Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716

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

Noticeboard archives


Threatening edit summary[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by Salvio. --Σ talkcontribs 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary contains an explicit threat of violence. I have emailed the appropriate Wikipedia mailing list as well. My76Strat (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked (by me) and edit summary revdeleted (by Ironholds). Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:'s Talk page[edit]

I have just stumbled across User:'s Talk page where it appears to be being spammed with lists. Could someone take a look and see what you think. I can't see why you would want to spam it but hay - vandals. It appears to be done by multiple users and must be flooding the database by increasing the page size. Would there be a way of removing these or could/should we archive the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodyWerm (talkcontribs) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cleared out the usertalk page and replaced it with {{OW}}. The most recent edits and warnings to that page were over two years old; there's no impending need to preserve all that mess anyways. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Wow that was faster than I could write the notification. Apologies for not signing last. WoodyWerm (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. In the future, you don't need to report really old IP warnings, or pointless text like this, to admins. You can feel free to clear this out and replace it with an appropriate template like {{OW}} or {{Older}} or {{Old IP warnings top}}. --Jayron32 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this can be denied right away[edit]

Resolved: Not an issue for admins at AN/I, those at ReqForPerm will evaluate. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, I think that Katarighe's request can be denied right away and may need his editing looked into. I assumed good faith until I noticed that User:Katarighe/Awards are awards given to himself and looked at the editor's talk page. His reason for rollback is an almost complete version of mine. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin may need to watch how this is handled because according the editor's user page if it is correct, the member was born in 1995. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Joe, the gang who reviews requests for rollback are pretty thorough, so I suspect they'll see your note there and act accordingly. Perhaps this thread can be deemed "closed, being handled on RfP/Rollback"? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right about them being thorough, but I just thought that I could get some extra eyes on it. I had the best of intentions, but you are correct in your reasoning, so this can be closed. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's rude to not notify a user who is the subject of a discussion. User notified. --Σ talkcontribs 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from Atanu das biswas (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by 5 albert square. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:JohnCD#Naadu Das Biswas. I will explain to this user why his autobiographical articles have been deleted, but someone else had better do the block. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind - user already indef-blocked as VOA by 5 albert square. I have put a note about the threat on his on talk page in case of an unblock request. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the user. I had already blocked them for vandalism but I've changed the block settings to a legal action block.--5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Blackgaia02 is acting like a spoiled, uncivilized child, harassing editors on Talk:List_of_My_Little_Pony_characters and even having the nerve to request that I submit it a deletion process. I have zero tolerance for nonsense such as this. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for a week, which should help Blackgaia02 calm down. Given that the editors she is 'harrassing' are IP editors making vandal edits, are you saying that the edits are not in fact vandalism. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Harassment from Tao2911[edit]

  • Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been alleging a user was the subject of an article (and personally attacking) after being asked to stop.[1][2][3] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[4] They persisted.[5] Block please. Jesanj (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The same user has attacked me as being a both a sock puppet and a meat puppet[6], despite never initiating an investigation or providing any evidence as to why I may be either, accused me of an edit war and being in bad faith[7], and has been overtly rude with myself and a number of other users (notably, just about anybody who attempts to improve the Marisol Deluna article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is Tao's standard operating procedure. Rudeness, name calling, sarcasm, covered over with a sprinking of alphabet soup. I've had a similar run-in with this editor, and there were many before me. Apparently it hasn't changed. Anyways, since I have a past with them (and since, as it turns out, we've both edited this particular article), I won't be stepping in with tools--but I do want to note that the above two editors, exasperated and all, have a point, and I think it would behoove an uninvolved administrator to look a little bit deeper than this recent spat. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
drmies has a history of coming after me, and being senselessly combative. Not an independent assessment, as drmies admits.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indef block of Tao2911. Fat chance anything is going to change about his behavior. While Tao2911 was technically not found socking on the last SPI round, [8] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [9] so he may have just become good at it.) It's entirely possible that the other camp in this dispute is also socking/meat-puppeting, [10] but that does not excuse the consistently abusive behavior from the Tao account. This has all the signs of an outside WP:BATTLE being continued on Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Accusations of socking when found not to be socking, and trying to say "his hardline friends" were socking is a grossly insufficient reason to indef block anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What kind of sanctions would you support for the user who, in case you didn't read it from above, says things like this[11]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And this[12]? Jesanj (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Socking or not socking has nothing to do with his behavior and lack of etiquette with other editors on Wikipedia. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Um -- "Marisol Deluna" is not particularly notable - the NYT notes her wedding (usually a sign of important parents - and definitely not establishing a lot of notability per se). A purported list of users is nearly worthless -- see Web Sheriff for another article where the "list of clients" is not utile. I see no reason for a draconian solution - and no sign that the person is abusing a sock. I read the case - and the block was iffy as only WP:DUCK was cited as a rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point, in my opinion. As Drmies says below, this discussion should be focused. And, as you see below, I'm not advocating a Draconian solution. Are you implying personal attacks don't matter on talk pages of questionable notability? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Having reading comprehension or clicking problems? He was blocked for sockpupptery last year, see 02:25, 3 March 2010 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tao2911) I already gave above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I read it - note my position above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Block? Are you kidding? I've not made a single threat, used a single expletive. I've been sarcastic, sure. I defy anyone to read ECb123's transparent sock history and blame me. "Accusations of socking when found not to be socking" - I was accused of such, and found not to be such, by MrBrown above, because before making the accusation he didn't look at anyone's history - but does have a history of editing and defending the Deluna page in question, fighting for the inclusion of uncited hagiography and promotional material. I, along with user MtKing and others, have uncovered the most concerted effort toward self-promotion I've ever come across here. There continues to be no action on the Deluna/ElizabethCB123 sock investigation, which is unfortunate. If anyone objective were to look into it, ECB123 would be the one blocked, along with 6-8 or her aliases and/or likely socks/meats. And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor.Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

comment from MrBrown on my talk - there are other examples: "And oh yes, I have Deluna on SPEED DIAL and I'm in CONSTANT contact with her <eyeroll>! Ridiculous." He calls me ridiculous elsewhere. Why not block him for sarcasm and insults? (Which would be stupid, and I am not seriously suggesting.) Note that he has admitted to know Deluna personally, as have other editors on the page battling for previous promotional page versions...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand the difference between "knowing" somebody and "meeting" somebody. I've stated I have met her. Don't put words in my mouth. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
and "outside battle"? What? That's just ridiculous. Look at the history. I made one edit over a year ago to the Deluna page (when I found she had inserted herself into the page of a former professor of apparently both of ours, though I don't know her - she inserted herself as the sole named student of a guy she admittedly never took a class with). Never came back. Came across again when surfing three days ago, found it to be transparent self-promotion, checked history and saw evidence of socking, and started editing. Period. Some other editor seems to have some problem with the actual Deluna in real life and apparently created socks, but again, look at history - ZERO cross over. I am free to independently find the Deluna page delete worthy - as do a number of other editors.Tao2911 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Tao, do you think saying "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous"[13] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[14] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
turns out I was vindicated by being proven absolutely correct in everything stated here - though I admit I could've stayed more cool, as it were...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
"And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor." Thanks, Tao! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I must be a terribly unsuccessful bully, though, since I haven't been able to stifle you. In the meantime, I'll put my block log up against yours anytime. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment You claim not to know Marisol Deluna, so how is it you "factually" report that she did not attend classes with your former professor? This was never stated by her or others as you mentioned above. Many of your edits are based on assumptions in a combative tone- Even after repeatedly asked to keep civil. Your comments towards me and other editors supporting the rebuilding of her article (which you had reduced to one sentence and one reference) is poor form and counterproductive with good faith editing. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good faith editing? Pot. Kettle. Black. Here's an example of why some of Tao's concerns don't seem that unreasonable to me. It's delusional to think this barely notable scarf designer can make a short list with Kissinger, Haig and Cronkite. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Eh, this thread is not about good-faith editing, or about ElizabethCB123 (who didn't start this discussion), or even about adding possible fluff; it's certainly not about a scarf maker whose notability is very questionable, IMO. It's about one editor's incivility. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose With respect to Jesanj and those that support, the issue at hand is one of WP:CIVIL, and IMO more appropriate for another venue than for immediate administrator action. I suspect Tao2911 is frustrated with the Marisol Deluna article, and there has been a history of WP:PROMOTION with the person who is the subject of that article (search for articles containing "Marisol Deluna", a shorter list than it used to be, and also examine the history of the Marisol Deluna article for some insight). I do believe Tao2911 could be more polite henceforth on talk pages. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC−6) (Note: Restoring Oppose edit deleted via edit conflict) JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with JoeSperrazza's analysis. Toa hasn't picked a fight all by himself in an empty warehouse, he's just frustrated. It's a bit unfair to judge his behavior without considering the history of the article, the questionable sources we've waded through and how overrun the debate has been by WP:SPAs, as seen, e.g., during the recent AfD. I thought it was spam lacking reliable sources to establish notability then and if anyone cares, I still think that. Furthermore, Toa has tried to work within channels, for example, by following procedure to file a request for a sockpuppet investigation which has been endorsed. He's also reached out to the admin who closed the AfD before nominating the page to a new AfD or initiating a WP:DRV, exactly as the guidelines suggest. So my bottom line is that I'm inclined to cut Toa some slack. Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • There have been SPAs and SPI-proven sockpuppets on Tao's side of the debate as well, and he was blocked for it. I fully endorse checking user Elizabeth's side as well, but it's clear to me there are various accounts here, both supporters and detractors, who know a lot about the real world doings of this rather obscure fashion designer. Although none of them credibly disclose their real-life involvement in this, you'd have to be really dopey not to smell the WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. Look how Tao describes admin User:Drmies, whom I found quite respectful and collaborative in several AfDs, "And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor. .Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)" Drmies was promoted admin with Final (205/2/3) supports/opposes/neutrals in May 2011. [15] If he is so "terrible" how comes almost nobody noticed?! Something is very fishy here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose indefinite block (did my originating comment imply that's what I was asking for?), and support some sort of formal warning/sanction from an administrator to straighten out the harassment. FuFoFuEd and Drmies are right to highlight Tao's own description of Drmies. It was horrible. How do we expect to keep contributors around if this is what we're expected to deal with without any formal acknowledgement of how wrong it is? Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care about this case I leave it to other with the time, but this:

Has a whiff of WP:NLT and probably nasty off-wiki harrassment that perhaps needs WP:OFFICE attention, this being a BLP etc... Just asking, but this all very odd.--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ElizabethCB123 and at least 3 other socks and IP's have been blocked. User then evaded block with open IP one day later, which has also been blocked. Thanks for the support from other clear-eyed editors who saw the situation for what it was. I did get frustrated - I could have kept my cool better. Lesson learned - and hopefully not just by me.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting you could have kept your cool better. But you were also alleging ElizabethCB123 was the subject of the article. And this recent reply to an edit of yours makes me doubt you've learned much. Jesanj (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Already indefinitely blocked. Nothing else to discuss here. –MuZemike 01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be RickK (talk · contribs) has created a new account at RickK2 (talk · contribs), but another person has posted on the en-wiki mailing list saying that they are RickK, and the new person is an imposter. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Philippe's blocked the new account. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You beat me. :) Yes, I blocked it. I confirmed the email addresses against archives and matched the syntax to my satisfaction. The user is welcome to write me and make his case, but I didn't want to take a chance on user impersonation being allowed on wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
RickK's account was hijacked, so we do need to be sure that his (old) email account wasn't hijacked as well. Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, if RickK2 is impersonating RickK, should there be some attention paid to (talk · contribs), the IP RickK2 was editing under. I'm out of my element (and, frankly, any interest) here, but if is actively impersonating Wikipedia Editors of Note whilst participating in an active Arbcom case, that's awfully fishy... — Scientizzle 02:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention is being paid. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism" above (closed)[edit]

The forum shopping by the NYyankee—Jorge Peixito—Haymaker—Lionel nexus to make trouble for Roscelese has gone too far.[16][17] [18] This is harassment. Compare also this comment by Roscelese from a few days ago. I will block the next person who moves these baseless complaints to yet another board, or otherwise pesters Roscelese, unless there's a consensus against it by uninvolved users here. Feel free to comment below. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

You speak of four user as a "nexus", as if the four were a conspiracy. Any evidence for that? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A variety of editors have complained that a user who has been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks is edit warring and committing personal attacks. At some point doesn't occam's razor come in here? - Haymaker (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A variety, is it? More like an echo chamber of editors. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
If that's how you're going to choose to look at this there is nothing I can do to dissuade you. - Haymaker (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
If your complaints against Roscelese resulted in the turning of uninvolved editors against her or in some administrative action against her, then your "occam's razor" explanation (i.e., Roscelese is the troublemaker) might be persuasive. But in the end they were all found to be petty, frivolous, and unactionable complaints designed to drive a user off this website. Quigley (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Easy user references for those interested:
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating very good common sense, Bishonen. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to say that Haymaker's recent 3RR complaint against Roscolese [19] is so palpably absurd as to qualify for a block for disruptive behavior on its own. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I'm always reluctant to block without some form of warning. Now Haymaker and the others know they're in the danger zone, and will hopefully desist from further badgering. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Excuse me, I'm the one who asked that the Wikiquette and ANI threads be closed at User talk:NYyankees51#Editing priviliege. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On your talkpage, yes.. not really a power place for such requests. You're also the one who started both threads. But I'm very glad to hear you now think that was a poor idea (and, presumably, not one you'll repeat). Bishonen | talk 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
I reserve the right to report if the user makes any more slanderous accusations. For the sake of everyone involved, I dropped the last one. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. Objecting to "slander" is not what I meant by pestering. Petty complaining over several fora is what I had in mind. (OT PS: why is the section editing all screwed up?) Bishonen | talk 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
Corollary: I am not in the involved users list, but as I heard a similar complaint, I have to mention that Roscelese some days/weeks ago also referred to my arguments and language to be "idiotic". And an uninvolved admin also found it definitely uncivil[20]. Or incivility has absolutely no relevance here or you have realized that I am not more idiotic than anybody else. Perhaps none of the both options given to choice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. Things are going backwards here. This is profound injustice. One user hurls at us "idiotic", "nonsense", "stupid", "n00b", "antisemitic", and we are threatened with punishment? By Jesus! If you had the time to look at all those diffs and talk pages you would see the real situation. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:DeusImperator's personal attack and legal threats[edit]

User:DeusImperator has legally threatened me on my talk page. see User_talk:Sehmeet_singh Commenting on pages section. deusimperator has also been blocked by administrators for his personal attacks on [[21]]. Sehmeet singh  Talk  03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
his comments on [22] also personal attacks towards me Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like user is vanishing. Atomician (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Vanishing/retiring or not, the contents of the edit to Semheet singh's talkpage are enterely inappropriate as ethnically-based WP:NPA. I have blocked for 60hrs. There is no violation of WP:NLT as it was a poorly-phrased warning regarding copyright. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Phanuruch8555 and his disruptive editing[edit]

Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I'm seeking opinions on whether this user should be blocked for on going disruptive editing, or any other more lenient disciplinary action. As mentioned last month on the 3RR noticeboard, this user "seems quite proud of [edit warring] and has even made himself a flag boasting about it". [23] He also proudly displays a "I hate disambiguation" on his talk page,[24] and has acted upon it frequently.

To wit:

  • This user edit warred on Sebastian Vettel and was subsequently reported on the aforementioned 3RR noticeboard archive discussion.
  • In his "I hate disambiguation" campaign, he attempted to change the PF[25][26][27], ESC[28][29], and Georgia[30][31] pages, among others (and bluntly used "I hate disambiguation" in the edit summary of one of the Georgia edits[32]). These edits were reverted and he was subsequently warned.[33][34]
  • In a dispute with the Eurovision redirect (whether it should point to Eurovision (network) or Eurovision Song Contest), we tried to explain our reasons for disagreeing both on his talk page[35] and on Talk:Eurovision. But he has continued to revert over claims that are not consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.[36][37]. And he also attempted cut-and-paste moves twice.[38][39] And then after he was warned[40], there was a third time in which he clearly entered a false edit summary[41] instead of a normal page move because it did not show up in Special:Log/move and it was not reflected in the page histories of both Eurovision and Eurovision (network).
  • A checkuser confirmed that User:Markschmitz, a now-blocked user, used the same IP as Phanuruch8555.[42] Phanuruch8555 claimed that he was not Markschmitz, so the former's autoblock was lifted.[43] But now because of these disputes, I question whether it indeed was a sock.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. His immediate conflict is the dispute regarding the Eurovision issue, so any further reversions on his part should constitute as edit war blocking, yes? As per the guidelines, the 24-hour time limit for the 3RR can be extended indefinitely if a user continues to revert against consensus of previous discussions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that the consensus is pretty clear on where the Eurovision redirect should point, I have protected it instead. I get the impression from reading the editor's talkpage that English is not their first language and they are a little confused about certain things that other editors are trying to explain to them. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have also noticed that he edits on the Thai Wikipedia, among others. So it's probably better for the page protection than an outright block. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that his userpage on Thai Wikipedia contains two image which seems to be glorifying edit warring (which appears to be from the English Wikipedia), then I don't think being active on another project counts much for him in this incidence. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is far more lenient than I would be. There are so many serious problems here that in my opinion there are far more than enough grounds for a block. Phanuruch8555 has not only edit warred numerous times, but has openly announced the intention of continuing edit warring, including declaring the intention of gaming the system by such methods as waiting for 24 hours before making a fourth reversion. Phanuruch8555 has deliberately tried to conceal the nature of edits, including blatantly lying in edit summaries. They have also repeatedly shown total contempt for consensus, making it quite clear that they intend to push their own views no matter what anyone else thinks. As for the sockpuppet issue, it was I that gave Phanuruch8555 IP block exemption to avoid the autoblock, but I have now looked further into the matter, and I believe I was mistaken. Apart from the checkuser evidence, behavioural evidence strongly suggests to me that Phanuruch8555 and Markschmitz are indeed the same person. Almost all of Markschmitz's edits were to pages that Phanuruch8555 has edited, and it looks to me very much like a matter of creating a separate vandalism account in a sort of "good hand/bad hand" way (though I think "bad hand/extremely bad hand" would be a better description). Some other problems with his editing exist too. Phanuruch8555's edits in the past amounted, in my opinion, to vandalism, and it looks as though they decided to segregate their vandalism into a separate account. As I have said, I think there is more than enough reason to block, but I will interested to see if anyone else has anything to say about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had a number of experiences with Phanuruch8555, and to be frank I would question whether he has the maturity to be a productive contributor of this project. I immediately reverted his cut and paste moves on Eurovision and Eurovision (network) yesterday given that such inappropriate moves need to be got on top of quickly, and he temporarily stopped after I left a message on his talk page. Personally I have difficulty maintaining an assumption of good faith in his latest attempt to move the pages, given that it should be obvious to him that a move that involves cutting and pasting is still a cut and paste move, and the edit summaries look too deceptive to be innocent. CT Cooper · talk 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • A disruptive, uncommunicative editor. I'm with JBW on this. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to very interested in responding to the points raised on this page. On the issue of Markschmitz (talk · contribs), given that (s)he vandalised the same articles that Phanuruch8555 edited and Phanuruch8555 seems to be almost glorifying his/her edits [44], I agree that this incident is rather suspicious. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, that there are sufficient grounds for a block, and consensus seems to be in that direction. However, the user has had only mild warnings, unless I have missed some others in the talk page history, so I have given a final warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think in these circumstances a final warning was justified. CT Cooper · talk 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



Resolved: User:Elen of the Roads blocked User:Lloydbaltazar indefinitely. He can appeal the block if he's willing to communicate with other users. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How much time should we all waste reverting a user who never discusses, just reverts for ever? The talk page messages on User talk:Lloydbaltazar speak for themselves, but the user does not - just reverts. He just wastes time that could be used for productive work. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that administrative intervention is needed here. Here are just two diffs in support of the request: [45]. The edit removed a tag via an IP identified as a sock-puppet of this user. Also, this edit. A visit to User talk:Lloydbaltazar will provide evidence of a long history of disruptive editing. At the very minimum, a stern warning from an administrator is needed. This might be backed up by a block. The last block was 48 hours. The next one might need to be a week. If this continues on much longer, we should move to ban this user. However, it would be preferable if we could get him to change his ways. Maybe mentorship is what's needed here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Mentorship, cooperation and all that require a "conversation" with the user in question. The appropriate background music for that talk page would be The Sounds of Silence. We have never heard from that user - ever. Just seen reverts. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
His user contributions list confirms that he has never edited his talkpage in all the years that he has been here. He has only three edits to article talkpages, one from 2008 and two from 23 July 2011 [46] and [47] that have the unfortunate effect of making him come across as a religious nut, which can't have helped matters. Since he manifestly takes no notice of anything placed on his talkpage (all the way back to 2008), I have blocked him indefinitely - ie until he starts talking, and left a nice clear message for him. If he starts to communicate, any admin can unblock him and start a discussion about his editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Elen of the Roads. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Good block, I would have done the same thing. -- Atama 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Brave, thick-skinned admin required to close edit request on contentious page[edit]

Resolved: edit request closed

A request for a policy-based edit to a fully protected page has languished for over 24 hours now and become yet another venue for debate in a tedious dispute. The page in question is Luke Evans (actor) and the edit request is Talk:Luke Evans (actor)#Edit protected request.

Fair warning, this is a page that was edited by users with a strong smell of COI, prematurely fully protected, drew the attention of several media outlets for that protection, attracted an influx of new users, is part of a long-running discussion at the BLP noticeboard, was the subject of an edit war, was fully protected again, suffered the involvement of a well-known sockpuppeteer, and looks like it will be the subject of more media attention if this continues to go unresolved. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You're making this sound very attractive. If I hadn't been sideways involved with it (before it was this big a deal, just half as big), I would jump right in. Tell you what, let one of the recently promoted admins take care of it, bwuhaha. I vote for Qwyrxian. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    Ahem. Someone called for a suicidal/reckless/brave/utterly batshit fucking insane administrator? Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL, yep, that's pretty much the accurate description, Ironholds. LadyofShalott 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I believe Ironholds just paged you. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
*bites down on the first five responses that want to come out of his fingers*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think the disputed categories should have been removed until the issue was resolved, but at least it is closed now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Out of interest, what was supposed to make this more difficult? The main culprit managed to get sidetracked into ranting at Jimbo (and I'm beginning to understand that if for nothing else, user talk:Jimbo Wales is a crucial part of this encyclopedia simply because it acts like a pitcher plant for kooks and miscreants) and the actual matter was a stonewall (pun not intended) BLP violation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Userspace forgery[edit]

4 (talk · contribs)

User:4/VVWDDHDAUÜDWEAKAAUDMDAEBSASADBNDSDS/Mitglieder has forged signatures, which I feel is in serious violation of the policy. The page should be speedy deleted ASAP. (User is retired, so is a block necessary?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor decides to come back for whatever reason, a block could be done just in case. I brought it to MfD because before he retired, the editor was an active Wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the editor has been active and creating articles right up until the present (notwithstanding adding the 'retired' template in March). Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a few seconds ago and that he said that he was retired months ago. Odd. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
They're indeed active. I say delete ASAP and block. This could be harmful to the project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Guys, guys. The German text says "Look, guys, this page is so long, you really expect me to translate it into German?" This is clearly intended as a joke - yes he very patiently wrote all the comments and forged all the signatures (except User:Diego Grez (go figure)), but an admin even moved the page in 2009 - with all the signatures - when the creator changed names. I've declined 10 pound hammer's speedy - it can go to Mfd--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • While it is true that it is a joke page, it was created to insult editors that he disagrees with. I also wonder what the editors that are mentioned would think about this just being a joke. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I also think that all user pages are automatically transferred to the new name when a username change occurs. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ten Pound Hammer - edit warring to put the speedy tag back on is probably not the smartest thing you've ever done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
... fairly common recently, unfortunately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe I just saw this come up - where was that discussion? It was about edit-warring CSD tags back in so another admin would look at it, effectively admin-shopping, and/or the first step to wheel-warring. Why is the second admin coutnermanning the first? Have new circumstances arisen? If not, leave the original decision be. I'm not satisfied with the outcome here, even though I think it's long-term correct. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I had closed the MFD based on the speedy deletion, but Athaenara reversed course and reopened it (along with undeleting the page) per Franamax's objections, so the MFD is back on course. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry about this. It was basically a translation of the meta association AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD because the German translation wasn't yet linked, so I wasn't aware of its existence and created one. I went a bit overboard though, so thank you for deleting it, and I'd like to put this behind me. Sorry. Currently I use my userspace only for mathematical-scribbling purposes that won't harm anybody.--4 T C 07:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've learnt my lesson about this and won't do anything like that again. It was exceptionally poor judgement on my part to put in a translation of that page with all those comments. Sorry. --4 T C 07:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I did not have the intention of insulting anybody, was just translating the whole page. I didn't even know who they were. I sincerely apologise for what this has become, and request that all these pages be deleted as soon as possible and that I am not blocked for this. 4 T C 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the translation was by Babelfish and was fully automated. I don't even speak German. --4 T C 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't block me, I've learnt my lesson. --Sincerely, 4 T C 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not support a block in this case. As per WP:BLOCK, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The page in question was created two years ago, and other than auto-edits (caused by username changes, etc.), there were no edits made to that page since its creation. The user in question has indicated that he has learned his lesson, and that it was in poor judgement. Also, the user in question's behaviour since the page was created two years ago has been constructive. It seems to me that the only pupose of the block would be as a punitive measure over something that was done two years ago (which has not been repeated since). Singularity42 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The answers to Ten Pound Hammer's original post seem to be (1) yes, the page needed to be deleted, and has been, (2) the editor is by no means retired, despite the user page banner saying so, but the editor last edited the page in November 2009, and no block is necessary. I suggest that we can now drop the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image issue[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: Wikipedia:Non-free content review would be more appropriate as no admin action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to bring this up, but as it only concerns myself and another editor at this stage, I believe that this is the proper venue for the time being.

SchuminWeb and I have been disagreeing over the inclusion of fair use images on a series of pages that are lists of fictional characters within Power Rangers; full list below

Extended content

SchuminWeb has, over the weekend, continually orphaned the images from these articles, as well as off of other pages that they may or may not have been used on, and tagged them for deletion through the orphaning as well as adding one image to FFD from the last article on the list. I disagree with his assessment that the image on each article is only decorative, because it is a long standing practice that singular images of fictional characters are fine so long as they have the proper fair use rationale. He claims that because the article lacks "sourced critical commentary" on the image itself, then the images are decorative. His much stricter interpretation of the non-free content criteria clearly does not match with the actual practice on the project, because this would mean that any TV title card, any movie poster, any book cover, or any album cover that is not critically discussed by someone and then that commentary included on Wikipedia should be removed from the articles they are featured on and summarily deleted after they have been orphaned.

What should be the proper practice here?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to open a request for comment on these images, in order to stimulate further discussion on the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never actually opened up an RFC, nor do I think it's possible or helpful to make one for 8 pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't want to pursue dispute resolution, so your posting here? What administrative action do you think would be appropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know where to bring it because WP:NFCR doesn't seem like the right venue (also it has low turnover which would not be helpful if the images are orphaned) and I don't think this is necessarily something for WP:DR to cover at this stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It may actually be a sound idea to remove Ryulong's rollbacker access, at least temporarily. Ryulong has used the rollback feature repeatedly during this content dispute. First instances were here and here, after which Ryulong was warned about this behavior and its consequences, which he subsequently acknowledged in an edit summary. However, Ryulong has continued to use rollback in more than one instance in situations where it is not permitted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to do several MW rollbacks in a row than it is to do several Twinkle ones in a row. And I severely doubt that removing orphaned image deletion tags from image pages when they have been put back onto articles constitutes abuse of MW rollback. And in the instances where it was done to replace fair use rationales that you removed, I clearly statd my reasoning on your user talk page afterwards, which is fully in line with what I have been told is acceptable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
And it would help if SchuminWeb did not constantly send these images through the various deletion processes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I will be starting an RFC on the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block this account[edit]


I have already reported Crapton Gay (talk · contribs) at WP:SPI but frankly this account is also in WP:AIV territory (vandalism-only account) and also WP:UAA (disparaging username). Rather than cross-post at all 3 I thought I'd come here for the quickest action. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The account has already been reported as a VOA at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I'm betting he go bye-bye fairly soon. I have NOT notified him of this discussion; I'm invoking WP:DENY as a rationale. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind; already blocked. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Squeaky wheels get noticed. Wheels that quack get noticed faster. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Barry Larkin page[edit]

We have a user over at this page continually adding unsourced/poorly sourced information detrimental to Larkin's character and of no apparent notability both under the user name Arom1221 and from the IP address He has been advised both in edit summaries and on his own talk page by myself and others that this behavior is not appropriate and is not only unrepentant, but vows to continue until everyone gets sick of reverting him. We could use an admin to try and reason with him and, if that fails, take appropriate action. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a clear WP:BLPVIO, not to mention both an actual and stated intent of busting WP:3RR in order to keep the questionable material in the article. I've warned Arom1221 regarding 3RR and watchlisted the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Alan: clear-cut case of unreferenced addition of controversial, defamatory information about a living person, also WP:OWN ([48]) and stated intent to edit war. I'll WL this as well. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a note on Arom1221's talk page regarding the continued BLP violations (to compliment Alan's 3RR notice).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the IP editor is Arom1221, logged out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only account[edit]

User:Willem Dafoe22 is a new account that has made 2 blatant vandalism edits to the guessed it...Willem Dafoe. [49] and [50]. Possibly an issue with WP:BADNAME policy as well. User notified of this thread [51]. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

I got a notice that there's something going on here that I should be looking at, but I don't see it. Here's the message as it was posted to my talk page:

Unless someone tells me otherwise I'm going to assume that it either was not important, or the message was left there in error. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to relate to this [52] archived thread. The discussion seems to have fizzled out unresolved though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting block review[edit]

Resolved: Reaper unblocked, I'll give it a try --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, since it appears that users both find my block appropriate and inappropriate, I am asking that users review my block of Ctwoman. Since I do not wish to color people's opinions too much I will just point out the various places that this discussion has been taking place: my talk page, the only place I knew about as of the time of the block; Joe Chill's talk page, and Sphilbrick's talk page. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What you've done is pretty standard practice with promotional accounts - just ask User:OrangeMike. This appears to be the tell - why would a newbie who was trying to navigate our rules blank the page rather than make some effort to respond to the offers of help? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To the extent I have commented on this matter, I do not impute Reaper Eternal for the discretion used in blocking the account. I merely believe Sphilbrick has introduced equally viable conclusions which if considered would indicate a less antagonistic approach has merit. I entirely favor good faith assumptions when they are reasonably applied and for conduct which propagates a welcoming environment for new users. My76Strat (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I am unhappy myself about this. Sphilbrick's comment on his talk page seems to be an assumption that I did not try to help since I didn't add a rationale in my reverts. I did try to explain to the editor what my rationale was on the talk page of the now deleted article, but Ctwomen removed my comments and then continued adding stuff relating to the organization to articles without asking questions about it. I'm saying seems because I am not sure. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • FYI, Reaper has kindly unblocked, and I will try to discuss this with Ctwomen. Just to be clear, I don't think this was an inappropriate block, in the sense that I think many admins would have handled this the same way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper's block was accompanied by this cleanup of WP:UAA. Sadly, the user has yet to engage anyone in constructive discussion.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Please can you report Nickyp88? He insists in removing music genres without a consensus and I've noticed from his talk page that he has already been blocked before. Thanks. 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) is an IP used by the banned editor User:CharlieJS13. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User Eagles247[edit]

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

This user violated WP:TPNO when he called me ignornant on user talk page. I sent an e-mail address to an one i found on here but i was reffered to here after i warned him about be being reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talkcontribs) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG, cause this might bite you on the rumpus. You were on Eagles' talk page, continuing to hammer on the same point, and it didn't seem like you were paying attention. This is one of those cases where editors have said "Fuck off" and been dragged to ANI, only to see the case being laughed out of court. Do not persist, is my advice to you, lest your edits and tone are given closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The thing is i admitted i was wrong and was attempting to calm it down, then he popped off with calling me ignorant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just leave it. Atomician (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Why?? I have done nothing wrong here. I realized i was being stubborn about something so petty and i was trying to back off then he decides to make a personal attack. I'm not dropping anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talkcontribs) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ignorant = lacking in awareness or knowledge. If you find this offensive is nobody problem. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
But we're to understand that you're not being stubborn anymore? You argued with Eagles on the same subject last week, using intemperate language, and have returned to the same subject to chew on it some more. Having received a short answer, you now want some form of administrative action? I'm a bit mystified as to what Muzemike's done, by the way; you were going to "report" him as well [53]. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
MuZemike asked him if he would still report me if I was not an admin, he answered with "more than likely." Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw that: all MuzeMike did was ask a question. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. You persist in hypothesizing what might be happening in certain scenarios, on the talk page of an editor who has repeatedly tried to explain that there's no point in such hypotheses and that edits shouldn't be based on them. (And I didn't see much backing off in your comments, and it seems to me that Palmer is a Bengal until he is no longer a Bengal--case closed.) In fact, they told you in bold print. You go on, and Eagles says "ignorant". It's not much of an insult, and I think some might say it's justified. Is it a nice thing to say? Maybe not. Then again, even after that you continued to hang out on that talk page, until you found a way to anger not one but three editors. And so I said, Do not persist. And Atomician says, Just leave it. Well, take our advice. Drop it and don't respond. I hope someone will find it in their heart to close this. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ignornant is just another word for stupid which is a personal attack. And yes i am trying to back off on, you guys are just completly misunderstanding what i was saying. And the user you mentioned, i never said i would report him. Im not dropping anything because i've done nothing wrong. U can define ignorant however you want, but the point remains, it means lacking knowledge the same defenition as stupid. It is an insult.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Futhermore, last week it was about carson's roster status this week, its if updates should be made to his page.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First to make a point, lacking knowledge does not mean stupid. Babies lack knowledge. Babies aren't stupid. And by pursuing this you're just going to wind up being scrutinized and as Drmies said, you'll be shot down here, it happens quite a bit. Do yourself a favour, don't interact with this user again, I'm sure he won't bother you? Move on to somewhere else, there are millions of articles and other areas of the pedia out there. Go to them. Atomician (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ignorant ≠ stupid. I'm ignorant of brain surgery, for instance, but that doesn't make me stupid. Really, take your own advice and try some conciliation. There's no administrative action to be taken here, and Eagles took no action in an administrative role in this matter. This is not an appropriate matter for AN/I. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Eagle, fine work on Greg McElroy. We'll make a Tide fan out of you yet. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Can we close this? No administrative action needed and nothing will (or even should) be done. Atomician (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Im dropping this, but only cuz im sick of typing a long post then having it cleared out because of these BS edit conflicts. And you guys are looking at ignorant from a technical point of view, not from a slang point of view. So yeah go ahead and close the damn thing. Im done--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Not properly archived . . .[edit]

Resolved: removed the already archived topics.--Atlan (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When was archived, it seems that the old data was not removed from the current file. Thus, we seem to have the same information both at the above page and at Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me.--Atlan (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it quite obviously isn't. This is the problem. Just delete the sections which haven't changed since they were original archived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I only checked the top thread, which was different from the archive and from 2010.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive emails[edit]


I have just received an abusive email from Ttstlkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a 'new' account but obviously some sort of sockpuppet. Can appropriate action please be taken? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion already blocked it. Pretty obvious 't t stalker'. Syrthiss (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, obvious troll, email blocked. SPI might be needed if more appear. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTagRegional Counting Officer─╢ 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns at Falkland Islands and Talk:Falkland Islands.[edit]

Hello, I would like to bring it to general (Please note, I am not naming any users for obvious reason, I'm targeting no one) notice to the current discussions and editing practises on the Falkland Islands Article/Talk page. Please note, I have no personal opinion on these situations - I am merely going by what I have seen on the talk page and such - After observing the page over three months now as an anon user I am, I find the general tone to be unpleasant, and unwelcoming. It doesn't speak well to someone uninvolved initially who may want to improve the article in question. I get from the page a very "Grinding teeth, Mexican-stand off" atmosphere. I don't know if anyone is POV pushing, playing games and all the other accusations being thrown around very recently, but nothing ever gets resolved from it, nothing gets seriously discussed about it, and the unpleasantness continues. Edit warring often goes unchecked, seemingly baseless accusations are thrown around and nothing ever comes from it in a productive sense. Observe the current discussions on the talk page, and review all the evidence. Thank you. I just want to see this page have a friendly, more civil, more productive and more engaging level of activity. If it's a problem that I haven't named specific editors or edits, please say so. But I think it speaks for itself at the moment with minimal searching needed. -- (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This needs admin involvement right away. My last WP:WQA request has gone nowhere.Alex79818 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
An SPA I would susgest that this is a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course its a sock. BTW its an election year in Argentina, the Falklands articles will take a battering for the next couple of months. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue, however, may well be real. It would not hurt for more eyes on that article in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in Joseph Jordania and related articles?[edit]