Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779

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

Noticeboard archives



This is clearly User:Beyond495. He/she has been disruptive for well over a year, and I have blocked the IP address for six months, which I regard as minimal under the circumstances. It seems we have a person who originally came here to edit in good faith, but found that his/her ideas about what was useful were out of line with Wikipedia standards, and retaliated by becoming deliberately obstructive. The editor has repeatedly expressed the intention of evading any blocks, so we can probably expect to have to impose some more blocks soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:

I have an IP-user here who vandalises spontaneously, and has received several warnings this year, each removed with immature retorts.. there are such gaps between each incident that it makes it difficult to call it persistent vandalism and indef. block, I imagine. After a minor bout with said idiot using the IP, they are now using the talk page as a soapbox to condemn Wiki practices, its editors, Jimbo Wales, etc, and declare themselves immune to being blocked or otherwise prevented from further vandalising Wiki at will. Wonder if someone can look into the comments, and determine a legitimate course of action. Personally, I suspect this may be a banned editor with a no-life grudge.. but given my lack of knowledge into who has been banned, or the reaction they may have, I cannot suggest who to checkuser to help determine who may be behind it, if indeed anyone. Perhaps others may have a better idea who this childish troll is, from experience.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting its own talk page could be a good start. Otherwise, maybe a school-term length block? Until May or June? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Rrodic again, this time as User:Mosalman

Confirmed and blocked by Alison. No further action required until we find the next sock in an hour or two. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the User:Rrodic case is so recent, please review the edits of User:Mosalman. He has the appearances of being yet another sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000. He is reverting any edits by User:Marco Guzman, Jr and is welcoming editors (including himself) that have edited articles related to NYU Poly. The account was created shortly after Rrodic was blocked. Oh, and he just gave one of his other blocked sockpuppet accounts a barnstar here. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give that barnstar. That was given by administrator Kudpung [1]--Mosalman (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This belongs at SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted one edit by User:Marco Guzman, Jr, which was clearly inapropriate and promotional ( (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And no, I am not related to Rrodic in anyway--Mosalman (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the same editor as Rrodic (and an IP) since they are revert warring over the same image on Higher education. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk, that IP is not at all related to me. The IP is also trying to keep the PhD level UTexas, Austin(which was oringinally there) and remove the MS level CalPoly, Pomona which Marco put up for promotional purposes. I think that article shouldn't have any picture because the pictures are POVs--Mosalman (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A while back there was an image of Harvard university, comparable to the UK and Canada images (Cambridge and UT), so I've put it back. Mosalman seems to be an obvious sockpuppet account. Mathsci (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathsci (talk).....but I am not a sockpuppet account. :)--Mosalman (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly looks like Rrodic. The editor's first 4 edits were to welcome other editors, the same kind of behavior as Rrodic welcoming a 4-year veteran. When was the last time you saw a legitimate first-time editor start off by welcoming other people? I'd say this ia another sock -- but even if it's not, it's a troll. Block, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I a troll? And what's wrong about welcoming people? These are Wiki love messages--Mosalman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I welcomed myself only so that I get a list of Wiki rules that I can study. I tried helping out other new users also in this way--Mosalman (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a checkuser be run on this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed - also Bobagirl (talk · contribs) - Alison 07:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

I know own-talk-page issues from blocked users aren't that big of a deal, but seeing as Mangoeater1000 has a long, disruptive history, and seeing as he's escalated from general nastiness here to full-on name-calling and gay-bashing here, is there any way we can say that in the future, all of his socks should have talk page access summarily revoked? Just seems like it would save admins a lot of time, if he's going to make it a regular thing to harass other editors from his talk pages after getting blocked. Perhaps by leaving a note under the sockmaster notice at the main account's userpage, telling any admins implementing future blocks that they should revoke talk page access while they're at it? I'm not quite sure what policy/convention is on this, but his behavior's obviously problematic, and he's done nothing to show that the community should have faith that his sockpuppets will use their own talk pages for legitimate purposes after getting blocked. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should block Mosalman from editing his own talk page and considered doing so for other socks. I do not see though how we can decide about blocking talk page access for future socks, since someone would have to inform the SPI administrators each time. TFD (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add, after the sockmaster template at User:Mangoeater1000, something like, "Due to long-term abuse by this account, including harassment by blocked sockpuppets on their own talk pages, administrators are instructed to summarily revoke talk page access from any future CheckUser-confirmed socks." Sure, people wouldn't notice the note all the time, but it might save some admins a little time dealing with socks that should've already been dispatched of... Mangoeater's very good at riding out the time before a block; it's almost impossible to read through the SPI archive, from the amount of random fights he's picked during investigations. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
You know....there is something oddly familiar with this socks behavior. I think that is all I can say for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The behavior and the oddity of the unblock request as well as other weird sorta "performance of ignorance" (an almost obvious acting performance of being ignorant of so much) and the prolific amount of socks is very familiar, but that could just be a coincidence. Have all socks of this editor been fully uncovered?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha, your question poses something of a paradox, doesn't it? Umm, that aside, CheckUsers have been run by Coren, Avraham, Alison, and DeltaQuad over the course of 15 SPIs filed since July. Make what you'd like of that. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite has blocked talk page and email access. That's all that can be done for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I may just be stuck on the similarities between the bad acting. This could just be common with sock puppets. That and a few other odd coincidences may have me seeing shadows.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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


Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ([2]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ([3]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ([4]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ([5]), he was still adding original research ([6]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ([7] and [8]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ([9], [10], [11], and [12]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ([13] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ([14] and [15]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, please look closely, i'm not without my sources. Besides, the storm itself and the track shows it, and also in wunderground map(history track info from JTWC) showing it's intensity in dates. Please look closely at where i got the sources.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thats not the point. If Earth100 has sources for information, they need to include them in the article and not simply remove the maintenance tags. In fact, an editor inserting a tag instead of removing content is doing less than they could. verifiability policy clearly states All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here: User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way. NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He should be made to understand that he must use sources for anything he wishes to add to Wikipedia. It is far easier to go by the rule of 'If you are contributing, tell us where you got your information from.' instead of claiming it and referencing improperly. A bad reference or one which doesn't state the information is one that I consider an offense because if you do it once, you might have done it many times before which brings all your contributions under scrutiny. Though I see that discussion is starting on the page and that is a good thing. Does this really need to be at ANI still? Its not that big of a deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It'd be best to leave this open until Earth 100 acknowledges the concerns expressed -- Inks.LWC has been patient while working towards maintaining WP quality and verifiability so I'd liked to see their efforts supported. NE Ent 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, disregard my comment about it. It would probably be for the best, that it be acknowledged here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. That was supposed to be a uw-tdel4 template (Removal of maintenance templates), but it somehow got changed to a only warning for vandalism template (I'm thinking perhaps I bumped an arrow key or something... I'm honestly not sure). I should've checked the template after posting it, so again, that was my error. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm assuming that your second link wasn't supposed to be a repeat of the first link? Were you intending to say that discussion should have been on the article talk page? I did that for Typhoon Bopha, since the addition of unsourced/incorrect material was the result of several editors. I didn't want to clutter up the talk pages of the other two articles since the problems there were specifically with Earth100's edits, so I thought it more appropriate to keep the discussion on his page. (Also, at that point, I was trying to keep it more personal and explain to him 1-on-1 what was incorrect with what he was doing, so it wasn't on the talk page of an article that was getting more and more attention due to the news.) So if it would generally be better to keep discussions like that on article talk pages, I'll keep that in mind in the future as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, oops. Fixed. Anyway I'm just offering an opinion based of past experience in DR -- it certainly wasn't wrong to page on the user talk page, I just think it works better long term to use article talk. NE Ent 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ([16] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ([17]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ([18]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just warned Earth100 on the need for civility. While her/his comments so far are still probably within WP:CIVIL, they're clearly starting to head in the wrong direction. Let's see if there's a response... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Earth100 simply removed my message with an edit summary indicating that I don't know what I'm talking about. The removal, of course, is fine, but the refusal to take on board constructive suggestions is worrisome. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the incivility, he is continuing to remove maintenance tags without properly referencing things ([19], [20], and [21]). Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The only problem: He does not know what is introspection. He continues using bad syntax, poor grammars, unsourced and incorrect information, etc.. -- Meow 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Meow will you stop that?! Every single thing you said was freaking false info. I source, i fix, i fix grammars, and fill the article with TRUE INFO! Meow, how do you like if someone contributes and a freaking dude stops by and says you don't do ANYTHING! Once in for all, stop meow, i can't stand you behavior. Can't you say anything true about me, as i KNOW that you intended that.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning for the removal of maintenance templates here. Should the problem re-occur after this section is archived, feel free to bring the matter to my talk page directly. Of course, I'd prefer that Earth100 simply stop the removal of needed templates. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Email abuse

Although Enemy of the Jihadis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked yesterday for personal attacks and harassment, I have this morning received a further dozen abusive emails from this account. Please disable email access, and please remember to do so in all future recurrendces of such abusive vandalism! RolandR (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I know it has been blocked. I just wanted folk to know that it used its email account to target random users (me, I'm pretty random) with a grossly offensive message. The message was just below a credible threat of (personal) harm, and expressed a desire for genocide towards a large ethnic group (of which I am not a member). If I should forward the email message to anyone, please will someone message me on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Received the same email and forwarded it to AGK (talk · contribs), just in case. Not sure what the proper procedure is myself. He's back (and blocked again) under a different username. Yazan (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Research for email abuse/harassment showed me that the general arbcom list should have sight of (certainly one) of the emails. I doubt they will appreciate a deluge, though. So I have sent mine to that list. What I suggest is that the new username is (blocked or not) reported as a sock and subsequent versions are treated as such. There is the possibility, of course, that this is a bunch of meatpuppets, and that the campaign os not the juvenile thing it appears to be, but a symptom of a more serious underlying incitement to commit racially aggravated crimes. The arbcom guys can decide about that one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Me to, but the message that starts "Dear Amazon Customer...As you've previously purchased books, we thought you might like to know about" and then has the audacity to try to sell me "How to bake" by Paul Hollywood was worse. It would be very handy if Wikipedia's top boffins could somehow get this prolific sockpuppeteer/email abuser autoforwarded to the answer phone message that plays "Believe it or not, George isn't at home, please leave a message at the beep. I must be out or I'd pick up the phone. Where could I be? Believe it or not, I'm not home" to the music from the TV series "The Greatest American Hero". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a long term abuser, whose identity is well known to admins. There are several threads in the archives relating to this. In this case, the abuse is being sent from hmamail; the address for complaints is I have already written to them a couple of times about this; I recommend that others do so too, to spur them into taking this seriously. RolandR (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have done that with no expectation of any result. I understand when you say this abuser is well known to admins. I feel the abuse has, in the iteration I was sent, reached the point where it is unlawful, and that law officers should receive information about its activities. I have no expectation of any outcome there either. Unfortunately there starts to become a time when one must take this type of abuse as a genuine threat. The abuser may find this thread amusing, of course they may, but they can also be aware that the net is closing in and true online anonymity is an illusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This may need to be considered, by several editors. And it is my understanding that some admins are aware of this person's real-life identity, so this should be possible. Over the past 18 months, I have received more than 1000 such racist, abusive and personally threatening emails, and I know of many other editors who have also been similarly harassed. Wikipedia really needs to establish a procedure or filter to prevent such abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, we all know who this is, and many administrators know his real name and where he lives. Email me if you'd like the name of a law enforcement contact who has dealt with him before. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any chance that they would treat this seriously? The continuing barrage of racist abuse and obscene threats of personal violence is distressing, and needs to stop. What have law enforcement officials done in the past? RolandR (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Milesgive3030- is at it now. Blocked, but still allowed to email. I now have a large number of grossly offensive emails. I don;t particularly care, but this needs to stop. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look through Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and the key problem is Verizon (his hosting provider) refusing to cut him off, presumably claiming he's not actually breaking any laws, just wasting lots of time. Short of increased publicity (if all the above was reliably sourced, which it isn't, you could add it to Verizon#Controversies), I'm not sure what we can do except silently block and ignore. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Law enforcement is the only way with this type of person. I am getting loads of hate mail at present and expect a couple of thousand more. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
JarlaxleArtemis (aka Grawp) is a very experienced sockmaster who has been around, on and off, since the beginning of 2005. We've attempted to erradicate him multiple times, to no avail. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Ritchie on this one. Just Revert, Block, Ignore. By all means, Tim, attempt to prosecute him through law enforcement. I'm just afraid you'll be disappointed by the response you get. As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time (which would be required) to prosecute JarleaxleArtemis. — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I simply have no idea with which agency to lodge the complaint. Perhaps one who knows would drop me an email? I an umder no illusions about the reaction I will get, but enough mud sticks, eventually. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
E-mail the 'emergency' e-mail address, they'll be able to direct you as appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I de-enabled my email last year because of him[22], then quietly enabled it again a couple of months ago. Last week it startet again, from "123456789is my password" and "Caade79" (His messages normally include: Fithy/fucking/nazi/Arab/whore any order). I de-enabled my email again, but I see he has been all over my talk-page instead. Thanks to all of you who are reverting/"cleaning up" my talk-page! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, guys. The emergency system is for use when immediate response is required for an active threat of imminent violence. There are pretty strict protocols around what we can do with it. :) We can't process this kind of thing through that address. If you need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation and aren't sure where to get it, please send me an email at I will do my absolute best to put you in touch with the person you need or to get you the assistance you require. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"As long as the mail doesn't descend into threats of violence, I doubt they'll want to spend an extremely large amount of time". But that's the point; the emails I have received (more than 1000 so far) include graphic descriptions of specific threats of violence against me, alongside references to images of me appearing elsewhere on the internet. I have little doubt that this behaviour is illegal; one reason I hesitate to gtake any action is concern that Wikipedia itself could be implicated or held responsible, by virtue of enabling the use of its email facility. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've had a couple of run-ins with him in the past as well, though your issues with him appear to make mine fade into insignificance. I for one hope that something positive comes from TimTrent's complaint to law enforcement. I've left a suggestion on Tim's talk page as to where he can find contact details for police aid. — Oli OR Pyfan! 11:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Roland - I don't think there's much chance of that. When people send email through wikipedia, it basically just acts like any other email client you can name (gmail, outlook, etc.) If Wikipedia were to be prosecuted for emails sent using its software, then those other clients should be prosecuted as well for all the illegal emails sent through them. — Oli OR Pyfan! 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I used the emergency email address after this advice and acknowledge that I was incorrect in doing so. As soon as someone tells me the correct law enforcement contacts to use I will be lodging a complaint. I suggest everyone affected does the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies from me for suggesting it, thought it was the best place. GiantSnowman 12:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No trouting intended! :) I just wanted to clarify the best avenue to use. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Maggie Dennis: Previous discussions on email abuse have produced nothing, with pathetic suggestions that new users might need to send ten emails immediately, or even 100 if they are part of an education project, therefore anyone victimized needs to suck it up. The WMF should provide serious resources to (a) add a filter to email; and (b) provide a staffer who will follow up available legal paths with extreme LTA cases such as the one under discussion (someone who specializes in such things). It's lovely to have people adding feedback to articles, but serious money also needs to be spent on serious problems. Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Maggie Dennis, in areas such as this the alleged wisdom of crowds is the enemy of the project because it discusses ad infinitum and every individual's opinion somehow must be heard. It is an area that requires swift action from the legal team and the office. There are areas where crowd discussion removes any ability to act. Crowds are neither wise nor decisive. WMF needs to take wise and decisive action, ably assisted by those in the crowd who are competent to help. WMF has a duty of care to all of its editors and has to spend time, effort and money in solving long term sockpuppetry and abuse by any abusive editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And what, exactly, do you propose the WMF do about it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I see every reason why that discussion should be held internally by WMF itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

IP range evasion and promo-spam

In November, IP (see User talk: was blocked per WP:NLT for a series of edits and edit-summaries at Freeboard (skateboard). More recently, a number of addresses from the same range (93.42.2XX.XX) have appeared at the same article to make ostensibly the same edits (removing sourced content and replacing it with un-sourced promo-spam about a particular Italian company that makes a competitor product). The IP has also contested a number of PRODs to Italian skateboarder articles on the basis that he/she is "doing a university assignment" on the subjects in question. I think it is more likely that the person is an advocate/employee of the company for which they are spamming.

IPs include:

There may be others but the edit histories of each of the above are almost entirely focussed on this one article and the collective group have been editing in this way since early 2012.

I have asked for semi-protection over at WP:RFPP and have informed the editor responsible for reverting most of the vandalism to date (SQGibbon). But I have since realised the IP-range commonality and have come to the conclusion that the article would not be the subject of nearly as much vandalism were this IP range prevented from editing it. Other IP edits to the article have been entirely good faith and helpful and we certainly don't want to stop that. If action is taken against the IP range then the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw my RFPP request.

Regardless of the content of the edits, moving to a new IP address and continuing to edit would seem to be a clear case of WP:EVASION. The content of the edits simply compounds the problem. Stalwart111 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Query - I know I'm supposed to notify editors about ANI "cases". Does the same apply to IPs? Do I need to post a note to each of the above, or just to the most recent, or not at all? Stalwart111 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Update - I have informally notified the editor I mentioned and have notified the most recently used IP. Stalwart111 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like the original page at Aldo Grippaldi (one of the talk pages edited by the IP) was deleted yesterday both here and on the Italian wiki, then the same content created again here today.
The lack of formatting or links in the "references" section makes it extremely difficult to review/validate that content. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: These IPs appear to be sockpuppets of USER:Unotretre who is associated with the Italian company mentioned above and was indeffed for making several legal threats both on Wikipedia and in emails to other editors. During the time that account was active he used several IPs and other accounts to make his edits (or other employees of that company did) that besides being legal threats were about promoting that company. It's an ongoing problem but maybe a range-block would help. SQGibbon (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the previous username but this previous version of that user's talk page would seem to strongly suggest they are one in the same. That user was also blocked for WP:NLT breaches relating to exactly the same articles and subjects. For the benefit of the editor in question; anatra. Stalwart111 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update - admins cleared the backlog at RFPP and admin EdJohnston helpfully semi-protected one of the articles in question (freeboard) for 3 months. Stalwart111 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • On the matter of giving warnings, if an editor has been given a warning then they have been given a warning, and it is not necessary to give separate warnings to each and every account and IP address that they may use. Besides, doing so would almost certainly be pointless, as they would have moved on to another IP address, and would probably never see the warnings posted to old IP addresses. If you do wish to give a new warning, the best you can realistically do is post one to the latest IP address that you know of, and if they never use that IP address again and never see the message, well, it's not your fault. I have blocked the latest IP address, but there is little point in blocking individual IPs, as they will just move on. I have also placed a fairly short IP range block, but unfortunately a long range block is out of the question, as there are quite a number of constructive edits, evidently from other people. Other than that, and the page protection already mentioned, I'm afraid it's just a question of reverting and blocking as each new IP appears. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please immediately delete my account on all WP-sites (esp. english and german)

This appears to be something that happened on de, no admin action needed. Mdann52 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Sir or Madam, please delete/deactivate my global account on WP whith immediate effect. I made some contributions on en.WP and de.WP. (You can check all of them.) - I'm deeply sorrow, but I can no longer ignore all the rude and impolite behaviour, that I have encountered. You may check everything I've done, there is nothing to hide. - What I won't stand any longer are all the people that don't follow the basic rules and are just outright indecent and impolite. Thank you and goodbye Yours --CaffeineCyclist (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't be done here, at least not globally; go to meta for that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You may request to vanish, but your account can't really be permanently deleted. I'm sorry that you are disconcerted with how you've been treated. Thank you for what you have done. Go Phightins! 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, the editor has 157 edits in 4 months here, almost half of them (70) to their own user page, and only 35 edit to articles. I'm not seeing anything in their edit history to indicate that they had any serious run-ins or disputes with people. Strange, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
True, unless he's been observing and doesn't want to be part of such a culture? I don't know, it is speculation. Perhaps something occurred on the German Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there. He does have the right to vanish. Though from an editor retention standpoint, I am curious as to the reasoning. Go Phightins! 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I just edit-conflicted with Amadscientist on the user's talk page to try to see what was the problem, so hopefully we'll hear something. Go Phightins! 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Could have been something that happened on the Deutch wikipedia. But I can't read it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It was. I translated the page and am reading through it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see needing any admin action here or on the Deuth Wikipedia. Seems to be a content dispute and the editor got upset with a section being referred to as off topic (I think...Bing translations of German are a little difficult to read). I have reached out to the editor. Now the ball is in their court.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:

User: posted this [23] on my user page, which I consider to be a personal attack.
The user is an SPA who has only edited Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, adding long unsourced claims and statements, introduced with phrases such as “We spoke to an alumnus of the yeshiva who prefers to remain anonymous.” My tagging of these statements with a [who?] and a [citation needed] led to this outburst. Arjayay (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a WP:NPA. I see it as uncivil WP:OWN/WP:OR and a mistaken understanding of how Wikipedia works, followed by a THREAT. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's worth noting that threats are included in WP:NPA :). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the only words he can spell correctly have 4 or fewer letters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd warn them, direct to the appropriate policy and next time consider a block. One freebie with comments like that. I do not like the blocking of people, but I am concerned about the editor comments and WP:OR insertion in the journalistic style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Guys, the IP is already blocked. I won't comment on whether or not I agree or disagree with it, but I will say that the issue is kinda over unless he decides to be a jerk again. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature

Note: Blocked for 24 hours at this time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Reported user: YahwehSaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

YahwehSaves refuses to sign her posts with signatures, escalating what should be accidental or newbie-type incidents that are normally resolved upon notification. This adds to frustration from editors not knowing the source of comments, confusing them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign YahwehSaves' signature for her. Unfortunately, bots dont always catch missing signatures. The relevant behavioral guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures, which states "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."

Looking at YahwehSaves' talk page, she was notified of using signatures by User:SineBot on 5 occasions from May 2011 until even now in December 2012.[24][25][26][27][28]. In 2012 alone, users have left personalized messages offering help to learn how to place signatures.[29][30][31][32] One user even started signing YahwehSaves' themselves everytime a response was left.[33][34]; the same frustrated editor left a message on my talk page believing "nor will you get any acknowledgement back even if you confront (YahwehSaves) on it directly." I left a message assuming good faith for YahwehSaves on December 19, offering suggestions but requesting the problem either be fixed or that she start a discussion asking for any help needed.[35]. Afterwards, YahwehSaves left another post without a signature on an article talk page.

I would recommend blocking YahwehSaves indefinitely until the user provides acknowledgement of their behavior and assures that she will begin conforming with WP:SIGNATURE. I would do it myself, but am semi-involved in some discussions where she is present. Certainly there is more damaging behavior on WP, but this persistently disruptive behavior has left editors that deal with YahwehSaves frustrated ... and it's so easy to fix.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeffing as the first block for something like failing to sign seems a bit overkill. Perhaps a bit less could be tried as an opening gambit to get the attention of the user in question, don't you think? --Nouniquenames 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
How about not pissing YahwehSaves off and just let them get on and edit ? It's a pedantic thing to go after, and shouldn't be policy IMO. If you care so much about her not signing, then just sign for her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Claritas (talkcontribs)
Because it isn't our job to do something for someone that they are expected by community norms to do themselves, that's why. I note that you just now didn't sign either; if intentional, that's pointy with a smidge of dickishness, and if unintentional it is quite amusing. As for Yahweh, is there any indication/evidence of this user explicitly refusing to sign? Or do they just ignore all requests to do so? The former IMO is block-worthy (remember indef doesn't mean permanence; at times they are used as attention-getters), while the latter could be addressed by a final "explain-yourself-now" request by an admin. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We are not YahwehSaves's mother, we should not have to clean up after him. Indef for first block is overkill for all but obvious trolls. Guidelines are not policies, because there are exceptions (my last cell phone didn't have a tilde button anywhere, and not everyone is going to resort to copying and pasting the tildes from other pages like I did when forced to edit from phones). Still, it does reflect community consensus and it state that "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned." Not "may be disruptive," "is disruptive."
However, if SineBot does sign for him, that may be enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think having SineBot make all the edits would be permissible. My main concern is with unnecessary edit conflicts that can occur during SineBot edits. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we need a comment from YahwehSaves that they will sign all of their posts from here on out. If they do not do so, or are aware of this discussion and do not sign their posts, I would say an indefinite block is needed. As soon as the editor proves they can sign their posts and is willing to do so, they can be unblocked. Refusing to sign talk page posts is disruptive and can't be allowed. Ryan Vesey21:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think dealing with the lynch-mob mentality here is rather more important than trying to force a user who doesn't want to sign their messages to do so. Just leave them be, and they'll soon see the advantages of it. No wonder user retention rates are down. Claritas § 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A block is overkill, and we are to assume good faith from all editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that an indefblock is overkill. Maybe an (ugh) attention-getting block is in order, but a short one, 24 hours or less. I know that indefinite isn't infinite, but not everyone sees it that way. By the way, I would've said to let SineBot take care of it, but a quick survey of his contribs shows that SineBot is missing some of his edits, so that's not a great solution. But yeah, I know that edit-conflicts with SineBot or having to look up in the history for who said what is annoying, but...I dunno, an indefblock? Writ Keeper 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If he was on, a one-hour block would get his attention. One day should be enough to catch his attention when he gets back on, but I've seen some newbies react to blocks of any length as if they were unappealable indef blocks. I guess we'll wait to see what his reaction is to this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I was operating under the belief that indef wasn't indef (easily appealed once the user finally acknowledges), but I would also support a shorter block. Note that the user was also blocked for 72hrs in February for "Disruptive editing: incivility, and sockpuppetry". There was also a recent edit-warring warning given. Without a response on this issue and falling back on track record, good faith has been mostly exhausted.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Assuming good faith means assuming an appropriate response to legitimate concerns over behaviour. If we're going to call "editor retention" trumps for this round, editor retention depends on a level playing field, which implies editors should be expected to agree to a certain level of conformity with trivial-to-follow community norms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the "we are to AGF with all editors bit" was addressed to multiple people. "Editor retention is down" has me wondering about the math, and outside factors (after the Colbert bump, we got a bunch of editors we really didn't need). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution. We are not talking about rocket science to track sock puppets here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be the least indefblock-like indef block ever. I'd say set the time to indef, but leave a custom message saying all that needs to be done to become unblocked is for the editor to show that they know how to sign their posts and agree to sign them in the future. I think we're caught up with what the idea of an indefblock appears to be. One hour or one day blocks wouldn't work and could be too long or too short. This block should last 5 minutes if that's the time it takes but shouldn't expire until the editor expresses the willingness to sign. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── What's odd is that, having chosen a proselytizing account name (one that I would prefer to see changed, but which appears to be acceptable under current username guidelines) the editor is shying away from publicizing it. One would think that they would want to see it all over the place!

In any case, while guidelines certainly aren't mandatory, one should always have a good reason to not follow them, and it's hard to see what reason YS could have for using a signature other than "I don't want to." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if a reason is given, it can still be deemed unsatisfactory; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu and the "I have an old keyboard" argument. If this user would at least say "I don't want to" or "I can't" or "GTFO", at least that'd be a starting point for a conversation. Outright ignoring the matter and still editing merrily away is rather irksome, IMO. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I recall the Docu situation, which came up on the boards numerous times before it got dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This user, judging from the talk page, also seems to have had a fair number of adjustment issues aside from forgetting to sign posts. Intothatdarkness 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited guideline (Wikipedia:Signatures) (not a policy) says
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
Where is the policy requiring that editors sign?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(As a relevant aside, I do not accept that the combined geek power of Wikipedians cannot figure out how to make it automatic. The known complications are just not persuasive. Even the creaking and antiquated OTRS signs everything for me.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures: "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Missed your earlier comment, there is no policy per se. No common sense reason to apply an exception here has surfaced (esp. with no comments from YahwehSaves)—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
On the topic of no comments, I think we expect comment from the editor in question too soon in most situations. We should probably wait at least 24 hours for him to reply (or start editing without replying). Ryan Vesey 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Lack of response has brought this to ANI. Certainly, YahwehSaves should be allowed to respond.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For random, slightly helpful notes, I will recall that we ended up blocking an editor once who refused to actually provide a link to his userpage in his sig (he had created a plaintext custom signature.) Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember the user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC) ─────────────────────────The current wording was edited on 7 June 2012. I see nothing in the talk page discussing the change in wording. Arguably the edit was a simplification of prior wording without a change in meaning.

The edit was a wordsmithing of a bold edit on 7 June 2012, adding:

During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

I reject the notion that a bold addition to a page can transform a guideline into an actionable policy with no community discussion!

I'm reverting, unless someone can point me to the discussion leading to the major change. Let the community discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The text has stood for six months, suggesting implicit consensus. I would suggest notifying the original editor, and starting a discussion on the talk page and placing {{Discuss}} on the guideline page if you disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Had it not existed there, the guideline would be Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It is obvious that refusal to sign posts is disruptive. Ryan Vesey 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't obvious that refusal to sign posts is disruptive. One could take the position that the force of an argument should be evaluated on the strength of the argument, and the identify of the writer is not just irrelevant, but prejudicial (I'm not for a second suggesting that such case is likely to prevail, I simply want to point out that truly anonymous posting isn't prima facie disruptive.) I could also make the case that if we expect every single post to be signed, this is a job for a computer, not an arcane convention. Not to mention that every single regular editor knows how to look at the history if they want to see the identity, which may be a pain, but so is signing. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Siiiiigh. Do we really need a WP:ITISNOTBANNED to get away from this inane trope whereby anything which is not explicitly punishable by death in the Space Corps Directives should be ignored indefinitely? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the lack of signature is more the rule with YahwehSaves than the exception. This would not be an issue if this was an occasional or even frequent issue; this always happens, the user refuses all cordial invitation for help. This is not a witch hunt for perfection by the signature police. Until a bot addresses the issue, it is a human issue.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who recently told Bagumba they weren't going to be able to get YahwehSaves to sign their posts, after seeing Bagumba trying to elicit that courtesy from the user. My comment wasn't intended to provoke an ANI posting... I was just trying to save Bagumba from wasting their time because I already knew what the outcome would be. All attempts to discuss signatures with the user go ignored, whether on their talk page or on article talk pages. Just exactly why that is, I have no idea. YahwehSaves and I have been able to have conversations about other topics (mostly military medals), and obviously they want to contribute here, albeit somewhat eccentrically at times. If there is some reason why he or she can not sign, I do wish they would tell us, which would make it easier to understand why this is a problem. When a user doesn't sign their comments, it can create confusion in conversation threads and inconvenience other editors who come to the thread later and have to do research in the history to figure out who said what, or cause routine edit conflicts with sinebot when conversations are going back and forth. That ends up becoming a disruption. At the same time, we don't want to be capricious and/or eager to levy rules on people just because they don't conform to our expectations or extend the same courtesies we take for granted and/or extend ourselves. So... this is really a question of balance, isn't it? On the one side is editor freedom to do as they wish, and on the other side is the detriment to others caused by the mild but repetitive effect of the disruption. Where do we strike that balance? I'm not sure myself. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's disrespectful of everyone else's time, and intentionally and unnecessarily so, AFAWK. Pretty much every other thing that is expected of an editor requires more effort than those 4 silly keystrokes, and that stuff is required. Absent an explanation or promise to correct in 24 hours, I would suggest something stronger needs to be done to get their attention. Indef seems unnecessary and unlikely to be good for WP. A 24-hour block, or block-pending-explanation is probably plenty. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I remember what Fuchs is talking about, and I also can't remember. But we have blocked indefinitely for refusals to communicate (it's disruptive). I wouldn't oppose. All that is required for an unblock is "OK I'll play nice". The last such block I remember was one of these FOOTY kids. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The aforementioned Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu was a case of a non-linking sig. Sphilbrick makes a valid point that bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is counterproductive and just plain silly. However, we are a community that operates by convention as well as policy. Signatures were designed to aid communication. Not using signatures hinders communication. I will wait on YS's reply, but absent a reply and continued refusal to sign would be viewed as disruptive from my standpoint. Tiderolls 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For those waiting for a response from YahwehSaves, edits at two different articles since this thread was started still have no signatures.[36][37] Like AzureCitizen, I also now believe this will not change. A block seems to be the only action that might change the behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I should add that YahwehSaves also does not indent responses per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Of course, if the community wont do anything about signatures, I'm not even going to bother trying to educate on the benefits of indentation.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Slow your roll, Bagumba. There are reasons things take time. Tiderolls 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)That came off as much more lectury than it sounded in my head. Apologies. Tiderolls 02:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the account for 24 hours. The more problematic thing for me is that the user has not responded to several requests on their talk page and has not responded here. I will unblock if the user agrees to change their editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that YahwehSaves edits fairly regularly as User:, so an eye should be kept there for any block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like he's also User: Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding automated signing

If signatures are mandatory, then have them magically appear without having to type ~~~~. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Your "simple" solution is anything but - how is whatever software you're proposing meant to differentiate between edits which should be signed and that which should not? GiantSnowman 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There's already a solution: The template "YesAutosign". I have that set up on my page, so in case I forget to sign, the system will take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: how do you differentiate between edits that should be signed and those that should not? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
@Bugs: I would've said just leave it to SineBot and call it a day, but SineBot misses posts sometimes. Writ Keeper 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
SineBot doesn't touch users with more than some number of edits that I can't recall. YesAutosign causes SineBot to do its thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
@Nathan - will your software be able to differentiate between a new post on a talk page, and somebody changing the wording slightly? GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it wouldn't be able to. Adding new lines, not just modifying existing ones, should be a pretty close heuristic; just sign the last line in each contiguous set of new lines. Give it a manual override (a checkbox like the minor edit one that says "don't auto-sign this post") and that should be pretty good. Writ Keeper 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
How is somebody ticking a checkbox any harder than typing 4 x ~? Basically what I;m saying is that if editors lack the competence to sign normally, they probably lack the competence to check a box. GiantSnowman 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the software will sign for you unless you check the box. Signing would be opt-out, with teh box being the way to opt out. Writ Keeper 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And what I'm saying is that X writes a post, don't click the box, the software signs for them. They then edit to change a word, don't click the box, the software adds a second sig. They notice a spelling mistake, don't click the box, 3rd sig. GiantSnowman 17:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said, the software can be smart enough to detect that, whether or not the box is checked. Fixing spelling errors or changing words isn't adding newlines, so the software can tell that it's not a new comment needing to be signed. The box would just be insurance. Writ Keeper 17:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
What if you want to add a new sentence or two to quickly clarify something? This sounds far too complicated - I don't see the issue with editors signing their own posts, and if they don't then they should face sanctions. GiantSnowman 17:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

copyright violation

Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could i get someone to look a User talk:FY789 actions - Despite being warned 2 times he/she seems not to care about our copy right policies. Has added 3 times now (may be 4 times by the time I have written this) is copy and pasting copyright info to the Australia article from here over and over. user has been warned 2 times and is simply adding back the text and not replying on there talk page. Looking for a block or some sort of admin actions pls.Moxy (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No. This isn't a copyright violation. I am putting it my own words.

FY789 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pls do not copy and paste from other sites...Moxy (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from .... Australia is the only country that is also a continent. In area, it ranks as the sixth largest country and the smallest continent. Australia is often referred to as being "down under"

Text you added here Australia is the only country that is also a continent. In area, it ranks as the sixth largest country and the smallest continent. Australia is often referred to as being "down under"

Well, there's more text that was copied from that website than just that one sentence, some of it is WP:Close paraphrasing rather than verbatim copying. But why the link to the Keg Income Fund website - I don't get that part.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes lots more - as for the keg link - sorry working on many copy violations tonight wrong link to here (fixed now).Moxy (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As a separate matter, I have never seen so many redirects created by an editor in such a short space of time. Like an Australian redirect bot.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I just removed a bunch that were WP:NOTDIRECTORY violations as R2 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor has been blocked for 24 hours for the copyright violations by User:Dpmuk. The redirect issue and other problematic edits (they added a thesis to Law of Australia) are also of concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well someone beat me to reporting my own actions. Have also given them a 3rr warning as they hadn't previously had one. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked to see what's left but BWilkins's use of the word "bunch" was an understatement. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I remember this user from a while back – this is a sock of Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics edit war


I'm currently edit warring with FROESES (talk · contribs) who is removing part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and keeps on reinserting Islamic honorifics in the Caliph article. I've already reverted the MoS six times and the article twice. The user has been notified on their talk page by me and two other users. Can someone take a look at it? jonkerz ♠talk 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Links: Warning #1, #2 and #3. jonkerz ♠talk 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jonkerz, FROESES has been blocked for 24 hours following my report to Vandalism noticeboard + addition of Edit Warring. If it continues after the block has expired, just report the user to the appropriate noticeboard (Vandalism maybe as after unblock, Warring may not be applicable). Ofcourse a browsing Administrator may want to take action on this. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, John F. Lewis. I wasn't sure what to do but was told that creating a thread here was a fast way to stop the vandalism. jonkerz ♠talk 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
AN/I is a good place, But AIV or the Edit Warring noticeboard gets more quicker and accurate blocks/notices etc. If you ever need any help, Feel free to add a note on my talk page. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A new editor shows up and immediately starts edit warring on articles and blanking sections of policy he/she doesn't agree with and discusses none of this? I can't see this editor having any future here. Is it really worth another chance twenty-four hours later for a purely disruptive account like this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


Omerli issues death threats (to an active but blocked user) [38]--Ymblanter (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again with the Armenians? I don't understand the conflict or why so many people continue this, but does it matter the user is blocked? I'd hope not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not matter, and I am not involved, I just happen to have this talk page in my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean you, I meant Omerli. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've indeffed the editor. They have a short but troubling agenda-driven history in addition to the attack/threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello I have reason to suspect this user is yet another block evader. In recent days there has been a spate of IP vandalism attacks on Peter Hitchens and several IPs have been blocked in connection with this. The users have then been coming on my talk page and writing abuse and offensive remarks as well as other editors who dare to challenge them. Firstly IP vandalised Peter Hitchens and hurled abuse at me. While they were blocked IP came on the article and made the same edits, they then abused my talk page, the talk page of "Clockback" and deleted my comments on the blocked IPs talk page. They have subsequently been blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion. Yesterday IP vandalised the Mail on Sunday article with the same libellous remarks about Hitchens then proceded to write very abusive messages on my talk page and the talk page of user Clockback. Admin Wormthatturned very kindly blocked them for 31 hours which has now expired but I feel this is a sustained campaign against me and Clockback by a serial block evader. I would like this user investigating to see if this abusive behaviour can be stopped. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

These IP addresses are assigned to BT and Sky, two of the largest ISPs in the UK. The person responsible for these edits will surely have been assigned a new IP address by now. There is no practical means by which anyone at Wikipedia can identify someone by their IP, or to track them if their IP changes. A checkuser would know if these IP addresses had been used by a registered user, but the couldn't tell you, and given the size of these two IPs that's not very useful information anyway. Only the ISPs themselves can relate addresses to people, and they'll only do so in response to legal proceedings. From our end there's little we can do but play whack-a-rat when they pop up; lengthy rangeblocks on such huge ISPs would be Pyrrhic. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, very helpful. I am not too up on the technical side of IPs etc. So basically all we can do is monitor for now. The page has been protected and I think this will help. Thanks once again. Christian1985 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
You can also have your own talk page semi-protected if you wish. Do you want to do that for a week or so? Registered editors would still be able to send you messages. -- Dianna (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought i put an IP to IP message on his talkpage asking other IPS to leave him alone, for the sake of not only themselves but also for all IP editors, for Christian1985 and for the good of wikipedia. (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the sincerest form of flattery, but . . .

72nino blocked along with 3 other socks. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone review the edits and accounts of User:72nino and User:Dinobasher. They are purely disruptive edits by someone who has a beef with me. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater1000 sgain. I filed an SPI/CU request. The second account seems unrelated. Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason why he mentioned the second account is because 72nino's talk page mentions 'keeping an eye on Dinobasher'. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletions

New user Special:Contributions/ is unusually energetic in proposing deletions. Well, WP does ask people to be bold, so I can't censure him for energy. He may however become a little too energetic: see Talk:Maggie Out. I have to turn my attention away from my computer; perhaps somebody else could keep a friendly eye on his edits. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PS While posting the customary welcome message on his talk page, I got into an edit clash with messages from others complaining about vandalism. Sure enough, "" was vandalizing and lying about this in the edit summaries. I've given "" a permanent vacation, but presumably he's merely the latest puppet to be invented by somebody blocked earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Those 'typo corrections' as if a broken page isn't going to be checked... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't even guess what this comment means. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor and IP Claiming to be Possessed

They're no longer heeeeeeere. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor User:Evelynheaven (whose IP is almost definetely User: is claiming to be Evelyn Amielia Eirayonia Heaven Bovaxx, possessed by God and Adam. The user sent me an email claiming they were wanted by the US, Russia, and Britain and that I should put their edit back after I reverted this edit by their IP to Eve. See also User:Evelynheaven/sandbox. Could an admin take care of this? Thanks! Vacationnine 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

... HalfShadow 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Vacationnine 03:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you asking for a Wiki-exorcism? Actually, I'm not sure there's anything for admins to do here. If the editor continues to add inappropriate material to articles, she can be blocked as a vandal/troll or indistinguishable from one, but in the meantime, there seems little reason to have brought this to AN/I, unless it was intended as comic relief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
OK then, just wanted to make sure. I didn't really know what to do here. Vacationnine 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You could try to engage them and explain that Wikipedia is not the place for what they're doing. If that doesn't work, just keep an eye on their contributions, issue warnings when necessary, and bring it to WP:AIV if they don't stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I threw some holy water on my laptop as a precaution, and it shorted out and won't turn on. Thanks a bunch.
Jerk. HalfShadow 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
👍 LikeHex (❝?!❞) 13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've revdeleted the edit because there was way too much personal info including a phone number and this is very likely a prank on someone. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Mister "avoid drama at all times, mostly by doing nothing at all" 58 here. Completely agree with Spiff's revdel, thoroughly endorse BMK's assessment.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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


Ok, so we're ALL a bunch of f-wits for continuing this thread. If you want someone blocked over the word "fuckwit" then prepare to be blocked for your own WP:NPA's. If you are trying to show long term issues, start an RFC - I'll bet you'll have people line up to certify it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly called me a troll and accused me of being a sockpuppet in this talk page discussion.[39] [40] [41] [42] When Andy removed warnings from his talk page, his edit comment was "fuck off, troll"[43] I asked him to please focus on content, not contributors, and not to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without filing at SPI, which I saw an admin had told someone who did that a few days ago. Andy was warned five times, including by another editor who said "Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive": [44] [45], [46] [47] [48] Thank you. -- (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have demonstrated, or faked, a time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week. This is troll-like behavior. If name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive, then an obsession such as yours is more so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is obvious - see block log [49], and (frequently blanked) talk page. And note the way this 'new' IP contributor parrots policy, with no discernible regard for who we are writing articles for. All over the entirely reasonable suggestion that an article concerning a notable event might actually say what day of the week it occurred on. Yes, I was rude, and yes, I'm drunk (I'll probably have an apocalyptic hangover later ;-) ), so maybe I could have been more 'civil' - but as far as I'm concerned, we are here to write an encyclopaedia, not engage in endless Wikilawyering over stupidities - and I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia (and come to think of it, I could probably do with a Wikibreak over Christmas anyway - or possibly longer). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Apocalyptic hangover? The world's still here - or is it supposed to end at EST? It will be here tomorrow. Happy holidays, Andy! Doc talk 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hoary, Andy's above comments speak for themself ("I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia"). He's made my point. In terms of the talk page discussion, I was reasonably discussing a legitimate issue about an extremely common edit (date format). And a very experienced editor (six years) indicated the legitimacy of my concern to Andy.[50] I was courteous throughout the discussion and focused solely on content, then was personally attacked without provocation. And while Andy thinks it's productive to reference my block log, I suggest he focus on his own block log,[51] which I had no intention of bringing up initially. Yes, I was blocked briefly (for edits, not mistreating others). But I have learned from my mistakes and have been working hard to productively contribute here. Andy has been editing for years, yet still treats other editors as inappropriately as he apparently always has. -- (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I've provided plenty of diffs to support my claims, not to mention Andy coming into the thread and calling me a "fuckwit". Please do the right thing. -- (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
People can't see your entire edit history. Your first edit on this IP used the WP:USPLACE link so you are clearly not new. I assume Special:Contributions/ is you too. Who else ? Have you been blocked more than once ? How many years have you been editing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know about USPLACE until an administrator taught me about it on a talk page because he had seen that editor violating it. It's interesting how hard you're trying to make me look bad, yet are completely ignoring Andy's totally inappropriate behavior. Why is that? -- (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. The troll's edit's speak for themselves (look for yourself, don't take my word for it). And note the troll's endless citations of the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and utter inability to explain why we mustn't tell readers what day of the week something occurs. This isn't a new contributor, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked the IP editor to form an argument as he seemed to dispute the use of the day of the week when the consensus seemed to be against its use when I arrived at the discussion. Andy was asked a direct question to explain the relevance to the subject for adding the day when the article had not had this information and I percieved a clear "I just like it" discussion forming with no clear reasoning. He declined to collaborate in anyway to the question, leading me to believe "I don't hear you" was an issue. Since Andy would not provide his own relevance I attempted to do so to at least demonstrate to the IP editor that it was possible. While I do not have an opinion to the addition or exclusion of the content Andy's editing under the influence has become too much of an issue for me to believe the editor is working in either good faith or within the spirit of Wikipedia. I am now understanding a little better what Andy's issues are. Andy has requested that he would rather be blocked than stop. I suggest his wish be made true. If the IP editor is indeed a sock puppet please report this to SPI and deal with that. As far as I can see, there is no clear boomerang detectable for the IP in this case. As for the block log....why is it not mentioned when bringing that up that the IP is one "through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different user when the current user disconnects." If editors are able to demonstrate that this is the same "editor" in some form, I would still ask why the block log means anything here. The IP was not being disruptive in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, are you seriously suggesting that there may be multiple individuals making near-identical arguments from the same IP address? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week" please?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Having read the talk page discussions Hoary's account is more accurate than Amadscientist's tl;dr outpouring above (just dramamongering like the OP). The IP has been blocked several times in the last few days and their conduct on the talk page isn't helpful and could be described as "trolling". They cannot in fact edit the article, which has been discussed multiple times at great length on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was attempting to be impartial, but I can see that was a waste of time. At any rate, the IP did, in fact confess to being the same editor. I do disagree that the editor was being troll like as I asked them to form an argument also making your assessmnet of me way off. An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mentioning the day of the week is not a controversial matter, yet the IP made it so. Their recent block blog speaks for itself. The fact that you have ignored it along with the WP:IDHT conduct on the talk page and are now suggesting that ATG be blocked would not normally be taken as signs of impartiality. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I asked them to form an argument. If it is truly so uncontoverisal...why was the discussion so long to begin with before the dispute. An editor just trying to continue the discussion and make their case after another asked them is not troll behavior. There is no "fact" that I have ignored the block log. But it does not speak for itself. Please tell me that you are not blowing off the dispute with a drunk and beligernet editor in favor dismissing the IP based on his block log. And...Andy actually suggested the block. I agreed --Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
WP policy is not on your side and your last remarks are out of place. Please stop this drama-mongering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears the drama mongering is coming from you. As I said. Andy admitted to being drunk, said he would rather be blocked than to stop name calling and I still suggest an admin take him up on the offer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sean, this is starting to sound similar to a rape victim being blamed for wearing revealing clothing. And I would consider myself a new editor, unless you define someone's who edited for a month or two a veteran. I haven't done or said anything that can't be easily learned in a couple weeks. Reading guidelines and other pages that explain how to do things isn't rocket science. And this is the only account I've been blocked on. So, Andy has not only called me names and accused me of being a sockpuppet numerous times on the other page without reporting it, he's now come here and continued it and called me more names. There's no doubt that if I (or any other IP) did the things Andy's done, they would've been blocked in a heartbeat. Just calling someone a "fuckwit" would've gotten an IP an instant ban. Is this going to continue being ignored and, in essence, encouraged? I hope not. -- (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Question, do you have other accounts?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I promise that I have no other accounts. Just this one. In fact, I would encourage that to be investigated, however that's done, rather than repeatedly being accused of editing improperly. Someone did that to another editor a few days ago and an admin came in and told him to knock it off if he wasn't going to report it. And by the way, if I did have an account, I would've just made some of these edits myself that I've been discussing on the talk page. I wouldn't have needed to make edit requests and have discussions on a bunch of them. Thanks. -- (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You've also edited with the IP mentioned by sean.hoyland for example on User talk:Jayron32. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That was my previous IP. It changes. I have no choice in the matter. My internet provider does that from time to time. But I'm using one account. Why am I being treated like a criminal? I came here to talk about a problem I had and I gave the links to back up what I said. Yet no one, except Amadscientist, will even say a word Andy's actions. The sole focus is on this IP for some reason. This is very sad, but I still have faith that a good admin will do the right thing. -- (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The 'right thing' being of course blocking trolls who think that the day of the week isn't relevant to Wikipedia articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
So you're also calling Crisco 1492 a troll and think he should be blocked?[52] -- (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec) "Other accounts" in this context would mean "any other previous account, IP or otherwise". If you knew about USPLACE violations for your first edit here (and the fact that that editor had been warned about it before), you are ahead of the learning curve. Doc talk 10:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet means using more than one account at the same time. I never said I didn't have a prior IP, I explained this above, my internet provider changes it, I have no choice. And I knew about USPLACE, as I already explained, from an administrator who had warned this one editor about it, and the admin had reverted a lot of the violations, so I started helping out and doing more, there were lots of them. Now, any words about Andy's actions, Doc? Or do you see what he's done as acceptable? -- (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy's "traceable" - he's got an account. That's how you can have a choice as to someone seeing your overall contributions. Not that you have to do that at all, but it does help sometimes when discerning an editor who hops IPs because they like the freedom of anonymity vs. those who hop around to avoid scrutiny because they are already blocked for one reason or another. Doc talk 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You still have yet to address Andy's actions. Your entire focus is on me, trying to make me look like a criminal. I asked if you think Andy's behavior is acceptable and for some reason you have ignored it, even though I've answered your irrelevant questions. And what does my history have to do with this situation? If you have evidence that I've done something wrong in this situation, please provide links so that everyone here can see them. -- (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy's a self-admitted grump. And he's been drinking tonight, so I've heard. What do you suggest we do with him to prevent damage here? Block him? Doc talk 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just on this specific point "An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted." Nothing wrong at all. Comment on the content (whether under the influence or not) not the (state of) editor. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week". No, I can't be bothered; but you'll see the results here (passim). -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That is an admission disclosed on the AN/I. It is a part of the discussion. It is the content here and the behavior being admitted to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Trolling by blocked ipsock of banned editor Mikemikev
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: Mathsci often sides with Andy in disputes. (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) ip trolling from Korea ==> Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: many editors often side with Andy in disputes because he is often right. GiantSnowman 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And note the sudden appearance of an IP who has never edited on Wikipedia before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: Mathsci's empty rhetoric could be applied to either party, but is being applied to one. "Making the issue controversial"? Takes two to do that. (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"Dramamongering", "trolling". Pretty serious accusations. (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And now we have Wikipedia's favourite pig-ignorant racist sockpuppet turn up. Oh joy. Mikemikev, go find a landmine to practice your pogo-stick on... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I am just trying to nip any partisan rhetoric in the bud to provide a fair discussion of the issue at hand. (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Really? Well a Happy Christmas and an unfortunate incident involving a chainsaw in the new year to you, Mike. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Christmas to you too. (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the day of the week is fluff and not necessary in the long run of things. This IP editor should be listened to with an open mind, not condemned for arguing with Andy. If he were registered and logged in Andy would have been blocked a long time ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. For pity's sake! I don't give a good goddamn how often Andy is allegedly "right." Do we, or do we not, have a policy forbidding personal attacks? From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in the original) Is this going to turn into another MMN situation, where an editor racks up dozens of blocks for civility violations over several years before people applied the same standards to him they demand from newbies? Ravenswing 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes we do It doesn't really matter if Andy is right or not.If he is right there are proper administrative channel that he should followed.Its not the first time that he breaking WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this sequence of events. While editing under the influence is not ideal, and calling someone a "fuckwit" is not something I would encourage, my judgement is that Andy's behaviour here falls short of the blockable. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been blocked if his target were not an IP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, Kim. You have just given Andy license to continue his personal attacks on editors. It's nice to hear that calling someone a fuckwit - on the incident noticeboard, no less - is "not something (you) would encourage". How bold of you. Not to mention his numerous other repeated insults and accusations. It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied. So often, our kids are told by adults that the bully's behavior "falls short" of warranting any consequences. So it continues until someone has the nerve to stand up and do the right thing. Thank god for people like Ravenswing, Amadscientist, and Crisco, who can cut through all the nonense and clearly see the obvious. Much of this discussion is a very sad commentary on what many people see as acceptable behavior. -- (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied." You just lost your last ounce of credibility with me. But, drama on... Doc talk 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that this has been open for about 4 hours now, and that no other admin has seen fir to enact a block, suggests that I'm not alone in my judgement. I have (I think) blocked Andy before and will do so again if I think it's necessary. Actually personally I would block for calling someone a fuckwit if it were entirely up to me. But time and again the consensus on these boards is that lone admins doing that get shot down by the community who call it an over-reaction by the civility police. So my judgement here is trying to reflect what I think the current consensus is, and not actually my own private view. I do however think that extending this thread much longer is unlikely to be fruitful. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the famous WP:BOOMERANG., please stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I've read all your comments in this thread. So what you're saying is that my comments are an attack, and Andy's are not? Got it. -- (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment in quotes above was a personal attack. As for the original objections to mentioning the day of the week, the article on September 11 attacks does so prominently in the lede. Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Again... so my comments are an attack but Andy's are not, right? Got it. And we're not here to discuss the content of an article; this is about an editor's behavior. -- (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 76, I'd suggest being careful here as that is (arguably) a PA. Not as bad as Andy's, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Doc, based on all of your comments above, it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that I had no credibility with you from the very beginning. So to pretend I did is quite disingenuous. And once again, although I answered all your questions - even though they had no relevance to this issue - you have yet to answer my one very relevant question: Do you see Andy's behavior as acceptable? You also have yet to provide any diffs which show I've done something wrong in this situation. Perhaps you'll respond to what Ravenswing said. -- (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Crisco, your comment is well taken. I'm simply saying that obviously inappropriate behavior like Andy's should be addressed accordingly, not defended or downplayed. In any case, your point is ironic. ;) -- (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kim, I appreciate your follow-up. However, I don't believe consensus can or should ever override clear policy or guidelines. I hope you will reconsider Ravenswing's thoughts on this matter. -- (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
How long do want Andy blocked for? A couple of days? A month? Longer? What would be justice for you? What are you seeking here, exactly? Doc talk 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Answer the question and provide the diffs you've been asked for several times, and then I'd be happy to discuss that. -- (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You opened this thread. What do you want to happen to Andy as a result of it? Doc talk 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
76 engaged in a protracted debate, in several venues, about whether the word "Elementary" belongs in the name of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Having been blocked for that disruption, and having learned nothing from it, he is now engaged in a potentially protracted debate about whether it should be mentioned that the Sandy Hook murders occurred on a Friday. For a user whose first visible footprint here is December 12th, he seems to know a lot about wikilawyering and making Everests out of anthills, while also repeatedly demonstrating "IDHT" mentality. He also admits to being an IP-hopper. It's no wonder Grumpy might think him a sock, as that's the type of behavior demonstrated by other banned users. P.S. The behaviorial connection to that other Grover-based IP is pretty "obvious", to coin a phrase. It's also interesting that the other IP stopped editing the day before the one here started. I'm just trying to recall which registered user(s) were on that same obsessive-about-small-things track, as checkusers won't do anything with IP's by themselves. Also wondering which other IP's he's edited under. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE discussion has gone on long enough

I'm going to lance this debate and drain it of the puss.

  • Andy, please don't use language like that. Even if they are an IP address that has way too much knowledge for the aparent editing history.
  • IP Address, you've gotten your pound of flesh by drawing attention to Andy's behavior. I suggest you leave the field NOW. Anything more becomes more disruptive than the suppositions and intemperate words that Andy used.
  • Board in general: We're supposed to drain drama, not inflame it.

I suggest this request for immediate action be closed down with prejudice. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just do away with WP:NPA policy and stop kidding ourselves. Andy is clearly in breach. Even a short 1 hour block is better than inaction. If admins can't be bothered enforcing policy for such a clear breach (and nobody above has indicated that he's not in breach), then we've no hope for this policy and it simply becomes a tool open to abuse by an admin when they personally get pissed off at an editor. Just my 2c. But if consensus today is that calling someone a fuckwit doesn't breach policy and merit a block, please lets recognize that and adjust the policy. That is the best way to save time and drama. Next time, we can simply point to policy and say "Calling someone a fuckwit isn't in breach". --HighKing (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That might be fair, as long as it's traded off with about a month for the IP. And if he switches IP's again, his behavior will tip us off, and then a rangeblock could be imposed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, inaction is the wrong choice when it comes to policy breaches that are brought here, given that there doesn't appear to be too many extraneous circumstances or mitigating factors. As for the IP being disruptive and back from a block - I'm sure the community would agree to a block there also. A slightly longer block than the last time would suffice. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The IP-hopper needs to be put on ice for an extended period of time. (Given the current weather conditions in the midwest, that might be redundant.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
One of those examples where incivility by an established editor is obscuring underlying issues. First of all Grumpy (hope you don't mind me calling you that) should not have called the IP a fuckwit, or a troll. Sorry but though the IP is likely trolling it rather obscures matters if you do as the false flag of incivility is raised. Editing whilst pissed wasn't the smartest of ideas, enjoy the hangover.
Secondly the IP has been blocked once already for disruptive editing. The editing pattern is disruptive, its not so obvious to anyone not directly involved but it is. Its wikilawyering and arguing over utter trivia, whilst continuing to demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. The thread here is a further example of disruptive behaviour, with a lot of time wasted on trivia. We don't seem to be able to deal with disruptive editors unless their editing falls into obvious categories of vandalism or incivility.
Proposed solution:
  • Slap grumpy with a huge WP:TROUT slap and beat over the head with a clue stick/
  • Block the IP for disruptive editing per WP:BOOMERANG. They're not contributing usefully to wikipedia and wasting a lot of energy.
Jobs a good 'un. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

inflammatory comments and potential canvassing


There is a new, and rather inflammatory comment on the talk page of White privilege. Because there has been a history of previous WP:CAN violations at this page, I am perhaps more sensitive to the language of this comment, but it appears to me to be threatening additional canvassing.

the comment is from an ip editor (User Talk:, and can be found here

--UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP has a somewhat frustrated tone and could arguably be described as inflammatory, but he's not being uncivil, making personal attacks, or otherwise breaking any rules in the process. I also don't even sense a hint of canvassing. Canvassing involves inviting people to a specific discussion that is taking place, in the hopes of influencing that discussion. He mentions an RfC, but for the life of me I can't find any RfC on the subject, and I don't think there is one. If there is no discussion, there can't be canvassing. I don't think there is any reason that this needs to be discussed at ANI. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What Scottywong said. Was just about to draft exactly the same reply and found I'd been beaten to it! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If i was being overly knee-jerky, then mea culpa. the page has just been through an edit war after a number of new editors with the same opinions seem to have discovered the page at the same time (this editor among them), and has noted has had an issue with canvassing, so the comment "as more and more editors slowly discover this article" was what i sort of siezed on. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The IP contribution doesn't bear the hallmarks of a collaborative and consensual editor, that's for sure! But this is AN/I and I don't think this is an incident - yet. certainly not one requiring any admin action such as a block or page protection. Let us know if it develops any further. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
UseTheCommandLine is describing the same thing I am - the more new editors stumble across this article, the more find it objectionable as time goes on - only he is descri