpfully, I would suggest you consider yourself involved on anything related to Cornell editing, and therefore refrain from admin actions on that topic. Rd232 talk 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In the light of the above comment from Eustress, I have added a "when not to block" section to WP:New admin school/Blocking to mention being "involved"; development welcome. BencherliteTalk 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the unblock very much. I don't think we have much else to discuss at this point. –MuZemike 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


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

Slag (slang)[edit]

Could someone with a few minutes take a look at Slag (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It looks like a bunch of schoolchildren adding the names (and sometimes the ages and schools) of other people to the article as an insult. Example. I've already requested semi at WP:RPP but there probably needs to be a bunch of warning and blocks handed out, as well as a bunch of RevDels. Kelly hi! 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu got it. They'll have to go and look after their baby sisters or something useful instead. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The example edit I gave by Peridon (talk · contribs) (now deleted) was very strange - Peridon is an established user. Kelly hi! 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It was a case of Peridon, I assume, reverting the reversion of the vandalism by accident, rather than the vandalism itself--Jac16888Talk 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, it hid the revert of the vandalism, so it's OK. Seems to be taken care of to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That page probably should be semi'd for longer than 48 hours, since the abuse has been going on much longer than that. A similar page, Slut, has been semi'd indefinitely. Kelly hi! 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Can't disagree with that, since I earlier today indefinitely semi-protected Piers Morgan. Arguably the same sort of thing. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've extended it to 3 Jan, to cover school hols. Can review when that ends if you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great to me, thanks Elen! Kelly hi! 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion regarding User:Kagome 85 and User:Blackmagic1234[edit]

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.

Resolved: Blackmagic1234 and Kagome 85 have been community banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

unresolved|1=Ban discussions need to be open for a minimum of 48 hours(I think, it may be more)— dαlus+ Contribs 06:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not remember how long ago this was, but let me start from the basic beginning, as I remember it;

Blackmagic and Kagome at one point were lovers. I'm not certain if this point was before or after they came to wikipedia.. but I do know each knows of the others' original username. At some later point, they broke up.. and began a two and a half harassment campaign against the other. I came onto this around maybe 2009; Blackmagic was being harassed and cyber-stalked by Kagome. I looked into the matter, got some socks blocked, and suggested WP:CLEANSTART to BM. I tell him to stay away from articles he has edited, and refrain from even mentioning his ex or editing any similar articles.. instead, as they came back on, this was thrown back in my face? They did more than go on a wiki-stalking revert spree of a previous sock of hers.. They listed off her real name in almost every single edit summary. Some time recently, at least int he past year, I took them both to this forum for the very thing mentioned above.. a two-way harassment campaign, and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

Reason for ban request

60+ socks later(combined, I've lost count, just check out their sock categories), I am frankly sick and tired of reverting the socks. Let's make it easier; block on sight, rollback allowed.. ban them from the site indefinitely until such time they can grow up and leave each other be. I really, really am sick of dealing with their disruption and harassment of each other. Wikipedia is not therapy.— dαlus+ Contribs 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Also, I'm not going to bother notifying each because nowadays, with their ever-increasing amount of socks, I'm not sure they would even see the message. I did also warn both prior about this discussion, so they knew it was coming. Lastly, if anyone can find each of their latest socks, feel free to notify them of this discussion, but I don't believe they'll see it because they'll just already be on to their next set of socks.— dαlus+ Contribs 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


As a further note, I forgot to mention that yes, BM has socks but at some point, I just gave up and began tagging them all as Kagome 85. They're both using the same range, so as far as I'm concerned regarding technical, they're the same person(they act the same anyways).— dαlus+ Contribs 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Unresolved|1=I believe it's been at least the required 48 hours; now we just need an uninvolved admin to issue the ban.— dαlus+ Contribs 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - As proposer.— dαlus+ Contribs 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    Hi DaedlusIt'll be good if you were to summarize in one line what the editors are supposed to support or oppose in order to provide editors summarized clarity. Regards Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Per details provided above by the proposer. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Are we banning one, the other, both, or are you claiming they're the same person and calling for a ban of them and their alter-ego? N419BH 09:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I'm reading, he's asking for a ban of both, and noting that they share a range and act very similarly to one another. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Details appear convincing, so lets ban the both of them. Use of multiple socks is something I feel Wikipedia needs to take an extremely hard line on. Add in the outing and vios of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it looks clearcut for a double ban to me. Jusdafax 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • They've exhsusted my patience, that's for sure. Support showing both of them to the door until they grow up, which, at this rate, could be decades. - KrakatoaKatie 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge wasteful time sink. Ban both of them. I'm wondering though: are you sure they're really NOT both the same person engaging in a long-term trolling campaign? If they edit from the same range that makes it even more suspect. In any case, ban both, revert on sight without breaking 3RR. - Burpelson AFB 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert" Actually, Blackmagic is not currently blocked... - Burpelson AFB 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That's because George blocked one of his socks. He abandoned the BM account and created a sock under the pretense of CLEANSTART, but didn't follow CLEAN at all, and as noted began harassing his ex.— dαlus+ Contribs 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the sock George blocked BM under, Burp.— dαlus+ Contribs 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support ban on both. If a new account is created and stays away from these issues then we will never know nor need to - as soon as an account or ip starts repeating this behaviour it can be blocked. Whatever the situation, it should not involve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, based on above, but they both need to be notified and be given a chance to come here and defend themselves. Maybe they have a case to make, maybe not, but they should at least be given the opportunity. Saebvn (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - valueless disruptive time sink. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Recommend periodic checkuser requests of each to check for all socks that haven't be found. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per evidence presented. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:24, 20 December 2010 (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.

User:Fellytone[edit]

This is a username that's been around for about a year but is intermittently active. The editor seems to have rather strong ideological convictions and i'd be rather surprised if this is the sole username in front of the actual editor. At any rate, his over the top combativeness and strong ideological convictions are problematic, particularly in the BLP arena. I encountered him at CounterPunch a few days ago. He wanted to put in some criticism by strong political opponents of the magazine's editors, sourced to opeds, that the magazine and its staff are antisemites (an israeli court convicted an ideological opponent of a CounterPunch writer of defamation for just this charge a few years ago). Another editor remove this edit, and explained why on the talk page. Fellytone's response was to attack the other editor as biased, writing Could you imagine if the United States government issued a warrant for Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints?[15]. The other editor took issue with the characterization of himself and the magazine and asked Fellytone to stop [16]. At this point i got involved on the talk page, agreeing with the removal and the reason and reminding Fellytone of edit warring rules (he'd gone to 3rr while trying to insert this information). I also wrote that just because someone accuses someone they don't like of antisemitism in an opinion piece that doesn't justify including that information in an encyclopedia article. His response? I'm simply proving that the Wikipedia guidelines you're slapping on your posts are compatible with the criticisms that a few "assholes" are making for an immigrant monkey like Cockburn and his motley crew of crazed conspiracy theorists and left-wing intellectual midgets and likewise accuses me of the same bias he slapped on the other editor I'm not the self-righteous one here arrogating to a magazine that shares my political orientation the status of immunity from criticism.[17] I too ask him to stop accusing me of bias for which he has no evidence [18]. He insists he's going to soon reinsert the same material, i tell him that he doesn't have consensus for that [19]. He again accuses me of bias And yes we've been able to co-exist for hundreds of years in such a society without sending anybody to a Siberian gulag. Like I said, I welcome any further input from any of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to take a look at this section and make a judgment as to whether or not the criticism section go on the page.[20]. A day or two later he heads to my talk page to write Right so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Wikipedia page [21] Then reinserts the edit [22]. A third editor then also agrees the information should not be placed in the article [23].

As people that know me know, i'm not a member of the civility police. If someone called me a jerk or an asshole i'd laugh. But he's consistently attacking other editors who disagree with him (and in my view are trying to enforce some basic blp standards) as biased, and doesn't seem to back off when warned. At the meta level, i have strong suspicions that this is a sock, but since it could be any of a host of different banned or departed users, and no way to say which, it's hardly the point. Even if Fellytone's legit, he's going to at minimum have to rein it in, famliarize himself with BLP, RS etc... He doesn't seem willing to do so at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week to give them time to review editorial content and conduct policies; review welcome. EyeSerenetalk 11:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I endorse Bali's statements and Eye's block, after Fellytone's aggressive and unnecessarily personal comments while hashing out a fairly simple content disagreement on Talk:Andre_Geim#Nobel_Peace_Prize_statements.

Jaffna[edit]

Resolved: two editors blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

An anon user is constantly inserting content[24] which is detrimental to the believes of the people in the Jaffna region, without substantial evidence. I request the page should be protected or the anon user should be blocked. If he is genuine enough in the addition of the content, he should open an account and first discuss at the talk page.Shankar2001 (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this vandalism? (not saying it isn't, I need more information as I am not an expert on Jaffna) N419BH 10:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, but that's what some editors in this topic area call any content with which they don't agree. Feelings can get so stirred up, calls for neutrality are met with answers akin to "Yes, neutrality, that's all I want, the truth, please block those vandals." Disputes and edit warring over ethnic/caste topics in the subcontinent pop up all the time on en.WP. Some of these disputes have roots going back thousands of years. Semi-protection doesn't help much, if at all. There are all kinds of fuzzy sources on these topics, many of which don't agree, many of which are less than reliable. There are also meaningful culture gaps between en.WP admins and many of those who edit these topics, never mind that subcontinental English is not the same as UK/US English. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If that is not vandalism why he can't discuss at the talk page first for radical change on the content? Why he should come out with different IP addresses time to time to post the content?Shankar2001 (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
First, please read WP:Vandalism. The word has a narrow meaning here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Shankar's revert was off. The IP is more encyclopaedic. Please explain what exactly bugs you about the edit. I would prefer it, if you were to use academic transliteration for indic scripts. Maybe it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with that. Other than that, Sinhala comes before Tamil as both are official languages with Sinhala having the majority of speakers. BTW what exactly is radical about the edit? Chartinael (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is not a bullshit Sri Lankan Government mouth piece for another war crime or ethnic cleansing what the world has seen in the recent past. Jaffna is Tamil dominated though Sri Lanka is Sinhala dominated.Shankar2001 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not a neutral post, Shankar. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shankar is unwilling to step back and look at edits from a neutral point of view. Calls encyclopaedic edits cleaning up lead and establishing proper transcription in both official languages radical. Not willing to talk with neutral editor. Sees POV pushing everywhere. Admin to address him/her needed. Chartinael (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The way you have come out with the controversial addition probably with an Anon IP address shows your neutral and genuine intention of dealing a sensitive issue. Don't come out with so called bullshit transcription and altered epics which are the root cause which made the way for recent blood path in Sri Lanka.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Shankar, as I was trying to hint above, neutral does not mean true. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Shankar, I see no attempt to talk to the IP editor about their edits. Calling them vandalism and coming straight to AN/I is not going to help you. --Errant (chat!) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Shankar, please refrain from emotionally editing lemmata. Step back, take a deep breath and try to figure out why you feel that this controversial edit is controversial to you when others don't view it as vandalism. Chartinael (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Although we don't have a hard-and-fast rule about this (as far as I'm aware), Jaffna is an overwhelmingly Tamil city, and so it would seem appropriate that the Tamil name should take precedence. If we were to take articles on Indian cities as a model, usually only the name of the city in the main local language is given in brackets after the English name. On that basis, there may be a case for saying that Sinhala script should not appear in the article at all. I'm not necessarily recommending that, but attempting to promote it above Tamil certainly looks like sectarian POV-pushing. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
FormerIP, at least you identified the fact at least on Wikipedia! These are the facts which caused the wars not only in Sri Lanka but all over the world historically.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that at all. Both languages are official, both should be used and transcribed. This is how it ought to be done in other lemmata on non-latin scripts as well. i.e. Lakhnau, Colombo. If it is not done yet, hey, plenty more to do. Chartinael (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please have this discussion on the talk page --Errant (chat!) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ErrantX, I will hereafter discuss on the talk page only this issue. But for my final post here; though the Hindi is the official language in India, I haven't seen anywhere in the major Indian cities of Bangalore, Hyderabad, India, Thiruvananthapuram, Chennai, Kolkata, the Hindi language is used.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
For one thing, india is of a different political structure, second: don't look too far, check out the lemmata on sri lanka. Always both languages given, ideally with transcription. There is no value put to the sequence of languages. If Tamil comes before Sinhala it doesn't make Tamil any better than Sinhala nor vice versa. Chartinael (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
We are not discussing here political structures, but the usage of language. If you feel "If Tamil comes before Sinhala it doesn't make Tamil any better than Sinhala nor vice versa", then leave Jaffna page as it is now. I am not proposing remove totally Sinhala usage at Jaffna page any way.Shankar2001 (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked both Shankar and Chartinael for 24 hours for edit warring. I found out about this via the AN3 report filed by Chartinael. Looks like we have enough boomerang effect to go around for a while. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Corydor13[edit]

Resolved: talk page access revoked. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a compromised account which is already indef blocked, but whoever has been trying to get it unblocked is now being abusive at User talk:Corydor13. Is it time to revoke Talk page access? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Might as well. I don't see why they're getting so upset at not being unblocked, when their account really has been used only for vandalism (with the sole exception of adding some unreferenced negative information on a BLP). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User: TommyMgunn[edit]

Resolved: indef-blocked as a spam-only account. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TommyMgunn (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale additions of agent details to biographical articles. Information is unsourced. Not sure if this counts as spam (as no external links added) or just general disruptive editing. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors[edit]

Unresolved: I am still waiting for an administrator to take action on this matter. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

  1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributions from this group of IPs, including 69.31.68.51, 69.22.185.186, 69.22.185.187, 69.22.185.189, and 69.22.185.191, have been largely incomprehensible, but it is obvious that they need to learn about a number of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:RS, WP:NLT, WP:NPA, & WP:TPOC. As most of the recent IPs have been within one range, I wonder whether a range block would be appropriate? If not, a block for the last of the list would seem to be a minimum requirement. - David Biddulph (talk)
il garbagio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Referring to the above CaC is of course mentally retarded ... why hire Cac for this job? am just a visitor to this site but like to comment...in addition who are you david to block the ips can you do that? or I'll piss at your smelly breath..
Wikipedias are not as smart in containing all the ips of the world...they cant even contain their immorality online!!! or flush their bad breath with pisses or HCL to have a good smart look.. am incomprehensible? am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.38 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, have a look at [25]. Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just rangeblocked 69.22.185.184/29 for a week. Um, at least I think I did. I think I followed the instructions, but I'm not sure how to tell whether it actually worked (first time I've done a rangeblock). Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The justification of the fault of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) who comes from the University of Utah or uses the IP of the Univ of Utah has been deleted in the Talk Page of Public Opinion on Climate Change. It was clearly written there. Now the users page of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) cannot be retrieved because it is owned by the Univ of Utah-- who cares if it is owned by U of U... as long as the user is irresponsible and has committed a crime... the user is always a criminal and will be charged..U of U you better look for this user and fire this user from your univ... This user is extremely a shame to your institution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.39 (talk)

Brave acts can be ruined by accidents! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent A.N.I. thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Something_Unusual, which involves these same IP users (both "CaC" and the 69.xx IPs). Same users, same article (Public opinion on climate change). From the above comment, it looks like an even bigger rangblock may need to be placed. (?) This IP user (69.xx) also does not seem to know or care about WP:No legal threats, WP:No personal attacks, etc. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is demeaning to use or cite Savillo's statement without his permission. If he wants to write something he'll have it published authored by him. So pls donot use him to play the tug of war between those who are in favor of IPCC and those who are not. When he makes his comment there was no mention of IPCC but Cac meant the opposite when Cac stated that the removed statement was Savillo's and it was clear from the beginning that it was not his... this is another display of plain stupidity among the editors of wikipedia supposedly a useful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a better rangeblock may very well be helpful here... :-( [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC needs to say sorry to everyone whom Cac hurt while doing the reckless assertion... I think this resolves the issue..Will you accept this proposal-forwarding this question to all other concerned users: 69? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@69.31.68.5: While I do apologize for your misunderstanding, I do have this in reply:
  1. My assertion was simple: the sentence cited a forum post, which by Wikipedia's guideline was not acceptable.
  2. I made my intentions clear in my first reply. It was not meant to be about Savillo or the IPCC. It was your decision to believe otherwise.
  3. I do not find your claims credible. You may believe what you want, but the objective is to convince others of the same.
  4. You are incomprehensible. While your tone makes your intentions clear, I have trouble understanding what your reasons are, or lack of thereof.
I apologize in advance if you find this brash, but I find a terse dismissal to be in my opinion an unsatisfactory resolve. I do not appreciate your threats against myself or my institution nor do I find them credible. While under the presumption of your threats, I do not find that a discussion with you will lead to a satisfactory resolve, and resign from involving myself thereof. --CaC 155.99.230.219 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the Users 69 could not comment because they are blocked. Nevertheless, I have this opportunity to say that your tone is melancholic to dilute the heart but your statements are flirtatious that require a second look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the seperate 69.xx IPs are different people. I believe that they are probably the same person under multiple IPs (they may be dynamic, or the current 69.xx IP could be the result of the person resetting his own IP).

The fact is, the sentence that was removed from the article was taken from a forum post where someone was giving his own opinion, without citing any reliable sources in his post. Such forum posts are not reliable sources, thus they do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. With as many harassments, personal attacks, etc. as you are throwing at this sensible IP editor (155.xx/CaC), it is a wonder that an administrator has not already blocked you by now. But one sure does need to block you, though. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue has already been enlightened but what you did Retro00064 you fueled it to a more fiery piece... this will continue further.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.45 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Retro00064 you need to apologize to CaC and Users 69 for re igniting this issue again amid the ongoing enlightening peaceful process between the two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologize for what? Making sense out of all of this? The fact is, it does not matter whether Savillo wrote that sentence or not. The reference was citing who wrote the forum post that backed up the sentence in the Wikipedia article. Here at Wikipedia, we write a generic sentence that makes a claim, then we cite a reliable source that backs up the claim in the article. It is not necessary to quote the source exactly as the source wrote, as in many cases that could cause a copyright violation. In this case, CaC removed the sentence and citation altogether, so any arguing about the sentence quoting exactly what Savillo said or not is just a pile of stinking crap.
There is no need to apologize to CaC, as I support his removal of the sentence. Read my last post in this thread (above), and read my explanation of the fact that the Savillo forum post is not a reliable source.
Are you hearing all of this?
The reason that you need to be blocked, 69.xx, is not because you disagree with CaC's changes. It is becuase of your harassment, incivility, legal threats, personal attacks, sock puppetry (and claiming otherwise), etc. What a foul mouth of yours that you expressed on CaC's talk page.
Any administrators to the rescue, to close this case? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know it, now this IP user has flipped his lid and reported me at WQA! :-P [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Still looks as if it needs a range block. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Flagging this as a request that requires some administrator assistance; in particular, blocking may be required to prevent the disruption that is being caused. See also my closing comment at the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sets of eyes for an inactive/involved admin[edit]

I'm concerned that 2010 in LGBT rights seems to be turning into some sort of low-level revert battleground. Although I've been unwilling to voice the concern explicitly, (and his battling with a ban evader complicated matters), it does vaguely look like Lihaas (talk · contribs) has, for all practical purposes, essentially taken over the page. I am not the first to note that Lihaas seems to have somewhat idiosyncratic criteria, cf. meco (talk · contribs)'s comment here. In particular I am concerned at Lihaas' insistently sweeping reverts (every time he deletes all content of any nature that has been added for the period since September, with some justification, e.g. grammar, not exactly sound), and some of his templating (i.e. restoring a {{clarify}} template demanding "hat is the precedence set as a "right"" of the Chimbalanga and Monjeza case). I haven't really been an active admin in years, and am basically involved here, so a couple pairs of eyes would really appreciated. Circéus (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what? I have on each and every occasion used the talk facility that so many editors utterly refure to do, simply choosing to edit away and have their version listed on. On each occassion i have piecemeal taken apart and discussed matters as in 2010 Ecuador crisis, Paedophilia, Irish general election, 2010, Fuck for Forest (where you will also note meco's comment as absolutely rubbish in that he pushed for a war to further edit without discussing. Don't take my word for it, see the talk page that he still refused to return to. )and instead of blindly quoting meco you should first see what his "strange notions on what is appropriate editing practices" refers to!)) You can also see 2010 Baghdad church attack where the other editor later asked me to check up the article for review when a new editor abrubtly came in refusing to discuss. Likewise I have answered every query for this on the talk page that both the sockpupper and now you dont want to discuss (where i have now restarted a conmversation to make it easy for said editor who refuses to want to discuss adn see the said talk pages, yet wants it spelt out on a platter for his own case. Wikipedia can't do his bidding that he wants his version in without discussing as he said on my own talk page "I am NOT going to slog through months of back-and-forth arguments steeped in sockpuppetry. I want to hear your reasoning for that specific revert and removal of three months of information, many more and often better sources etc." -- just because he wants that doesn't mean he get it, the onus is on the editor seeking this change (where 2 other editors have come in on the part to support/request the cahnges being taken), yet i still did it. If he doesnt want to discuss then, frankly, that is his problem. I have also said on his talk page im willing to discuss each ofhis concerns, and then he resorts to an ani conversation to escape discussion. (see the page he ahs doubt it, after bending to his whim he still doesnt discuss)(Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).
You have not actually answered most of my concerns (even scratching some grouping of events to editorial disagreement). Though I fundamentally disagree with your content definition assertion, your reverting and argumentation (this rant is not exactly a good start as far as I'm concerned) has not been very encouraging. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be more than happy to leave the page to get choked by your approach (I have other editorial projects), but I'd rather at the very lest attract fresher sets of eyes to what's going on. Circéus (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why dont you discuss it? There is a talk page with all content on there, if you have a problem then see it or ask. Im not a mindreader to see what you expect. if the rant is not a good start to your concern then youre always welcome to start your own encyclopaedia where your will can rule the roost. What arguementation? That i acceded to your whim and did in fact go to the talk page before you refused to even see it (as duly described on my talk page). Thats fine then, if you dont want to discuss changes as ive been ever willing to do (and backed by evidence on here as opposed to your concerns that are, in fact, a rant), then youre fine to go wherever else you please.
And if i have "taken over the page" then how come 2 other editors supported the same initiative to have the content removed? vs. 1 (with the sock puppet obviously discounted) who misinformed the discussion that he ahs been watching it for awhile, he hasnt or else hje would ahve seen talk.
Morever, this is not the behaviour of an admin to go about willy-nilly demanding to have everything spoon fed to him to make a decision because he had a problem. He should be level-headed and pursue what he had a problem in, not simply others! his "admin-ship" should certainly be reviewed!Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My concerns about Lihaas' contributions on a related article are discussed at Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi#article_cleanup. I suspect this may be an issue of incompetent and non-collaborative editing/behaviour rather than any more worrying pattern, however I would backup a request for independent eyes (even though this may not be the right forum). (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And please elucidate what i have done other than discuss, a facility that most people dont seem to want to use. Albeit in this case we are in fact using it, and, as I specifically said, calling others to give theri input.
Instead of posting here you could continue to make progress on the discussion, which you apparently are not bothered about not but would rather Attack and spite over.
One can also note that im not the only one to question the worthiness of the article (2 deletion requests are certainly grounds for improvement as are the inline tags i added with comment, which you then removed without answering)
Seems like WP:BOOMERANG, certainly above.
Im not at wits end as to what the function of the talk page is. With each other I have duly gone to talk, broken down point by point each aspect of the removal and for some reason editors who refuse to want to continue a discussion resort to some sort of red herring to blame or take it to ANI. Why this is here i haven't the foggiest? The editors have not (particularly the former) even bothered to attempt any of the conflict resolution methods such as discussing before come to sort of arbitration which is flagrantly in violation of wikipedia at least claims. Whoever takes this case up should clearly see my attempt to discuss at both these pages are met with no attempt to further consensus building. (in start contrast to such articles as paedophilia, where initial disagreements were mutually worked through and commended despite said disagreements.
The aforemention second user has not clearly joined the ranks of WP:BOOMERANG as you can see on the talk page of his wish to WP:OWN the article and not discuss which i have once again asked to do AND bent to his tune of restoring his interim version, yet he wants EVERYTHING to go without discussion. One can also not my VERY polite consideration to ask him that ive not made accomodation and we can discuss it.Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, clearly I can't manage whatever this is (Argh. Why did I ever accept the mop anyway?). I wash my hand off this whole mess and will leave Lihaas to block additions of the DADT repeal and anything else happened in the fourth quarter of 2010 all he wants. I'll stick to my academics bio and life sciences projects. Clearly that's going to be more efficient at, y'know, improving the encyclopedia. Circéus (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that I didn't see this earlier, and have made a few edits on that page. I know we administrators generally hesitate to take admin actions based on content issues, but can we please agree that don't ask, don't tell is related to LGBT rights (and therefore 2010 in LGBT rights)? People who argue otherwise really ought not to be editing such pages. NW (Talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can see on that talk page ive duly discussed every issue. If you want to continue that discussion im more than ready to do so. (i will take this there)
Though the above users admin-states certianly needs review.Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Albums deleted under A7[edit]

Resolved: Jimfbleak learned something new, and Chubbles can have the content userfied if the band article is kept. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Backstory: I recently