Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Someone65: Violation of 3RR under aggravated circumstances[edit]

Please pardon my diffs, I'm not good with archives. Asking for sanctions against Someone65 (talk · contribs) for this 3RR, in order to prevent further damage, due to the following circumstances.

1. Violation of 3RR: These reverts on January 30th to replace material I was trying to correct. In fact, you will notice some portions were reverted four times today by Someone65.

2. Note the misleading edit summaries on the most recent reverts, this is part of a pattern of misleading edit summaries.

3. History of destructive edits followed by denials and attempts at deception.

  • Here Someone65 executed a mass rename of "Islamic" articles to "Caliphate" articles. When called out, the editor claims authority under an RFC/U the editor was not associated with. This ended the same day in sanctions for Someone65 due to apparent unrelated sockpuppetry.
  • Here, the editor becomes frustrated and attacks an article I was working on previously, for purposes of revenge. Again, no responsibility is taken. This incident ended in sanctions due to misrepresentation and retaliation. Note in this ANI Someone65 is complaining about the same person who is currently the subject of abuse from this editor.

4. Insulting, demeaning, wiki-threatening dialog directed against another editor on their talk page. Outside the bounds of civility. Here, near the end of the section, Someone65 feels compelled to remind Imadjafar he has forgotten Islam rejects the bible. A provocative allegation against the religion of other editors.

5. Tendentious editing: Someone65 repeatedly cycles through a pattern of aggressive editing, with misrepresentative edit summaries and few sources. This will eventually lead to an incident where the editor denies responsibility for their actions. After enforcement actions are taken against the editor, things will go along quietly for a while, punctuated by requests for additional administrative authority and editing on a broadened range of topics. Eventually, though, it will lead to another incident in the Islamic articles. The current 3RR violation stems from the dispute in December which ended in sanction for the editor.

Aquib (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to defuse this situation a little. While I understand Aquib's frustration with Someone65's edits, I see no reason to believe that they were done out of malice, or with any deliberate intention to deceive.
1. These edits of Someone65's did not violate the three revert rule. The second paragraph of that rule tells us: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.". Thus, Someone65's last 3 edits count only as a single revert, and so he only made three reverts in total in the 24-hour period from 5:33 on January 30 to 5:33 on January 31 (the time of his last edit).
2. The edit summary of this edit may appear to have been grossly deceptive, but there is a very simple (reasonably) good-faith explanation of it. It's evident from the template talk page, and the edits themselves, together with their summaries, that Somone65 has agreed that Elizabeth, Jochebed and Rachel could be included in the template, but not Rebecca, Zipporah or Anne. What he did in the first of his last three edits was to go back to this version of the template—which contained none of the six disputed ladies—and added Elizabeth to it. Thus his edit summary was (at least partially) accurate, if incomplete. He was certainly remiss in neglecting to mention that he had, at the same time, removed the other five ladies from the template (although his failure to add Jochebed and Rachel may have been inadvertent, since he did add them subsequently). Unfortunately, when he added Jochebed, he appears to have mistakenly added it to the version he originally started with instead of the one he had just created. Thus, although the resulting edit did add Jochebed, it also had the effect (I believe inadvertent) of removing the Elizabeth he had just added. Thus, it appears to me that the apparent deceptiveness of these edit summaries resulted largely from carelessness in the edits themselves, rather than from any deliberate attempt to mislead.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for this patient and thoughtful explanation. Perhaps I have overreacted. I withdraw my complaint. Aquib (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Candid advice requested about sock detection[edit]

Resolved: Thanks all!  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Since things seem relatively quiet here at the moment, I hope people won't mind if I pose a question that I've wanted to ask here for a long while: Is there anything at all that can be done by a checkuser when you see a new account that very obviously is not a new user, but you have no idea whose sock it might be? ( Yes, I know not every such account is a sock, e.g. could be a former ip editor. ) And more, is there any way to avoid "spilling the beans" in such a case, so as not to just educate a sockmaster about how to avoid detection next time he creates a sock account? I'm aware that there are both official and unofficial ways to proceed in such a case, and would be especially grateful for any candid advice about the unofficial-but-permitted ones, if anyone is willing to provide that, or perhaps to e-mail me with the same. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I do:
  • If the new account's behaviour is not actually problematic and the new account does not belong to a faction in a conflict, I just don't worry. Often editors in good standing do a legitimate restart, e.g. for privacy reasons after being outed.
  • Otherwise watchlist the user's talk page. If the user starts misbehaving, someone will warn them and I will be reminded of the suspicion.
  • If I really think the user is a problem and might be a serial reincarnator, I consult WP:LTA to see if they fit any known pattern. If so, I would quietly contact a functionary who has experience with the banned user in question. Hans Adler 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I would look at the history of the articles they are editing to see if there has been edit-warring or other disruptive editing in the past. A previous editor may have been banned. Compare their writing style, articles edited and the time of day they edit. Be aware that controversial articles may have attracted more than one sockmaster. If there is a gap in time between the old and new editing, it may not be possible to conduct a checkuser, and you will have to rely on editing similarity. TFD (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Hans; thanks Four Deuces. Those are helpful suggestions. But maybe I can be more specific? There were two accounts that caught my eye this time the question came up for me:
− One immediately began his career by multiply-reverting another user he claimed (accurately) was a sock, and striking out that sock's talk-page comments, and then he jumped into one of our most conflict-ridden areas on the opposite side of the known sock, and into an acrimonious AfD in that same subject area.
− The other, in his 4th edit, started PRODing articles left and right, nominating something like 15 articles straight away, then !voting in maybe another 15 AfDs (also in very controversial areas), and also accused others of being socks, accurately, as it turned out.
Neither account has more than about 50 edits. My inclination is not to disclose the account names here, but can I ask for counsel about these instances, as good examples for when I notice similar accounts in the future? That is, am I right to be concerned about such behavior and, if so, is there any real alternative to playing the sleuth, which is, of course, very time-consuming? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Koakhtzvigad[edit]

Resolved: May go to WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad (talk · contribs) is engaged in Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior on the talk pages of several articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. His latest shtick is that he won't abide by the community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2.

Among the pages in question are Israel and the apartheid analogy and African-American – Jewish relations.

I would like some uninvolved administrators to review the talk pages of those articles and see whether there's a problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The place where attention is most needed is at Talk:African-American – Jewish relations#POV-pushing? It appears that Koakhtzvigad is planning to edit war on the terminology used in this article to refer to occupied territories:
"Your support is irrelevant. The sources provided are unreliable. All I have said is a matter of historical fact. I'll be returning to revise the sources." Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
Previous discussions have led to the accepted terminology for occupied territory given at WP:WESTBANK. Other editors on the talk page have been urging him to follow this convention. Koakhtzvigad has been rejecting this advice, and the strong tone of his answers may be what caused Malik to post the matter here for review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston, you are wrong, on several counts. I suggest you read WP:WESTBANK. As for "other editors", there was one, and not very helpful.
Malik Shabazz - this is a long statement.
"Wikilawyering, filibustering, and IDONTHEARYOU behavior"!!! - Excuse me for breathing Malik Shabazz! My invitation to discuss on the Talk:African-American – Jewish relations was answered by this submission, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a court! So who is WikiLawyering?
Filibustering? Gee, would that be like in politics (...whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal)? But as I recall this is a practice that is used to prevent change, and here you are attempting to prevent me editing an article, through initiating a groundless AN/I. Can you pick the filibusterer here?
IDONTHEARYOU behavior? I can't hear you, but could read you, IF you were making a point. However, you use TL DR, and not me. In the case with Talk:African-American – Jewish relations, you refuse to participate in the discussion you initiated!. Instead you shoved the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) in front of me, which in fact doesn't deal with the case in point - i.e. a specific reference to Israeli occupation of the territory following the cessation of the 1967 war. Did you happen to read that naming convention? I'll quote it here
  • 5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the NPOV position.. So you started AN/I because I didn't put in the words "the administrative area of"? This is what you just couldn't discuss in the talk?
I have news for you. Saying that I won't follow the WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) as community consensus that was developed pursuant to WP:ARBPIA2 is WikiLawyering - i.e. you seem to know WikiCASELAW better than the subject matter of the article in question. (Israel and the apartheid analogy has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, and I hadn't edited there for about a week)
The above consensus decision was based on "The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms." geographical as I pointed out in the talk page, but you exhibited IDONTHEARYOU behavior, replying with a threat.
What I am editing is the historical fact that after 1967 (the context of the relevant text in the article) Israel introduced military administration of the area, and that military administration used Judea and Samaria as the administrative region names. It is a fact recognised in numerous official documents, including those by the Palestinian Authority after the 1993 Oslo Accords. It can not be changed by Wikipedia censorship, because if this is done, it would constitute editing not of articles, but of pseudohistory. Wikipedai does not censor history, only records it.
It seems to me that Malik is trying to make the purpose of Wikipedia something it is not by attempting to erase parts of Arab-Israeli conflict history. His editor conduct seems to me to be questionable due to assumptions of bad faith, harassment (though AN/I), disruptive point-making (claiming I'm POV-pushing), and gaming the system (i.e. using administrative procedures). Malik has declined to participate in the Wikipedia editorial process that encourages discussion in the first instance. Common sense would suggest that naming conventions are still subject to the content context, and not the reverse, yet this seems to have escaped Malik's notice. This is not the first time that Malik displayed a lack of Good faith and disruption of my editing, but every time he was invited to discuss, he evaded doing so. Malik Shabazz is simply disrupting the editing process without actively participating in one, seemingly because he is "too busy", but not busy enough to disrupt others. While he has used his administrative privileges to good effect in the past, it seems he is also given to occasional unjustified pursuit of editors he doesn't agree with.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had the displeasure of dealing with this user at the Israeli apartheid article. What we have here has been seen a million times, and will be seen am million more times; someone armed with "the truth" is bound and determined to bend articles towards his/her preferred version of events. Israel-Palestine, global warming, the Troubles, American politics, whatever the hot-button topic is, they're there to fight the good fight. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there something relevant to the subject of the AN/I that you would like to express? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have clashed with this editor on B'Tselem, where he has edit-warred in an attempt to insert original research based on his own unsubstantiated interpretation of a list of the ethnic origins of people based on their names. Both there and on other articles he has adopted a highly confrontational approach, posting long and legalistic texts to talk pages,[1][2] exhibiting IDHT behaviour, belittling the contributions of other editors,[3] arguing that Wikipedia rules should not apply to him[4] and other disruptive editing. And I note that, in response to Malik's 78-word submission above, Koakhtzvigad posted a 712-word rebuttal, accusing Malik of TLDR! This editor should receive a clear warning that he is bound by the same Wikipedia rules as the rest of us regarding edit-warring, original research and civility, and that breaches will lead to sanctions. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Koakhtzvigad, I did express something relevant to the subject of the ANI; you are a problematic editor. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Per User talk:Koakhtzvigad#January 2011 this editor has already been notified under WP:ARBPIA, and was blocked on 7 January at WP:AN3 for violating 1RR on an I-P article. Since there is no hint of any change in his attitude, and all we see here is a bombastic defence of his position with no hint that he will follow consensus, the way is clear for an admin who was so inclined to issue a sanction under WP:ARBPIA. To help you form an opinion on this, I recommend clicking the diff links provided above by RolandR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
From User:Koakhtzvigad (editing from mobile - no password to account on hand) I am fascinated how issues completely irrelevant to the question at hand are brought out to try and "pile on" supposed vices to enact a block, to prevent me from editing, the reason why Wikipedia is here.
  • RolandR, as I patiently explained before, the list came from B'Tselem's website, and since Israelis are not allowed to enter the Palestinian territories, and the names were obviously Arabic, there is virtually a 100% probabalility they are in fact residents of the Palestinian territories. However, evenually consensus was achieved, wasn't it? And, what is the point of bringing up an article where I hadn't edited for at least two weeks (even on talk)? I was blocked over the 1RR at the time because having never been blocked before I was unaware of the definition of editing, thinking it only involves creative contributions to article - something I am trying to do despite this event.
  • Tarc, I am only problematic to you because I do not support the views you hold on certain subjects. However, the subject here is the editing of African-Americans criticism of Zionism, and more specifically in the immediate period after the 1967 war. Do you have something to contribute to that? If you felt I was "problematic" before, why did you wait until now to express this?
  • EdJohnston, I know how this works. BECAUSE I have a previous "WikiCONVICTION", I should be shot now to spare the expanse of the trial :) However, my "bombastic defense" is based on trying to get the editors, namely Malik, to abide by the Arbitration decision! That decision was to define West Bank as a geographic toponym. I pointed this out in talk without bothering to use fancy WP:thisWP:that links, but Malik failed to listen.
"the way is clear for an admin who was so inclined to issue a sanction under WP:ARBPIA" - you are actually inciting somone to block a contributing editor because you don't like his attitude? And what attitude should I have? Is wanting to edit in Wikipedia not enough anymore? Have you never before encountered editors that defend their position based on actual sources? The particular section in question is poorly sourced (article dealing with 17th century used to support events post-1967), and that is not my fault. My "fault" seems to be in attempting to edit the contents to reflect events in question rather than go along with Malik's belief in what it should say. And it was he that labled me a "POV-pusher", which seems to be OK by Wikipedia civility standards.
Now I see that RolandR and Malik are both on the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, and Malik made a pledge to be cool, yet the four of you, insead of collaborating are fishing for a block (any excuse will do), and Malik went to AN/I at a drop of a hat! I can only suggest that you may need to review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Dealing_with_disputes Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 58.178.163.234 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved admin comment: There seems to be quite enough diffs presented here to substantiate concerns, given the special emphasis on collaboration in WP:ARBPIA, but I am myself not familiar enough with the area to feel comfortable taking action. I would like to suggest that, unless another unvinvolved admin chooses a more active response, this may be a matter for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
So its all about number of diffs? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it's about the content of the diffs, which are offered in sufficient number to demonstrate a pattern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A pattern for what? I suppose you would need to read the discussions, but my participation in those articles was largely based on the inadequacy of the sources used, and the terms use due to those sources, something particularly important in international law. I was also concerned about the relevance of the reference provided in those articles. despite their quantity. The block I received for breaching 1RR was based on my misunderstanding of what that meant, and not on the intention to edit-war. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The pattern of behavior described above. I have read the conversations. Whatever provocation you may feel you are dealing with, your manner in those conversations has not been in keeping with the principles of behavior emphasized at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Decorum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Is decorum held higher then the quality of the articles? It seems to me I was not uncivil to anyone, but was strongly insistent on upholding higher standards of editing because of the more controversial subject area. It seems to me that half the problems in this subject-are are due to the low standards of applying terminology and sourcing references.
Than be as it may, if my decorum is the issue, with all this talk about good faith and discussion, how does it go from me editing, to Enforcement in two swift steps? I can't help but think that there is a behind-the-scenes agenda that has nothing to do with stated Wikipedia policies. You just recommended Enforcement request although that says "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution.". In other words, in the case of Content disputes (Malik Shabazz's case), there has been no:
  • talk page discussion
  • informal mediation
  • formal mediation
  • Requests for Comments
and, while there are no breaches of existing sanctions by me,
  • AN/I followed immediately, with a recommendation for
  • enforcement
So, exactly what happened to not making points or the much vaunted continuance to discuss the matter?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I have no intentions of bickering with you. I'm an uninvolved administrator; I've looked at the conversations, and I agree with those who have found your behavior problematic. This has already gone to arbitration; the point of enforcement policies is to prevent having to go through it over and over again. You have been pointed to the arbitration decision and are already logged as on notice there. That decision, which you are expected to have read from your first warning, explains the decorum that is expected in working in this area, which is essential to keeping the project running smoothly. Combative behavior in such contentious areas can grind the project to a standstill. I recommend the AE noticeboard as the administrators who volunteer there are more accustomed than the administrators who volunteer here to weighing behavior with respect to those decisions and responding appropriately, which may include "civility patrol", bans, blocking or any number of other possible remedies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I need to think about whether to bring this to WP:AE. In the meantime, I'll mark this resolved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Eunice Sanborn[edit]

Resolved: a source listing her age at death as 114 has been found and added to her entry at Deaths in 2011, therefore the potential for confusion is not nearly as great. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of an interesting conundrum at Deaths in 2011. Eunice Sanborn, who up until a short while ago was the world's oldest living person, has passed on. The source included at Deaths in 2011, and indeed all current media outlets reporting the death, state her age as 115. However, our article on Sanborn lists her age as 114. I have noted at Talk:Deaths in 2011 that we need to reflect what the sources are saying, and if there is a discrepancy then it needs to be noted in the Sanborn biography article. Unfortunately I have been repeatedly reverted when trying to match the age to the source. The issue is compounded by the fact that Deaths in 2011 is linked from the mainpage and is highly visible, and we currently have her age listed as 114 with a supporting source titled "World's oldest woman dies aged 115". --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any sources list her birth date? Guiness World Records lists the same date as WP—and simple math is not OR, so we're right. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Found the issue: AFP writes: "While an organization which tracks and verifies supercentenarians listed Sanborn's age as 114, her family claims the US Census Bureau erroneously recorded her birth year as 1896 rather than 1895." We need to note this on her article and Deaths in 2011. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The media sources all say that the family reports her age as 115 (they claim the US Census Bureau is erroneous) and the headlines all state her age as 115. Perhaps the Deaths in 2011 page should read "114 or 115" with further explanation at the article page? The reason I've brought this here is 1) the high visibility of the page and 2) the fact that our info contradicts what is being reported in media sources. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and try that ... :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Do be careful, though; the subject is going through arbitration now, and the last thing we need is more heat in that area. I'm tempted to make some very sarcastic but true remarks, but I'll hold back and just say that the "D" part may surprise you if your sources don't match the GRG's views (but if they do, everything will be just fine). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco or Pablo's at the Disco?[edit]

Someone just redirected the first to the second. Does anyone here have a clue as to whether that's valid or is merely vandalism? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a hoax to me, though I'm not up on what the kids are listening to these days. We were the only place that included this claim. I marked Pablo's at the Disco as {{db-hoax}}. Gavia immer (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for an indef of Swocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and a school-year block for his IP 98.207.53.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Phooey, we might have been able to delete Panic! at the Disco as G8. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity is not a speedy criteria :/ Rehevkor 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for RfC close[edit]

Not strictly an admin function, but could someone close this RfC: Talk:Gokkun#RFC on Image Inclusion? It's old and has gone fallow, but it would be worthwhile to have decision one way or the other (or no consensus). It's long and was contentious, and thanking in advance anyone who volunteers to do this. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I looked at doing a non-admin close, but chose not to. I think it's pretty clearly no consensus. I personally think the right answer is to find a better picture. But that too will be gross as heck. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't blame you (for choosing not to). And I would suspect a no consensus close would be most likely - it's about tied by headcount, with a reasonably large sample, granting that headcount isn't everything. But please, would someone do it? I can't, since I participated, and it needs doing. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

editor User:Intermittentgardener refuses to justify edits and just edit wars[edit]

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed to prevent its continual use.Thanks. Hauskalainen (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin misusing rollback[edit]

Resolved: Edits explained, nothing untoward going on. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, administrators are held to the same standards as non-admins and are bound to the proper use of rollback. Stephen (talk · contribs) has frequently misused rollback ([5], [6], [7], [8], and most recently [9]). While the later two fall under "To revert edits in your own user space", in the other diffs Stephen has not shown understanding of rollback and continues to misuse it when undoing good faith changes. Is this a cause for concern, or does this happen everyday? Goodvac (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see the third diff, but really, rollback (by my understanding) should only be used for vandalism not to make reverts in userspace easier. That's what "undo" or TWINKLE's "rollback" buttons are for. But the first two, they strike me as being a misuse of rollback. The second one is clearly a misuse cause the article proves what profession that person works in. Recommend a stern warning and then removal if it continues. - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of what? You can't remove rollback from an admin without desysopping. Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Rollback can be used to make reverts in one's own userspace - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, it was by my understanding. I never use it for userspace stuff. - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What gives with the first diff [10] - something can't have stayed as a "db" since 2007; what am I misreading? Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The examples of this in article space do, at face value, seem to be using rollback where a regular undo would be more appropriate. I'd suggest to Stephen that he take more care with this tool in the future (and, of course, to leave edit summaries). However, I don't see any discussion of this on Stephen's talk page - it would have been better to have (politely) raised it there in the first instance and only escalated to this forum if it had proved necessary. Including diffs in an ANI report of actions which you yourself say is not a violation of any policy is also rather pointless. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The article was deleted in 2007, history restored in 2010 and the last edit with the db tag was reverted. —SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, it was raised at Stephen's talk page, but he reverted that too (here) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The first one (Spira) was me restoring an article after 3 years or so, and then reverting the tag that had been applied 3 years earlier. The second was reverting an edit warring user who had just been blocked for a legal threat. The third was a slip to revert a speedy tag by Goodvac. The fourth and fifth were reverts to my user space which are specifically allowed, (the fifth being reverting a warning by Goodvac for an error which I hadn't realised.) Apologies to all concerned, I will endeavour to avoid my finger slippage in the future. Stephen 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
"My finger slipped": classic defense ;) -- œ 11:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
So, nothing more to do here, right? This can just be archived? NW (Talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Finger slippage is well within administrative discretion. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Finger slippage occurred only when you were viewing my edits? Quite odd, but I'm willing to let this go. Feel free to close this discussion. Goodvac (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not reviving this; just a note about a discrepancy in Stephen's statements: when I queried about the reversion of the speedy tag, Stephen did not say that it was a slip. Here he admits that it was. Goodvac (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Let the record state that there was a discrepancy. Can we move on now? ;) -- œ 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks and engaging in sockpuppetry[edit]

Earlier, an IP address blanked reliably-sourced information from the article Jash, and I reverted the unexplained blanking [11]. Later, an account that rarely edits shows up on the talk page, asks why the sourced content should not be blanked, and then makes a personal attack against me calling me an "Islamophobe". It's fairly evident to me that the account and the IP are the same person engaging in sockpuppetry. The account has been contributing to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, including adding a photo of a corpse, and the IP has been doing the same [12]. The editor appears to be regularly logging in and out while editing, directly in violation of WP:SOCK. The account has existed since 2005, yet he claims just the other day he's "still learning how to use Wikipedia [13]. Can a checkuser look into this? - Burpelson AFB 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of editors, this 'article' is a rather dubious specimen. Frankly, I'd say it should be deleted. Modern Kurdish slang, and a citation from the Battle of Badr (624 AD)? What the....? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I prodded it. We'll see if that sticks. Gavia immer (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It didn't stick. It was already prodded once before. If you want to delete it, send it to AfD. The citation is from a book, not the battle itself. Oh, and thanks a lot for actually looking at the sockpuppetry and personal attacks. - Burpelson AFB 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not seeing the previous prod. I'm not an administrator, so I don't have much to say about the conduct issue. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jash exists now and is the proper place for the content discussion. Gavia immer (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, thank you for finally sticking to the topic and mentioning the inconsistency of the article. I tried several times to communicate this to Burpelson but he could not answer me what the Battle of Badr had to do with Kurdish women. As for me still learning how to use Wikipedia even though I've been registered since 2005. It's simple, I've been registered since a long time but I rarely make edits except when I see possible attempts to falsify information. As for Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed photo already existed in the Arabic version, I added it in the English version but after discussion with other editors they decided it was best to remove it because it was graphic and I totally agree with them. Please stop trying to make me look bad by bringing up unrelated topics. Now please for the n'th time, explain to us what the Battle of Badr has to do with Kurdish women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebutterfly (talkcontribs) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody is going to block this abusive sockpuppeteer I'm going to respond as I see fit. And maybe the Pro-Islamic POV Warrior should ask his questions of the person who wrote the book that sentence is sourced from. - Burpelson AFB 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Blame Israel (Meme) AfD discussion getting nasty[edit]

Not pointing fingers, but I think some uninvolved admins. are needed to intervene at this AfD. There is some back story regarding the author of this article and other editors over articles related to Israel & Palastine. But I don't want to be involved anymore with this because its now gotten more nasty and complex. Though, my AfD nomination still stands. Phearson (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a job for Ironholds--SPhilbrickT 02:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Afd has to run it's course...the best way to deal with any deletion is to state your rationale based on policy as much as possible and disengage from prolonged back and forth arguments. That Afd doesn't appear nearly as nasty as some others I have seen.--MONGO 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Mongo, Extra Eyes needed indeed. Nothing quite blockable yet though that coul deteriorate quickly. If any thing does cross the line WP:AE may be the most appropriate venue as this is I/P territory The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I may have commented prematurely as this comment is certainly unacceptable and needs admin attention, but this is spillage from the afd battle..--MONGO 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if anyone really wants to start howling for revenge over this, well there are plenty of potential victims. I name no names ( well, not directly ;-) but may I ask for administrator restraint at this point? I could be wrong, but indications seem promising to me at the moment for going forward at the AfD without an absolutely toxic amount of drama. Besides, much of the sturm und drang might have been avoided if I'd chosen my own words more carefully in the first place. I'm certainly partly to blame for that, and my astrologer tells me this is a most inauspicious week for me to be blocked.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I point out that the comment I made (linked above) was on my talk page? If Mbz1 actually wishes to raise this in an appropriate place, he of course can, but his drawing attention to it by linking it himself on the AfD seems to be intended more to reinforce his 'martyrdom', rather than over real concerns over a few ambiguous asterisks. I think given the context, I'd be able to offer a strong defence in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ambiguous? I see no ambiguity. I also think that if a quote by a third party is used, a summary of why such a quote was used and by whom it is from to provide context is not out of the question...though I would have refrained from making comparitive summaries as Mila did.--MONGO 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, given the context, I'd say a bit of exasperation is not unexpected. I would to if another user dismissed a reliable source in such a manner as mbz1 did, comparing the journalist to terrorists and antisemites. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, can I point out that I started out by suggesting that there was actually an element of truth in the article/essay that Mbz1 produced: I had been trying to make the point to him that he wasn't doing himself her that she wasn't doing herself any favours by treating any criticism as further evidence for this premise. I think that at least in part this is a language problem - Mbz1 himself states that English isn't his her first language, and much of the problem seems to be down to him her being unable to distinguish fair comment from what he she sees as personal attacks. This is more or less bound to lead to conflict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's 3:30 in the morning, and as such I do not have my cape. Someone poke me when it's time for closage and I'll write out one of my Longarse Rationales. Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
13 more hours until closure. But "Result was Delete" should be all that's necessary for a rationale. -Atmoz (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I undid mbz1's creation of a response section for herself, as well as the hidden comment instruction to place new !votes in the section above. IMO that is highly inappropriate to do in an AfD discussion, esp as this person is the creator of the article being discussed. No one's opinions should be made any more or any less prominent than another editors' Tarc (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I collapsed it yesterday morning. It is one of the most bizare attempts to shut down discussion and get the last word in. But then again its the same author who stiched together several WP:NOTNEWS events into this gem The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Since Mbz1 is blocked from posting here on ANI, she can't respond here to criticisms. But let me say in her defense that she is not a native speaker of English, that she is a sincere and passionate advocate for causes she cares about, and that creating a separate section to group her notes on WP policy was probably done with good not bad intentions. But really let's not discuss her here, it really isn't fair since she can't defend herself.betsythedevine (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned User:NYScholar returns as IPsock[edit]

For the seond or thrid time this banned user has returned as a sock, using the same ISP 66.66.17.59 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), making similar comments as those before on Talk:Harold Pinter, [14], [15], [16]. Also follwing a similar editing pattern to that previously used on Harold Pinter and related articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells needs to be investigated: the links to "Contributions" between 25 December 2008 and now show him to be "foll[o]wing a similar editing pattern to that previously used on Harold Pinter and related articles", such as the continual filing of reports in WP:ANI after apparently baiting other users. Continual violations of many policies in WP:LOP, including especially WP:OWN, and WP:MOS, including most recently, WP:CT, reveal a greater interest in filing incident reports than in actually improving the articles in question. Please see the current and archived discussion pages of Harold Pinter and related articles for the pattern of abuse and harassment of other editors revealed again above. (There is no possibility of my using e-mail with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, so this is the only way I have of communicating these concerns. Arbitration needs to examine these problems; I will not be able to participate in arbitration, but others can do what is needed to address my concerns about such harassment of other users by Jezhotwells. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You were banned as User:NYScholar, and your usual, repetitive mantra of "There is no possibility of my using e-mail with Wikipedia or Wikipedians..I will not be able to participate in arbitration" proves you are NYScholar. So, why do you think you are allowed to edit Wikipedia? Was your ban lifted? Why hasn't this IP been blocked? Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to bring something to arbitrator attention, use one of the arb pages, possibly the Clerks' noticeboard.[17] 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If the wish is to start arbitration proceedings, then our noticeboard would not be an appropriate place as we don't initiate procedures on behalf of others. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is where such requests should be placed. Since the IP/possible sock makes it clear they won't do that, at the moment this is the appropriate place to look into the socking question. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion leading to NYScholar's ban is here [18]. Does anyone think the IP is not NYScholar? Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If NYScholar wants to appeal his ban, use the clerks' noticeboard or get email access and write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If he wants to open a case against another user, Requests/Case has been semi-protected for a long while so he can't post there, but can post a statement to the clerks' noticeboard and ask that it be copied to the requests page. However, chances of favorable response to something like that are IMHO quite dim. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it this is the sock of a banned user and the ip needs to be blocked for a while to shake him off and in the future a quicker response with less recognition might be better. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that 66.66.47.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) and 66.66.47.209 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) were also NYScholar. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request block for User:Targetprice[edit]

User Targetprice keeps editing the article InNexus Biotechnology to add "TARGETPRICE $3.85 FEBRUARY 2011" throughout the article (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

It is likely the same person who was doing similar edits as 74.58.0.168 ( 1, 2, 3, 4).

User Targetprice was issued a warning yesterday for such edits, but still spammed the article today. The IP account has been issued 4 warnings (1,2,3, 4) --Svgalbertian (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinu beat me to it. Obvious spam is obvious. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved: Blocked and reverted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kroeger579 (talk · contribs) ERROR! Bananaeaters (talk · contribs) has threatened legal action on Kroeger579 (talk · contribs)'s userpage against any admin who blocks him on his userpage. An IP saw that and replaced the page with {{db-attack}}. The legal threat is here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted by various editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless it has been oversighted, I can't see where Bananaeaters posted anything to Kroeger579 (or vice versa). Not like it matters, though, Bananaeaters was clearly a vandalism-only account. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't oversighted, it was posted to the userpage instead of the talkpage. Since there were no previous edits on the page, it was deleted to restore the status quo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No source... no edit.[edit]

Okies this is really simple... I'm fed up of telling Mariahicky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) stop changing genres without sources. Its almost as if he/she doesn't pay attention. He/she has been given a number of stern warning and has been blocked several times for vandalism. I think its too many strikes, this one is a defo case of WP:IDHT. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note since filing the report, Mariahicky made a further unsourced change here and upon being informed that he/she had been reported to administrator, he/she even tried to blank the ANI. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And since my last post here he/she has received a further warning from another user. [19] -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Were there sources for the genres before the editor started changing them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Its a regular pattern e.g. adding Hip-Hop to Mariah Carey articles, randomly adding R&B to articles etc. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking at that article, it doesn't look like any of the genres are sourced, at least not in the infobox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In which case, if they're articles I personally edit a lot or put work into I usually blank the genre field in the infobox. I am aware that other users (especially in the Mariah Carey field) tend to put the genres from her article page (R&B, Pop). -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 02:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Equally that doesn't justify his/her attempt to blank the ANi report. By all means if Mariahicky wished to make a point they were invited to the discussion and hence was welcome to come and comment here... -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 02:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The user has been around since the fall of 2009, and has also been warned numerous times. This can't be a newbie mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Give a final warning, if still continues, indef it. The account is pure disruptive. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat at RFP[edit]

I just wanted to point out this edit, which I'm fairly sure is a legal threat. I'm also wondering if we should revdel it out for exposing personal info. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified the other person of this discussion, or in fact even discussed their edits with them? Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just left them a note about it. Anyway, I wanted to bring it up here to see what others thought of it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Block as a clear legal threat. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, the RFPP request was denied. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Denied by me. The editor simply "threatens" to make a "formal legal request". It isn't inappropriate to state that you intend to make a formal request if you perceive that libel has taken place and won't cease. The editor has received a sufficient warning on his talk page; that's what the {{uw-legal}} warning template is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case, somebody needs to explain to this user about our article ownership policy, as that company does not have any ownership rights to the article (as shown here. –MuZemike 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just recently reminded that one of my early edits was on an AfD I read about on somebody's blog, and I had no idea that my !vote was not a fully legitimate vote and no conception of the community rules that make WP:CANVAS a good idea. IMO he is busting our rules because he doesn't know them, so an explanation is a good idea. betsythedevine (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The user has been blocked for 48 hours as a sockmaster, after two more accounts were created by the company for the purpose of legal blustering. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariliisha. The other two accounts have been indef blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BITE? betsythedevine (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocks are to prevent damage to wikipedia, and preventing damage is more important than whether a newbie feels "bit". He can use the downtime to study the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, BB, that makes sense. I'm still learning too -- so thanks for not biting me. betsythedevine (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A possible COPYVIO at Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories[edit]

Resolved: This is all being worked out elsewhere--at User talk:Mbz1 and EW Whether the content should be used at all is an editorial decision. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed what I considered a clear example of plagiarism from the Washington Post in this article, removed it, and explained why. User:Mbz1 has repeatedly reinserted it, despite further explanation from me on the article talk page Talk:Israeli_animal_spy_conspiracy_theories#any_more_questions. Can someone else please sort this mess out before I throttle the cat or something?

To be absolutely clear about this, the Post has this phrase in an article: "...pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of..." [20], and our article has exactly the same wording. This is unattributed, and thus a copyright violation. The whole thing could have been dealt with by a simple paraphrasing, but Mbz1 seems not to understand policy, and why this is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe take this to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_February_1? That would have the further advantage that Mbz1 could also post comments there... betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Related issue reported here [21] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unless the article is blanked, probably best to take it to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Nobody reviews those listing pages until a week after they're opened. :) But we can also carry it over to User talk:Mbz1. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to carry it over anywhere. I've evaluated, and the provenance of the quote is blatantly obvious, since the contributor who placed the text ( User:Mbz1) initially did so in quotation marks and cited to The Washington Post ([22]). Here is the point when that properly attributed quote was turned into plagiarism, by another contributor who I guess did not realize that the whole sentence was copied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
So why not just restore the quotation marks then? Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. I just got here. :) She chose instead to restore the plagiarized version and deny that The Washington Post was the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Why use second-hand quotations at all? Do we really want a quote from the Washington Post used as a source for a quote from the WSJ? This is messy, and unnecessary when the original can be found without too much difficulty. The use of the Post quote in the first place looks like laziness, or a misunderstanding of how to source things properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hold up The user has stated (s)he is banned from ANI? is this some sort of miscommunication or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    As a condition of lifting the latest indef block, yes, ANI is off-limits. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware of that, obviously. It seems a peculiar thing to do. Is she not even permitted to reply when she is referred to? If that is the case, then should we not take this elsewhere? I have no wish to deprive her of the right to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's already elsewhere. As you requested, I am explaining the issue to her at her talk page. There are also notes at the talk page of the article and at the EW listing, to which she can respond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume there is some baggage I am missing here but it seems person should at least have the right to respond when the {{subst:ANI-notice}} hits their page unless they are under a block. Stopping some one from posting Frivolous complaints or agitating situations they're uninvolved in is one thing but preventing them from defending themselves? Crosses the line of reasonable editing restrictions in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I say I agree with ResidentAnthropologist. Though I'm still not exactly happy with Mbz1's response (she owes more than one editor an apology for name-calling), it does seem somewhat unjust not to have let her respond here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Megadittos. I'm disturbed to hear that there are users who can be talked about at ANI, but who aren't allowed to participate. That's a decision that needs rollback. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It was done because they were making lots of frivolous complaints here and constantly stirring the pot. Their block log may shed some light on the prolonged nature of issues with this user, this was a "last chance, and I mean it this time, not like the other fifteeen last chances you got" compromise that they agreed to abide by. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Info Mbz1 was blocked and then banned over a single post she added on AN/I in the thread that was started not by her, and over a single SPI request. Somebody claimed she filed a frivolous AE request, but it was not a frivolous request because the user the request was concerning about was topic- banned less than a month later. Broccolo (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/98.247.253.129[edit]

Not really sure what can be done about unregistered users making vandalism. Check this guy out and let me know where I can find more info about this. I got a little lost in the admin/warn/block pages when I was trying to figure out what to do. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Revert, block, ignore covers it nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's helpful. So I've got the revert part down. How would one block an unregistered user (all I've seen has to do with registered users who have been warned, etc.)? And then I assume that ignore is just literally ignoring them, not an actual thing that needs to be done? Udeezy (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You would report them at WP:AIV, where an admin would either block for a while or say "not currently vandalizing, come back later".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Incivility blocks[edit]

Resolved: Thanks for the input folks. I think I've been misunderstood here - I'm not actually going to be blocking for incivility as you have all understood it, but for 'personal attacks' or 'disruption through incivility', something which I've not done in the past. However, it's interesting to see the responses that people gave, and the community's opinion of the issue. Clearly, something needs to be done to stop the newbies being scared away without acting like the 'civility police'. If anyone has any private thoughts, I'd welcome an email discussion on the subject of 'what to do'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I'm going to start blocking for incivility - something I don't normally do. This will be a contentious decision, I know, but my mind is made up. What lengths do other admins currently use for this sort of thing? Is a 12 hour block the standard? Is there a 'gradual scale', as with 3RR blocks - 24,48,1 week etc? Thoughts welcome. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually about a half hour, then a right thinking admin makes the unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally it depends on the degree to which you dislike your victim. Some admins start with 10-second blocks and work up from there. In fact it isn't even necessary that your victims are actually incivil, just that you claim they are. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and if you're looking to block or otherwise sanction someone for questioning authority, remember that revenge is a dish best served cold. Also, IRC is your friend. - Burpelson AFB 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I've only seen one or two people ever get blocked for incivility, but I've seen many have their blocks extended or indef'ed, and then have talk page access revoked because of incivility. ... Is it possible to revoke talk page access without blocking them? There've been a few users I've seen that that'd help ("Oh, I was never warned about that... More than 4 times... On more than five occasions... By three people..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about big incivility - long rants attacking a user personally, disruption-style stuff, even repeatedly using edit summaries such as "reverting: your edit, while well meant, was fucking awful and you're a shit editor". Not blocking for this tiny stuff people complain about - that's best handled by a cup of tea. The concept of block of less than 12 hours is rather worrying, to be honest. I'd never make one of those. Malleus, in good faith - and because I honestly want your opinion on this - can I ask you what sort of incivility would be appropriate for, say, a 12 hour block? Direct it at me if it'll make you feel better :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither Malleus nor an admin, but I already have a Reichstag model and a Spiderman action figure: I guess (this is directed at noone) that "bitch-ass smegma-brained cock-sucking father-fucking cunt-faced needle-dicked shit-breath'd piss-blooded cum-saliva'd meekrab" would be worth at least 48 hours if it were actually directed at someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If I ruled the world I doubt that I would ever block any editor for incivility, but not for the reasons that so many might think. The incivility would have to be causing a problem for the project somewhere for me to become concerned about it. Simply expressing an unpopular opinion (have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"?) or asking another another editor to "fuck off" aren't things I'd be worried about. The real reason to block is to prevent whatever damage is being caused to the project by the perceived incivility; very often it's none at all, just some civility policeman sticking his nose in where it's neither necessary nor welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
With the above comments in mind, how do you folks go about dealing with editor who are consistently rude and abusive, and assume bad faith, even to new editors? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Depends on whether or not they're an administrator. If they're not then block; if they are, then start making excuses for their behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My plan in such situations is to issue three warnings (elaborate, detailed, and personal, not the automated {{uw-whatever}} message), a short block, a longer block, and a report (and it hardly ever reaches the "short block" part). That is, of course, if you are not personally involved in the matter... in which case you might want to report it first and let other admins deal with it. But that's just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)
Thanks! Serious answers anyone else? I know about the problems we have with incivility blocks, different rules for admins/editors, and the problems we have with incivility, and I'm hoping to come up with a solution. I'm listening to everyone about this - even banned users - because I want something that will work for everyone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As is readily apparent from the snarky replies here, there has been significant resistance to blocking for incivility, per se. If I were you, I would stick to blocking only for clear and specific violations of WP:No personal attacks. Anything else is a can of worms best left unopened. — Satori Son 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can come up with a way of blocking Jimbo, Arbs, and Admins that will actually stick - well done you. As it is, it is the immunity these people have from being blocked for incivility that makes it so unproductive (to put it kindly) to contemplate blocking anyone else for incivility. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what I'm hoping to do. One rule for all of us, although either a very simple or very complex one. Either way, I think the final solution should not rely on blocks as an incentive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If it were a single NPA event, I'd probably block for 24 hours. Since you seem to be talking about persistent incivility in the face of previous warnings, I'd guess 72 hours would be a reasonable place to start. (I haven't looked to see if I can figure out who you mean, I'm just answering from personal experience.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't a 24-hour block for a single occurrence of anything essentially punitive? ArakunemTalk 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a matter of degree. A block for "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would be punitive. A block for "Look, [Carlin], you can take your [Carlin]ing opinions and shove them up your [Carlin], you piece of [Carlin]", would be preventive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What would it be preventing? Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The block should be more about context and less about the strength of the words used. In your example above, I can envision a scenario where "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would warrant a block, while Carlin practicing his list would not. It has to be about the effect the incivility (perceived or otherwise) is having on the location where it was placed. If it is about how offended a specific admin is, then we have a problem. ArakunemTalk 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be at WP:AN (if anywhere at all) ? Where is the "incident"? Where is the urgent admin action? Why are we clogging up this cess-pit of a board even further? From an arb as well - disapointing. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone (scroll up) said the board needed more drama. In any case, shall we move to AN? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, always short on drama on ANI.... I'd have thought AN was the most obvious place for this. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I don't think there's any one rule that can work for incivility, and the only consideration should be whether a block is going to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Someone being abusive to a newcomer or a content creator and risking driving them away - yes, block (but not punitively - only to get their attention when talking has failed). If someone is rude to an admin, a block should only be appropriate if it is serious or long-term abuse - admins should be able to take a bit of flak (I work partly in online community moderation, and minor abuse is usually just a short term emotional reaction, and is almost always best countered by civility). And as an aside, I think the now near-legendary 10-second block was one of the worst admin actions I've seen here. I don't know who did it (and I don't want to), and I don't apologize for saying so - whoever did it should be prepared to accept honest feedback. Anyway, my main suggestion here is do not go overboard on the civility thing. The faceless nature of online communication leads people to be less civil than they would be face to face, and it can usually be diffused more effectively by civil engagement than by lashing out with punishment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I got the 10-second block, and the perpetrator is very easily seen in my block log. I doubt you'd be surprised to discover who it was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
So Malleus, you are a bit of an expert on blocks from the victim's point of view. Did you find over time that you have changed your behaviour to avoid being blocked? Or have you just gone on being your gruff old self? My point being that people are who they are, and don't change much. :) --Diannaa (Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
People are either an asset to the community, or they are not. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(Sorry, I obviously cannot answer for Malleus, but I need to point this out): Blocks can actually embitter the blockees and change their behavour and editing mood for the worse. There are ways of calming down angry editors who have just lashed out. Blocking only works in rare cases. Judging from what I've read, it can be a very frustrating experience for regular content contributors who don't push any POV, but occasionally use strong words to make their point. I strongly second everything Boing wrote. I think it's more promising to think about ways to encourage and foster collegiality, rather than figure out ways to sanction incivility. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Switch "can embitter" for "do embitter" and we can maybe do a deal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly haven't deliberately gone to any trouble to "change my behaviour". Perhaps the worst of the civility police invested in a dictionary and a little common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sluzzelin that positive reinforcement works better than negative. It can a big investment in time and effort but some contributors will be worth it. The trouble is trying to determine which ones they are, beforehand. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me add to that. One thing I have taken on board is the distinction between NPA and CIV, one that administrators would do well to bear in mind before thinking about civility blocks, which frankly never work and are increasingly less likely to stick. I don't give a monkey's arse if anyone uses a few choice words, it adds colour. But there's a world of difference between saying "fuck off" and "you're a fucking cunt". The first doesn't bother me at all, but the second is unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you expand on the difference? Do you think the difference is clear to everyone who might be on the receiving end of either comment? 67.243.57.182 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see who gets blocked first ... pass the popcorn, please.

But seriously, this isn't going to work. We have RfC/U and ArbCom for a reason. "Incivility" is caused by others who are perceived to either be stupid, annoying, incompetent, a waste of time, or all of these. If users have a problem with each other they can both shut up and stop trying to have the last word. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The classic admin solution, blame both sides. So much easier, and avoids and of that tedious work. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean blame both sides—I usually find it very easy to figure out who's the one being a real dick. But that doesn't give the other side permission to keep yelling at their stupidity. If someone's being uncivil, why bother responding? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of people here claiming that incivility isn't an issue. To the wider community outside Wikipedia it quite clearly is an issue. Otherwise letters like these wouldn't be being published by the Economist. If you don't click through below is the key quote (emphasis mine).

Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”.

It is perfectly possible to engage with people, even people who aren't as knowledgable as you, or even those who are stubborn without being rude, so you can't really complain if you get blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right on that last bit, but it's very possible that the people being accused of all those things was in fact the problematic user. Usually problematic users blame everyone else for getting them blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think its fair to say that an impartial observer does have to accept that the person was in fact being incivil, and that it was more than borderline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If we're serious about dealing with incivility, then we have to start by thinking about which approaches have worked and which haven't. We have accumulated a substantial body of evidence over the past several years demonstrating that "civility blocks" and "civility parole" do nothing to make editors more civil, and in fact are often counterproductive. When people continue proposing blocks as a remedy for incivility, I always wonder whether they're ignorant of that body of evidence; whether they're aware of it but interpret it differently than I; or whether they're just not interested in trying to think more deeply about approaches that might actually work (or at least not be actively harmful). MastCell Talk 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The difference can be summarised very simply by comparing "that's a pile of crock" with "you're a pile of crock". I'd be inclined to take NPA very seriously, and to discard CIV to the bin of childishness. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • For clarity by civility I mean not making personal attacks - its a good point that there is a difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • We can't really throw out WP:CIV because it's quite possible to be horribly rude and insulting without actually attacking other editors. We're supposed to be a collaborative project, and driving off other editors by being condescending or rude isn't helping towards that goal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • You have to throw out your beloved CIV. Every substantial content contributor here knows what an insulting and degrading environment it is to work in, but those responsible for making it so are often the administrators themselves, or the other incessant low-level abusers. Those who work the system in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I love how it's my "beloved CIV" now. Look, we know you have a grudge against admins as a group. You don't have to bring it up every post. And, as I posted below, I'm not dedicated to keeping CIV as an isolated policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem Chase is that people's definitions of incivility vary (I'm often amazed how much so) and in many circumstances there's no reason to block for that reason alone, given that they are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. So unless two guys are cursing each other out you'd be hard pressed to say it was required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is true but people do have to be able to operate in society as a whole (e.g. at work), so surely we should be able to find a reasonable middle ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A "reasonable middle ground" might to merge wikipedia's CIV and NPA policies, as the distinction between the two just makes the place look like an arbitrarily run infant's school. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • See, that's where the problem lies. You know it's a good middle ground, and I know it's a good middle ground... but the reason they're split in the first place is people couldn't agree that keeping them together was a good middle ground. Back when policies and guidelines were still being formed, most folks felt it better to keep specific for each one, rather than larger, all-encompassing rules. I doubt we'd get much traction trying to merge them now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia has a choice. Either it tries to embrace change rather than stifle it, or it dies. Right now it's dying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't agree, so sorry. I think it's improving, and will continue to do so. There is a lot less dramaz nowadays, for sure, and the quality of the encyclopedia itself is constantly improving.--Diannaa (Talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
              • One might argue that the reduction in "drama" is an indication that fewer people care. Certainly I've given up caring about what happens at RfA, for example. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Coment. There has been a debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah that may be relevant to this discussion, continued on talk page of nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
Not relevant, as it stands. Something off-wiki - a talk about WP:CONTRIB about how tricky it is to introduce new users when we're generally pretty confusing and incivil - provoked me into starting this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Incivility blocks? Fuck off. Incivility is too much in the eye of the beholder to have individual admins make the call, and that's always what leads to the trouble. As long as we can't figure out some kind of community-based mechanism for enforcing civility, we're not going to be able to tackle it. Obviously this means something less than Arbcom and more than WP:WQA (which in my recent experience is worse than useless), and perhaps a bit easier than WP:RFC/U. One simple approach would be to change policy to explicitly permit punitive civility and NPA blocks, but only if they are pre-endorsed by the community at ANI (or possibly somewhere else if volume becomes an issue). Rd232 talk 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block. It follows that preventative blocks should be predicated upon repeated behaviour, with the gamut of warnings being followed. Having said that, "obvious and gross" violations should be met with preventative blocks, but not without the opportunity of the perpetrator stepping back, and cooling down. I agree that in an environment in which some "rough and tumble" may be acceptable, naked abuse just isn't, and, as stated above, the line is different for different editors. Accordingly, I don't see this going anywhere fruitful in the absence of an RFC. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block." - cough. Why do you think I suggested changing policy? (BTW when it comes to that phrase people tend to confuse punishment, which serves a policy purpose, with revenge, which does not.) As for an RFC, how about the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 talk 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't assume that my psychic powers are up to full speed when the temperature here is below zero, I have neither eaten nor slept properly for several weeks, and really, I'd rather be somewhere else. Otherwise, thanks for the link, but it doesn't address the issues raised here. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Chaseme, I don't have much problem with the general concept of civility blocks for repeated/egregious offenders, but given your arbitrator's hat I think it's best that you left such blocks to regular admins except possibly in very clear-cut circumstances. Not for any tedious ideological separation-of-powers reasons, but because such disputes tend to find their way to arbcom and it's better to have fewer arbitrators have to recuse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    hear, hear. (but you are describing one of the desirable attributes of separation of powers) Can we close this, please? Or can we have an off-topic debate about separation of powers? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Consider it closed, see my hatnote at the top. Many thanks for all the input. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion might be held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if there were administrators willing to actually do something to make this a cordial place to edit. Far too many playing games with people and trying to excuse away disruptive users behaviour while their behaviour drives good content contributors away from the encyclopedia. Block often and long.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I go more with disruptive myself - rather than incivility as such. People can be bloody rude without being disruptive and vice versa. It's all a matter of context. Fainites barleyscribs 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling of sandbox[edit]

Could use some suggestions on dealing with an IP hopping troll that repeatedly posts to the Wikipedia:Sandbox, claiming in the edit summary "Administrative Edit - Please don't revert", and claiming the sandbox to be closed for technical reasons, and that users should instead experiment on other pages - also using a fake signature on the notice. example (one of many). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): This is definitely a case of WP:RBI. I would start at a week. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Would a rangeblock work here? I am not completely sure how they work, but it looks possible. Airplaneman 06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a fairly large range - but a scan shows no other recent users, so a short-term range block may work to discourage them for now. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they've gotten bored. If they return under the same range, a short rangeblock sounds good. Airplaneman 07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I had already done the short-term range block after my post above; sorry, I should have mentioned that I was implementing it. --- Barek (talk) - 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I can do a couple of rangeblocks there, but not much longer than what Barek originally had, though. –MuZemike 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just came across 120.17.248.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the affiliated Tiderols (talk · contribs). Look like we should not allow the latter to just change their user name. Favonian (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And 120.17.232.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Rangeblockers to the rescue! Favonian (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like no additional disruption in almost two hours from the two ranges involved. If it starts again, can investigate range blocks again at that point. Correction: It looks like another admin re-applied the range blocks already about two hours ago. --- Barek (talk) - 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

confirmation/second-guessing a block I made[edit]

Resolved

Hey admins,

I blocked Duke2323 (talk · contribs) after their first edit, as it looked very WP:DUCK to me: it's similar to the username they edited on (Duke53 (talk · contribs), no stranger in these parts), and it was 10 minutes after an identical edit by another SPA-type user (1, 2).

Another user (who I respect), quite rightly called me out for the quick block. So I'm bringing it here- I'm looking for feedback. Obviously, this means I won't wheel-war if someone wants to overturn my block.

I'm not posting ANI-notice to Duke2323; if it's a new editor, they shouldn't have to figure out the machinations involved with ANI, especially as a blocked user. tedder (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same:
Duke2323 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
Whyisthis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
Gamefun (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) TNXMan 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks- I didn't mean to fish for it, but it certainly resolves any guilt I had about the quick block. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice work, Tedder, right up until the "no stranger in these parts" dig. Totally unnecessary, but not unexpected. Stevie Wonder could have seen the sockpuppet thing happening here, but I read this just the other day: [23]"The allegations of sockpuppets or meatpuppets should and can safely be ignored. They are meaningless and unhelpful.". Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious if the possibility exists that these are in fact not sockpuppets but different accounts using the same (school) IP address? I agree, though, that it looks a lot like socks. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Look at the contribs of all 3, which are all 2 or 3 each. 3 new accts, with few edits, make edits to overlapping pages, in several cases identical edits, none that I could see were constructive. It is either a.)1 person with multiple vandal accts or b.)if three separate people on 1 IP, they were obviously working together as meat puppets to troll and vandalize. Either way, does it matter? Either explanation is grounds for blocking, which has been done, case closed. Heiro 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential legal threat[edit]

Jaoostudios (talk · contribs) Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat [24]? (in addition to the blatant COI and username violations) Active Banana (bananaphone 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion [25] Active Banana (bananaphone 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that "we removed it for legal reasons" isn't a threat as such. As you say, there is an obvious COI problem though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going with "yes" and have blocked this editor. --John (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

216.161.176.112 returns[edit]

IP address 216.161.176.112 (Gilbert Public Schools in Arizona) is at it again with some weird vandalism to Mesquite High School (Gilbert, Arizona), which is one of that district's schools. Perhaps an extended block is needed now? He's the only active vandal to that page. Raymie (tc) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please report at WP:AIV. Nakon 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy[edit]

Resolved: All parties have had their say, the article has been reviewed. No admin action needed at this time. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two major current problems at Talk:Aspartame controversy (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): accusations of conflict of interest and general talk page abuse. The issue of conflict of interest accusations was discussed here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest) and things have gone downhill. Since then, the tone had been maintained by
Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)—(accusation, advisory and rejecting AGF)— and
TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)accusation, other disruptive claims. These are cold and the editors are currently inactive. They are mentioned to show the duration of the problem and how the tone was set for other editors who have recently picked up the banner:


Jmpunit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) accusation and advice
Arydberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)