[edit] Current requests for protection

Place requests for either semi-protection, full protection, move protection, or create protection at the TOP of this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

[edit] Kosta Koufos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

semi-protect. Frequent IP vandalism over the last couple of days. Bender235 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 10 (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Requesting protection for Big Brother 10 (U.S.), the season has been confirmed by CBS and has useful information, however anon IP addresses tend to vandalize or post rumors about the upcoming season. If possible can the page be semi-protected until premiere night (July 13, 2008)..♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Temporary semi-protection. Constant vandalising by IP adresses. Some examples of persistant vandalising include filling out "call out order" table when the series is not finished, changing cycle statistics and and makeovers to obviously incorrect answers. Lady Raven. 05:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solkope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Protection This article as well as other DoM related articles have been persistanly vandalized by DoM meatpuppets. The Arbitration Committee has ruled "Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision] I am asking for the article to be protected given the repetitive similar edits and POV pushing as previous Johnski meatpuppets. Davidpdx (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Semi-protection will achieve nothing, as the other editor in question is autoconfirmed. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked for 3RR. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:66.229.101.36 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-protect Two-week blocked IP editing the location header to misdirect actual location of IP address and vandalizing their talk page. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current requests for unprotection

Shortcuts: WP:RFUP WP:RFPU WP:RUP

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.

If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is also not the place to dispute a protection.

Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

[edit] Template:Spam-warn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

unprotection , No edits since March .Mww113 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

unprotection , Was semi/protected 18 months ago because of a sockpuppet. Unprotection is long overdue..-Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected PeterSymonds (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Diplomacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page was victim of an edit war, but in the Talk page the parties have come to an agreeable solution, so the page can be unprotected.

Unprotected PeterSymonds (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

When making requests here, either:

• Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
• Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.

Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

[edit] Fulfilled/denied requests

[edit] The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Move protection An editor has twice moved the article and talk page to a dab suffix contrary to the relevant naming conventions. The second move was as a precursor to posting an move request from the new, wrong, name to overwrite the non-suffixed set index article.

The article has been moved back, but as an involved editor I'm leery of locking it myself until the discussion runs its course. - J Greb (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Move protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. Please bring to talk page and/or WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Full protection IP vandalism. Also no clear indication on whether to use the Bush name or Hager name Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. There is some confusion about the version being reverted to. While it does change some Bush vs. Hager usage, it also inserts some sneaky vandalism about Mrs. Bush/Hager's sex appeal and abortion and other crap. 'Tis a misunderstanding and protection is not needed. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:AGK/Userpage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

unprotection , unprotection not needed, just want to change link ([http://www.wikihow.com/Say-Hello-in-Different-Languages Hello!) to (Hello!).– TWG 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined, ask AGK. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi protect anon vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After two weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Globalization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

temporary semi protection Too many ip's keep vandalizing the page adding nonesense words. Please protect for couple of weeks. Buddha24 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After two weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zanjan University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

temporary full protection Vandalism, some ip's permanently adds some nonesense words to the name university president .Mardetanha ^talk 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

or semi-protect--Mardetanha ^talk 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Metros (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuditta Tavani Arquati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

full protection Dispute.Mardetanha ^talk 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined No dispute at all. Do you have the right article? Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks i made mistake--Mardetanha ^talk 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:VigilancePrime (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

Please unprotect this user's talk page - He has emailed me, and, checking the protection log, I see that the page was protected because the protecting admin felt there was no reason why this page needs to be open to edits. I don't see a history of abusive use of the page and the reason for protection doesn't make sense to me. If the only pages open to editing were those with a reason to be open to edits, then protection is the default. --SSBohio 14:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why you want the page unprotected? Also, did El_C e-mail you, or was it VigilancePrime? · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the ambiguity, Andonic. VigilancePrime emailed me. I just want the talk page unprotected. If ArbCom wants to maintain this (marginal) block, so be it, but pages should (in general) be unprotected absent good reason to protect them, not the other way around. --SSBohio 23:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined - VigilancePrime asked for an unblock on his alternate account, however it's a refer all questions to arbcom situation.[1] PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't concern his block. Has ArbCom ordered the page protected? Pages should (in general) be unprotected absent good reason to protect them, not the other way around. --SSBohio 23:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:125.236.190.103 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

semi-protection User talk of blocked user, trolling.The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 19 hours. After 19 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. Protection to correspond with the unblock. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MI5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, keeps getting total nonsense added to it..ninety:one 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:67.159.41.85 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, trolling.The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After two weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Full Protection - Unfaithful edits and not listening to vote to stop merger of IFO and UFO. Also now person making request to merge is now expanded efforts to revamp the entire page. I have attempted to make sure all viewpoints are listed but when subject began revamping UFO article that was the last straw for me.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined consider dispute resolution instead. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Happy Tree Friends characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-protect - About 15 disruptive edits this week. Is it high enough to lock? Ultra! 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then how high should it have been? Ultra! 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no minimum as such, but protection is only limited to pages which receive so much vandalism that it becomes uncontrollable. 14 edits in a week isn't huge disruption, and the vandalism is being reverted quickly. If it becomes worse, feel free to relist. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revelations (Battlestar Galactica) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-protect - IPs keep wanting to insert original research about the planet the cast found not being Earth. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected.

[edit] Iron Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi protect to cool off vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Varosha: A city in Northern Cyprus should NOT be protected

Varosha_(Famagusta) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

3 revert rule noticeboard

Shortcuts: WP:AN3 WP:3RRN WP:AN3RR Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic. Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages. Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly. If you have not used this page before, please read the detailed explanation section. Skip to violations • example report format • (purge cache) Instructions This page is for any user to report apparent violations of the three-revert rule in current or recent editing disputes. Please feel free to leave a message or report a violation. Do not submit reports of anything other than edit warring here. If you find yourself in a revert war, you should ensure that the "other side" is aware of the three-revert rule, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about the rule on their talk page, for example using the template {{subst:uw-3rr|Article}}. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page: [[WP:AN/3RR]]. Consider the arguments of the "other side": perhaps you can provide an edit that satisfies both sides. Consider also trying Wikipedia:Dispute resolution without asking that your "opponent" be blocked for 3RR violation. To report a violation: Make a copy of the example template at the bottom of the article, append that copy to the bottom of the violations section, and fill out that copy. Please do not edit the original. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. The page archivers really need the time information. Administrators: Once you have dealt with a report please make a note so that other administrators don't waste time responding to it. You can use {{AN3}} to assist in doing so. Click "show" for a detailed explanation of the 3RR rule 3RR rule Main article: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule The 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24-hour period (not calendar day); it does not include self-reverts, reverts to deal with simple vandalism, or removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people. Other exceptions are described at WP:3RR. Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three-revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary. A user who has not violated the 3RR may still be blocked; administrator discretion is the most decisive factor. Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block. What the three-revert rule does not cover Please report simple vandalism to WP:AIV. Likewise, disputes over page content or complaints about abusive editors should be taken to the respective dispute resolution procedure. What this page is not for As stated above, this page is not for simple vandalism, behavioral conduct investigation, or debates. Please just fill out the report template, including a short (no more than 3 sentences) comment giving crucial details if necessary. If you have been reported, you may respond with an equally short statement; administrators will review all evidence before taking action, so please do not debate on this page. See also See also: Blocking policy · Controversial blocks · Block user · List of blocked IP addresses and usernames · Block log · List of protected pages · Protection log You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Administrator instructions </noinclude>

Contents 1 Admin Actions 2 Admin Logs 3 Other Logs 4 RFA Tracker 5 Tracker 6 AIV 7 Alerts 7.1 Bot-reported 7.2 User-reported 8 Recent Changes 9 Noticeboards 9.1 WP:RFPP 10 Current requests for protection 10.1 Kosta Koufos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 10.2 Big Brother 10 (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 10.3 Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 10.4 Solkope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 10.5 User talk:66.229.101.36 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) 11 Current requests for unprotection 11.1 Template:Spam-warn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 11.2 Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 11.3 Internet Diplomacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 12 Current requests for significant edits to a protected page 13 Fulfilled/denied requests 13.1 The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.2 Jenna Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.3 User:AGK/Userpage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.4 Visor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.5 Globalization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.6 Zanjan University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.7 Giuditta Tavani Arquati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.8 User talk:VigilancePrime (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) 13.9 User talk:125.236.190.103 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) 13.10 MI5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.11 User talk:67.159.41.85 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) 13.12 UFO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.13 List of Happy Tree Friends characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.14 Revelations (Battlestar Galactica) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 13.15 Iron Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 14 Varosha: A city in Northern Cyprus should NOT be protected 14.1 WP:AN/3RR 15 Violations 15.1 User: 124.124.0.1 reported by User:Rockybiggs (Result: 24-timmars blockering ) 15.2 User: Thaddius reported by User: Thaddius (Result: Already protected) 15.3 User:60.42.252.205 reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours) 15.4 User:Chaldean and User:WestAssyrian reported by User:The_TriZ (Result: Stale. ) 15.5 User:Lyonscc reported by User:Adminster (Result: Protected) 15.6 User:Dematt reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: Already protected) 15.7 User:InaMaka reported by User:Catuskoti (Result: 24 hour block ) 15.8 User:THAMARIH reported by User:MARussellPESE (Result: Already blocked one month) 15.9 User:69.229.0.162 reported by Ndenison (talk) (Result: Declined) 15.10 User:157.228.x.x reported by User:BalkanFever (Result: 24h ) 15.11 User:LedAstray reported by User:Sigma 7 (Result: Blocked 24 hours) 15.12 User:LedAstray reported by NeilN talk ♦ contribs (Result: Already blocked) 15.13 User:Lakinekaki reported by User:Dyanega (Result: 24 hour block ) 15.14 User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Aheadnovel55 (Result: Editor warned) 15.15 User:Yobkcis reported by User:Scarpy (Result: 24 hours - Ndphil21 also blocked) 15.16 User:69.124.40.76 & User:Hu02138 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: blocked ) 15.17 User:kestasjk reported by User:Lawine (Result: Declined) 15.17.1 Response 15.17.2 Response 15.17.3 Response 15.18 User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: 24 hours for reported user and reporting IP) 15.19 User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours - please see report above) 15.20 User:William Saturn reported by User:Wiendietry (Result: Stale. ) 15.21 User:Arzel reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24 hours ) 15.22 User:William Saturn reported by User:Wiendietry (Result:) 15.23 Example 15.24 See also 15.24.1 WP:UFAA 15.24.2 Bot-reported 15.24.3 User-reported 15.24.4 WP:ANI 15.25 User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags 15.26 Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil 15.27 MartinPhi restricted 15.28 Request a block review 15.29 User:Alastair Haines - edit warring and incivility 15.30 Strange goings-on 15.31 Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary? 15.32 User:Arcayne 15.33 Malcolm (talk · contribs) freaky act 15.34 For review: indefinite block of User:Jagz 15.35 Edit warring (repeated blanking of sourced text) by User:Caspian blue at Seolleongtang 15.35.1 Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s disruptive original research campaign 15.35.2 Lets start this over again 15.36 User:Thamarih evading block with new account: User:Sunchief 15.37 Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination) AfD 15.38 User:USEDfan 15.39 BLOCKME 15.40 List of pop punk bands 15.41 Anontalk spammer 15.42 Being told to die in the subject on my talk page. 15.43 8bitJake disrupting article, and in edit war with Tallicfan20 15.43.1 Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew (mistitled) 15.43.2 Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake 15.44 Wu Language Copyright Problems 15.45 Bad vandalism to WP:SEMI 15.46 Thirusivaperur 15.47 Wordhawk 15.48 Disruption at Zakir Naik 15.49 Need more eyes on Scotland 15.50 Mass moves/redirects of RC diocese articles 15.51 something extraordinary 15.52 Can sockpuppeter file a SSP file during his block? Block review also needed 15.53 user:Nick326 user:92.0.29.148 15.54 Death Magnetic 15.55 202.27.219.186 15.56 Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) 15.57 Dr.enh (talk · contribs) 15.58 Unresolved incident 15.58.1 Details 15.58.2 Possibly unable to resolve 15.58.3 Timeline 15.58.4 What exactly is an "unwarranted content template" 15.59 Consensus needed - ANI subpages 15.60 User:Samuel Pepys and fixing broken refs in sandboxes 15.61 External link 15.62 User:Lolla lola creating multiple contentious and unverifiable articles 15.63 Terrorism threat 15.64 User:69.19.14.18 15.64.1 WP:ANB 15.65 Featured picture cited as original research? 15.66 I DEMAND A CHECKUSER 15.67 Is this image regarded as child pornography in the U.S.? 15.68 page move vandalism statistics 15.69 Beiswenger and snake oil 15.70 Strangeness at Speedy deletion 15.71 Request for withdrawal of community sanction 15.72 Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute) 15.73 Un-delete 15.74 Revert page move 15.75 Alistair Cooke's page vandalized -- appears to be generated not in page code but by wiki itself. 15.76 Good News 15.77 User:WBOSITG 15.78 Notifying histmerge requests 15.79 A spam-only user? (User:GRatHVTC) 15.80 Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator 15.81 WP:RD. 15.82 Having some issues viewing Wikipedia 15.83 User talk:Admirał Bum 15.83.1 Clarification 15.84 Possible subtle vandalism campaign from 125.161.x.x 15.85 ACC backlogged 15.86 Warren G Harding 15.87 Two seconds of your time... 15.88 Sneaky attempt at policy-making by ArbCom 15.89 Community ban of Bsharvy 15.90 Consensus needed - ANI subpages 15.91 User talk:Kaizer13 15.91.1 WP:AE 15.92 Are you sure this is the page you are looking for? 15.93 Enforcement 15.94 Using this page 16 Edit this section for new requests 16.1 Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎ 17 Resolved 17.1 Jaakobou soliciting random editors off-wiki 17.1.1 Pedrito's interest in Jaakobu 17.2 Lapsed Pacifist 17.3 8bitJake and Democratic leadership council

[edit] Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

[edit] User: 124.124.0.1 reported by User:Rockybiggs (Result: 24-timmars blockering )

• Three-revert rule violation on Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 124.124.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• 1st revert: [2] 09/06/2008 06:22
• 2ND Revert [3] 10/06/2008 10:32
• 3RD Revert [4] 11/06/2008 05:27
• 4th Revert [5] 12/06/2008 05:07
• 5th Revert [6] 12/06/2008 09:09
• 6th Revert [7] 12/06/2008 10:54

Please note this user is aware of 3RR rule and is engaged in an edit war, it is also suspected this is in fact the banned user User talk:DemolitionMan --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blockerat denna användare i 24 timmar. Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

[edit] User: Thaddius reported by User: Thaddius (Result: Already protected)

Silent Hill. I've reverted a few too many times and I admit it was a mistake. Maybe a temporary edit ban might give me an excuse to cool off. --Thaddius (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. by Metros. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:60.42.252.205 reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:56, 12 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:03, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:28, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:29, 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 18:58, 12 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:51, 12 June 2008

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chaldean and User:WestAssyrian reported by User:The_TriZ (Result: Stale. )

• Three-revert rule violation on Syriac Orthodox Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chaldean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): WestAssyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:05 7 June 2008

• 1st revert: 01:05, 7 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 22:21 9 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:46 10 June 2008
• 4th revert: 15:57 12 June 2008

[8] First, none of them has been "breakin" the rule, since its not 24 hours between it, but then, the purpose of the rule is to avoid whats just happened here. I changed Syriac people to Aramean-Syriac people, since it redirects to that page, in the "See Also"-section, and then User:Chaldean for some reason reverted it (not the first time, [9]). And when Chaldean reverted it three times (not within 24 hours), User:WestAssyrian shows up and revert it again. And now the thing is, Chaldean reported me a couple of weeks ago when I broke the rule, again he reverted it three times himself, and then WestAssyrian reverted it when he had reverted it three times, "trapping" me to break the 3RR rule. See [10]. Again, technically they haven't broke the rule, but again, they are cooperating with eachother so that they can get around the rule. The TriZ (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - Stale. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there are not enough reverts in any 24-hour period, even if you go back to May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what can I do against them? They are two, they have six reverts, i've only got three before I break the rule. And they are obviously wrong, right? Why have a redirect and not a directlink? It's purely cause they don't like the directlinks name (Aramean-Syriac). The TriZ (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time know what the 3RR means. The page you are refering to is inaccuratly titled right now. And the Syriac Orthodox Church has not offically changed its name to the Syriac Aramean Orthodox Church yet, so for you to push your agenda is legit enough for me to check it. Chaldean (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no one is interested in your lies. The facts are, the pages name is Aramean-Syriac people, and not Syriac people which is a redirect to the Aramean-Syriac people page. And I know what 3RR means, and I've explained it. The TriZ (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lyonscc reported by User:Adminster (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on Emerging church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lyonscc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

Please note also that Lyonscc is using an obvious WP:Sockpuppet, User:Thunderbolt2002, which has made no substantive edits, but has only taken sides in Lyonscc's frequent edit wars. Adminster (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that revisions must be non-consecutive. Anyway, I'm going to protect the article because you were both revert-warring. Further, your tenor in this dispute is less than ideal. "Frequent edit wars"? I don't see that many instances of the use of Thunderbolt to circumvent 3RR violations (although I have blocked the account). You also shouted WP:OWN for what seems to be absolutely no reason, and made a sweeping accusation ("I notice you consisten[t]ly delete anything you disagree with") based on what appears to be little to no evidence. (Let me also add that your interpretation of WP:NPOV is off the mark.) Ultimately, you're creating a tempest in a teapot, trying to get Lyonscc blocked for no reason. No, sorry. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Pertinent information from user talk pages for future reference:)

I will be reverting your changes tomorrow - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting your changes immediately upon the expiration of the lock (which was certainly the coward's way of approaching disagreement) - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things -

1. Thunderbolt2002 is a friend of mine from work who I've asked to help me mediate a couple of times in the past. I called him before leaving from work today. My understanding is that he rarely logs in, though we do have some common interests.

2. Adminster has refused to discuss changes before making them, even after a reasonable request to do so. Some of the information he's trying to add is unsupported speculation from a blog source (spurgeon.org), and the image, itself, has copyright issues - the border is copyrighted by one individual, but the internal image is not his to copyright. Additionally, the image itself is a parody and violates WP:NPOV. While I'm willing to get a third opinion/arbitrate the issue if Adminster will discuss it, the changes don't belong on the main page until consensus is reached.

3. OK-one more: If you're going to block editing the page, can you return it to its form as of June 10 before the edit-warring occurred, as the current version has multiple issues requiring discussion, as noted above??--Lyonscc (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Adminster (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dematt reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: Already protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on Chiropractic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dematt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:28, 27 May 2008

• 1st revert: 03:44, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:38, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:27, 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 21:26, 12 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 12 June 2008

• Please note: The block of WHO quotes were previously removed but Dematt readded them four times in under 24 hours. I see four clear reverts by User:Dematt. QuackGuru 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. by Kingturtle. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:InaMaka reported by User:Catuskoti (Result: 24 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on Kathleen_Sebelius#Abortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:27, 11 June 2008

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [22]

Result - InaMaka blocked for 24 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:THAMARIH reported by User:MARussellPESE (Result: Already blocked one month)

• Three-revert rule violation on Ayahuasca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Thamarih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

Already blocked. Just as a note, those diffs are over three days or so, which means this doesn't qualify as 3RR. The block was for the editor's behavior in general. --jonny-mt 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.229.0.162 reported by Ndenison (talk) (Result: Declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flagship university (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.229.0.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 03:49, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
2. 21:40, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
3. 04:59, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")

• Diff of warning: [User_talk:69.229.0.162 here]

—Ndenison (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined. No single editor has reverted more than three times in 24 hours. All the IP editors are behaving poorly, since they never participate on the article Talk and don't respond to comments left on their own Talk. The edit war will be ending soon if the prod goes through. Protection's not advisable because there is an active prod, and an AfD may be necessary if it is contested. EdJohnston (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:157.228.x.x reported by User:BalkanFever (Result: 24h )

• Three-revert rule violation on Mojot Svet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 157.228.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:14, 30 May 2008

• 1st revert: 11:31, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:19, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:28, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: 17:00, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:48, 13 June 2008

This user is edit-warring in a number of articles related to the Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. He continually inserts redundant information in the introduction and either does not use an edit summary or simply says "do not remove sourced material", refusing to listen to any other points. Using sources is no excuse for breaking 3RR. BalkanFever 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

24h. yandman 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LedAstray reported by User:Sigma 7 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Dell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). LedAstray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:07, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: 09:07, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:36, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:41, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: 11:43, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:38, 13 June 2008

Blocked. for 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LedAstray reported by NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} (Result: Already blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). LedAstray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 04:01, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 15:07, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 19:48, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 23:03, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 15:26, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 15:40, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
7. 15:42, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
8. 15:44, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

• Diff of warning: here

—NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. for 24 hours per violation above. --Selket ^Talk 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lakinekaki reported by User:Dyanega (Result: 24 hour block )

I cannot give the specific revert that violated the 3RR rule, because there was no fourth revert; however, this editor has smugly stated that they will continue making the same revert (e.g. here) "forever" but keep it to 3 reverts every 24 hours. They have explicitly admitted here that they intend to violate the intent of 3RR without technically violating the policy. Not only that, but encouraging other editors to join in the reverts - "FYA, I will continue changing the introductory forever, being careful I don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours. I invite other editors with common sense to join me in this."

Surely, that sort of admission of malicious intent merits some sort of administrative response? Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Aheadnovel55 (Result: Editor warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on Generalplan Ost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 12 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:40, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:44, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:07 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 07:12, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:52, 13 June 2008

The user deletes massive chunks of sourced information refuses to have any direct dialog, and writes gibberish in the edit boxAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Warning came ten hours after last revert. --Selket ^Talk 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yobkcis reported by User:Scarpy (Result: 24 hours - Ndphil21 also blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on Narcotics Anonymous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yobkcis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:09, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 13:47, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:30, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:04, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:19, 13 June 2008
• 5th revert: Revision as of 20:04, 13 June 2008
• 6th revert: Revision as of 20:29, 13 June 2008
• 7th revert: Revision as of 21:00, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 19:29, 13 June 2008

Decision: I have blocked Yobkcis for 24 hours. I have also blocked User:Ndphil21 who reverted many times during the edit war. This edit summary seems to make it pretty clear that he understands the relevant policies and that he actually considered himself to be edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.124.40.76 & User:Hu02138 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on John Degnan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hu02138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 69.124.40.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:07, 12 June 2008

A similar IP was previously blocked for 3RR/edit warring on this article. This IP appears to have used his/her three reverts, then purposely created an account to get around 3RR. Both are User:Hu02138 and 69.124.40.76 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) have violated 3RR and are self-admitted WP:SPAs.

• 1st revert: 23:55, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:01, 14 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:15, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 00:21, 14 June 2008
• 5th revert: 00:24, 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:06, 14 June 2008
• 2nd warning: 00:25, 14 June 2008

Decision: The account made identical edits to the IP, so it seems that it is the same individual. I have blocked both for 24 hours. Also the IP address does share the same location with the previously blocked IP address (Hicksville, NY). TigerShark (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:kestasjk reported by User:Lawine (Result: Declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on Internet Diplomacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). kestasjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 7:00, 13 June 2008

Although a 3rd opinion was asked to ensure neutrality, User:kestasjk keeps reverting the article to his point of view. User:kestasjk is the webmaster of phpdiplomacy, so his point of view is obviously biased.

• 1st revert: 17:19 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:36 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:31 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 09:02 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:10 14 June 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawine (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined. The above version links (which are not diffs) and close scrutiny of the article's edit history do not substantiate a claim that user Kestasjk violated the three-revert rule policy. — Athaenara ✉ 17:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: as of 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC) the page is semi-protected against anonymous editing for two weeks. — Athaenara ✉ 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've responded to this on the Talk:Internet_Diplomacy page. I actually removed as much bias as possible, but IP edits from one source have been removing cited facts, adding opinion, deleting sections added by others which favor other sites (not just mine; even edits from others which reflect badly on his site are removed by this one IP).

Lawine has only contributed edits relating to this one page, and only seems to care about reversions of vandalism against my site.. Since the last reversion posted here more vandalism has occurred, which Lawine is protecting against reversion. Rather than any of the versions which were posted above, the latest version with further edits from the IP user is protected.

Kestasjk (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

As it is now: Started in December 2007, PLAYdiplomacy.com is the newest version of online Diplomacy. PLAYdiplomacy.com is based on the open-source phpDiplomacy, but offers a point-and-click interface for order submission, and hosts a range of variants for more experienced players.

How Kestasjk (talk) would like to see it: Started in December 2007, based on phpDiplomacy, PLAYdiplomacy.com is another such site.

Don't tell me that this is unbiased information. You just need to get the name of your website in there first, while the current article also says it's based on phpDiplomacy, but makes it less urgent.

I tried to talk to Kestasjk (talk) about this on his userpage, but he keeps removing comments from all Wikipedia users from his Talk page.

Lawine (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

That's not true; I actually removed "another such site" and replaced it with the existing feature list because I thought it was trying to sound bad: I really am trying to make everything as unbiased as possible. But then someone came and reverted it, and kept on removing the image that went with my site along with its feature list. If you're trying to "balance out" perceived bias with vandalism I don't think you're going to get far.

Also you just edited my user:talk page stating "Kestasjk is biased. He is the admin of phpdiplomacy.net and should not be doing this. This is bad for Wikipedia. Etc". When I removed that it was quickly re-added. That doesn't really count as "talking"

And you mention that it's the "newest version"; it's not, Strategery is just one example of a newer web-diplomacy site I can think of. You mention that I try to move mine to the top, but if you look you'll notice that they're all in chronological order. This puts my site below many others, and this is how it has always been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kestasjk (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally I noticed that the above comment was added by 84.193.140.205; the IP which has been doing all of the vandalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.193.140.205). Does this mean Lawine logs off to perform the vandalism, then logs back on to complain with a user account when I revert it? Or is 84.193.140.205 pretending to be Lawine above?

Kestasjk (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• 84.193.140.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Lawine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Added Userlinks.) — Athaenara ✉ 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: 24 hours for reported user and reporting IP)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blueshirts and other contributors are all reverting to his previous version of: 19:27, 12 June 2008
• As of this date, I have developed the article to this version and placed in use tag: 14:46, 14 June 2008

Its difficult to continue productive work while dealing with all this stuff.

Please bear in mind that my very first edit was on 16:41, 12 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.252.111 (talk)

• 1st revert: 18:20, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:25, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:24, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 09:50, 14 June 2008
• 5th revert: 10:08, 14 June 2008
• 6th revert: 10:10, 14 June 2008
• 7th revert: 10:19, 14 June 2008
• 8th revert: 10:38, 14 June 2008

Identical WP:3RR eversion to own his version

Additional identical revision without discussion

Identical revision by forth contributor Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• 9th revert:18:51, 12 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• 10th revert: 17:08, 12 June 2008

Continued gaming by unblocked second user Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• 17:03, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• 11th revert: 14:15, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by third contributor Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), (see Youtube contribution [29])

• 12th revert: 14:29, 14 June 2008
• 13th revert: 16:40, 14 June 2008

'Note, no engagement in discussion on talk page again.

Diff of 3RR warning:

• 1st 14 June 2008
• 2nd 10:01, 14 June 2008
• 3rd 14 June 2008 ,
• 4th 10:17, 14 June 2008

• Note of pattern of similar revisions on other Japanese war crime topics ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blueshirts

Response The accuser is the same user as User:60.42.252.205, who was banned previously. While I recognize that the user has removed blog/youtube/dead links, the user has also removed chunks of sourced information and has also rewritten statements that already have citations, some of them book citations, to suit his own pov. As I have said on the article's talk page, I have no problem with the user copyediting the article, but blatant removal and misrepresentation of sourced information is vandalism and that is why I'm reverting to the previous version. Blueshirts (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Right after the NTT Plala anon got off from his/her block, he/sh commitited the same thing on the same article regardless of several warnings and the previous lesson. My one time revert of the anon's was identical to several people including an admin, blueshirts, and two more others. However, the NTT Plala anon digs his own grave again because this report is nothing but a clear evidence on his blatant disregard as to our 3RR policy again. Admins, please look at the below file on his violation on 11RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion means reversion. If one looks at the edits, it is clear that I continue to develop the article removing deadlnks, blogspots, Youtubes etc. Both users reverting to that same version. Thank you --60.42.252.111 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion means reversion, not necessarily to be identical at each time. (more than 5 reversion are identical though). Besides, why are you dragging me into your revert-wars or vandalism activities? I restored your blanking campaign one time and put up with your insult at my talk page (you also violated 3RR there) Sadly, more than 2 editors are against your massive deleting compaign with no consensus. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, this looks like a POV-based move by anon IP 60.42.252.xxx to remove material and references that make the abuse of comfort women look more like voluntary activity. It's not vandalism, but it is taking sentences supported by reference and rewriting them to give them new meaning unsupported by the reference. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been very clear in my summaries (please check them), and on talk and discussion pages and added citations supporting the atrocities. I am not denying any facts nor reducing the debate to a simple polemic.

'I have also pointed out to the chief antagonist that I am not Japanese despite any attempts to target me as such, e.g. see above and [30].--60.42.252.111 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NTT Plala is a Japanese ISP located in Japan that you're currently using. Japanese Plala IP user is not equal to Japanese user. I already said you that I don't think you're Japanese. However, that is a simple fact that you're Japanese ISP's anon. Besides, whoever objects to your massive deletions, you label the people as pro-Korea, Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Chinese, which is all contradiction to your resentment on my edit summary. Regardless, you now violate 11RR. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never mentioned Chinese, Hong Kong etc ... please show diffs if you can. I understand from your talk page you are Korean or Korean American, Caspian blue clearly advertises they are Taiwanese. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You label whoever object to your massive deletion without consensus, as "Pro-whatever-country" I do not know what ethinicity others have, but you're distorting my comment and you're the one keeping advertising editor's nationality or ethnicity here and there. Nevertheless, the record of your 11RR violation does not go away. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, the anonymous user who uses Japanese ISP makes this fake report as implying that the four editors are not only vandals but also socks because we think that his disruptive blanking is not from consensus at the talk page? I guess the anon should be blocked more than 48 hours.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see note on talk page. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting and block evasion are the best way of expressing your point of view? You're blocked for 24 hours second time, you can't leave any comment during your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See link to user talk page [31]. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Reported user and reporting IP both blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours - please see report above)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-12T19:27:09

• 1st 2008-06-14T07:39:31 see notes on discussion page Talk:Comfort_women removed info of about 13,00 bytes amount / no discussion /following clubot identified as vandalsim[32]
• 2nd 2008-06-14T07:43:21fix cluebot
• 3st 2008-06-14T09:23:40 note:29 intermediate revisions POV pushing and removing cited Japanese crimes
• 4th 2008-06-14T09:25:06 rv Youtube links
• 5th 2008-06-14T09:29:08 (Undid revision 219252796 by Blueshirts (talk))
• 6th 2008-06-14T10:08:47 Undid identical revert following 2nd WP:3RR placed on (talk) page
• 7th 2008-06-14T10:18:52
• 8th 2008-06-14T10:38:01
• 9th 2008-06-14T13:37:15
• 10th 2008-06-14T14:23:31
• 11th 2008-06-14T14:46:15
• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-14T10:18:3

The NTT Plala ISP anon who resides in Japan is identical to 60.42.252.205 (talk • contribs • logs) who was previously blocked for 24 hours for his 5RR violation and POV pushing on the same article. It is so irony that the 8RR violator filed the above bad-faith report on other and he/she claims other editor's 3RR violation. This edit summary tells the anon's attitude well

Blueshirt only restored the properly sourced material and the report misleads that the anon's massive deletion of cited contetns from consensus or proper discussion. Nope. At my first glance, the anon who resides in Japan does not listen to other's opinion, and commits (near-)vandalsim on the article. We don't know who the person is with a self-claim that he has no prejuidice but his edits just prove contradictions. If you look at the talk page, you will find the opposite facts from the anon's claim. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum, now the Japanese ISP anon violated 11RR in a row. I guess WP:RFCU is necessary on this case to prevent further disruptions by the anon. If h/she dits under his static account, the anon could possibly violate 11RR within 7 hours? I guess not. The anon is very knowledgeable of Wikirules, so I guess s/he is not a new user.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that is 12 IDENTICAL reverts on your side while I continue to work on developing the topic and have placed extensive discussion on the talk page; see 15:07, 14 June 2008. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. Also please see the previous report, above. TigerShark (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Saturn reported by User:Wiendietry (Result: Stale. )

• Three-revert rule violation on Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [38]

I see only one or two reverts in the past 24 hours. Those diffs date back from as far as the 9th of June, ergo, stale. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arzel reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on Steve Doocy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:09, 14 June 2008

• 1st revert: 14:03, 14 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:40, 14 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:07, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 01:32, 15 June 2008

Result - User made more than 4 reverts in 24 hours, ergo, violating WP:3RR. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Saturn reported by User:Wiendietry (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]
• 5th revert: [44]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

Reverted the article again after being warned.

[edit] Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

[edit] See also

• Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
• 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

[edit] Bot-reported

• Sexybumcheek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• Matches the regular expression called AssFoo. The portion that matched was bumcheek. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Pisswipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)

• This user has edited at least one time.
• Matches the literal pattern piss.

• This report was delayed until the user edited.
• The string piss is prone to false positives, please take extra care ensuring this name is actually a violation before blocking. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User-reported

• Dongabby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock) — Violation of username policy because it's a disruptive username; Slang term reference.. — _Maggot^Syn 14:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yesseepublishingteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Dave1185 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait until the user edits. Rudget (logs) 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Osama McDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock) - I think it's an attack combining Osama bin Laden with McDonald's Spare Wheel (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a blatant violation. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

[edit] Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

[edit] MartinPhi restricted

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi.' D.M.N. (talk)

[edit] Request a block review

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Kelly block review. D.M.N. (talk)

Marked as resolved. See User talk:Kylu#Olive branch. Other specific or general or secondary aspects can be resolved elsewhere. Adding date stamp to allow archiving. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alastair Haines - edit warring and incivility

On the article Gender of God, user Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · logs) is disruptively editing the lead text [46] and introducing grammatical clumsiness and discord with the title (and therefore implied subject) of the article. Specifically: He is changing "God is a central figure of many religions" to " God or gods are a central feature of many religions", ignoring the fact that the article is specific to God. While I believe he has good intentions, I also believe he has shown enormous stubbornness and refusal to entertain alternate views, and that this is harming the article. Rather than discuss the matter with me, he persistently accuses me of trolling [47], or simply reverts my edits without comment [48][49].

Additionally, the editor is using the talk page as a forum [50]. Since the content in question - part of a personal conversation with another editor - is so long and so clearly unrelated to improving the article, I removed it and urged Alastair to take the conversation to the user's talk page [51]. He immediately reverted this, and shortly started a WQA against me [52], which ended with another editor agreeing that the material is in violation of WP:TALK [53]. Despite this, Alastair has continued to revert its removal [54], insisting that he will do so until he is convinced of his being wrong and until somebody asks him politely to remove it [55]. Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there are two issues:

• Gender of God edits, which seem to be in good faith and probably legitimate.
• Talk page discussion which should be moved to user talk per WQA. I will leave a message on the talk page to this effect.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good summary Toddst1.

Two comments.

1. Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits. Ilkali is the most assertive editor I've ever encountered in two years at Wiki. It was his persistence in reverting stable text, and refusal to accept criticism of his arguments that lead to me raising a WQA for the first time in two years. He has stopped both now, so I'm satisfied.
2. Regarding the talk page discussion, I disagree with moving it, until the edit history and talk page archives of the article are restored from God and gender, and hence the matter can be considered properly. Specifically, discussion of "transcendence" and "imminence" are relevant to God and gender in Christian theology, not simply to Andowney and myself. Discussion of a feminine Holy Spirit is extremely marginal in reliable sources regarding Christian theology, however, at this page it has been the focus of both nearly all article volatility and talk page discussion for two years. Since it often ends up being me and all reliable sources against a random number of editors seeking higher prominence for a feminine Holy Spirit, I claim any text I provide on the subject is important to documenting issues and addressing concerns critical to the reliability of the page. If you wish to pursue the matter, by all means involve as many people as you like and, when you're ready, present both a rationale and a proposal at my talk page, and I will consider it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find a talk page comment that purports to help people to find "a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love" to be not only completely irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia based on the principles of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR; but also somewhat personally offensive and irritating.

I have no comment about the content dispute, but the talk page comment has got to stay gone. It is not helpful in the slightest. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits". Where are the diffs? Where is the evidence?

You are stubbornly insisting on a version of the article that is blatantly at odds with its title. Your claim is that "This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions". No it isn't. It is about the gender of God. That's why it's called 'Gender of God'. Entities that are not God are patently irrelevant. If you want the article to be about deities in general - and I'm not opposed to that - then what's needed is a change of title. Are you willing to consider changing the title? Ilkali (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I attempted to solve the gender of god problem by a new neutral lead that avoided the god/gods question and concentrated on the gender of God (seemed reasonable to me) but, sadly, Alastair simply ignored that and inserted a rambling and mainly unrelated lead which looks mightily like plagiarism to me. Abtract (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to others: Alastair's new lead is being discussed here, where Alastair has pledged to edit war over it until somebody convinces him that something else is better ("If I think something I post is relevant, I will revert back to it, unless a polite and good case is made for something else"). Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has serious issues, and the ongoing arguments with this one user are a distraction from the observation that this article should not even exist. It began as a narrow discussion of the Abrahamist religions, focusing on the idea of a single God. As soon as Hinduism was brought into it [56] two years ago the shape of the article changed dramatically, and led to this current conflict. Once the door was open to polytheism, the whole point of the article crumbled, and the controversial user, aside from his methods, was perfectly fair to bring in "god or gods" in the lead. In fact, the article's original purpose appears to be some kind of POV push about the maleness or femaleness of the Abrahamist God in reference to feminism. With polytheism, you have gods and goddesses, hence no gender issues at all, so why is that stuff even in the article? As I see it, this article is nothing more than a POV fork from the main article of the monotheistic concept of God, and should be scrapped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note people. You're falling for the oldest trick in the book. Ilkali is not a contributor at Wiki yet. We only know of him because he has been rude to me, edit warred, and is continuing to make trouble, by slandering me here. I expect apologies. Take your time, get it right, and the next you'll hear from me is an acceptance of Ilkali's apology.

Please note, this topic is about my character as an editor at Wiki, not about the article. I have no responsibility in this thread, I have nothing to defend. It is the responsibility of anyone commenting here to take very seriously any accusation against an editor. Stay on topic, and get it cleared up quick smart. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the original intent of the article was one thing, and the introduction of polytheism to the article muddied it considerably, and that changing the lead paragraph to "god or gods" is perfectly acceptable within the blurry parameters of the article as it currently stnads. In short, this is really a content dispute disguised as a complaint about a user. How about if someone were to remove every reference to polytheism? Would that be considered edit-warring? Or would it return the article to its original purpose and put an end to all this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. See Alastair's two recent edits to Talk:Gender of God, in which he 'warns' Abtract for labelling Alastair's text as unreferenced [57], and demands that both of us remove our comments on his version of the article [58]. We are dealing here with an impossible editor who views any criticism as a personal attack and considers himself the sole arbiter of what content can be included in the page, explicitly rejecting other editors' opinions ("Sources and content are welcome, opinions, at this stage are not") [59]. Ilkali (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange goings-on

Hi. Last night, I got a friendly note from a new user, User:Flyhead. I've never had previous contact with this individual before and it seems he's a model aircraft enthusiast who'd found an upload of a photo I'd taken of one of my own models. I had responded in kind. He and another new user, User:Motofan, are apparently friends and communicate with each other in Swedish on their respective talk pages. My concern is that both of these users and possibly a third, User:Brandblusser, are horribly racist as evidenced by Motofan's placement of a Nazi symbol on Flyhead's page (which I removed on my initial contact) and an equally horrid comment left by Flyhead on the Zulu article. Frankly, I've seen this kind of behavior here before and it worries me. Seemingly friendly and helpful...but not. Is this an AIV issue or what? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Flyhead indefinitely. He has received final warnings before and then made a recent edit to the Zulu article this morning. That sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Requesting review of block. Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise someone to check Motofan (talk · contribs) talk page too, that should deserve him a block, IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In line with their focus of attention; I think the language they were communicating in was Afrikaans not Swedish. Rudget (Help?) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and thanks for the correction of the language. I thought Swedish or Dutch, but Afrikaans is based on Dutch, so there you have it. In the meantime, I think it's wise to let Brandblusser know what's up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's time to block Motofan as well. I just removed that damned Nazi symbol from his talk page; the edit stated that he's a "proud member of the AWB."--PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind for now. He just left nice word on my talk page regarding the use of English. I've advised him against the use of the symbol. His edits to F1 articles seem to be in good faith. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Flyhead has already reincarnated as Babba12 (talk · contribs) (blocked). Motofan has a number of minor sockpuppets including Brandblusser (talk · contribs) and needs a trout slap if he is going to be a productive editor. Thatcher 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. He's apologized for the AWB symbol on my talk pge - twice, in fact - and in reviewing his edits to F1-related articles, they all seem to be sincere and I'd like to assume good faith. I agree that some advice directly from an admin is in order. I'll go get the trout.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can be persuaded to overlook that twisted symbol in the spirit of "assume good faith", but am I the only one to be disturbed by his comment on his last revision of his user page? To wit: "I hate kaffers!!!" The link & exclamation points are original -- he knows that kaffir is the South African version of "nigger". -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Motofan for 1 minute: no need for a punitive block but I want to make sure that if he causes any more trouble, other admins will be aware of the history. He's been given multiple warnings for various problems and although he has indeed been a productive editor, there's no reason to tolerate this kind of thing. As far as I know, all other accounts mentioned in this thread are now indef blocked and I wholeheartedly endorse them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They should have called him a right wing ass kisserCbsite (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? Avruch^T * ^ER 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Good to keep the semi-protect up, might be enough for this scenario for the next week. Problem being, half of these vandals are procuring the stereotypes that contemporary conservatism apparently represents. They're looking for excuses to be immature. Sad, really. (Not that the left is any less guilty of it, but still) Brokenwit (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arcayne

• Arcayne (talk · contribs)

As reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?, this user has been constantly unconstructive in Talk:Silence in the Library, Talk:Forest of the Dead, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, User talk:U-Mos#When reverted and User talk:Arcayne. He has been incredibly rude to me (to which bait I may have risen once or twice, which I would apologise for), refuses to give any ground on the points he makes despite facing opposition, continues to edit war, ignores my perfectly reasonable request to wait for the project discussion to end, decides to "ban" me from his talk page after I point out that a comment he made caused me offence, accuses me of all sorts of offences I have not commited, and generally assumes authority and ownership at almost every turn. Wheras he does generally seem to be a good user, I don't believe this sort of behaviour should be acceptable from anyone. U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So ask him about it. What administrative intervention is required here? I can see none. Bstone (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My asking, and indeed any communication I make with him, has led to me being fobbed off with accusations and patronism, as seen mostly on my talk page and Talk:Forest of the Dead. He deleted the last message I left on his talk page saying "sorry chum, but I get the last word here". I can do nothing against a user so adamant and dismissive. I wish for him to listen to reason, and he certainly won't listen to mine, so I came here. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Arcayne has requested U-Mos not to post on his talkpage. Can U-Mos provide any diffs that indicate violation of WP policy? Otherwise, it is just a dispute that both parties should withdraw from or else seek resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with policies, so could not definitely say if he has specifically violated any. But I'd hazard a guess at ownership (refusing to take into account other people's PoV in Talk:Silence in the Library#Removed paragraphs in continuity section), incivility (my talk page) and edit-warring (constant reversions citied in the Editor Assistance page). U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see much evidence that dispute resolution has been tried here... you might want to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Mediation cabal for some help. Above all, keep cool! Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess one of the more frustrating parts of interacting with U-Mos (for me) is the fact that he likes arguing (and has admitted such in his talk page); however, when I disagree with him on policy, he charges OWNership and incivility, which is odd, since that is what I pointed out on his talk page that he runs the risk of having his edits perceived as.
I don't think I've broken any rules or guidelines in either my edits in Wikipedia or my interaction with U-Mos. I have been particularly careful in remaining polite, as this user seems to think that AN/I is his personal complaints department filing reports left and right. And I find myself concerned that someone might eventually think I am doing something wrong. Towards that end, I first asked, then reiterated and finally banned him from my talk page, cutting my interaction with him to a minimum. Some people you can work with, and U-Mos isn't one of those, when it comes to Doctor Who episodic articles. It's done his way, or the voice of dissent is "being disruptive" or trying to own the article. As repeatedly noted by a previous admin, it's mostly a matter of a 'large mouth and a thin skin'.
Perhaps he finds me adamant because the matters we disagree on are content issues, and some of the content centers around the addition of fan trivia and synthesis. U-Mos' largest edit-wars himself and complains that there is no consensus for keeping our synthesis policy intact for articles within the Doctor Who wikiproject. When I discuss the matter there, his sole complaint is that he 'doesn't like it.'. I have found that the best method to interact with this editor is to ban him from my user-talk page and then ignore him in article discussion. This means I don't respond to his repeated snipes in article discussion and elsewhere. I would prefer if the user would find someone else to bother, because I am quite frankly getting a bit tired of his abuse. When I explain my point of view, he dismisses them with 'i don't like it'-style comments that fail to address the meat of the explanation asked for, sort of a 'refusing to get the point' thing.
I am not sure that DR would be helpful. My attempts to generate an RfC were perceived by the user as disruptive and trollishness. Again, while I do not mind trying DR, I think the user perceives it as something other than what it is, and won't even try. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignoring the above post, which is almost entirely untrue, I had (as shown above) sought editor assistance for this matter. But as some ground is finally being made in the article, I felt that was the wrong place to put this. Basically, in the general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia, I would like Arcayne to realise that his manner in editing is unnaccepatble, and I'm sure he'd find people much more civil towards him if he treated them with respect (and starting comments with "with respect" doesn't count), maybe even as equals. I wasn't completely sure where to go with this issue, so if there is a better place please point me in its direction. Thanks. U-Mos (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would imagine that in the "general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia", perhaps saying that you are ignoring what people say while characterizing their words as "completely untrue" would be one of the first things to avoid. You get good faith and respect, and if you squander it by being rude and/or dismissive, you have to work that much harder to get it back, but that isn't the first time you have been told this. Perhaps my posts lack diplomacy in responding to your behavior, but not one whit of anything I have said is incorrect or uncivil. Perhaps looking at your own posting tone would help lead you to a better understanding of interacting with others. Until then, i would prefer if you would simply avoid my edits, please.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the disputes centres around one subject (Dr Who) and is between only the two of you I think a third opinion may be the first dispute resolution process to try. I suggest that you read the page and decide if it is suitable for both of you - that is, both parties need to agree to it. Having just one party review and comment upon the dispute is a far less drama generating process than the alternatives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tring that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to WP:30 as suggested. U-Mos (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm (talk · contribs) freaky act

- - :I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this guy blank the main page. And he only got a level 1? But he did self-revert it. Am I in the right place? Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipediaclouds the brain". Hmmmm. Not good. Bstone (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. He was already blocked and unblocked over it. This thread is useless now. Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he claims his account was compromised. Eeps! Anyway, marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For review: indefinite block of User:Jagz

I'd like to submit one of my blocks for review. Jagz (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a long-term tendentious editor on the topic of race and intelligence. In a recent AN/I thread, I proposed a topic ban, with the goal of refocusing Jagz on constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. After quite a bit of discussion, the thread ended with Jagz agreeing not to edit the pages in question, and there was talk of placing him on probation for disruptiveness and incivility. Since then, he's continued to pursue the same grudges in different venues. Most recently, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's opponents, announced his retirement. Jagz chose this juncture to taunt Mathsci by vandalizing his userpage.

I view this as the final straw for this editor: the topic ban has had no effect; he continues to pursue his same old disruptive agenda in new venues; and he's stooped to vandalizing opposing editors' userspace to gloat about their departure from the project. I haven't seen anything positive originate from Jagz's account in a long time, and there's no reason to think things are getting any better - quite the reverse. I've blocked the account indefinitely for a long-term pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing capped off by personal attacks and vandalism of an opposing editor's userpage.

Jagz himself has not requested an unblock thus far, but Elonka (talk · contribs) raised the concern that this block was overly harsh. I agreed to disagree, but felt I should bring it here for further review and discussion. If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so. I would ask that if he is unblocked, he commit to contribute positively, and that a plan be in place to provide both clear behavioral guidelines and restrictions and/or mentoring/monitoring. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this editor at User talk:Cailil. My review of Jagz's recent contributions indicate a pattern of disruptiveness and polite trolling. I think the block was a good decision. I was unaware of how long this pattern had been going on, or else I might have done more than just blank Jagz's taunts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the previous discussion concluded with agreeing to a topic ban, a party that appears not to have joined the consensus was Jagz - who was violating said ban before the last edit was posted in the discussion. I fully support the indef block now, as not only does the editor seem unwilling to withdraw from the disputed area but also seems more than willing to argue his "case" by the same questionable methods (personal attacks, attempts to sanction "opponents", etc) as in the past. Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this chap a while back for 3RR. I wasn't impressed then, and have grown steadily less so as time has gone on. This is definitely one we're well quit of. Race and intelligence is quite contentious enough a topic without letting tendentious, edit-warring, and harassing SPAs such as Jagz go unrestrained. AGF has its limits: those he exceeded a long time ago. I also put the other single-purpose accounts operating in this area on notice to clean up their act, or else I shall personally ensure they follow in Jagz's footsteps, and that swiftly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with indef. A warning or a brief block may have been appropriate, but an indefinite block was overkill. Now, I do agree that Jagz has been disruptive in the past, but I felt that he had been making steady improvement. I am also concerned that he may have been the victim of some "tag team" harassment. In the past, he did seem to have some constructive contributions, but ran into what he felt was a "team" organized against him, when editing some race-related articles. He was blocked for 3RR in March, and another 24-block for personal attacks in May. A week or so ago, Jagz voluntarily agreed to avoid editing the Race and intelligence article for the rest of the year.[60] I have been working with him since then, as he is identifying areas where he feels that there is "team" editing. I have not yet completed my investigation, but it is obvious to me that Jagz was not the sole problem at some of these articles, as there was disruptive behavior from multiple editors. Since his voluntary ban, Jagz has honored his word and avoided the R&I article. He has left a couple messages on talkpages of related users, some of which were unfortunate, such as placing a "cheshire cat" image on the userpage of a retired user, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's earlier opponents. His edit was reverted by another of his opponents as "vandalism",[61] but I think that this was overstating the situation. In fact, Mathsci had first placed a "cheshire cat" image in a previous conversation with Jagz,[62] so Jagz's response was to place the cheshire cat image on Mathsci's page[63] (granted, he should have put it on the talkpage, not the userpage). It may have been an ill-considered attempt at humor, but it wasn't vandalism. Jagz also indicated his opposition to one of his opponents, Cailil, who is considering running for admin. When Jagz posted this message at Cailil's takpage,[64] it was deleted by administrator Jehochman with an excessive edit summary.[65] When Jagz restored his message,[66] Jehochman again deleted it, this time accusing Jagz of "trolling".[67] MastCell followed this up with an indef block of Jagz. I'm in agreement that Jagz's behavior could have been better, but I think an indef block was excessive, and indeed has an appearance of being an attempt to silence a potential opponent before an RfA. --Elonka 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT I think that Elonka has not taken the time to review this editor's behaviour. In the previous disussion here and subsequently she has somewhat villified his critics (alun (Wobble), Ramdrake, Slrubenstein), suggesting that it is they that should have a topic ban. Even above she has placed remarks from over a month ago out of context. When Jagz announced his retirement from editing Race and intelligence with postings in several new sections on the talk page, proclaiming that the article was in a finished state, he placed other editors in a state of confusion. This type of editing seems to be what is usually called trolling. Elonka seems to condone the vandalism of my user page and talk page in her remarks above: although she might dislike me, such vandalism is upsetting and against WP policy. Since she is the interventionist administrator that has put an end to my contributions to WP, with mathematical articles stopped in midstream, I am not surprised that she seems to be giving the thumbs up to Jagz's act of vandalism. (Her recent slowness to recognize User:Koalorka's history of anti-Turkish POV-pushing, perhaps because she had not made this observation herself, showed a similar attempt to deny a consistently disruptive pattern of behaviour carefully documented by me User:Mathsci/subpage.) Does anybody else understand why she is acting in this way? Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds fine to me. Maybe review Jagz's situation again after an appropriate period of time (6 months, a year?) but not now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• When Jagz was topic-banned not long ago, among the conditions of his ban were a civility and NPA parole. Since then, the sum total of his contributions outside his own user and talk pages has been limited to:

• 1)Putting up at ANI the picture of a baby to show his discontent with a comment about him about which he disagreed;
• 2) Commenting on the user talk page of an editor considering accepting a nomination for adminship that the editor in question wouldn't be ready "for a few years", talking about an otherwise established and very respected editor and edit-warring to put his comment back after it was removed as inappropriate;
• 3)putting first on the user page of a retired user and then on his talk page the same derogatory image (in context) and revert warring to keep it there;
• 4) having a long conversation with another admin about his woes that other editors wouldn't let him further his POV at the R&I article
• 5)and then questioning the authority of an editor who removed one of his unpleasant comments from a user's page.

All in all, I don't see that he has made any improvement at all since his topic ban, as his contribution to main article or article talk page space has been zero, although he has made several derogatory contributions to user pages and user talk pages, in addition to trying to get a previously uninvolved admin to help him settle old scores. I say indef was the right decision.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread[68] was still active as of June 8. After it closed, Jagz (talk · contribs) kept to his word and was avoiding the disputed articles. He stuck to user talkpages, though admittedly he was "grumbling" at a couple of them. Then he posted the picture of a cat at Mathsci's page (a picture which Mathsci had already used himself, in a similar context), and Jagz suddenly gets labeled as a "vandal" and is blocked indefinitely. I'm just not seeing his behavior as that disruptive, that Wikipedia was "protected" by indefinitely blocking him. I also see no communication from MastCell on Jagz's talkpage. Instead, MastCell started the ANI thread on June 3, requesting a full topic ban (which Jagz agreed to voluntarily comply with). Then MastCell's next communication with Jagz was the indefinite block, without further warning. Better would have been if MastCell could have posted a reminder on Jagz's talkpage to move on to editing articles. But simply blocking him without any other communication was inappropriate. Jagz has been an editor here since 2005, he deserved better. --Elonka 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it seems that there is a strong consensus in support of the block. If you would like to mentor this editor, and feel confident that you can steer them away from trouble, I might support that. Otherwise, I do not see any chance of an unblock at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would question the wisdom of declaring "consensus" in less than 24 hours, especially because some of the participants here were involved in the dispute. However, I am happy to mentor this editor, if he even chooses to return. He and I were having a reasonable conversation on my talkpage before he was suddenly blocked. And to be honest, the more I investigate, the more it looks like he has been targeted in an unfair manner. Looking at some of the previous evidence against him, if he so much as said, "Please do not make provocative statements", he was accused of incivility, trolling, and vandalism. Seriously, look at the accusations,[69] and then check the diffs for yourself. Specifically, don't read what's said about him, read what he's actually said. I would ask those who are reviewing the case to try and do so with fresh eyes. Instead of starting with a preconceived notion of, "Jagz is a troll, and we just need to find proof of that", try to start from an assumption of good faith, as in, "Jagz is a good faith individual who is being ganged up on, and has lost patience, and his temper, with the system." And again, to be clear, I am not saying that Jagz's behavior is squeaky clean in all this. There are definitely a few statements which were clearly uncivil, a few actions which were unquestionably unhelpful. But it does seem that there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned. Yet Jagz received an indefinite block without warning. I have respect for MastCell in many things, but this particular block was not well done. --Elonka 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like Elonka to supply diffs to support her accusations that "there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned" rather than the simple, plain fact that Jagz was either unwilling or unable to accept talk page consensus (as evidenced by several RfCs, inquiries at the NPOV and Fringe theories noticeboards) and persistently pushed his own POV (to the extent of creating POV fork articles such as Dysgenics (people) and Human Intelligence Controversies which were promptly identified as such and deleted) in defiance of wide consensus against it, thereby exhausting the patience of the community.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people Elonka is refering to as uncivil, unhelpful, and disruptive. Anyone reviewing this case needs to take two things into consideration: first, what makes someone a troll is not necessarily behavior that is platantly offensive to some - not all trolls go around saying "@#!* you, I will kill you and your children!" What made Jagz a troll was a pattern of behavior that had a fundamentally disruptive effect on attempts to improve an article on a complicated and controversial topic. The ultimate effect of his trollish behavior was to drive away countless other editors who have over the past couple of years tried to improve the article. The behaviors that had this trollish effect seldom took the form of personal attacks or vandalism, but so what? There are other ways to disrupt progress on an article and thus the overall project of writing an encyclopedia. There were three things that made Jagz a troll. First, he never made any substantive contribution to the article. When he made claims I and others considered unfounded, if we asked him either to explain what he meant or to provide evidence he always changed the subject. This by itself is not proof he is a troll, but it does call into question his motives - why would the overwhelming bulk of his edits over the past couple of years be to the talk page for an article on a topic on which he has done no research and knows nothing? I have an answer, it is the third reason ...

The second thing that made him a troll was that any time other people were making progress towards improving the article - reaching consensus on a controversial edit, the structure and scope of the article, and so on, he would make an inane comment, or create a new section and start a new thread of talk that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and was not constructive. The line Elonka quotes above is a perfect example - "Please do not make provocative statements" when taken out of context appear to be harmless. But when the edit is made in response to a statement that was not provocative, and when Jagz couldn't explain why the statement was provocative, and the effect was to disrupt a discussion among other editors who were drawing on research to improve the article, then it turns out that "Please do not make provocative statements" is itself a provocative statement; any attempt to respond to it derails work on the article. And I want to emphasize one critical matter: we are not talking about one or a few statement like this, we are talking about a pattern of inance disruptive comments like this over more than a year's time. It is the pattern of edits and their effect that make Jagz a troll, not just one edit.

The third thing that made Jagz a troll is that this pattern of disruptive comments on the talk page is connected to the POV that Jagz was pushing at the Race and intelligence article. And there is no way anyone can correctly assess my trating Jagz as a troll without looking at the actual POV he was pushing. First, one point all editors working on the article agree on: the average IQ score of self-identified whites in the US is higher than the average IQ score of self-identified blacks. I know of know one working on the article who ever disputed this. The question is, why? And this is the POV Jagz wants to keep in the article and as a prominent and notable view: that the reasons are genetic. Please think about this: Jagz is saying that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. That is the point of view he is pushing. And please keep in mind the increasing prominence of Wikipedia as an educational resource in the US and around the world

We have policies to guide us in such matters - obviously if this is a notable POV it has to be included in the article. The argument, which has gone on for over two years on the talk page of the article, the discussion that Jagz derails whnever possible, is whether this is a fringe POV or not. Anytime Jagz was asked for evidence that anyone studying human heredity - physical anthropologists, population geneticists, molecular geneticists (and yes, these are established scientific communities that produce a huge amount of literature on human genetics each year) - supports this view ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." Any time that I or another editor - Ramdrake and Alun are far more knowledgable than I in the life sciences - tried to explain why this is a fringe view, and what mainstream scientists actually do say ... an inane comment, like "don't be provocative." There are other editors working on the article who, drawing on research in psychology (not genetics), believe that this view must be represented in the article. Any time Ramdrake and Alun, and other well-informed editors with opposing views, started approaching a compromise or consensus ... some inane comment from Jagz like "don't be provocative." And any time an editor tried to engage Jagz in a serious discussion - asking him for the evidence that his POV is not fringe, or providing evidence that it is fringe, Jagz would simply repeat his claim. He never displayed any respect for the research of other editors, nor any willingness to compromise, and he explicitly rejected invitations to begin mediation. Several times when we were approaching consensus, he placed an NPOV violation tag on the article! When someone removed it, in at least two instances, he issued RFCs, which overwhelmingly supported the consensus and not him. Did this put an end to his trollish disruptions, the fact that the response to his own RFC's went against him? No, of course not, he just disregarded the comments that he himself called for, and went on disrupting the page. It was this kind of hypocritical disregard for collaborative processes and the views of others, and the realization that he by using the RFC in bad faith (since the results were inconsequential to him) the very use of the RFC was an act of trolling. Yes, an act of a troll - because what makes him a troll is not simply uncivil comments, it is an overall pattern of disruptive behavior. An RFC that makes us all suspend work on the article for a while, for no purpose at all since the person issuing the RFC ignores the results, is turned against itself to be just another disruptive act. So disruptive acts can come in many forms, folks. If he ever made a thoughtful contribution to the article, or a constructive contribution to the discussion, I would have reached a different conclusion. there are other editors on the page I clearly disagree with, and have argued with - and I have never called any of them trolls because in my view they are not; we disagree but they are well-informed editors acting in good faith. Jagz is so far from falling into this category, if he tried to jump into it gravity would reverse itself and he would float up in the air.

It is this pattern of disruptive behavior in order to push the racist point of view that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites that led me, after several months of attempts to reach some compromise with Jagz, to label him a troll. I did not do it overnight. Elonka misrepresents the situation if she thinks one day Jagz wrote "do not make provocative statements" and from that I concluded he was a troll. No, no, my friends, this happened after more than a year of the pattern of behavior I described. I never went to ArbCom because Jagz never attacked me personally, until the very end a month or two ago when he called me an asshole on the talk page[70][71](note: I did not originally put in these edit differences becauase I do not care about Jagz personal attacks. I do care about his disruptive effect on the article, and his pushing a racist fringe POV that should be offensive to everyone - it is not about me it is about the article). But why didn't Jagz ever go to ArbCom, for the over a year period in which I responded to his disruptive edits with a simple WP:DNFTT? I have a simple answer: any investigation would have produced the evidence that led other editors to block him. It took long enough, but I am not surprised it eventually happened anyway. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the mark when discussing his disregard for others' opinions. Its hard to reach consensus with someone who just does not care for others' work. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something amiss with this user/account. Jagz used to be a good editor--I myself even gave him a Scouting Barnstar for FA writing once. I wonder if the account is compromised, so I support the indef til more evidence comes forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He could also be more passionate about Race topics. Brusegadi (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even today Jagz is using his talk page as a soapbox to make personal attacks [72][73] which personnally I find most grievous. I'd like to request an uninvolved pair of eyes to take a look at this and take any appropriate measures, if they feel any are warranted.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz is already indef blocked. Since there are some good faith questions as to whether this account is still being used by the same person, I think it would be more helpful to leave the talk page unprotected for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but can somebody keep an eye on it so it doesn't get out of hand? The accusations he made are very serious.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the page, but I am not seeing the same attacks as you are, though I understand that since it's not directed at me, it's easier for me to be ambivalent about it. However, turn it around and look at it from a different perspective. How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it? Then if you tried to speak up about it at your talkpage, and name the members of the team, they then further escalated, accused you of making personal attacks, and demanded that your talkpage be protected so you couldn't even speak up in your own defense?

My feeling is that if one editor feels that they were blocked by an organized tag team (as Jagz does), then he has the right to speak up about it. If someone doesn't like what he's saying on his talkpage, well, take the page off your watchlist. It's not like he's spewing profanity or disrupting article space. --Elonka 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. In this case, I would like to ask that Jagz be invited to either substantiate his accusations by providing diffs, or if these accusations are unsubstantiated to withdraw them. I believe that's fair. What he's doing still amounts to a personal attack, unless he can prove it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that he be indef banned. But as a condition of him not being indef-banned, if he agrees, that the user be assigned to a wiki-project where they will do memos and research for senior editors, and also perform 30 edits for the editors of the project each month. For six months. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you wrote, "How would you feel if you tried to edit an article, and a team of editors jumped on your edits, accused you (unjustly in your mind) of trolling and vandalism, and then complained so persuasively to administrators, that you were blocked for it?" Implicitly you are saying that Jagz made an edit to the article that was compliant with Wikipedia policy and that provoked this unjustified response. I ask you to provide evidence. Please provide one example in which Jagz made a substantive edit to the article, or any edit to the article that was Wikipedia policy compliant, and which was then jumped on by a "team" of editors who accused him of trolling or vandalism. Note: your evidence would serve your case only if the edit Jagz made to the article were not an example of trolling. Anyway, your claim requires that three conditions be filled: (1) Jagz made an edit to the article itself (2) the edit was not trolling and (3) a team of others accused Jagz of trolling because of this particular edit to the article. Can you provide just one example? you need to back up your accusations with evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I must support the indefinite block. As Rlevse points out, Jagz was a good contributor, but his very poor behavior over the past weeks and months makes one suspect that his account has been compromised. I asked Jagz to stop making comments to further escalate and inflame the situation with the other R/I editors, a suggestion he totally ignored, even after being blocked. As noted above, if he cannot resist continuing to attack other editors even while he’s indefinitely blocked, there’s a problem.

I’m also not comfortable with his responses to Elonka’s proposal that he stay away from the other’s talk pages and leave them alone, as well as his total lack of response to her offer of mentorship, his somewhat vague response instead only says that “I will distance myself further from that situation”. Not a very compelling answer. Perhaps what is also needed is a temporary topic ban in addition to the mentorship Elonka has kindly offered, to see how he performs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that he has already agreed to voluntarily restrict himself from editing race-related articles for the rest of the year, and that that ban would still be in effect. --Elonka 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very good thing indeed. Did that self-imposed restriction include the article's talk pages as well, and has Jagz confirmed this since his indef block and your proposal to him for being unblocked? (I didn't see it on his current talk page, so just making sure) Dreadstar † 04:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what Elonka is writing. Slrubenstein, a prolific editor on a wide range of articles, is somehow being taken to task for standing up to the trollish behavior of Jagz? And we're spending this much discussion space for Jagz? I really don't get it. By the way, Slr and I have been discussing Jagz for months. He has contributed nothing to this project. Why are we wasting time? Elonka, if you want to mentor an editor, why don't you find one that might be uncivil or annoying, but at least contributes to the growth of this project. Again, why are we wasting our time? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm amazed at Elonka's portrayal of this situation as if Jagz is some sort of innocent lamb who has bee "jumped on" by some nasty wolves. I mean where's the evidence? On his talk page Jagz claims that there are "sinister motives" and claims that Slr and Ramdrake have been out to get him, and Elonka has fallen for this conspiracy theory nonsense hook line and sinker. Indeed the behaviours Jagz attributes to other editors in this comment "Slrubenstein's motive with all his incivilty, name calling, and adding the link "DNFTT" was to goad and provoke me so as to precipitate an event such as this. Mathsci constantly taunted me and went out of his way to disrupt my good faith efforts probably for the same reason but also to keep me from making any progress out of spite. Ramdrake is best described by WP:BAIT" apply to Jagz's behaviour on talk pages to a far greater extent than they do to the editors he vilifies.[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] Jagz does not attribute any motive to these claims except "spite", which begs the question, why does he think these editors are "out to get him", what have they got to be spiteful about?. And why does Elonka believe so passionately that these editors are "out to get" Jagz? Anyone who has followed the discussions of the R&I talk page over the last few months could not possibly, in any seriousness, paint Jagz as a "victim" and Ramdrake, Slr and myself as aggressive monsters out to hound the innocent lamb. That analysis must be borne out of ignorance of the history of the talk page, I can't see any other way to explain it. Furthermore Jagz is complaining that he's the victim of a "kangaroo court" [93] and seems to believe that he was blocked because of his recent comments and actions [94] rather than his ongoing and continual disruptive contributions to talk pages as I list above. Likewise he's complaining that the diffs are all from talk pages and that no evidence is provided of disruption on article mainspace,[95] whereas I could provide ample evidence of such behaviour from Jagz, currently we are specifically discussing his talk page contributions which have been a major concern to editors of these articles for some time. Alun (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI here I explain to Jagz what my real motives were in using the WP:DNFTT tag. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true, especially because many of the voices here are editors who were involved in the dispute. Jagz has been an editor on this project since 2005, he has an FA to his name, and before this current indef block, only two 24-hour blocks in his history as an editor. I am not saying that all of his recent behavior was appropriate. There was clearly a dispute, there was clearly harsh language on the part of multiple editors, there was high emotion, and there were attacks leveled from both sides. But I am simply not seeing Jagz as the "menace to Wikipedia" that some of his opponents are trying to claim. Indeed, anytime someone repeats the overused term "trollish behavior" or says "Jagz has contributed nothing to this project", it is increasingly obvious that they are overstating the case. I recommend that everyone review the actual definition of WP:TROLLing. I define it as deliberate attempts to harm the project, and/or to incite other editors to react in a negative manner. I have looked at the diffs provided, I have looked at the contrib histories involved, and I am not seeing a troll. I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread. A general rule of thumb is, that the more strident the attacks, the less credibility that they probably have. So I would like if everyone here could ratchet things back a bit, and try to get away from this "lynch mob" mentality. Jagz has agreed to move on to other topic areas, he has agreed to mentorship. He has a history of good contributions except for this dispute. I think we should allow him to get back to editing. --Elonka 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it is disingenuous of you to write "Just because there are multiple editors here saying "Jagz is a troll" and accusing him of "trollish behavior" does not make it true" when I posted a lengthy explanation of why I consider Jagz a troll, and Alun provided a long list of edit diff. You are acting in bad faith to imply that we are simply labelling jagz a troll without providing reasons, when just inches above your insinuation, we provide our reasons. No one here is claiming that Jagz is a troll "because we say he is." You are welcome to defend Jagz, and you are welcome to question our reasons, but you should appologize for this disingenuous insuation that we either have no reasons or refuse to provide them when we have many times. 10:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that Jagz has contributed nothing to the project, neither have I repeatedly stated that he's a troll, but his behaviour is extremely disruptive and his talk page comments are often irrelevant and personal. Your claim that "I am seeing embarrassingly uncivil behavior on the part of multiple other editors who should know better than to level the kind of attacks that they have been doing in this thread." seems to be saying that Jagz's behaviour is somehow superior, that only the "multiple other editors" are displaying "embarrassing behaviour". Indeed I can't see any "attacks" on this thread at all. I just don't get it. Your whole argument seems to be that everyone else on this thread is wrong and victimising this poor little innocent, and that only you know the "real" Jagz who is noble and above the pettyness of the rest of us mere mortals. Look again at the diffs I provide and explain the brilliance of these contributions because I can't see it. You want to defend Jagz, fine, do it with evidence, rather than making complaints about other editors who at least do provide evidence of his disruption, as I have done. Also You could provide some diffs to show that your claims that other editors (me, Slr, Ramdrake, Mathsci, Dreadstar, Brusegadi etc.) are worse that this "honourable" person Jagz, and that we have been "hounding" him because you provide no evidence of this persecution you claim is ongoing. Alun (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please could Elonka provide diffs to back her analysis? Looking for example at my reasonable and extremely civil question [96] about a sentence inserted by Jagz on biomedicine, his response was evasive and unhelpful. Apart from the opinion piece cited from the Guardian which did not mention biomedicine, Jagz was unable to support his claims. In the subsequent interchange he labelled Slrubenstein an "asshole". In normal circumstances, and this is certainly true of almost all my own edits to mainspace articles, accurate and relevant citations have to be supplied when adding content to main space articles, particularly when it is repeatedly disputed. Are the rules different for Jagz? [97]Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Above (22:03, 14 June 2008) I asked Elonka to provide us with evidence of just one instance where Jagz made a policy-compliant edit to the the article and as a consequence of that was then jumped on by other editors who accused him of being a troll and vandal. Although she has edited this thread since then, she has not responsed to my request. I am assuming she missed it - otherwise, why would an editor acting in good faith make an accusation against me or others and not provide evidence when asked? - so since she missed my request I am asking again, please provide evidence of one instance. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate my question to Elonka: this is the third time (first here and second here) that I have asked for someone to supply diffs to substantiate Jagz' accusations, or that they be dropped as unsubstantiated. Many other editors have asked the same and have provided diffs to show that the charges were unfounded (that it was in fact Jagz who was being disruptive), but User:Elonka keeps bringing up the same issues over and over again without substantiating them. I would like to ask, for the last time, that she either substantiate her charges or drop them as unfounded. It is time this wiki-drama ended. As an admin, she should know better than to do this.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring (repeated blanking of sourced text) by User:Caspian blue at Seolleongtang

[edit] Lets start this over again

Can you two put one, short paragraph explaining what exactly the problem is? Include diffs so that we can verify your account of events and see if anything needs to be done. Be aware that if you are primarily experiencing a content dispute, there won't be much that can be done via this board. Disputes don't get resolved here, and this is not the place to continue your arguments. Avruch^T * ^ER 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I was succinct regarding the nature of the incident in my first report; all subsequent posts were in response to User:Caspian blue's rebuttals. It is by no means a content dispute as the text was already sourced; the essence of the incident report (and attention requested from skilled admins) is that User:Caspian blue nearly always resorts to blanking of text rather than the addition of "fact" tags or the use of Discussion pages. Reversion of such blanking simply leads to blocks for "edit warring" but it is unclear why the editor reverting the blanking receives blocks, whereas the editor who is known particularly for such blanking does not, as a rule. I do think it would be helpful if the admins attending to this incident would read the above text and look at the article in question. The blanking is clearly visible in the history. Badagnani (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This matter is very simple. Badagnani (talk · contribs) who just got off from his 48 days block sanction after his 3RR violation and falsely accusing others vandals at Korean cuisine, returned to initiate an edit war to back up his original research at Seolleongtang. I've put up with his habitual hostile comments "blanking" for a long time because his claim has no reliable source on an incorrect usage of Chinese character referring to the dish, but just has google bare results (which he claims that it is proper citation. you can see what they are above, the longest google links) without any confirmation. However, he maliciously reported here. I think the user has not be allowed to edit any of Korean cuisine related articles due to his habitually introducing original research. His recent block was in the same line. "1) The edits you reverted were not blanking, they were deletions of comments you added to the article and are not covered by the exception for simple vandalism." commented by two admins. Besides, I used discussion page, and he lied about my editing. That is nothing but personal attack. He did not even confirm that his google result links are actually relevant and reliable until I said him to search. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - Good enough. Wait for some review based on that, please. Avruch^T * ^ER 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As with this incident, I had been reverting simple disruptive, WP:POINT blanking of text, and did not exceed three reverts. Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s problem is always circulating as below

1. He created or edited an article relating Korean cuisine with no reference
2. Then he put hidden comments onto the article which would be only shown to people who're willing to edit the article in future, but generally the hidden remarks do not get any attention or cause an irritation. Several people told him to write his question at talk page, and he keeps refusing.
3. Somebody edits one of his interested articles. Even if the edit was with reliable citations, the edit is against Badagnani's firm belief, and then Badagani restored the deleted false information
4. Naturally, the new person who fixed the article aske why Badagnani reverted to the previous wrong version with incorrect info.
5. I usually intervene and check newly added citations and search for more info from Korean cites (English information on Korean cuisine is limited), so implement the disputed contents with citations
6. Regardless, in many cases, Badaganani insists on including his original research, but I or others request him to provide reliable sources. But he added bare google results claiming as "reliabe source" (see also yukgaejang article)
7. If I or other removed the unconfirmed links and unsourced claim, he calls me or others "blanking highly important info", "disruptive" and gives absurd vandalism/blanking warnings.
8. Or he urges me or others to find more info and to confirm links from the google results to back up his claim, because he CAN NOT read Korean, nor has EATen the related dishes.
9. I tended to implemented per his request but begin to refuse because he can easily find needed sources or created articles he needs, but he always defers to me or others.
10. Revert warring with him is totally wasting of my time per my experience with him, so generally I or others just give up and let him do as he's satisfied with.
11. Finally, he filed this false and bad-faith report to justify his original research. I think he is the one who gets a proper saction because his recent two blocks are all related to his insistence of "blanking". --Caspian blue (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct. The incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text rather than edit in a thoughtful, collegial manner, first using "fact" tags and Discussion before engaging in such repeated blanking. Badagnani (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not an incident, but Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s malicious false report to justify his unconfirmed claim. His recent two blocks are all related to his false accusations to editors of "blanking information" which are all original research or his hidden comments. Even Badagnani's problem is actively shown at Talk:Korean cuisine#Use of pedigree dogs as well. Whenever I edit, I use reliable sources, unlike Badagnani. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, or political forum. I use discussion pages more than enough whenever {User|Badagnani}} introduces false information or inquisitively asks questions on info that he could easily find sources from even English sources. Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s blatant disregard against consensus and personal attacks worry a lot of people as well. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually tend to not get involved with controversial conversations about editors, but I believe that the accusations toward Caspian blue are inappropriate as Badagnani continuously uses a couple phrases in order to accuse users of "vandalism" and "blanking" when in reality they are properly removing information "boldly" as the majority of his work is either original research or like in this case poorly sourced. Just because something has thousands of hits on the internet doesn't make it correct, additionally a translation of an inappropriately researched article from a non-English Wikipedia is not proper research either and in other cases he has pushed sources that are micro in nature, to push a macro point. So based on Caspian blue's grasp of the Korean language and adherance to proper sourcing, I feel that Badagnani's report is not only inappropriate, but is also a continued sign of his inability to be civil or to keep his [[wp:bias}bias]] out of articles. Furthermore he is also quite adept at using [[wp:stalking}stalking]] to further his agenda, even if he needs to manipulate the voice of the person he is stalking as evidenced in issues with myself, Jeremy, Caspian blue, and others.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin had asked that we be succinct. It would be best if you would from now on edit in a collegial manner rather than attack other contributors. I did introduce editing comments into articles, always in the sense of asking questions regarding wording, grammar, or content that needed to be clarified by editors with more expertise than I, and I don't believe it was proper to remove all of them summarily in a WP:POINT action, as was done repeatedly. However, the subject of this incident is the repeated blanking of sourced text, at Seolleongtang, by User:Caspian blue. Badagnani (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment of User:Tanner-Christopher, he became involved here due following a solicitation from User:Caspian blue. This user apparently does not like my editing, as he has frequently made negative comments about me on various pages over a period of months. Regarding civility, in reviewing User:Caspian blue's comments and edit summaries, do you believe them to be more civil than mine? If so, by what criteria? Regarding the bias I am accused of having, what might that presumed bias be? Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, zh.wikipeida.org/article name becomes a properly sourced material? Badagnani should read WP:V and WP:RM, WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL. You've stalked me, but I've forgiven your repeated personal attacks and lies about me at my talk page. If everybody say the same thing to you, you should at least try to make a gesture to listen to. You stalk people and attack people, and insist on your own point of view that nobody agree with. That is more than WP:TROLL which ironically you referred to the above.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct in our comments here. This incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text before (or instead of) using "fact" tags or discussion pages, as well as his failure to edit in a collegial manner. It appears that from such inflammatory comments as appear above that he believes "the best defense is a good offense." Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, who said WP:TROLL first? Who reported this with false and insulting title? (edit war was initiated by you, not me), You've stalked me, that is too clear. When I asked PC78 about marmite, you followed me even though I said that I would not talk with you again after your perosnal attacks on me. Whenever I edit or created articles, you followed me, even though you did not edit one single time to the articles. I'm saying fact about your behaviors. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents from my dealings with Bdagnani on the Korean cuisine article::

1. Badagnani often violates the policies of WP, including WP:OR, WP:Civil and WP:3R, this can be seen in his edit history and postings on various talk pages
2. He has numerously violated the tennants of WP:NPOV by including information that uses cites that are inherently biased, eg PETA, without providing a couter point as required.
3. When another contributor makes a good faith edit and removes/changes or corrects his edits, he will undo those edits while leaving a incindiary comment like Reverting blanking or vandalism from disruptive editor.
4. He will abuse the warning tags on the contributors page, which I believe is his attempt to compile "evidence" of the other editor "wrong doings"
5. He will often disregard consensus for his own opinions as t what is right and ingor the contributions of others.

This is from my personal dealings with him as well as looking into other articles in which he has had dealing with. He has been blocked six times for edit warring on several articles and was one of the primary parties involved in a full fledged nuclear exchange edit war that had the korean cusine article locked down for 28 days last year. It is my personal belief that he is retaliating against Caspian Blue for a comment left on the Korean cuisine talk page asking other editors to please respect the consensus that has recently developed.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This comment would be fine were the subject of this incident report not the editing behavior of User:Caspian blue. Please provide diffs and discuss the actual, carefully specified behavior of that editor, as regards the article under discussion. Badagnani (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thamarih evading block with new account: User:Sunchief

I believe User:Thamarih has opened a new account to avoid a block. This is more than mere sockpuppetry.

On Talk:Juan Cole Thamarih was, probably, editing without logging in leaving his IP address open. This IP address is from Brisbane, NSW, Australia. The IP's edits and the logged-in edits were within a minute of each other.

This user has been blocked for a month for personal attacks, etc., on Talk:Ayahuasca. This is the fifth escalating block on this user.

Now, a brand new user User:Sunchief is editing on that talk page, and it's IP address is also from Australia. (Also, he was editing a few minutes before creating the account.)

This account, Sunchief, was created within 24 hours after the block on User:Thamarih went in, picked up the discussion right where it left off and went right back to reverting Ayahuasca:

Thamarih:

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]

Sunchief:

• [113]

The IP addresses are different, but that's covered as easily as going to the next internet cafe. The coincidence seems too perfect, and the user has a demonstrated pattern of learning from their blocks.

MARussellPESE (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason why you mentioned that they were both from australia? IP adresses are not necessarily allcoated by continent. i agree with you that Sunchief is probabl ya sock puppet or even a meat puppet. i recommend getting a WP:CHECKUSER to cover everything. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know Australia's a big place, but the DNS lookup on the second IP only said "Australia". If it had said "Sydney" or "Alice Springs" then a sockpuppet accusation would have been weakened. I've not used CHECKUSER, but the procedure seems quite involved and time-consuming. A real advantage regarding privacy, but a difficult tool to use in a timely fashion. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit alone is sufficient evidence. I have indefinitely blocked the sock account and will leave a warning on User talk:Thamarih. Further socking will result in an indefinite block of the master account. --jonny-mt 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal (2007-04-28) and compare the IP addresses in the deleted history? There's also SecretChiefs3 (talk · contribs). The main account appears to be Mr. Azal. For more backstory, see:[114]. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Almost certain. These various sockpuppets have been edit warring on Subh-i-Azal and Azali. (Not surprising considering he's claimed to be this obscure and defunct group's leader.) The Ayahuasca stuff has been relatively minor in comparison. His accusations of Baha'is stalking him notwithstanding, he certainly has no difficulty tracking down Baha'i editors on unrelated pages and launching unprovoked PAs. [115] [116] MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination) AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination), two users keep removing comments from users arguing in favor of keeping the article.[117][118][119][120][121] Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comments that seem to be removed are best suited for the talk page of the AfD as they stray off-topic. They were moved to the talk page and linked to. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They were not in fact linked to, and I don't think the comments all strayed entirely. I wouldn't expect other editors or the closing admin to generally give the talk page much scrutiny, so I really think this was bad form. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Went ahead and closed discussion with a no consensus. Given that it was nominated for speedy deletion minutes after it was created, then AfD'ed, taken to DRV and then renominated in a very short period of time, the discussion at this AfD was running much in parallel to the first AfD. Many voices for keep, a few for delete, and an edit war of commentary that had relevance on the main discussion page -- hardly off-topic chatter, as one editor stated. Give this more time before reapplying for another AfD, and apply a little more good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your assessment and decision to close, though I don't disagree that the outcome was headed for "no consensus". Your "Many voices for keep, a few for delete" comment is the exact opposite conclusion reached by the admin who closed the first AfD as they noted "18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinion". That's 26 to 10 in favour of delete or merge. Certainly that was within the parameters of no consensus, but are you sure you paid it enough due diligence in your closure? By closing it early and for reasons not related to the discussion, seems to invite a 3rd AfD and not squelch it as you may have intended. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I !voted for "merge", but I support the closure by Seicer. Remember, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion regarding whether the article should be deleted. There was no clear consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I told you not to stop messing around with the consensus process.[122] Karma, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what karma is? You need to overcome avidya before you can recognize karma. I support the result of the close but an early closure will only accelerate the next AfD as those that nominate it will see AfD #2 as not being valid. If anything, Karma would be AfD #3 starting because AfD #2 was closed out-of-process because |of constructive, consensus building comments such as this which you refused to take to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the closure by Seicer, as well. No doubt they will do another Afd in the next few weeks, after another review upholds it again. It follows the pattern to blank the section when it was in the Allegations article. Btw, the removal of my comments was just another form of desperation to suppress and bait, but to no avail. Sadly, we even see an admin, WMC, doing do: "G33 chatters endlessly. Its no surprise that people remove his comments. Feel free to report me William M. Connolley 21:24, 13 June 2008."[123] He then proceeds to remove my comment, supporting DHeywards edit-warring to remove my comments (and others):[124]

Notice my comment did not stray off topic in any way but dealt with the arguments for why deletion was not valid. It's the power of the argument, not the power of numbers that is paramount, so they felt a need to remove my argument. I did not report this, even though WMC told me to "report him." Better not to feed such negative attention seeking. But since this ANI thread was started by someone else, I thought comment here about it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I took into account the needless edit warring over valid and supportive comments -- per Speedy Keep. I've seen numerous AfD's where comments in favour or disfavour have been removed and moved to the never-visited talk page under the guise of off-topic, which seriously undermines the entire process. There was no overwhelming consensus on this AfD -- or any consensus, for that matter. If another AfD is filed within a brief period of time, then there is precedent to simply kill the recurring AfD as a bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

something we should perhaps be doing more often.DGG (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the historical revisionists would have preferred the war to drag out another year or so, instead of ending it immediately as the A-bomb did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:USEDfan

This user is disruptive to the point that I'm not sure where to start with this report. Myself and others have been very patient with him and tried our best to continue to assume good faith regarding his edits. If you will take a quick look at his block log you will see he was first blocked indefinitely as a 'vandalism only' account, but then unblocked. Following the initial block he has been blocked multiple other times for edit warring mainly. The user refuses to heed warnings, and has been warned dozens of times by numerous editors including admins. His behavior is becoming increasingly worse on nearly a daily basis. I am going to list some diffs below of his most recent behavior to give an idea of what I am referring to. The user frequents only a handful of articles, but it is getting increasingly difficult for us to clean up after him. See his contributions, he has made almost no constructive edits to the mainspace. Here are a few examples of his disruptive behavior: [125] [126] [127] his response when asked to view policies [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] Ok, to give you an idea of how bad this is, these edits are all in one day. These do not include the edit warring diffs since his last block, I also left out many personal attacks, etc. since the expiration of the last block. I hope I didn't make this too long. Anyone that doesn't want to pursue all these diffs should just take a look at The Used article and the talk page to understand the situation. Bottom line is the user inserts horrible grammar, and very unprofessional edits and attacks anyone that tries to alter something related to one of his edits. If anyone wants more examples of his behavior let me know and I will list some of his edits from the 12th. Thanks in advance to anyone that responds to this thread. Landon1980 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the listed diffs as well as the general behavior of this editor, I have reinstated the indefinite block placed in the past. USEDfan has not improved or learned from past incidents, and I see no evidence s/he will ever learn. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block. The user basically fits the definition of a disruptive editor. He seems to be completely unable to work on a collaborative project or work within our policies. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He has requested to be unblocked. I would appreciate another admin reviewing his request and responding as appropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your block has been reviewed and upheld. Landon1980 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator for two of his blocks, I am endorsing the indefinite block. One of the biggest pain in the asses to deal with, and his poor communication styles makes it near impossible to have discourse effectively with him. His "I do no wrong" interpretations of core policies, such as 3RR, makes dealing with the editor very difficult. Good riddens. seicer | talk | contribs 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure that this is not Michael (talk · contribs)/Mike Garcia (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLOCKME

I HAVE addmitted that I am User:Tom.mevlie and user:WilliamMThompson, so why won't anyone block me or reprimand me? What has happened to wikipedia. BLOCK ME please just block me. WillIreland (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to report yourself at Suspected sock puppets - even then, you'll only be blocked if you've misused the accounts. Are you complaining about your own behaviour, or are you in two minds about it? Kbthompson (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, they've previously been blocked, for sockpuppetry. You can report yourself, or continue to make positive contributions. Maybe an admin you've previously had contact with might consider a block for your prior behaviour - but this account seems clean so far. Difficult to see what you expect this board to do. Kbthompson (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Prom3th3an) Hello; I just happened to be passing and noticed this strange-looking thread. Is it possible User:WillIreland's account has been compromised? The above looks rather out-of-place compared to his usual demeanour, as far as I can see. This and this diff of his talk-page are a bit strange too. His contribution history seems pretty constructive and normal up until yesterday. I've left a note for his adopter, User:Prom3th3an, but the latter is on a short break for exams at the minute so might not be around. I think it might be worth a closer look, to be on the safe side. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As the adopter of Willreland I wish to propose that he be blocked temporily whilst a check user is carried out to find out if he is a sockpuppet or if his account has been compromised (and by who). I have reason to suspect his account has been compromised as this is extremly out of charactor.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's nipped in and blocked it indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You'll have to post a checkuser and the real WillIreland will have to contact you by e-mail should they wish to retrieve their account. I did not see any prior inappropriate use of the account - so, you may be right that it has been compromised. Kbthompson (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive put the request for check user in, and yes i am on a wikibreak so im "slightly innactve" :-) sorry to make a liar out of you Grey Knight (wikibreak thing) and thanks for bringing it to my attention   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the weirdest things I have seen! Kbthompson (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

..........Got nothing to say (enlight of check user)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the whole idea of telling someone who's confessing to being a block avoiding sock to go and file an SSP on themselves a tad bizarre and bureaucratic. They've confessed to being a sock avoiding their block and asked to be blocked but it seems it would be quicker and easier for them to get the account blocked by going and vandalising a few pages! That just strikes me as wacky. I think in such a case it is best to block the account, request a CU and leave a note on their talk page explaining what has happened in the even the account has been compromised. Just a thought. Sarah 05:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of pop punk bands

I just want to clarify that [this] is considered vandalism rather than content dispute. All of the bands being removed included pop punk in their infobox. I requested that the user refrain from removing these bands, and have now begun issuing warnings as they have ignored my request. However, I just want to be sure that this unjustified removal of content is vandalism rather than content dispute, as I do not want to be blocked if I have to continue reverting this. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a content dispute, but it should be easily sorted out providing you can get consensus from other editors for the inclusive listing. Once you have consensus and the editor continues removing bands, then it is vandalism. As for the Blondie comment.... Eh? Not punk pop? Yeah, right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I am surprised at that. Surely as all these bands have been labeled as pop punk in their infobox (something that is decided upon by consensus itself), then they should be part of a list of pop punk bands. The user has since removed these bands again, and provided no reason, but just the edit summary "Stop tampering with something you know very little about". I have not reverted this, but I have restored the disambiguation links they removed. I am confused as to why consensus is required as to the inclusion of these bands when their genres are already agreed upon....? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any good faith edit that is contested is a content dispute, even if the dispute is farcical (that New York is the capital of France, for example). It only becomes vandalism if the edits are made in bad faith (still claiming New York is the capital of France after being given appropriate references). The editor may well believe that Blondie was never punk pop, which is understandable if they are only aware of the US singles success, but wrong in context of their early gigs, first two albums and early UK singles hits or the mistaken belief that "punk" was only about a three chord thrash preceded by a call of "onetwothreefour!" (I presume the same misunderstanding relates to other disputed bands, but haven't checked). If, as I suggested, you can point the editor toward some references or discussion about what may or may not be considered punk, or pop punk, and they still persevere in removing bands without consensus then you have a claim for vandalism. I suggest finding those references and/or consensus, and discussing it with the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have taken the opportunity to tidy the list up somewhat, checking each and every link, and if there is no mention of pop punk, then I have removed them (I have however left bands that do not necessarily have pop punk, but have pop rock, power pop etc, which are similar). I have also disambiguated a large number of links, and invited the user to discuss any changes they think should be made. New York isn't the capital of France...? Well you learn something new everyday... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anontalk spammer

I see the anontalk spammer seems to be back, and has hit this page among others: [136] Can anything be done about this, for example by applying the spam blacklist to article content in order to catch text-only URLs, or by having a bot watch for this kind of vandalism? -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See section directly above. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed all the anontalk spam I can find using both the local search tool and Google. This is probably the best way to stop this spammer: if all their additions disappear shortly after being added, their efforts will be unproductive, and there's no incentive to continue them. Perhaps the rollback bots should be programmed to remove these edits on sight? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work if it were a human spamming but I'm pretty sure those are bots. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we required a captcha confirmation for adding certain blacklisted strings to Wikipedia, in the same way that we currently do for non-autoconfirmed users adding URLs, the spammer would need to expend a tiny bit of human effort for each edit. That, combined with zero economic advantage, should stop them. If we did this for not only the article content, but also the edit comments, that would also prevent several other kinds of bulk vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First part sounds good; it would definitely have an impact on bulk spam. Sounds like a proposal for the village pump :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now suggested this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems likely to be a real need soon, if not already. Seconded. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to that, the rollback bots should look at the URL blacklist in general, and attempt to spot textual versions of any of those URLs added to articles under suspicious circumstances... --- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Being told to die in the subject on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=219134914

by this wonderful character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JJGD

they have already been blocked for 3 months on 2 occasions, perhaps 12 months or indef would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JJGD

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JJGD for one monthyear. I believe that any recurrence of similar behavior by JJGD should result in an indefinite block. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one? At this point I think a year or more is quite reasonable. Metros (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That user rolled a die, and came up empty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8bitJake disrupting article, and in edit war with Tallicfan20

I'm relisting this as it got archived before the discussion was complete. I would appreciate some input here: Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Long story of accusations by 8bitJake collapsed for readability
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Look at this history. 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has had problems with edit warring and 3RR in the past, is now disrupting Democratic Leadership Council by engaging in an edit war with Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Additionally, 8bitJake is on probation, per this ArbComm remedy. Per that, I'm proposing 8bitJake be banned from Democratic Leadership Council, for a lengthy edit war, along with any warnings and/or blocks both users receive for this. For the record, I need to note that I was involved in a previous content dispute with 8bitJake, which was resolved with an RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, it seemed that we had resolved the issue before you started this discussion. We had ended the edit war, and it was fine. So I think that we should put it back to how it was before you started this discussion, with this version. however, you can see, I was trying to reasonably resolve this from the start with logical discourse. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I've reverted to Nwwaew's version and protected. Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. FCYTravis (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. --8bitJake (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Nwwaew is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The reason I reverted is because you were in a very severe edit war with another person. Reversion is standard in those cases. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) well jake, at this version it seemed our little war calmed down. I say we take it back to this version at that part and leave it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 8bitJake, please WP:AGF. Anyone can edit any article, unless they are restricted by ArbComm or the community. And if I was an admin, I would have recused all use of the tools in anything involving you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Your following me arround and Wikistalking me is harassment pure and simple. --8bitJake (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew (mistitled)

Long story of accusations by 8bitJake collapsed for readability
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Resolved. nonsense Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) is Wikistalking me and has following me arround editing articles that he was not previously invoved with and making allegations against me. This harassment pure and simple He was not asked to get involved in these article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. If you look at his contributions to Democratic Leadership Council he came there with the only reason to harass me. He should be blocked and banned from articles I work on. --8bitJake (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Please provide diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) This was right before he stalked me there [137] and removed all the work I did on the article. He had NEVER edited the article there before. He likes to think of himself as an admin.. despite him not being one. --8bitJake (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not seeing any disruption based on that one link. Is there more? Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Um, say what? I like to think of myself as an admin? What the hell? And how did I harass you on Democratic Leadership Council? The only actions I did on there were to revert to a pre-edit war condition (that you were involved in, I might note). And how do I have to be asked to be involved in an article to do something? If that was the situation, NOBODY could edit Wikipedia, PERIOD. We'd all be waiting for someone to ask us to edit an article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC) There is no lasting conflict between me and any other editors of that article. There was a disagreement between me and Tallicfan20 but we worked it out and reached a consensus. You just jumped in after stalking me and attempted to throw around authority that you never had. --8bitJake (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) But WHERE did I "throw around my non-existant authority"? You claim I'm doing this, but you won't show me where I am doing this!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) He followed me to the article based on my contributions list (he has taken to task to follow me around and butt in and make constant allegations and threats) and reverted my work and then demanded it be locked. That is a pretty big disruption. --8bitJake (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Diffs, please? I would like to see evidence of what I'm being accused of. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Before he followed me there [138] After he reverted my contributions and demanded it be locked [139] If you look at his contributions [140] or the edit history [141] of Democratic Leadership Council you will notice that he has NEVER edited the article before and only came there to harass me. He also nominated himself for adminship but it failed. So he has been running around assuming authority that he simply does not have. This needs to be addressed and he should be disciplined accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs) Okay, where did I demand the article be locked? I reverted the article, and requested you and the other party of the edit war step back, until this ANI discussion (the current one I started above) was done. And how does a failed self-nomination factor into this? Just because I failed two self-noms for adminship does not mean I have authority. The only authority I can even claim to have is the same any non-administrator editor on Wikipedia has. Namely, nothing that the community won't support- I can't just go around and ban anyone for any reason, no matter how good the reason is. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I don’t feel comfortable talking with this editor and instead of replying to him I am going to be reporting all future harassment from him directly here.--8bitJake (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Um... so if I ask you a question, for instance, you're going to report me for asking it, instead of replying? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Even after I’ve made it crystal clear that I consider him to be harassing me he keeps leaving messages on my talk page. What’s next? Is he going to start to call my house? [142] This guy is creepy. --8bitJake (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The heck? You know what... screw this. If you're going to persistantly bring up charges against me, and not back them up, then to hell with this. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I see nothing that would cause me to raise an eyebrow at any contributions that Nwwaew has made in the last day. You, however, 8bitJake, are not assuming good faith, and are once again verging on breaking WP:POINT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) And I have warned 8bitJake to this end with a Level 3 on AGF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake

Given that 8bitJake is already on probation, I propose that we broaden the topic ban to include the American political system. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity he deleted huge chunks of other people's comments (including mine) and has been peppering several sections with his whining about Nwwaew - same thing I believe you already reverted. Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a flawed decision from years ago since it included false accusations. --8bitJake (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the ANI started Nwwaew has continued to make disparaging insults directed at me [143]--8bitJake (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

‎8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week for Disruptive editing: 3RR not AGF, persistent vilification of editors that have a disagreement, etc. Can we please discuss broadening the ban? I think this is important as the editor clearly isn't taking responsibilty for previous mistakes and decisions. The editor has now been blocked 6 times for very similar behaviour. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will a topic ban help, since he's been blocked six times for the same type of misbehavior? At this point, I think we should be asking if we still want him here. If we do, then I think he should placed on 1RR, since he's been blocked several times for violating 3RR, and had other content disputes that he wasn't blocked for. Additionally, due to the situation that's happened, perhaps a ban on attacking editors, to be enforced by blocking would be appropriate? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I am one of the subjects of this dispute, and may be biased here)

I don't know about bias, but there is already a ban on attacking editors - called WP:NPA. Whatever the discussion regarding topic ban or long/indef block, any violation of NPA should be reported to AIV. If there are a number of reports made over a short period the question of discussing a long block may be taken away from this place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if a guy like Jake should be using Wiki, as when I was editing the DLC page, he reverted it because it was a "longstanding" part of the page, even tho I was removing a line that was misleading. The annoying thing is how he kept reverting it, despite that I made a case on the talk pages using sources and stats against having the disputed line of the article in there.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have a problem on articles related to politics. He also has a problem with 3RR. If we come up with a solution, it should involve both of those issues. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he does need a long time ban. I mean he clearly doesn't get it, on how one has to not inject opinion into an article like he does. He'll remember it too if he gets a 2 month ban or something like that. I mean, is it possible for him to get banned on JUST political articles? Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's under probation from a previous Arbitration case, and under that ruling, he can be banned from any articles he disrupts. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to post my opinion here, and so I will. (first bit is copy pasted from what I wrote on his talk page)

recently, your editing has been a case of putting opinion ahead of fact and against the spirit of Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' policy. you need to go by sources not opinion, you know that. The block is right. Use your week off to calm down and look at things in a different light. Its only a website after all, not as if you will be getting harmed by things you dont like.

and I know its a petty thing to point out, but he was the only one who disagreed with my resolution on Wageslave's ban. out of the 8 or so people involved in the problem he saw himself being punished even though my reso had nothing to do with sanctions against him. i sometimes wonder if he reads edits fully before making his own. which is disruptive

plus, theres this little part of me that wonders if he gets controversial at times to pump up his visitor numbers to his personal website. which he should use for opinions, not here. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake has some decent expertise in video game topics, and i think it would be a mistake to keep him out of those areas. It seems to be apparent that he cannot edit political articles in any sort of reasonable manner, though. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Language Copyright Problems

I noticed that a couple (related) users on the Wu language Wikipedia have uploaded a number of commercially copyrighted photographs using {{pd-self}}. While I'm not all that worried about that wiki on its own, I'm more concerned their false provenance could result in some of them ending up on commons. Does anyone know a wuu: admin and could they take a look at the uploads [144] [145] of wuu:User:Carla_Bruni and wuu:User:Carka_Bruni. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk to one of these people. As far as Commons goes, though, they're generally pretty good at weeding out copyvios. --jonny-mt 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad vandalism to WP:SEMI

The protection policy page has been badly vandalized, something in the CSS, I can't even see where to revert it on my PC. MrPrada (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to be one of the templates or images on the page (I used my URL bar to get into it and try to figure it out) that is messing it up, but I'm not sure which one. MrPrada (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The image seems to be rotating, now its been replaced by a giant "Avril Lavine Rockz" drawing. MrPrada (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whoever fixed that, thanks. MrPrada (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For future reference, it was this edit to Template:Nutshell that caused it. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:57, June 14, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thirusivaperur

Thirusivaperur (talk · contribs): account's only puropse appears to be pushing the notion of "Tamil is older than Sanskrit". Consistent revert-warring against established consensus. Has been duly warned again and again. In my opinion ripe for a block at this point, but I prefer to leave the decision to previously uninvolved admins. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, dba is trying to kill an enemy. He is not able to accept certain references claiming Tamil related things. Instead he tries to push the Indo-Aryan languages! --Thirusivaperur (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider starting an RfC on it first. See how that goes. Then mediation. Handing out blocks for warring on content isn't usually what's done on this board. IronDuke 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wordhawk

Please remove the Wordhawk warning that names Robert Knilands. I did not create this account, and your failure to ascertain this fact before posting a name is simple ignorance.

Please take care of this problem immediately. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.179.82 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm User:Wordhawk was warned for creating an article about the person you mentioned above. It does not assert that it is the person mentioned above. I'm a little confused by the reasoning...care to explain a little more?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The deleted article was an attack page but I too am befuddled by this request. The IP has been warned about unhelpful edits to another article, Billy Idol. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, both Wordhawk and the IP had vandalized (may not have been the current user of the address) over a year ago. So any reason why administrator intervention is required now :S?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption at Zakir Naik

There is an ongoing drive to insert poorly sourced, negatively oriented material over on Zakir Naik, which is a BLP.

The main disruptive behaviour is coming from Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) who has been edit warring to reinsert the contentious and poorly sourced material in question (sourced to video sharing websites, wordpress blogs, and so on).[146][147] [148][149] He was warned about 3RR, after which he solicited meatpuppets to game the rule and ensure that the unencyclopedic material remained ("I will ask my friend to revert your edit as soon as he can"). This was in the form of a newly created single purpose account, GajendraAgarwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who reverted to restore the material without explanation or discussion.[150][151][152]

Now that sufficient time has elapsed, Agnistus has returned to restoring the dubious material. He has repeatedly refused to provide any form of secondary reliable sourcing, and has rejected requests to stop reinserting the material. I believe a block is warranted for this unyielding disruption - not to mention the attempts to ensure the poorly sourced content remains on a BLP through solicitation. ITAQALLAH 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:GajendraAgarwal as a blatant sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus has now been properly warned. If the behaviour continues then take it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need more eyes on Scotland

I recently have had my attention directed to this article, where there is an edit war going on this article and a rather heated discussion on the talk page, regarding Scotland's status as a "Country" or a "Constituent Country". With the abnomrmally high amount of heat and edit warring being done by IP's here, we may have one or more people using IP's to inflate their opinion. I've protected the page for a couple of days, but if anyone has any suggestions on individuals who may have broken Wikipedia Policies, or a way to go forward on this, I would appreciate it. SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend at least a 1-week protection. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They all seem to have come out of the woodwork, and I have my suspicions as I mentioned on SirFozzies talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I point out this diff. It makes me suspect that Fonez4mii and ip 84.13 166 40 are one and the same. If I'm wrong fair enough, but who makes a mistake like that? Jack forbes (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I've succesfully edited England, Wales and Northern Ireland to what I think is a neutral, accurate and consistent version, of "W/E/NI is part of the United Kingdom, as a country within a country". It has held for a few minutes, so I claim consensus, and request Scotland be unprotected so I can go 4 for 4. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mick, your changes have been reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is a complete joke. It's laughable it realy is. I fail to see what is wrong with my version, but apparently "stability" (i.e. no arguing for the last few hours) is what justifies having England as a country, Wales and NI as constituent countries, and Scotland as we see here, as god knows what. No one will ever be able to argue against the above version because it is factually correct, leaving 'ner ner ner you don't have consensus' as the only get out for reverting. Some people just weren't born with the sense they were given realy, responses of the sort 'seek consensus on the talk page first', given the history of these articles, is patently a complete piss take in the face of anyone who proposes a solution. You might as well say to someone, solve the middle east problem. I was 100% confident that I would be reverted, I would have bet my life savings on it, but sometimes you just have to show stupidity for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And apparently I am 'bothering' the user that mass reverted the version above that people had 10 minutes to comment on, by asking him what is wrong with that version. Anyway, all four countries are now dutifully back to the status quo, a contradictory and permanently disputed mess. MickMacNee (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass moves/redirects of RC diocese articles

Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs) has gone through a massive program of moving/redirecting Roman Catholic diocese and bishop articles to "Diocese of X" from "Roman Catholic Diocese of X". There has been much objection to this, especially since in many cities there are Anglican, Old Catholic, and various other bishoprics and dioceses (e.g. Diocese of Calgary, which I have made into a disambig over his redirection). It appears that he may be using some sort of bot, considering how quickly he is churning these out. Attempts to communicate with him have been rebuffed. I would request at least a temporary block, as we already have a massive project ahead of us to undo the damage he has already done. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Roman Catholic Diocese of 'Foo' VS Diocese of 'Foo' Redirects. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions you describe happened more than three days ago; blocks are intended to prevent ongoing bad behaviour, and as no behaviour is happening, no block is warranted. Revert the moves if you feel it necessary. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note that he needs to seek consensus if he wants to continue. These moves are obviously controversial so there should be discussion. KnightLago (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] something extraordinary

happenning with GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs). Just malformed an RFA. Has been post somewhat abrupt warnings. Talks about deleting and blocking and maybe presenting self as an admin. Afraid I'm at work and haven't the time to present a thorough list of diff's. If someone could check and see. Cheers Dlohcierekim 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GENIUS(4th power). Yawn. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, this user does seem to be trying to pass himself off as an admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That along with this and this when users remain unblocked, and then there's this. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, im not trying to pass as an admin (trust me, i wouldnt even dare). Im just employing what power i have to help Wikipedia by doing what i can to stop vandalisers. ( Even if it means a fake block, just to warn them). Im sorry if i broke a couple of guidelines along the way, but i am doing my best to make sure harmful users cannopt harm Wikipedia any more. Again, me no Admin. Me Standard User who knows alot. Thanks for your time, though. Oh, and all this further demonstrates that as a simple user i can stop people from vandalising pages, imagine what i could do as an Admin! Wikipedia would forget the words "trouble","problems", and "vandalising". Please vouch for me, as you can see i want the best for Wikipedia. sincerely, ((U'nknown) (User) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Has already been blocked twice for disruption (last time was for a week). Blocked 31 hours, again for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Also, the RfA should probably be closed. GlassCobra 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote another administrator, "my Chris19910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) senses are tingling". Daniel (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can sockpuppeter file a SSP file during his block? Block review also needed

I'm very amazed by the unique way of this sockpuppeter. Two days ago, 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked for his violation on 5RR at Comfort women. Actually I don't have any content issue with him, but his massive deletion continued on several articles without any discussion or consensus such as Slavery in Japan, Japanese war crimes, very sensitive issues. Anyway, due to his massive deletion, I once restored his blanking at Comfort women and Slavery in Japan just like many other editors did do the same after the anon's blanking. Everybody told him to use "talk page if he has to address his concerns on the articles, and I also gave him a couple of warnings.

Today, after his block duration was expired, 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on the same articles. Then, Blueshirts (talk · contribs) restored the deleted material. Their edit warring (both users claim that the other side is doing vandalism), And the anon filed 3RR report, but that means the anon violated more reversion, so I filed his 8RR violation at first. However, regardless other editors' interventions, the anon's reverting did not stop, so he reverted Comfort women page 11 times. However, the anon began accusing me and others doing meatpuppetry because everyone, except the anon are against the mass deletion. Anyway, the anon was blocked for 24 hours along with Blueshirt, but I think the block duration of the anon is too short, given that the he or she just got off from the previous block, then did the same disruptive behaviors.

After the anon blocked, another IP user with the same ISP, 222.150.193.35 (talk · contribs) appeared and then wrote his agenda on the sock ip's talk page. Still with the IP, the anon reverted the article, and then finally created sock account, Documentingabuse (talk · contribs) claim thatto file a WP:SSP file on me and other 3 people, but actually his filing is to report the four people's WP:MEATPUPPETRY. :D It is so funny that the four listed people seem to have no connection but accused by him because all object his unilateral deletion? I don't think sock can't edit any of articles during his block. His intention of filing SSP is not only a malicious, but also disruptive and blatant disregard toward wikirules. He insists that his unique "openness" does not meet the sockpuppetry and 3RR violation and block evasion. Well, I think the false SSP reported by the sockpuppeter during his block should be deleted, and the anon should be blocked longer due to his/her repeated disruptions. Given that the anon's weird behaviors, the deletion by him is not mere content dispute, so I think it would be suitable that Blueshirts's block be lifted from now. The sockpuppeter admitted his sockpuppetry, and you can see further info below.

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Caspian blue filed by the sockpuppeter
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse filed by me.

Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the SSP filing by User:Documentingabuse to be in bad faith. Per comments here and at the SSP case. Also, his user page redirected to IP 207.112.75.189, who earlier today made a death threat in a summary on the footnotes RFAR case. I blocked Documentingabuse indef and 207.112.75.189 three months and closed the SSP case. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user:Nick326 user:92.0.29.148

This new user is adding perjoritive labels to several BLP articles, and reverting back almost immediately. I have warned but to no avail.

A quick look at his history tells the tale. A short block may be in order. Anonymous history, seems like they are the same person. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you consider it "perjoritive" to call someone right-leaning or right-wing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider it pejorative if someone called me "right-wing", and some of the subjects of these BLPs might feel the same way (I haven't checked through them so can't comment on whether they would). It certainly isn't worthy of inclusion unless that person clearly falls under that description. Black Kite 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would, left or right. Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat (Progressive if you will), are generally considered the proper way to label those that classify themselves as such. My experience has been that it best not to label someone along these lines unless they self-identify as such. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to and didn't. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how we deal with new users? Is this really require a thread in AN/I? Perhaps one of you might take the time to explain the problem to this new user instead of immediately threatening him/her with a block. The edits are inappropriate, but hardly ones that require administrative intervention, just a gentle bit of explaining about how we do things. Please read WP:BITE before you go off on another new user. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of additions Nick326 should work on: (1) instead of "left-wing" or "right-wing" as standalone words, write it as left-wing or right-wing, i.e. with the links to the discussions of those terms; and (2) find valid sources that actually affirm that they are what he says they are - either their own words, or someone else's. It is not wikipedia editors' place to pass that judgment, especially as judgments can be slippery. I consider myself a liberal, yet I agree with Pat Buchanan on some issues. And how would they classify John McCain? Most liberals likely think of him as a conservative. Many conservatives think of him as liberal. Labels are slippery and misleading. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death Magnetic

Death Magnetic is the name of the new Metallica album, but we cant move it because some idiot silly-type person made a C+P move. HALP! PXK ^T /_C 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place for this request, though. --Selket ^Talk 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 202.27.219.186

Can someone investigate this user for their edits to the article on Sue Bradford? All three of them appear to be vandalism. Bactoid (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked on June 12 for a week. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)

I am reporting another incident and rather than engage and defend myself I am reporting this incident. I think nipping things in the bud are the way to go with this user.

[[153]]

ChrisJNelson has diplayed a didain for the rules and no matter what kind of wrist-slap he displays the same type of behavior over and over and over. I am asking that the system work to curb his displays of uncivil behavior.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) [[154]]

User_talk:72.0.36.36#Chrisjnelson_Arbitration Please read. Durova^Charge! 08:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need three links to the same page in the same report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More important for someone with the tools to examine how arrogant and blatant the incivility is. This is somebody with a block log so long it requires scrolling to read and who was very nearly sitebanned at arbitration for edit warring and incivility. Basically the only reason he received a second chance was because of an unusual development during arbitration that turned up a banned editor and a sneaky vandal who were simultaneously trolling him: it wasn't known how he'd behave absent those unusual stresses. Well those unusual factors are gone now and he's taunting regular people, and rather proud of mostly getting away with it. He openly regards 24-48 hour blocks as an acceptable price to pay for dumping on other people. Suggest a this-isn't-Usenet reminder in the form of a longer timeout. Durova^Charge! 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the user apparently also has valuable facts to contribute, which I assume is the reason wikipedia is still messing with him and hasn't issued a permanent block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.enh (talk · contribs)

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., [155] [156] [157]). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved incident

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": [158], [159], [160].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me?[161] Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Wikipedia pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Wikipedia. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here [162]. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Wikipedia, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[163]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [164]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Details

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions: [165]

This is the ridiculous nature of Wikipedia: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unable to resolve

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Wikipedia policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL^{Query me!} 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL^{Query me!} 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio [166]
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable [167]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion [168]
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag [169]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal [170]
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag [171] citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn [172] Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article [173]
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags [174]
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag [175]
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop ^{[citation needed]}'ing" [176]
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag [177]
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag [178]
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag [179] with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal [180] with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying [181] "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic [182]
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee [183]
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request [184] with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 [185] I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion [186] , spent some time fixing that tag [187] and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz ^talk 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV."[188]. Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz ^talk 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is an "unwarranted content template"

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus needed - ANI subpages

Please have a look and comment on this discussion regarding ANI subpages. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Samuel Pepys and fixing broken refs in sandboxes

User:Samuel Pepys is currently cleaning up a category which lists broken refs (Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting). Unfortunately, this category lists many people's sandboxes, which Samuel "fixes" as well. Samuel has been told by several people to stop this behavior because it is messing with their work, but Samuel ignores this advice, claiming that userspace belongs to wikipedia and not individual users. If admins consider his behavior right, I'll immediately drop this issue, but I really do not want to cleanup after cleanup-ers because my work-in-progress temporarily shows up in a hidden cleanup cat. Not to mention that his edits spam edit histories and watchlists (see e.g. this). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have complied with individual users wishes not to edit their particular user space, which according to WP:USER is a community page and not user owned. These pages were listed in a cleanup category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting --Samuel Pepys (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it is polite for people whose userspace pages appear in such categories to do the edits needed to remove the pages from those categories. If the user is inactive, just fix the pages. If they are around, leave them a message. If it is very minor, fix anyway, rather than annoy them with a message. Unless you think they will be more annoyed by the fixing! Either way, no-one should get too upset about this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

... or developers can change <ref> so that the cleanup cat only gets added when the article is in mainspace. I don't know whom to approach though. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Carcharoth, your position does make some sense, but I suggest having a short look at Samuel Pepys' conversations with those who complained. (They are here, not where you'd expect them.) There are often valid reasons why the pages are the way they are, so they don't need any "fixing". (If anything, the automatic category should be fixed so it ignores user pages.) And I must say that several things about this user ring alarm bells with me. I suggest not to delete the subpage to which he redirected his talk page, should he request it, to preserve at least some transparency about this "new" user's first clashes with the community. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something inflammatory or other rule violation in a user's "sandbox" or their talk page or user page, other editors shouldn't be messing with them. That sort of work should be confined to actual articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that many editors are leaving their ref tags in error so that they can find what they cited as they go, opening references to check things, or to use as crib notes for working on a mainspace article. I see no valid reason for Samuel Pepys' actions in the name of depopulating the category. he should instead continue to focus on the mainsapce, which clearly has a large number of candidates for fixing. ThuranX (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, you need to stop editing works in progress found in userspace. Focus your efforts on problems in mainspace, there are plenty. Many, many users have asked you to stop and provided you with more than sufficient rationales. Whether userspace belongs to them or to the community is really irrelevant - its set aside for their use, they are using it and you should leave them to it. Not to mention - who cares about broken refs in userspace? Avruch^T * ^ER 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He's factually correct in that all pages belong to the community, which is why rules against personal attacks and such can be enforced there. He's also in gross violation of wiki-etiquette, and should cease and desist, immediately. I could see a place for his work though, as someone might actually like some help with formatting. Maybe he could make himself available for voluntary help in fixing formatting. That's something *I* could use sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link

At the Belinda Ang Saw Ean page, a bunch of sock anons has persisted in adding an external link that is highly inappropriate that violates WP:BLP, WP:EL and WP:RS. Indeed, one only has to read the external link to realise the user is perpetrating a defamatory and contempt of court agenda. I urge an administrator to put an end to this. Thanks. Chensiyuan (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist. If it continues then semi-protection should be considered. Kevin (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the external link a reliable source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this blog and the individual responsible for it, has had some press coverage:

• Reuters
• Asia Times Online
• IPS News

Just raising this fact for information to assist with a decision here. TigerShark (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem reliable, should someone wish to add something on the arrest, but the blog is not a reliable source in an article about the judge, and should not be there as a bare link without any commentary. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My concern is that the complainer is raising the wrong issue. He's claiming it's defamatory and "contempt of court agenda", whatever that means. That stuff doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is whether the source is a valid wikipedia source. The wording of the complaint sounds more like something smacking of "censorship". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I considered adding the accusations of bias based on the press coverage above, but I have concerns about undue weight given that even 2 sentences would overwhelm the rest of the article. Kevin (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not censorship. Saying that a court is a "kangaroo court" is a very serious allegation. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked if the source is usable in wikipedia. It's not wikipedia editors' place to worry about whether some judge might be offended by having his proceedings called a "kangaroo court". What matters is whether the charge has been leveled by a reliable source and could have some legitimacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment from my talk page follows. Let's try to keep this all in one place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not censorship -- I understand the distinction between censorship and countering defamation, thank you. Impugning the integrity of a state's judiciary without any basis is a very serious offence in all countries. It is called contempt of court, and there is nothing I can find in Wikipedia policies that states that no censorship = let all allegations fly. Of course, you are right to say that there is an issue of reliability of sources, but I have already stated so in my complaint that RS was an issue. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "the user is perpetrating a defamatory and contempt of court agenda" doesn't necessarily argue that it's an unreliable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As TigerShark points out, the link by itself [189] might not be a valid wikipedia source normally, but the fact that this is a citable news story elevates the blog to a usable reference, so that the reader can see what he actually said, in addition to what the commentators in those news sources are saying. The news sources themselves obviously should also be used, not just the blog. I would think all of those links belong in a separate section about this particular case, rather than as a standalone external link. Wikipedia need not be concerned about what the judge thinks of the case or the blogger. Wikipedia should follow its standards in reporting stories like these. Then, I think, this issue goes away. P.S. There's an old American adage that the Singaporean plaintiffs might want to bear in mind - "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog. Prima facie, some doubt is cast. Upon a perusal of the blog it's apparent there are problems citing it as an appropriate link. Chief amongst which, in my view, is that the contents are highly problematic. Laws pertaining to defamation and contempt of court exist not to censor opinion, but exist to protect the rights of individuals' whose integrity are impugned. What I've been saying all along is that the adding of the link is a backdoor attempt to promote opinions that would violate laws in any country that has the rule of law. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just read your last entry. But there is a difference between citing the blog entry as a "commentary" (as the anon is doing) and citing the entry as the reason why the blogger was charged in court (which was why the blog and blogger received news coverage). Chensiyuan (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The link by itself is not a normal wikipedia source, and sticking it in there with a seemingly-neutral title is obvious POV-pushing. The news stories talk about this guy's arrest (which I assume he had expected to happen, unless he's an idiot), so if the story is notable enough to be discussed in the article in question (or in some other article, such as Singaporean politics), then the original blog should be linked also, so that the reader can see it unfiltered. Whether it's a notable story or not is a wikipedian editorial decision. And don't confuse Singapore with America. Considering the kind of stuff that's said about our leaders all day every day, a blog like that in the USA would go practically unnoticed. Criticism of leaders and other public figures is an established American tradition, and defamation is nearly impossible to prove in court. Not so in Singapore, apparently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything you said before "And don't confuse" I can accept. But we should not be discussing the merits of either jurisdiction's defamation laws here as they are irrelevant (don't worry, I'm not confused. I know some American law; spent years reading them qua law student). That would be our own private conversation. What is established and relevant is that WP:BLP is very clear that one has to err on the side of conservativeness -- the very language of the policy itself. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can discuss anything I want to here. Better you should see what my views on things are, than not. But that does not prevent fair and balanced presentation in an article. I say again, if this is a legitimate news story, all the facts should be out there and not censored. If the guy was arrested for defamation, then the reader has the right to see exactly what he said that is alleged to be defamation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you have no objection to listing the link, as long as the news-story links are there also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would probably say it this way. Someone with a better gift of gab could elaborate: "An American blogger has been arrested in Singapore (Reuters, Asia Times Online, IPS News) for alleged defamation of character against the judge, due to comments [190] accusing the judge of conducting a 'kangaroo court' in a recent case." That states the facts and let's the reader form an opinion, if he wants to, as to the merits of the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would especially be inclined to post it that way if the original poster tries it again. If he reverts it, then you've got him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lolla lola creating multiple contentious and unverifiable articles

User:Lolla lola has created a string of articles about a supposed "Chiacig crime family". Googling shows no evidence that any such family exists: without evidence, these pages are a massive WP:BLP violation. They have ignored all the messages on their talk pages, and removed AfD tags, so I've blocked them for 24 hours to stop the articles being created. I'm proposing to speedy-delete the lot of them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think someone beat you to it. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cough All dem articles had a little accident. I left the user a note drawing their attention to BLP, V and RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Lolla lola appears to be a sock of User:Jon-sw, who has been blocked previously. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Concur - shall we indef them both?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also see User:Rico-rico1982. And there may be others... -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Such as User:Erik-2006. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks like we need a checkuser to block the underlying ip. They clearly haven't learned. I'm about to stop out for an hour but I can protect all the pages from recreation and file the check-user when I get back if no-one does it in the meantime. Shall we indef the whole lot of them?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also User:Lisa-1982 and User:213.100.20.76 -- The Anome (talk)

Indef'ed Lolla lola. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • And also see previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#3RR and removing AfD tags -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new branch called "wikifiction", where users could indulge in creative writing about nonexistent rock bands, public figures, sporting events, crime families, etc. Then turn the bots loose too fix there spelin and grammer - assuming that doesn't hog all the servers' memories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now salted most of the article titles. Could someone please follow up on the checkuser request? -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a CU request on all the users and the IP. Kevin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism threat

Hi all. I hesitated to post this, because it's probably a steaming pile of BS- but on the off chance that there might be some plausibility to it, I figured I'd bring this edit by 124.188.250.164 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) to people's attention. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it could be someone after attention since the IP is from an Australian ISP. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure terrorists would post their intentions on wikipedia. At least this is a little more creative than the "I'm gonna kill u dude" stuff that appears from time to time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it to the authorities. They may have even read our 'secret' documents that went missing on the train(s).... Rudget (logs) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll doubt the Aussie police would have seen the 'secret' documents. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, how often do the Aussie police request the 'secret documents'? How come I haven't seen them ;). I do think it would be wise to go ahead and report this, just FYI. Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Best to report it to how though? Australian Federal Police (Since it's an Aussie IP) or UK police? Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a bomb would hurt the city much, due to the tons of padding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubber or Foam? Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was popular in 1056. Although, come to think of it, it didn't deter the Normans, did it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Metropolitan Police. Rudget (logs) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec>I would say that it should be reported to the UK authorities, since that's where the threat's directed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. I would have gone with the AFP above. I think that they are equal to our FBI? Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yep the AFP is the equal to the FBI in the US. Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And now that Rudget's reported it to the appropriate UK authorities (the London Metropolitan Police), presumably giving them a permalink to the diff, I'd say it's time for WP:RBI to come into play and someone to mark this as Resolved. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to report it, maybe report it to both, and let them work it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should go to the AFP as well. Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AFP don't treat bomb threats lightly! Just ask those who have said the word 'bomb' on Aircraft in Australia (and no I'm not that stupid to say it!)! Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like the poor guy who walked onto a plane, recognized a friend and yelled, "Hi, Jack!" He's currently awaiting trial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the AFP be contacted by the Met if there was anything further needed doing? Rudget (logs) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather be safe and report to both. Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Don't make assumptions. If I make a 911 call, and someone else has already done so, they might tell me that, but they don't complain about getting the call. Better safe than sorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 000 in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

so, who is going to make the call/send the e-mail? Dusti^SPEAK!! 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email. We don't need to do anything else, nor should we. Now it's time to deny recognition and get back to doing something constructive. Daniel (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.19.14.18

Has the user at the IP address 69.19.14.18 been discussed on these boards before? Apparently he/she has a long history of adding false information on biographies of living persons and television shows. Among his/her most recent acts is to claim that actress Amy Adams and Spongebob Squarepants voiceover actor Doug Lawrence are either getting married or are already married, when in fact Adams has been going out with a man named Darren LeGallo for six years. ----DanTD (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)