Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive311

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026 2 IP three month blocks requested 3 Oversight needed 4 User:Redlinkseeker 5 User:MDtoBe 6 Al Gore's Nobel Prize 7 65.54.154.154 8 Whitelist Fixin'. 9 Qestions about range IP blocking 10 Stubbing articles that aren't stubs 11 Vandalism to Seamus McCaffrey 12 Death threat by Golyanovskii 13 User:Davidcannon admin abuse 13.1 Wait a minute. Compromised admin account? 13.1.1 Davidcannon's response 13.2 Warned before 14 Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) 15 Would an admin step in? 16 Block of large IP range 17 Vietnam Template completely destroyed 18 Mass deletion of Husnock images by a single admin 18.1 Statement of Durin 18.1.1 Offically asking for Help 19 Knowingly inserting false information 20 Template messages to regulars 21 Another pair of admin eyes requested 22 User:212.127.96.230 23 Request block for User:Roitr sock 24 Complaint against User:Betacommand 25 Husnock/OberRanks 26 User:Whig 26.1 Block (User:Whig) 27 Possible QST Sock 28 Uncivil edit summaries despite warnings 28.1 Ugh 28.2 Userpage harassment 29 Article to watch 30 User:Michele.mostarda 31 Block review requested, if you please! 32 Threat by an anon 33 Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 34 User:Reale 35 User:Cbrown2411 36 User:Stopme 37 BigGabriel555‎ 38 User:Suicide note123454321 39 Insults on userpage 40 What to do about user:Kreepy krawly ?? 40.1 Blocking time 41 User:Dojarca disrupting Template after unsuccessful TfD 42 Porcupine's behaviour 43 Bad username block

[edit] 3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks. John J. Bulten 14:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC) BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John, you need to provide some diffs in order for admins to verify this issue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided [1] and [2], which I think supports the other conclusive evidence, but I have added [3] and [4] (same edit summary: "correct"). As Raymond notes below, James doesn't intend to conceal it much. John J. Bulten 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) John J. Bulten 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins have access to a tool that allows one to compare the edits of two authors, organized by articles edited in common. Using that tool to compare User:Nrcprm2026 and User:1of3 it's game, set, and match. Quite obvious. I'd prefer another admin did the block, since I've had past involvement with this user. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone could also include user John J. Bulten in any checkuser it would greatly ease my mind. I have been a long-time editor on that page and am to the point where I cant tell one sockpuppet from another. Turtlescrubber 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP three month blocks requested

I have been keeping an eye on the vandalism that goes on in my userspace, by listing the IP vandal along with the diff, date and time here (notice - some edits have been removed from page history). As I have been doing it since July, I have noticed several IP's recurring. Therefore, I am requesting a three month block for the following IP addresses:

• 86.20.59.0 - vandalised my userpages nine times.
• 86.20.60.100 - vandalised my userpages four times

This kind of vandalism we as users of Wikipedia should not have to put up with. I will be very greatful if these two IP's could be blocked - as ther vandalism attempts towards me (in one case 86.20.59.0 revealed my full name). Thanks, Davnel03 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for one week for vandalism; I was tempted to block for longer for harassment, but I was unsure whether that would be punitive. Any administrator may feel free to review. — madman bum and angel 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason a three-month block would be over the top, in my opinion, is that this is not a constant problem; the IP gets bored then comes back later, and they are shared IPs. A one month block for harassment may or may not be justified. — madman bum and angel 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point to this? Your user page has been indef semi protected so ip's can't edit it. problem solved. If you have any other userpages that need semiprotecting leave me a note on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oversight needed

Hi. This article was just deleted (), as an attack page, however the attacks appear in the deletion log . Since it violates BLP policy, can someone oversight it please? Thanks.

Seraphim ^Whipp 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's to show recreators or editors who want to see others previous edits. So, AFAIK this doesn't violate any policy. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Log entries cannot be oversighted. This is a technical impossibility. --Deskana 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke. Just wanted to make sure :).

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno - that one's sufficiently defamatory that I would hope we could come up with a way to delete it. Could a developer help, perhaps? - Philippe | Talk 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should serve as a nice reminder to not always accept the default comment for a deletion. Especially in the case of a WP:CSD#G10. Perhaps a new section should be created at WP:AN to further drive the point home. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there - Always keep an eye on what your going to be putting in the logs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I use User:^demon/CSD AutoReason. Nice time saver that creates standard auto-summaries for each CSD. - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neet... another way to make CSD easier. Best thing since tabbed browsing! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great find! Thanks. Rockpocket 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a major problem. The article is capitalized incorrectly and the deletion log is not indexed by Google. The point about the reason for deletion field is well taken, however. As for expungement, in the past, developers have been asked to remove log entries and have been extremely reluctant to do so [5]. For the record.  :) — madman bum and angel 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be left until we get a complaint from subject. It's buried very deep... and like you said, not indexed by google. Also, it would be helpful if someone could comment out the name above? This page is indexed by some search engines. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure log entries can be oversighted. One oversighter did it for me (see the last deleted revision of this page) and another told me it's impossible. In any event, all future requests should be made privately, to the email address at WP:RFO. I will make one now.--chaser - t 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The software and schema changes for MW 1.12 are a bit held up. It will be supported, but is not now. For now, a sysadmin can of course, manually run a query on the DB. Voice-of-All 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Redlinkseeker

This user just goes around deleting redlinks, [6]. Did not repsond to talk page. Is this blockable? Rlevse 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bot or semi-automated script. I have blocked since they did not respond on their talk page. The edits are unsupported by policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to check first. Rlevse 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page and I have given up waiting for bbatsell to reply back so I have just created this account. Ok, I am not a bot and it may be unsupported by policy but it is not against policy. Now this account is no longer needed. Redlinkseeker2 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Redlinkseeker2, because you're clearly using it to get around the block of your other account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid the autoblock on that one because it was just used to respond here (not for any edits similar to that which I blocked him for) and I don't think it was in bad faith, just a misunderstanding of policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, unlikely to be a bot, because of the time betwen actions and that deletions to articles take place over a series of edits rather than all at once, the targets also seem non-random. Is this resolved? Carlossuarez46 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, given the epic poem on the User talk: page. — madman bum and angel 04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MDtoBe

User:MDtoBe is an single purpose account who has engaged in repeated blanking vandalism of Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine despite warnings from multiple editors and a final warning. Was referred here from WP:AIV, not sure why, seems pretty clear cut to me. For those unfamiliar, WP:SPA's are banned from making disruptive edits on this article based on this ArbCom decision, and may be indefblocked for disruption. Leuko 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Per User talk:MDToBe, user explicitly rejects warnings about his behavior or attempts to explain why what he's doing isn't appropriate. DMacks 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I archived material. I never engaged in any blanking vandalism. Leuko is using threats of bans and being an SPA against anyone that edits this page and doesn't agree with the POV that he is attempting to push on this talk page and on the main page for this article. If anything Leuko's abuse of warnings and threats of bans should be investigated, he has a very long history of doing this to just about any editor that edits this page except for him. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have every right to blank my user talk page when inappropriate content is left, including inaropraite warnings. MDToBe 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree that you are an SPA or not and whether Leuko is correct in his behavior or not isn't relevant here. Based on your behavior, you seem to some as an SPA and SPA is an active area of discussion on the talk page. This even landed you (rightly or wrongly) as a topic of discussion there. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that the SPA discussion is active, and therefore should not be archived, especially by someone who is the topic of that discussion. DMacks 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MDtoBe indef blocked as an obvious harassment-only account. Review welcomed. To the other editors who appeared to be on the verge of edit warring on MDtoBe's talk page over blanked warnings, please remember that blanking warnings isn't a crime (they're not the Mark of Cain or designed for punishment) and blanking is a sign that they've been read. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Obviously an article to keep an eye on. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Redvers for the speedy resolution. Just for my own education though, I am still confused on the consensus on editors blanking warnings on their talk page, especially when reports at WP:AN/I or WP:AIV exist... What is the template {{uw-tpv3}} etc used for then? It states that removing legitimate talk page comments (and I assume warnings) is a blockable as vandalism. Leuko 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's for article talk pages. Warnings are meant to be read. If they're deleted by the target, they've been read. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Just makes it harder to track down chronic vandals if you keep having to search through the page history... Leuko

That's what the block log is for. -- John Reaves 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And now we have WP:CAIN, so we can beat people over the head with a new line in WP:CAPITALISEDGIBBERISH whenever this question comes up :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore's Nobel Prize

There's plenty of controversy surrounding Gore's Nobel Prize. I've seen it in plenty of news articles. But, for some reason, Wikipedians seem to only be able to add opinion blogs from the web about it, or add them in addition to news sources to get some sort of left/right balance. A blog is a blog, isn't a reliable, credible news source for the sake of a BLP. Can someone deal with this at Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies? I simply don't have the time. KP Botany 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an administrative issue. Try leaving comments on the relative talk pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Admins can't fix content disputes. Please continue talking things out on the talk page, or take steps towards mediation (such as a WP:RfC or WP:30). If there are actual BLP concerns, that noticeboard can be found at WP:BLP/N. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And Al Jazeera is definitely a reliable source. Please don't forum shop because you don't like the material. Kyaa the Catlord 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, KP Botany is not shopping for a different forum, but rather has concerns that policy is being violated, perhaps inadvertently, by using blogs as sources. S/he is supported by WP:RS in this. I disagree with your opinion about Al Jazeera, but had you or anyone used that as a source, I wouldnt revert it, A blog on Al Jazeera would be another story, as would a blog on the New York Times (my favorite paper). Jeffpw 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then WP:RSN may be a better place for their concern. Caknuck 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, KP Botany is ignoring the fact that the blogs aren't the only sources being cited in this case and is reverting away material backed by sources that do meet WP:RS, including Al Jazeera. I've reverted KP based on that criteria. Kyaa the Catlord 00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh the wondrous harmony. People, no this is not an administrative issue, but some administrators happen to be quality editors and might be able to help generate a consensus. You don't have to freak out at KP Botany. You could, ya know, also assume good faith?  :) Might make ANI a bit less dramatic and contentious  ;-) --Iamunknown 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading my previous comment, I see that it is very unclear. I meant to state my opinion that this is not an ordinary content dispute (which I now realize I didn't even mention...) and is, in fact, relevant to this noticeboard. I'll try to be clearer in the future. Apologies, Iamunknown 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Al Gore controversies in RC patrol recently. Maybe the Prize discussions should be suggested to take it over there, where a controversy is within the proper context. (SEWilco 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">Oh, I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! Oh my God! Help me, I'm freaking out. Oops, once more trying to guess my mood rather than dealing with the issue leads to failure--content, not editor please. I don't have issues with the news sources, and I'm not ignoring them. What I am doing is reverting all simply for lack of time. I had already explained the blogs can't go in the article when they were reinserted along with various news sources--this could have been handled by only putting in the news sources, not the blogs. Readers can decide for themselves which mainstream news source to go by, because we have articles on them, they're known and searchable and they're not blogs. However, someone did step up to bat, another editor who has more time, and is taking care of the issue, doing what should be done, discussing it on the talk page with other editors. I'm not reporting a BLP violation or freaking out (good God, rereading my post makes it absolutely clear that I am ballistically over the top shooting the moon freaking fucking out) just putting a notice the quickest place to get some other editor to deal with it on a regular basis to resolve the editing issue. This has been accomplished. Thanks for the help, everyone.

And, BLP violations are indeed admin issues. What a shame that some admins don't know this. KP Botany 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you alluding to Iamunknown's statement You don't have to freak out at KP Botany.? -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OOOPS!!!!! I apologize, as obviously I misread it. Too much to do, and no time. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KP Botany 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 65.54.154.154

65.54.154.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made two vandal edits [7] (they're both identical) to the 2003 page, I reverted them both, adding a warning level 3 tag to the talk page. I did a whois to see if it was a shared one.

It resolves to Microsoft, any idea on actions if the vandalism continues? Kwsn(Ni!) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit, I'm reporting the IP to ANI for a temp block, it's getting out of hand. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I gave them a final warning for more vandalism. If it continues, block as usual and notify the Communications committee. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been uh... 6 vandal edits, and I'm not an admin, so I lack the block power. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours and just about to notify the committee. Ryan; Postlethwaite 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitelist Fixin'.

I just spent several hours straightening out MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist; the requests for Whitelisting certain sites for inclusion on Wikipedia. I went to add a request for whitelisting an official announcement from Dark Horse Comics, that they happened to make on MySpace, and was really messed up by how confused the page was. I didn't, however, have time to fix it then. It had gotten to be a real mess; because of a couple of incorrectly entered sites, it had become *really* unclear where you were supposed to edit things, and people were throwing requests and commentia in willy nilly. It hasn't been archived or anything in half a year.

I have; removed declined requests to their own section; removed expired and withdrawn requests to their own section; extracted all the requests that had been placed in odd places to the proper section; put the requests in date-numbered order; done the same with the discussion section; corrected all the headers so that everything should be tidily in its own place. I have fixed many of them where the header was just 'add this site!' and not, properly, the site requested to be added.

However, I am not an admin; there are 25 whitelist requests that need to be addressed. I believe I have sorted them out so that one studious admin could fix it in 90m or so, but as backlogs go, this is a little mild, and could be cleared out by 2-3 admins with very little pressure work in a day or two.

Also, if anyone is interested in building a bot that would do the archiving this page needs, it seems to me that it might be a fairly simple starter bot. Otherwise, I've just added a note to my calendar for the 1st of the month, and will take hand-archiving this page (and reminding y'all that it exists when the backlog grows!) on. --Thespian 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qestions about range IP blocking

I was directed to this page from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Someone editing the Glace Bay, Nova Scotia page used to use multiple sign ins, get one banned and move on to another. Now they seem to realise that blackberry IPs are dynmaicly assigned so if they get blocked, they sign out and sign back in with a new ip. I think that the only way we can control this is with an anonblock on the range of ips 216.9.250.xx. From my search, RIM, the black berry company, owns those ips. The Anonblock will require people to sign in to use WIkipedia and if they start vandalising, then we can ban them. They may create more and more accounts but at least this way we are making it more trouble for them then just signing off and signing back on their blackberry. Quick list of Ips from just the Glace Bay article, not to mention the others that are being vandalised by Blackberry users. The warnings and Blocks are for mostly other articles as well.

List of IPs with warnings and blocks: 216.9.250.108 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.102 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.63 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.101 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.61 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.103 -> Multiple vandalism warnings

Ips with no warning but all reverted to known vandalism: 216.9.250.37 216.9.250.36 216.9.250.35 216.9.250.99 216.9.250.110

I do not know if I can provide more information without a lot more research but this should be enough to show there is a problem here with blackberries and we need to curb it.-Kirkoconnell 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a couple weeks. That avoids the collateral damage involved with range blocks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbing articles that aren't stubs

User:76.15.39.47 has put the Freemasonry stub template on what looks like over 100 articles, most of which are not stubs (such as Freemasonry and History of Freemasonry. Is there an admin tool to mass-revert, or do they all have to be undone by hand? MSJapan 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Seamus McCaffrey

Someone using account User:Yomama69666 is repeatedly vandalizing the article for Seamus McCaffrey. The subject of the article is a candidate in an election next month (even though the article is a stub and doesn't mention this), so it's a sensitive time. Spikebrennan 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Account indefblocked as blatant vandalism-only account. Please try WP:AIV for a quicker response. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death threat by Golyanovskii

Golyanovskii threatened to kill me. I'm sure it isn't allowed. On a related note, he also violated the 3RR. Click here. Charles 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. His obviously copyvio images are about to go as well. --B 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speed in dealing with this! :-) Charles 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Related note: [8] Is this a sockpuppet? Charles 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, checked and looks unrelated, but still peculiar. Charles 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a harassment-only account. --B 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Davidcannon admin abuse

I know how everybody hates it when people scream "admin abuse" but this is a very short, very solid case of exactly that from User:Davidcannon.

Summary: Davidcannon, who is an ex-member of a religious movement that has by some been characterized as a sect, reverts an "anonymous" user's (mine) constructive edits to that movement/sect's article, including several reliable sources added, the fact that the movement has been categorized as a "sect" and a few citations/neutrality tags. The admin then choses to block the user.

Evidence/Chronology:

• 1) I ("anonymously", IP) make a bunch of edits to the article on Plymouth Brethren. Here's a diff showing all my edits: ^[9]. It's important to point out that I provided edit summaries on 3 of 8 occasions: ^[10][11][12]
• 2) User:Davidcannon (admin) reverts my edits, calls it vandalism and says it doesn't match up with what he remembers of the brethren ^[13] (he has confessed here that he used to attend their meetings).
• 3) I revert back, angrily but not rudely. ^[14] I reply to a comment made by Cannon on the talk page, where I complain he labeled my edits "vandalism".^[15]
• 4) David reverts me^[16], blocks me (with an expiry time of 24 hours. Reason given: Deleting information without adequate explanation.) and posts on the talk page ^[17] where he quite mistakenly suggests I deleted "whole chunks of text without justification."

A clearcut case of abuse of admin powers, if you ask me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate a response from Davidcannon. On the surface, the block certainly appears suspect. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Concur, an admin should not implement a block on an editor with which he has recent edit warred. At minimum, I suggest that the block be reversed pending explanation from User:Davidcannon. Ronnotel 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it never really got a chance to become edit warring, he reverted me once, I reverted him once and then he blocked me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I don't think anyone should be unblocked until the blocking administrator is contacted, unless there's much more evidence of consensus. Let's not wheel war here. — madman bum and angel 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The block wasn't extended to account creations, and the user in question is obviously able to edit under this account. I would ask both parties to refrain from editing the page under dispute until this is resolved. —bbatsell

I agree, unblocking or not doesn't really matter. I also agree we should both keep off the article until this is resolved. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated not-anon's edits on the Plymouth Brethren page, and I would suggest he should consider himself completely unblocked by consensus of admins here and not be under any restrictions not to edit this or that. The block was very clearly unjustified, there can be no serious doubt about that, whether or not David has responded or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a minute. Compromised admin account?

Wait a minute. Look at Davidcannon's blocking of anons in that log.[18] There are some really draconian anon blocks there, in fact all his anon blocks since March are draconian. The previous one, 70.184.253.131 on September 24, is for one month for at most two bad edits,[19] (one of them is apparently in good faith). No warning was given, the user talkpage still hasn't even been created. That was a case for creating the talkpage and posting a mild, welcoming "test" template; not a case for blocking for a month out of a clear sky. One week seems otherwise to be David's standard block--including the one for 76.216.98.183, August 30, where I don't see any way of telling whether that IP, most likely a student at the school in question, was vandalising at all. They could just as well have been adding correct information, and again they weren't warned or contacted in any way. And look at it--they only edited for 7 minutes altogether, all the same school article. And so on. These blocks are so strange, to call it by no worse name, that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a compromised admin account. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

I doubt very much the account is compromised, but I agree there are a number of poor blocks there in the logs, might be a good idea to wait for an explanation before we jump on him, there may be a reason behind all of them. I see David hasn't been so active with the tools as of late - maybe he's turned a little more trigger happy than usual or he's forgotten about WP:BLOCK? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is - I think it's rather a case of an admin that's out of calibration with the community. I'm looking at his block log going back for the last couple of years and it appears to be ... well, draconian was used above, and that's a good description I think. I've asked him to comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

83.233.154.50 (talk · contribs) unblocked. MaxSem 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur and I would have done it myself if you had not already done it. I think it's important, though, that we realize this was a good faith mistake on David's part and hardly abuse. --B 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that it was a "good faith mistake"? Could you please explain what part of suddenly blocking somebody who edits an article (relatively) close to your own person is a "good faith mistake"? Maybe all the other previous blocks, where he got away with it, were good faith too? I would say it's extremely bad faith and even if he does apologize, I think he should definitely not be allowed to remain an admin. Is this somehow not anonymous? 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (I'll use this account for the duration of this problem, but thanks for the unblock)

If it were a compromised account, they'd be trying to do as much damage as physically possible before the hammer dropped on them, if I remember the last time such a thing happened. HalfShadow 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the blocked user here. This was nothing more than a content dispute, the user used edit summaries after he was reverted the first time, and engaged with Davidcannon on the article's talk page. Blocking someone to gain an advantage in a content dispute (with a frivolous and untrue block reason, no less) is the very definition of abuse of blocking privileges. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a good faith mistake in that David Cannon thought (incorrectly) that the IP user was adding fact vandalism to the article. That's all I meant by it. --B 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fact vandalism"? I think that's pretty much NOT vandalism at all, see the "what vandalism is not" at WP:VANDAL. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are correct. The question is what David Cannon believed - if he incorrectly believed your edits were vandalism, then it's a different situation than if he believed your edits to be legitimate, but blocked you anyway. --B 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see where the "good faith mistake" comes in. "I thought it was OK to throw around my authority when people disagree with me? Oh, it isn't? Well, my bad, I thought it was OK." This person shouldn't be an admin. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Even in a best-case scenario, the admin seems to have exercised some really bad judgment, if not outright abuse. And "fact vandalism" sounds like a euphemism for content dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I would really like to hear User:davidcannon's take on all this. On the surface, his actions violated the admin prime directive - don't abuse the tools. Blocking someone with whom you have edit warred is abuse of the tools unless there is a really compelling reason. Ronnotel 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davidcannon's response

Now that I've slept on it, I think I did go too far. I admit to an interest in the topic, and have strong personal feelings about it, which clouded my judgement. I apologise for that, and will refrain in future from exercising powers in an article I consider myself involved with. Again, I have seen a lot of anonymous editors that are suspect, and when I see an anon making an edit that I believe is in error, I sometimes take that the wrong way. I believe I was wrong this time, and will be more careful from now on. David Cannon 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I still think there's a second issue here as well - I believe that your blocks may be out of calibration with the rest of the community, sometimes. In my opinion, you're issuing much lengthier blocks than what most of us might. I'd like to encourage you to stop and think about that as well. I applaud you for reconsidering this block in the instance above, and for being open minded about this. - Philippe | Talk 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna be irritating, but what are the odds he would not say he is reconsidering this block when the 10 or so admins that have voiced their concern on this topic ALL said he has been abusive/problematic, and his block has already been undone? To say "I was right" is not really an option. I know I'm violating WP:AGF here but I'm seriously disappointed in Davidcannon's response. I think the right thing for him to do would be to resign from his adminship immediately. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this response is disappointing. I would like to suggest that a better venue to continue this conversation is at WP:RfC/Use of admin tools. Any seconds? Ronnotel 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better there, far less chance of "ordinary" editors noticing it. DuncanHill 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

isthisanon: I understand that you are upset and quite rightly so. Davecannon has behaved badly and you are entitled to a sense of outrage but we aren't going to see him dysysoped over one block unless there is clear evidence of an ongoing problem and the admin continues to refuse to listen to advice. What I see is an apology and an acknowledgement of error. You should see this as a victory of sorts. I see many worse things done by admins who subsequently do neither. While I appreciate your feeling that something more can be done, that's not really the way we work round here and Davecannon needs to be given time to show that he has learned from his mistakes. Alternatively, consider it as giving him some more rope but there is no way on earth that arbcom will consider further action unless the behaviour is repeated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties? I'm not, and I don't see the evidence. Davecannon has acted extremely badly in connection with this block but has acknowledged his mistake and apologised. He has been told that his block lengths are out of kilter with the rest of us and has been asked to think about it. What exactly will we be looking for from the RFC? I'd said about the same things plus modification of their behaviour. RFC is premature at this stage, a stern talking to is not. Should Davecannon fail to mend his ways then by all means go for an RFC but there is nothing to be achieved by one right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening an RfC makes no judgment one way or the other. I simply feel that a separate page will provide a more effective venue than the extremely busy WP:AN/I to discuss the matter and reach a conclusion. Ronnotel 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spartaz here. So far, David Cannon has made one response and it was a positive one. Let's not go on a sysop hunt quite yet - and let's not go from no one complaining directly to "(he should) resign from his adminship immediately". Surely there's some middle ground. As far as his general use of admin tools (i.e., a trend of overly-long blocks), how about just discussing on his talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see things a little differently. I see a clear abuse of admin tools, a history of overly aggressive blocks, and, quite honestly, an 'apology' that sounds more like he's sorry he got caught - this time. Ronnotel 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{ECx3}RFC is a very blunt weapon that will not achieve anything further then what we already have here. A community consensus that Davecannon fucked up and that he must behave better in future. Plus he has been asked to review his block lengths. Seriously, what else are you expecting to come out of the RFC process except hours and hours of wasted effort. An RFC is pointless anyway as there is only dispute with one party and it takes two affected editors to certify an RFC. Simply put, AN/I is the place to discuss this. We have discussed this and I think we have a consensus - see above. Now its down to Davecannon to behave better otherwise we will be at RFC and he will be dysysopped - but not now. We shouldn't be after vengeance we should be after improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read all your responses.

I have to admit that some of my recent blocks have been heavy-handed. I know I've done this several times, and it won't do any good to plead stress (though that is real), for that's a problem we all have. The bottom line is, I should think twice before I take action, and I promise to do so from now on. Now, for a word of explanation for this latest issue. The topic is one that I have strong feelings about, because I used to belong to that church. Even though I left it 20 years ago, I still have a lot of respect for it, and I still have friends there, and I don't like it when someone speaks about them in a way that seems unfair. Toning down positive information, or tagging it as "POV" etc., rubbed me up the wrong way. I wasn't very objective and allowed it to go to my head. In future, I will refrain from exercising administrative roles when it comes to articles that I have an emotional interest in. I mean that, and I think it should go some way towards allaying everybody's concerns. And by the way, if my responses seem too few and too crisp, please understand that I work very long hours and can only squeeze in a computer break whenever I can. Once again, I'm sorry. David Cannon 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Give the guy another chance. Llajwa 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for this response. Please recognize that using the admin tools in the heat of battle is exactly the kind of action that generates mis-trust for us among all non-admins. I appreciate you taking the time to write down your further reflections. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, by all means drop me a line and I'll be happy to provide a neutral pair eyes to the problem. Ronnotel 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer, Ronnotel. If I see similar issues with articles I have an interest in, I think I'll pass the matter on to you and go by what you say. And I'll take everybody's advice about the length of blocks, too. I won't use blocks in edit wars again either. I can see why a lot of you see my behaviour as arrogant, and if I'm honest with myself, I think I'd see it that way too if I was on the receiving end of it. David Cannon 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Spartaz and Wknight94 - it seems unnecessarily punitive to start an RFC after he apologized. On a note to Davidcannon: IPs are often dynamic/shared and may change owners frequently or be used by many people at the same time; that is why we don't usually issue long IP blocks right away. Only after multiple previous blocks for the same reason makes it is evident an IP is static do we give extended blocks. Also, warnings, like those at WP:UTM should usually be given before blocking. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties?" - yes and well, dunno. There is definitely a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity, but I haven't dug through his talk archives to see if he's actually been warned.

Look at his block log! [20] it's so odd that one admin (Bishounen) suggested the account could have been compromised! The "draconian" behaviour is however NOT limited to the past few months - it's been Cannon's modus operandi since he was made an admin! I don't even think I'm exaggerating if I say that at least 90% of the MANY blocks he has handed out have been handled way improperly. There's also evidence he will block people doing the smallest of mistakes to articles he has an interest in (esp. Fiji). The only good thing you can say about his activities is that at least he stopped handing out indefinite blocks for 1-2 bad edits (he started giving them 1 month blocks instead). If this guy gets to stay admin despite the serious abusive pattern he has displayed, I definitely think Wikipedia loses out in the end. Why give him a chance to improve? This guy shouldn't have been made an admin in the first place, that was an obvious mistake. Now is the time to correct that mistake, rather than trying to make a swan out of a goose.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if you say he won't lose his privileges over this he won't - but that only shows there's something severely rotten in the state of Wikipedia. It's an insult to every admin who keeps in line, and it's an insult to every person who fails an RFA. Also it's definitely the kind of things that makes people get disillusioned and leave Wikipedia.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like we shouldn't block users that haven't been warned, we shouldn't desysop admins that haven't been warned (in both cases excluding extremes, like death threats, obvious bad sockpuppets or deleting the main page or so). David Cannon is now aware of the problem, the community is now also aware of the problem, and if this behaviour continues, it seems likely that he will end up for ArbCom and may be desysopped. If, on the other hand, he doesn't continue like this, then there is no need to desysop. Everyone can make mistakes, and everyone deserves a second chance (again, excluding truly malicious actions: I believe his actions here were seriously misguided, but not malicious). Fram 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine, but that's why Wikipedia XXXs, if you don't mind my saying it. The threshold to becoming an admin is really high - but once you're in, you're not likely to get thrown out unless you actually raise hell. Which obviously is an idiotic system, but I guess I should be happy to see the admin's take damn well care of each other! Actually, when a bunch of admin's protested at Cannon's behaviour at first, I thought this would be dealt with in a satisfactory way, and was happily surprised about that. But now it turns out everybody just wanted to hear Davidcannon say "I'm sorry," and then everything is fine? Right. Perfect. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warned before

This link is not directly related to this matter, but still [21] This one is however very much related to this [22]. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alkivar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Despite administrator Alkivar being scrutinised by ArbCom, he has once again engaged in some fair poor behaviour. He blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs) for a week earlier today for uploading some images without sources despite no human warnings for it. Then, without giving the user chance to source them, he deleted them after only a couple of hours. Auburnpilot then unblocked G2bambino as this was an extremely poor block and Alkivar has chosen to wheel war and reblock. Firstly, I would like to gain a quick consensus to unblock G2bambino, and a block on Alkivar could well be in order. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan has fairly well summed up the situation, and I'd just like to add that I very much support unblocking G2bambino. The user was not given a chance to respond adequately to the image issues, and I have since explained the requirements to him/her. G2bambino understands the situation, and should be allowed to continue editing. Alkivar....I don't know. I've added a section to the ArbCom case. - auburnpilot talk 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that G2bambino should be unblocked; I'm not sure Alkivar should be blocked, but he should be instructed to leave blocks of G2bambino to other admins for the time being. Sam Blacketer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock I fully endorse any motion to unblock G2Bambino. Wheel warring is unacceptable and inappropriate. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc.} 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unblock G2bambino. A 1 week block, without previously discussing it with the editor, appears punitive. I don't agree with a block on Alikivar, however incidents of his recklessness with sysop tools are mounting rapidly. I wonder if he could be persuaded to voluntarily refrain from using the tools until this can be sorted out. Rockpocket 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that Alkivar should be blocked. I do, strongly support an unblock on G2bambino. The user clearly understands what they did now, and, how to do it right in the future. A week was overkill, in my opinion. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to correct/prevent editing problems. Misuse of admin tools should be addressed through ArbCom, or in extreme cases, emergency desysopping by a steward. The Arbitration case against Alkivar will likely open this evening, at which point evidence of concerns can be added to the evidence page. Thatcher131 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in to support an unblock. This good faith user honestly did not know what was wrong with the images he was uploading. No one explained to him the problem, nor was he ever warned that he was about to be blocked — let alone for a week. Support unblocking. I don't support a block of Alkivar, since it's apparent he's not going to wheel war further over this. --Haemo 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked G2bambino. Sam Blacketer 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only wheel warring involved was auburnpilot unblocking a user who has repeatedly violated image policy... without waiting for a response from his post to my talk page. If anyone would take the time to read the user's talk page history, you'll see there are numerous warnings for lack of license, lack of source, and lack of fair use rationale. Just today the user uploaded approximately 15 images as PD w/o sources, which triggered bot warnings, and my initial block. If this were G2bambino's first image warning, there would not be a block involved. If this were a second warning, i'd have blocked for 24hrs... this user has several 3rr blocks on his record, numerous image warnings and as such I blocked for 1 week, this is not an unreasonable length, and grounded squarely within policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single warning stating that G2bambino was about to be blocked, if there was, he may have stopped, he now understands what he did was wrong (you see he didn't before) and will change how he uploads - see, no need for a block, just some explanation. AP's unblock was because G2bambino accepted what he did was wrong, and 1 week was completely excessive for a good faith user who didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Then you re-blocked!! That is a completely unrequired wheel war, and I'm stunned that someone in your current position would be so stupid to re-block. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Repeatedly violated image policy"? How far back are you going to find this? I think that if you bothered to take the time to research this properly, you'd find that any image I've uploaded in at least the past year now has sufficient tags and/or fair use rationales; other older images I may have done incorrectly before, and didn't later rectify, I simply let be deleted. Today was the first time I'd uploaded 100+ year old images, and thought my two provided copyright-expired tags on each of them was sufficient for such images. I'm obviously no expert with image management, but I'll tell you I'd have learned much more from an explanation than a week-long block. Plus, you're clutching at straws if you're going to bring up previous 3RR blocks; the majority of those (which isn't actually all that many) weren't themselves justified, nor do they have anything to do with this case. --G2bambino 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) After looking through recent blocks, I found that User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material without a human warning. There's a number of bot messages, but I don't see any human attempt to contact the user. I'm not an admin, but I thought this might deserve a look too. The user doesn't have a lot of contribs, so it's harder to tell if it's a genuine good faith editor. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a list of users I have found in Alkivar's log that have been blocked with no user warnings, only bot copyright notices:

• Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyxbikey (talk · contribs)
• Cranny07 (talk · contribs)
• Mino Algerie (talk · contribs)
• Ilgb06 (talk · contribs) –– Lid^(Talk) 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason those accounts were not responding to the bot messages? Is it merely that bot messages don't provoke a response? Was there something wrong with the "message bar"? Are people more likely to respond to human messages? Anyone want to try and get some answers, assuming the humans behind those accounts haven't moved on by now? Carcharoth 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He has an open arbcom case accepting evidence. If you want something to be done, then take it there. —Cryptic 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the issue of what to do with these blocked accounts maybe should be dealt with sooner. My view is that it is better to explain things to people, even if they don't understand the image policy straight away, rather than lose new contributors. Is there any reason AN/ANI can't review Alkivar's actions while the Arbcom case is in progress? Carcharoth 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To reply to Carcharoth, some editors (myself for one, a friend for another) don't always take a lot of notice of Bot messages, because the bot messages are not always clear - they sometimes seem to assume that the editor in question has a knowledge of Wikipedia-speak that isn't always the case.

I wanted to add a couple of images to an article, but the Fair Use page confused me, so I didn't bother. If I had, and a bot replied, it doesn't make anything any clearer. An admin just coming along and blocking because I screwed up is, in my opinion, even worse than a non-clear bot message, especially if they don't explain why the block/what I did wrong, and would result in a lowering of opinion of Wikipedia/admins. An editor, admin or not, that takes the time to explain what I did wrong, helping me to fix the problem, or at least pointing me in the right direction shows favourably on Wikipedia.

(Note - hypothetical, as I've not had any interaction with Alkivar, not been blocked, and gave up trying to add images) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would an admin step in?

Twice tonight, that is, two different disputes, two articles, I've come into conflict with User:Rglong. this edit, however, is the biggest problem. Although I have repeatedly reminded him of policy, I didn't threaten him with admin action, although he did offer to have me banned [23]. I tried to explain to him that he was inserting Original Research into Ra's al Ghul here [24], but he deleted the section [25] before the problem was thoroughly resolved. I did try to explain that blanking after is archiving, blanking during discussion is uncivil, as it actively disrupts attempts to work out a problem[26]. He finally settled on something almost identical to what was there before he started, so I put it back to that earlier, factually identical state, and moved on to other items on my watchlist... Where I saw him on X-Men: The Last Stand, where he's trying to insert a WP:SYNTH Violation, see this:[27]. I've neither called him liar nor vandal, I'm trying to work him through this SYNTH problem, but I'm not going to get this abuse, so I'm stepping aside. please sort this out. Multiple accusations against me, threats to 'ban' me, instead of go for a block? He seems distinctly unwilling to work this out. Specific diffs: Personal attacks, accusing me of calling him a liar and vandal I did neither, wllfully blind and then attacking on a wider scale, Full of shit, retards, and rampant INcivility. There's three concise diffs, and see above for multiple civility warnings.

The editor continues to persist in his comments [28] and then this, in which all editors opposing his edits have a 'scary mentality' about things [29]. ThuranX 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing a non-print source does not fall under WP:SYNTH. If he'd had the same words from a magazine interview, would you be making that accusation? It would seem his statements can be cited to the DVD commentary, and you're the one with a novel interpretation of what's said there. —Random832 11:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the DVD never states 'He was credited by mistake as 'Kid Omega'. It states the director saying that he thinks the character's name is Spike, or Quill. The Director's not even sure of the name, much less, able to address the credits issue, which is Rglong's problem. He wants to rename the character in the cast list to Quill, despite the fact that it's been Kid Omega, per the credits, that the character description compares it to Quill, and so on. There' no citation for 'correcting' the entry, because there's nothing to cite. However, it's good to know that being maybe right means you can call anyone opposing you a nazi and be incredibly uncivil all around. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Rglong (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for gross incivility, for the diffs cited above, and especially for this comment [30]:

• "I'm sorry, but I can't be civil"
• "you are full of shit"

He's definitely been uncivil, and he's stated that he won't be civil. If this problem resumes when he returns, additional blocks of increasing length should be applied. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of large IP range

I have just blocked 68.75.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) for 3 months one month (anon only, account creation off), which is a range that, from all that I can see from simple history checking and personal experience, has solely been utilized by the banned (read indefinite block that no one will ever think of lifting) user Joehazelton (talk • contribs • block log). Just looking at the history of User talk:Gamaliel and prior to the protetion of Peter Roskam shows that nearly every IP edit comes as harassment from Joehazelton. There is nothing we gain by allowing Joehazelton to continue editting, as he repeats the edits that got him banned in the first place, and the only other thing he does is vandalize the userspace. Input on how we can prevent this user from returning, in any way shape or form, is welcome.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally! I assume you are steadily locking down ip ranges, other than that I don't think there is anything to do but wait him out. Even Cplot got bored/got his city blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I'm still hoping for a send-electric-shock-through-keyboard button. —Cryptic 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this guy is still causing problems this long after his original ban [31] why isn't he mentioned on Wikipedia:Long Term Abuse? There's not even a community ban. William Ortiz 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, that class-b is registered to AT&T Internet Services, and could potentially affect a large number of innocent anons. Arakunem 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Template completely destroyed

[edit] Mass deletion of Husnock images by a single admin

[edit] Knowingly inserting false information

I have noticed that Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) have on several occations knowingly inserted false information in articles. Reverts and appeal to reason have been unfruitfull. Some affected articles are Vernon L. Smith‎, Milton Friedman, Template:Nobel Prize in Economics and Herbert Simon‎. // Liftarn 12:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn has not provided diffs or an explanation. However, this appears to be largely a content dispute and multi-article edit war about the proper naming of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics / Nobel Prize in Economics. Cardamon 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would modify this to state that Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has on several occasions knowingly removed text cited with reliable sources to push his POV. One example of this is already listed here: #17 reverts for no reason. –panda 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: removing references and inserting false information[50], false info[51][52][53] // Liftarn

Have you tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, specifically WP:RFC/USER? - Jehochman ^Talk 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we should just use the name used by the foundation itself and movew on. This didn't make it to WP:LAME without reason. EconomicsGuy 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did file one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Camptown, but since there are several editors (or socks of either meat or wool) doing it it it's probably not the perfect way to deal with it. // Liftarn

I would support that as using another name would be a WP:HOAX violation, but thar argument doesn't seem to convince some editors. WP:NCON that says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." so the full name (or official short form) should be used in articles (and templates) instead of slang versions. // Liftarn

[edit] Template messages to regulars

I would like admins opinions on whether it is acceptable to use template warnings (eg no personal attacks) for regular editors. DuncanHill 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to give them a personalised message rather than the standard boiler plate message - it often inflames the situation if you use standard templates. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any message that begins "Welcome to Wikipedia." is obviously inappropriate for regular editors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, "welcome to wikipedia" is just stiring up the situation, especially with an NPA warning, it really is a bad idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable according to a narrow reading of policy *but* the thrust of conversation here over time has been that with long-term editors it is best to *talk* to them first rather dropping messages that start "welcome to wikipedia...." which tends to inflame the situation - but hey you could have either carried this on in the previous section or discussed this with me on my talkpage in response to this edit summary of mine rather than start a new section and leaping straight to requesting admin action. --Fredrick day 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an incident. It doesn't belong here. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth attempt at replying to Ryan - afet edit conflicts. The argument about templates inflaming situations applies equally to new editors. Experienced editors should not resort to personal attacks. I didn't try discussing with Fredrick day because he did not bother responding on his talk page, simply deleting and leaving a patronising edit summary. I shal in future remember never to criticise in any way any action by Fredrick day as he is clearly someone who can never do any wrong, I shall also not bother asking for admins opinions as clearly this is also considered inappropriate. DuncanHill 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Until the next series edit wars and/or revisionism battles break out, the consensus [54] on WP:DTTR was "essay" rather than "policy." However I suspect that most editors agree that with the exception of extremely novice users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's ever expanding myriad of policies and guidelines, personalized messages almost always work better than standardized warning templates. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Resolved - take it to an appropriate venue" - so what is an appropriate venue? Or are ordinary users not allowed to know? DuncanHill 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPR, WP:VPP, or the talk page of WP:DFTT would be the most appropriate places. --ais523 12:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I obviously meant WP:DTTR, not WP:DFTT. --ais523 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA... Carcharoth 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to your original point, no, it's not acceptable to leave a template warning on an established editor's talk page. Templates are for anonymous IPs when you're RC patrolling. If you don't have the time (or can't be bothered) to write a message out to a fellow editor in your own words, then you need to examine your motives for wanting to do it in the first place. If your motive was to help correct a serious grievance, then take some time and write out your thoughts. If your motive was to show everyone your grasp of policy and how strictly you apply it, go edit an article instead. A Train^talk 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to quibble on details when I pretty much agree 100% with what A Train said, however phrases like "not acceptable" sound awfully strong when describing things that are not official Wikipedia policy (and in fact, as per consensus, WP:DTTR is not even a guideline). --Kralizec! (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think A Train's remarks are brilliant. The "let's try and find the right template for this" thought process is OK for articles, but not when you are trying to leave someone a message. That requires original thought and discussion. However, I also find the "before discussing, let's see if this is an essay or a guideline" thought process to be equally formulaic and wrong-headed. Sometimes it is best to use common sense. Carcharoth 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that I shall not be bothering with this page in future, I feel unwelcome and unwanted, and do not feel that either I or Wikipedia can benefit from it in any way. DuncanHill 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. If you had 13,000 fewer edits, I would leave your offender a {{uw-bite}} warning. However since that would probably get me smacked with the Salmon of Doubt, I would instead encourage you to visit bitee advice and hope that you continue your hard work on the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good link! Bitee advice - sounds different, at least. Carcharoth 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another pair of admin eyes requested

Cleander has been engaging in fairly aggressive edit warring on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, inserting pro-Greek and pro-Armenian POV, see: [55], [56]. In addition, he violated WP:NPA several times see: [57], [58], and [59] (edit summary uses 'Mongol' as a pejorative) and has been warned repeatedly, see: [60], [61] and [62].

I have blocked him once for WP:3RR and WP:NPA. However, my latest warning to him to avoid WP:NPA elicited the defiant response:

If you fail to acknowledge that their action is a provocation against Greeks and Armenians who were killed by Kemal's butchers and not take action to preserve the paragraph or put it into proper debate, then I have no other option but to treat those turkish agents with the only language that they understand.

I think it might be helpful if another admin were to chime in with an appropriate comment. Otherwise, I see escalating blocks in User:Cleander's future. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to possess the gift of prophecy. In fact, I can see escalating blocks not only in User:Cleander's future, but also in his present. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:212.127.96.230

Has returned to do the usual minor but tedious drive-by link spam e.g. [63], plus an unexplained deletion of some text from an unrelated article. A 1 week block was tried to get their attention. Can I suggest a permanent block to be reverted upon sensible contact? Spenny 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request block for User:Roitr sock

Needsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently a sock of Roitr (talk · contribs), based on contribs and uploads for Israel Defense Forces ranks. Copyvio images were uploaded by Needsen, and speedy deletion tags have been removed by IPs operating from Roitr's known IP range. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Tihorog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is another. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked both and a third older account. I also started deleting the images but ran out of time. I'll be back in an hour or so if no one else gets to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint against User:Betacommand

Betacommand is blanking my talk page conversations with other editors, calling me a "troll" [64] [65], apparently angry about the thread up above regarding the whole Husnock SP charge. This violates WP:NPA and I would like it to stop. -OberRanks 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Ober, you need to stop this, it's getting disruptive now. Durin does not want your messages on his talk so please leave it alone. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, Betacommand is not an administrator. He was when Husnock was here, though. /me ducks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem if we're only talking about talk pages. I still feel that getting called a troll in an edit summary violates WP:NPA, though. The best to everyone, I'm outta here. -OberRanks 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given Ryan P closed the above thread and told OberRanks/Husnock to take it up with Durin on his talk page, Betacommand removing the comments on Durin's talk page is very unfair, and I have reverted and asked BC to knock it off. The accusations of "troll" (not trolling) and "dirty sock" (not sockpuppetry - the Husnock account's been inactive for months and months) are also bullshit. Neil ☎ 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead if ignoring the facts why dont you look at the evidence that has been provided, They are the same person, second I removed the trolling on durin's talkpage prior to the thread being archived. Quack quack, Husnock == OberRanks, second Trollling = the act of being a troll == troll, Instead of making comments without doing reseach and being completely wrong about it, please look into it and you will see the obvious. Just because Husnock/OberRank hasnt been around for ~ 5 Months doesnt mean anything. (we found a husnock sock in april). β^_command 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Betacommand, they are the same person. I know this. Perhaps you should read everything properly. I have bolded the important part of my above post and made it red to help you. Trolling is deliberate disruption, this is not trolling. Having more than one account is not automatically sockpuppetry, particularly when the first account went inactive months before this one became active. Instead of namecalling, perhaps you should back off and let people who know what they are doing handle this. Neil ☎ 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Neil (or anyone else for that matter) is denying the fact that OberRanks and Husnock are undoubtedly the same editor. Instead Neil appears to be saying that regardless of OberRanks's 'real' identity, we should still follow the normal rules and guidelines detailed in WP:NPA and WP:TALK. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock/OberRanks

Given the above threads, and that I seem to be the only one with any patience left for Husnock/OberRanks/whatever, I have posted to User talk:OberRanks a message telling him to a) leave images alone altogether for a month, b) after that, to be very careful indeed, and c) don't bother denying he's Husnock to avoid the ArbCom sanction he received.

At this point, if he can't manage those two things, I'm all for suggesting community patience has been exhausted, and banning him. If he does manage those two things, I will mentor him. Feedback would be appreciated. Neil ☎ 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That he denies being Husnock when it is so blatantly obvious would seem to be ignoring remedy #2. A condition of continued participation should be coming clean. --B 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His response [66] seem to be mostly satisfactory, though his rambling non-denial (not sure what else to call it) on the Husnock issue is a little odd. Ideally, I'd prefer that he admit he's Husnock, but if he can stick to the other terms, this might work for everyone involved. Good job on this, Neil. Chaz ^Beckett 17:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Neil. My admiration for your patience just went up a notch. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As regards the identity thing, I know it's him, we all know it's him, he can deny it if he likes, it doesn't really matter. However, he says he will email me, and I will see what he has to say. Neil ☎ 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient work on this issue Neil. It's appreciated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see their praise and raise the pot with a well-earned Attaboy! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Whig

Whig is involved in a NPOV dispute at Homeopathy. Some of his actions led people to create an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 RfC on him. However (as seen on the talk page), instead of discussing the concerns brought up, he's made unsubstantiated claims that he is in the right, and now accuses people who are against him of deliberately ignoring the evidence. Help please. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like for an administrator to do? Mercury 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him? -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also not object to a nice long block, possibly on community patience grounds if nothing else. It is apparent from the RfC that a) many editors with a variety of different views find him to be disruptive and b) he has no intention of changing his behavior at all or even of trying to constructively participate in the RfC. JoshuaZ 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object but it would be better to let the RfC goes on. It was just started yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take that attitude if not for the fact that multiple editors including myself tried to explain to help him in regard to how to respond or benefit from the RfC and we were essentially ignored. See for example [67] [68] [69]. See also his comments about both his prior RfC and this one here where he explicitly says that he thinks that the editors who are involved in the first RfC are acting under "bad faith". JoshuaZ 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors having acted in similar ways have been found outside the project. It is just a matter of time and my point was just about following the process until he'd get tired or more persistent if he'd choose that way. He is free to not participate at the RfC but he is not free to keep being disruptive after its closure as he should abide by the outcome (opinions of the community). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit summary [70] just 3.5 hours ago is downright unimpressive. There's plenty of bad behavior all around in this topic area, but he is obviously creating a disruption. I think a topic ban and civility probation is an appropriate remedy. --B 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. It would be good to get User:Mercury's reaction to this proposal, as he has been in the thick of it. Raymond Arritt 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a short block will have any effect here, Whig simply does not understand our policies and refuses to engage with other editors in a constructive manner. I and several other editors have tried to coax him into discussions in the RfC, his responses - "I have made my response" and "Am I your monkey?". I agree with B, topic ban and civility probation. Tim Vickers 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent) I've had the opportunity to review everything, and having seen, I'll support a topic ban, and civility parole. Mercury 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, per [71] he doesn't seem to be interested in taking part in this discussion. So the question now becomes how broad a topic ban is necessary. I would suggest pseudoscience and fringe science topics. JoshuaZ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What about the same for User:Sm565? Though it looks like civility isn't quite as much a concern in his case. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A SPA which was blocked twice. Sm565 appears to be no less disruptive than Whig. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block for Whig would give him time to cool down. This kind of comment (diff) is completely unacceptable. As a comment, please bear in mind that Sm565's first language is not English, at least some of his comments are genuine misunderstandings. Tim Vickers 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tim - Sm565, while being disruptive, does not display the bad faith that Whig does. Sm has an obnoxious habit of forum shopping and reiterating the same argument over, and over, and over again (ask for diffs, or read his edit history), but he hasn't been calling people names, for example. I'm not uninvolved - I certified the basis for Whig's RFC and have been engaged in a lengthy attempt to get him to enumerate the reasons for his objections to Homeopathy. I would support any sanction against Whig, especially a topic ban, but Sm I think we can deal with without such measures at this time. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks do nothing but cause problems - "cool down" should NEVER be used as a justification for a block because invariably it cools nothing down. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Either there is something to prevent or there isn't. In this case, I believe there is something to prevent, based on the conversation at User talk:Whig. --B 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My refusal to provide a detailed defense to an abusive and improper RfC is not grounds for any kind of ban. Whig 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you should have said at the RfC. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a formal response to the RfC. Please read it if you like. Whig 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no proper grounds for an RfC. This is an entirely abusive process. Whig 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Whig did NOT start yesterday but started on October 10th, 4 days ago. This editor has shown a total disregard for the RFC and any consensus existing against him. This user has clearly said that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him and that he refuses to change any of his behavior per the RFC. Let me post some Diff's. Aside from the vast amount of evidence presented at the RFC, Here is his behavior since the RFC:

here is Whig's official response to the RFC

Here Whig says that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him at the RFC and refuses to change his editing habits

here Whig attempts to bait me into starting an arbitration by adding the POV tag again

here Whig calls the RFC "Garbage"

here Whig calls the RFC "abusive"

here Whig accuses me of "abusing" processes in my request for a comment concerning him

I think that some sort of action is needed in this case. I would not be opposed to a topical ban, or perhaps specific limitations placed on this users editing such as a 6 month 1 revert rule and civility watch, as well as a temporary 2 week ban from the Homeopathy article. I think that this is being VERY lenient towards this user. Although I wouldn't object to a total temporary ban of several weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the RfC as being as much on Wikidudeman as upon me. He has brought a meritless RfC, which is not backed by the links he provided. Whig 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people would, if you gave any reason to contradict our analysis that the RfC is backed by the provided links. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wanderer57's comment. And I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss the RfC further here. Whig 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban him. Why are we wasting this much time on this "editor?" OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. I had come into this thinking that it could be sorted out and not require major sanctions, but Whig's behavior in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banning of someone who has been an editor in good standing for three years without trying something else first. --B 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --B 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three years? You neglect to mention that of the 42 months he has been on Wiki he has 0 edits for 14 of those months (33%), and less than 25 edits per months for 22 months (52%), and another 2 months of less than 50 edits (4.8%) meaning that he has made numerically significant edits in 5 of the 42 months, or 12% of the time. Really, "editor in good standing" is a misnomer -- he's popped up occassionally, and mostly on talk pages. Really, he's added very little value to WP. •Jim62sch• 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation ... to be honest, I didn't notice or look for the gaps - I just hit oldest to see how far back the contributions went. I'm taking a look at the edit count. Something makes me rather paranoid looking at this. --B 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My patience is running thin with this editor, and I have a lot of patience. I have been attempting to resolve disputes with this editor for weeks now and all I get in return are threats, insults, or simply having the user ignore me. This editor has been extremely problematic since I first encountered him and I believe that administrative action is in order. I propose the following administrative action be taken:

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, where if the editor reverts content in an article more than once per week, he is blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is placed on civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 1 month, but can still comment on the talk page(1rr and civility apply there though).

I think that the following remedies could deal with most of the problems associated with this editor, and I think that they are very lenient considering this editors actions. Please add input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would make the article ban the same length as the other two remedies and add an exception for reverting simple vandalism, but otherwise support. Before anyone considers closing this, please make sure that multiple people with no experience with this editor look at it and agree to it - that is the only way a community action is legitimate. --B 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The 1rr rule should apply only to non-vandalism and non-self reverts. I also think that perhaps the article ban for Homeopathy could also extend to be 6 months, though I don't have a problem with 1 month or somewhere in between. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support this remedy. By way of disclosure, I had no experience with this editor (or with the Homeopathy article) before looking yesterday to check out concerns expressed by other admins. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block (User:Whig)

I am posting to gauge consensus for an action I am considering. I have been asked on my talk, to block Whig (talk • contribs • logs). Based on the last 1,000 or so contributions (pattern), other editors concerns, and the RFC, I am able to conclude, this user is disruptive and unlikely to stop. I am considering a long term block. Thoughts? Mercury 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor has some good edits in other topics so I wouldn't object to a simple topic ban of all fringe and pseudoscience topics. If that isn't an option I think a ban based on exhausting community patience may be in order. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that even as Whig has refused to participate significantly in either this discussion or his RfC he has continued to POV push at Homeopathy. This editor is quickly looking unredeemable. JoshuaZ 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Block for a significant period of time, say one month. Then topic ban (I'd say anything in alternative quackery...errrr...medicine) for a year. Get him out of here, please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's numerous good edits, I too suggest a topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe science with the caveat that breaking those conditions will lead to a long block. ELIMINATORJR 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A ban/arbitrarily long block is the last resort, not the first resort to a good faith editor. If he will abide by civility probation and a topic ban, that's a more appropriate remedy. --B 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, if that was a reply to me, then that's what I just said. ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in perfect agreement that any block on a good faith editor is inappropriate and not a goal of Wikipedia. Since Whig does not qualify as a good faith anything, just a shit-disturber in Homeopathy, then we should all be in agreement that a long block or ban is appropriate. It's good that we were able to reach consensus on this issue so quickly. I look forward to his month-long block on Whig. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe topics would be my preferred option. A block for civility problems and POV-pushing would be justified, but shouldn't be longer then a month. Tim Vickers 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with topic ban, and civility block per Tim Vickers. I havn't been directily involved, but have been exposed to the disruption a bit on homeopathy and some other fringe stuff from the fringe theories noticeboard. --Rocksanddirt 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Will someone who is an uninvolved admin please inform Whig that we seem to have a consensus for a topic ban on pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. We seem to have a consensus for that at least JoshuaZ 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Mercury 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The stipulations look sufficient. I also agree with the consensus. I hope that these limitations on Whig will prevent him from causing any further disruptions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud this action. Whig has shown himself to be disruptive and uncooperative and unable to be able to approach editing of these contentious articles from a neutral stance.--Filll 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion earlier, but I think the matter was handled appropriately. Whig showed here that passive-aggressive behavior can be disruptive -- even if it meets no other standard. -- llywrch 19:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible QST Sock

Previous case [72]. Just noticed this user and did a bit of digging and noticed the following about this user Coolspanner (talk · contribs). A lot of his contributions to talk pages and his edit summaries are fairly belligerent so I dug in to his history. He was created the same month as another QST sock Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) who "adopted" him prior to being found out. [73]. Interestingly Tellyaddict acts like coolspanner was asking for adoption, but I can't actually find anything in his edit history indicating a request. Regardless of whether or not there is a connection here the user is throwing around a lot of hostility for the few edits he's made. [74], [75], [76], etc.--Crossmr 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Coolspanner doesn't appear to use TW or revert vandalism, and the username would have showed up in a checkuser when they checked QST or Rlest. Carbon Monoxide 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do all user accounts using an IP show up when a check is done on it? I'm unfamiliar with the full details on how that tool works.--Crossmr 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, or at least all accounts within some given window of time. Natalie 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't write like QST at all. QST had a very distinctive 'style'. 86.137.25.192 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is so not QST. Miranda 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil edit summaries despite warnings

[edit] Userpage harassment

I'm sorry this keeps going on, but Kscottbailey is now harassing me on my talk page over this, despite my requests that he quit bothering me with this issue and accusing me of things. I brought up what is admittedly a minor issue, but an issue nonetheless, however that doesn't give someone the right to harass me over it. You can see above that I was fairly quiet on this issue, after my opening comments and defending myself from charges of "WikiLawyering" and "bullying", but Kscottbailey does not seem willing to let the issue drop. Do I really have to put up with this? -- HiEv 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 3 hours by Georgewilliamherbert (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Viridae^Talk 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

...and is arguing over it on his talk page: User talk:Kscottbailey#Blocked for 3 hrs. I would like to request uninvolved admin review of the block. I believe that irregardless of the underlying issues above, Kscottbailey's posts to User talk:HiEv in the last 24 hrs constituted harrassment and uncivil actions, and he continued after being asked twice to stop. However, if other admins feel that this was an overreaction on my part then I'm ok with an early unblock. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup - he just posted an unblock request on his talk page. One point - he claims HiEv went "to a friendly admin" to get him blocked. I have to my knowledge never interacted with HiEv before (nor Kscottbailey) and was merely responding to the posting here in this section on ANI by investigating and taking action I saw fit. Georgewilliamherbert 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed his unblock request, he would not take no for an answer (as he would not with HiEv), so I protected his User talk: page for the duration of the block. Any administrator may feel free to review/revert my actions. — madman bum and angel 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly uninvolved, having run into him earlier in the dispute, but I think it is likely that had you not protected the talk page, you would have had a stream of arguments and unblock requests, judging by all the previous interactions. Seems to me you did the right thing - wait for the torrent of "admin abuse" calls when the block expires though. Viridae^Talk 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article to watch

This edit attracted some attention on a fairly widely read liberal blog (which now has a link to the specific version from the history). It might be good for a few folks to watch the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article since there appeared to be repeated attempts to put back the claim in question. JoshuaZ 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to delete the goat.  :) This one really does bear watching. -Jmh123 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Either the block didn't take, or someone had a spare old registration lying around. The vandalism continues as fast as it can be deleted. -Jmh123 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sprotect took, but it appears to be an aged account. I blocked it. Let's see if that works - if not, I will (reluctantly) consider fully protecting for a day or so. - Philippe | Talk 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's semi-protected now, any further activity will probably help identify sleeper vandal accounts (sort of a goathoneypot). I'd suggest we leave it as it is, but continued watching seems prudent. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to do some deleting from the Talk page, but I think it was inadvertent--an editor being funny--but he kept undoing deletions of his comment. Best to keep at eye on this as well. -Jmh123 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. If there are aged accounts out there willing to get perm-blocked over this I think it's probably a reasonable idea to let them do whatever they'd like, fix the damage, and permablock the goat-blthem. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's spilled over into Stephen Kaus now as well. Yet another page to watch. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is coming from the comments link of the relevant article at http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ . It's probably worth watching this as a source of future havoc. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone with oversight powers who can clean up the history on this page and the talk page, including the edit comments on both pages which include the same deleted references? There are references in the deleted comments and text to an iffy site that hijacks computers as well. -Jmh123 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has goat to be stopped. Oops. Sorry. I'll get my gcoat :) B1atv 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no one has oversighted the talk page history yet, or the history on Stephen Kaus. That really gets my goat panties in a wad. -Jmh123 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michele.mostarda

This Italian guy is continuously adding non-neutral personal views about Walter Veltroni; I removed his edits twice and left him a message in his talkpage, but he reverted me twice, defining me a fascist censor (in Italian) in his latter edit summary. I am an admin and I might theorically even block the user, however I'd rather first to share some thoughts with you about the issue. --Angelo 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I need someone to make a revert on Walter Veltroni, as I've already made it three times and I don't really want to break WP:3RR. In order to understand this user's behaviour, read on his talkpage why he's doing so. --Angelo 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You should list this at WP:BLPN. Corvus cornix 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review requested, if you please!

Today I blocked Sm565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely. I do not believe this to be an user capable of making constructive edits. He's a disruptive SPA whose edits all concern the Homeopathy article: he goes in for POV-pushing, persistent edit-warring, filibustering on the talk page, and pointless reverting. See also his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Feedback requested. Cheerio! Moreschi ^Talk 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heartily endorse. Neil ☎ 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope to see SPA becoming a tough policy someday. Waiting for that, i support this action. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. I do believe however that it won't last. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? We've all had enough of disruptive SPAs, both of the nationalist and pseudoscience types. No point tolerating them, and I think we're starting to realise this. Moreschi ^Talk 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? The problem is that you cannot apply a topic ban on the account. The user cannot edit any other article except Homeopathy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Admin will come and say that it wasn't fair. That there was no community consensus. That other remedies had not been tried. That person will unblock the editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tush, so cynical. Letting obvious SPAs run around wild causing chaos is not what admins are for, I should hope. Moreschi ^Talk 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle but we have too many admins who say that because someone made an occasional constructive edit we should overlook the 99% of their behavior that is destructive. Or even if they haven't made constructive edits, we should given them lots of chances because, who knows, maybe they'll have brain replacement surgery and it would be unfair to ban them in the meantime. Raymond Arritt 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good block. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat by an anon

User:121.7.221.161 (contribs) posted a threat on my talkpage [77] and wrote a rather impolite edit summary [78]. The anon also wikistalked me and reverted my contributions. Keb25 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the one article and blocked the IP for 24 hours for the full-scale edit war. It appears there was edit warring going on both sides though... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The user now edits with the same pattern under anon ip User:121.7.221.4 (contribs) Keb25 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keb25 is CLEARLY an unconstructive editor, reverting edits with no good reason, accusing people of vandalism for no good reason, changing constructive edits without reason. I am merely undoing the damage he is doing.121.7.221.4 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the user now edits under ip address 121.7.221.159 (contribs) Keb25 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not block me. I am dedicating my editing career to undoing all the damage that Keb25 has done. Keb25 NEVER contributes anything to any article. What I mean is creative contribution. All he does is revert, delete, Prod, Afd - pls look at his history. He is one of the most unconstructive editors on Wikipedia. 121.7.221.159 19:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop stalking him. Cleaning up the encyclopedia is an important job. --Haemo 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history, it is clear the IP is insisting on adding unreferenced material to a BLP article, and Keb and at least one other have been removing it as vandalism. I endorse the lockdown, but wonder if it could have been done as a s-protect, as there is no evidence here of registered users doing anything untoward. I also suggest that the IP provide documentation on the article's talk page substantiating the info he/she keeps trying to add. An edit summary of "it's common knowledge" is not sufficient. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As per below on Keb25, although I dont encourage wikistalking, Keb25 is indeed a disruptive editor who posts warnings and reverts in an unwarranted fashion. Can I suggest he be stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricialam (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

There's a huge backlog over there, mostly on the "next 200". (I don't understand why the page is subdividing the way it is--17 on the "first 200" and 127 on the "next 200"? I add that to less than 200. Why aren't they all on the front page? Is this issue affecting only my browser? I digress.) I've been working on it steadily for over an hour and am out of time. Please, any unoccupied admins, can you take a look? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I bet it's because there's so many images. Or I'm guessing that anyway. :) Either way, the articles are seriously piling up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are so many images is that a large number of them are military rank insignias from one particular source. I'm not as yet sure that they are valid speedy deletion candidates; if they were I'd be happy to delete them. Can anyone confirm? Sam Blacketer 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most/all of them simply have no copyright tag; they're all using a deprecated tag. If they're going to be claimed, then they would probably need fair use tags, but even then they will probably be replaceable. --Haemo 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete them. There was a short discussion last week at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2007-10-04. Per my comments there, I'm inclined to delete them as flagrant copyright violations unless anyone knows for a fact that they are not copyrightable as faithful reproductions of a 2-d object. These look like MS Paint drawings based on actual patches or pins and those drawings are copyrightable, even if the patches or pins they are based on are not. --B 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Reale

Will somebody take a look at this user's contributions to Nick Mackenzie and Phoebe Bone? User:Reale moved these articles from his/her userpage, and his/her userpage and talk page are currently redirecting to Phoebe Bone and Talk:Phoebe Bone. A couple of days ago, another user moved Nick Mackenzie back to the Reale's userpage. Reale undid the move with the reason "Easily searcheable". Then he/she edited some nonsense on his/her userpage and then moved it to Phoebe Bone. Besides, by checking his/her contributions, he/she uploaded Image:Nick Mackenzie mid 2007.jpg which is not currently used in any page. There is one user that left a message on Reale's talk page what is currently Talk:Nick Mackenzie. This user's last edit is October 14. 198.189.198.2 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles deleted (obvious CSD:A7, nonsensical rubbish to boot) and redirects fixed. User (whose only other contribs are vandalism) warned. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cbrown2411

Vandalised Jewish history with anti-semitic remarks. Radical-Dreamer 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And Clue Bot reverted them and warned the editor. Anything else?--Sethacus 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be banned. It's obviously a dummy account used for vandalism since he has no real contributes. Radical-Dreamer 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameHardBlocked}} - vandalism and a username too similar to User:Cbrown1023. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are 26 other "Cbrown####" accounts - [79]. May not be a problem, but... Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm very popular. :-P It's a pretty common name; but they might still be impostors. Thanks for the quick block. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stopme

Stopme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly vandalized Jaslene Gonzalez. I warned him about it, and since then he has reverted some of my edits (accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary), has changed the words in the comments I wrote on his talk page to suggest that I admitted to vandalism, and has given me vandalism warnings on my user talk page as well. Eatcacti 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking now ... user looks rather disruptive on first glance ... trying to sort through all of the diffs. --B 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for now ... there's a lot of mess in here that I think needs to be cleaned up. --B 23:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Eatcacti 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So you...stopped him, then? Betcha he never saw that coming...HalfShadow 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat you to it [80] ;) --B 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He could at least get a barnstar which he awarded to himself 2 days ago before leaving. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [81] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [82] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [83] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [84] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [85] [86] [87] [88] Removes tags [89] and has ignored requests to discuss [90] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]]. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [91] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [92] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) UPDATE Alright I've reinserted the past issues that occured with BigGabrial555. [93] Apparently he's up to his old tricks again. He's deleted multiple cited insertions [94] and [95] on numerous pages [96]. I've given him many warnings. Please assist. UnclePaco 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Another reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=165092457&oldid=165065749 UnclePaco 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

UnclePaco, you have not followed the advice that I originally gave you on 9/25/07 diff. You have yet to address this matter at Talk:Dominican Republic as I advised. Go there and come to a consensus about the picture. This is a content dispute and does not require admin intervention. Unless BigGabriel violates a consensus between several editors, this is a matter that you should be able to resolve on your own. Caknuck 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the first one a while ago; the second one I added today. You haven't taken a look at [97] and [98] at all. That is removing sourced material! UnclePaco 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Suicide note123454321

I blocked Suicide note123454321 (talk · contribs) and deleted User:Suicide note123454321. I don't take such things seriously but I know some do. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I created that account. I was just depressed because my girlfriend dumped me. Changed my mind entirely. Don't take me seriously. Mr. Aero 00:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm depressed these days. School's really rough for me. Mr. Aero 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's unfortunate. Glad you're not suicidal. Now go do some encyclopedia writing please. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. What do I do? Mr. Aero 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on your talk page. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And welcome to Wikipedia!! –Crazytales talk/desk 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked user/IP: wknight94 (talk · contribs)
• Contacted police:
• Contacted Wikimedia office: Mercury 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted edits:

This is the new template I came across on VPP. I've signed what I've done. We really need to be dealing with this in a centralized format. Perhaps a checkuser could verify that Mr Aero is same as Suicide note, or provide someone with ip information so authorities may be contacted. Mercury 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to contact the police. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take his retraction of the note just as seriously as we seem to take the actual note. -- John Reaves 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to determine whether or not the editor means to retract or not. A threat is a medical emergency until the doctor says otherwise. Just a thought. Mercury 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock (talk · contribs) got out of a crazy-sock indefblock by claiming his brother was out to get him. Since the Suicide account's only remaining contrib is vandalizing Soxrock's user page, I figure it's his brother again. The second account knew to come here and knew how to sign. It also knew how to get around the autoblock on the first account. I don't think we're dealing with a newb crying out for help. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, however... I don't have the permissions to get the IP information to verify this... or to know which authorities to contact. A CU's assistance is requested here. Mercury 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you qualified to determine if he means to commit suicide? -- John Reaves 01:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am qualified to recognize this as a medical emergency, as is anyone else qualified to recognize an arterial bleed is an emergency. I am not qualified to rule it out however. Mercury 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am w/ dealing w/ this one as long as we still lack a policy or at least a guideline dealing w/ these matters BUT i am really against turning Wikipedia into an incidents reporting organism instead of remaining an encyclopedia. Imagine dealing w/ such cases at least once a day or a bunch of kids playing around here every single day! Look at it. Mr. Aero (talk · contribs)'s first edit is the suicide note and he even created an account for announcing it. I would welcome them to Wikipedia but using wikipedia as a media tool is unacceptable. Saving lives is one thing but turning wikipedia into a call center would damage the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright seriously, stop it. There's nothing for us to do here until the checkuser verifies or denies who wrote the note. Until then, us speculating on who is qualified to say what doesn't really help anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no emergency here. Please, it was a joke, OK? Just let me be, alright? I was in a really awful mood. I'm an IP editor.

Alright, before you even run the Checkuser, I'm Connell66. I was just depressed after I got really grouchy after waking up from a nightmare, and I had a bad day. Just block this account, please. Mr. Aero 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock or not. You are out because we don't do jokes over here, especially the odd ones. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These suicide notes and terrorist threats are really starting to be very annoying and disrupting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insults on userpage

HyperSonicBoom (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

User:HyperSonicBoom continues to add insults and attacks to his userpage despite numerous warnings. This user started a request for adminship a few days ago, and after failing it, preceded to attack the editors who oppose his RFA on his userpage, calling them "idiots". The user has continually added the attacks back with his username and with this IP address despite warnings. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the insults, protected the userpage. Thoughts from people on adding {{Retired}} and protecting? Would stop further trolling while leaving the gist of the recent additions - ie that they have left. Viridae^Talk 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Just totally clearing the userpage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about user:Kreepy krawly ??

[edit] User:Dojarca disrupting Template after unsuccessful TfD

User:Dojarca nominated Template:Soviet occupation for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_4#Template:Soviet_occupation, however the result of the debate was Keep/no concensus. Four hours after the closure of the debate, User:Dojarca has moved the template twice [101], [102] without any concensus. Clearly this is a controversial move and a concensus should be reached first. Could a admin assist in moving the template back to its original title and clean up the redirects, and protect it from further moves until an adequate discussion for any potential moves is conducted. Martintg 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dojarca shouldn't edit anything to do with Soviet occupation as it's clear, from the TFD and DoSo AFD that he's got an axe to grind. WP:NOT a battleground. Will ^(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Move Template:Soviet zones of occupation back to Template:Soviet occupation. -- Sander Säde 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porcupine's behaviour

Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being disruptive and WP:POINTy again. I initiated some uncontroversial moves ([103], [104]), as well as trying to clean up the mess of redirects. Porcpine keeps reverting them, with the only argument being that "I have no consensus". No one else seems to object, but he presents no substantial objections to the move however, making his argument purely WP:POINT. I can't block myself; I'm involved. — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The moves seem well within the guidelines (removing unnecessary parenthesis is good), but have you tried asking Porcupine why he reverted them? I think he has a reason for saying the moves are "disputed". Melsaran (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally asume a disputer should bring his arguments forward without being asked, but yes, I did ask. He simpply keeps repeating the line that I have no consensus, which in itself is a non-argument. I also repeatedly told him these moves are simply following WP:MOS and WP:NAME, but he simply ignores my arguments and keeps blanket reverting. — Edokter • Talk • 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial moves should go through WP:RM. It sounds like you should go that route to prevent a move war. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Look again, this is not in any way a controversial move... This is just someone contesting my move for the heck of it, without presenting any valid arguments. — Edokter • Talk • 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure these moves are so clear-cut? Am I missing something? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I disputed the moves. I began a talkpage discussion. Edokter said that if nobody else disagreed with him then he'd do it anyway. As far as I can see, that means: one for, one against, for "wins". What a load of rubbish. Edocky makes it sound like I'm going against consensus; but if something is disputed - and I have presented valid arguments, he lied - then he ought to wait for input rather than assuming he's right.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Edocky" here... Look, I'll repeat what I've always said: Come with an argument explaining why the page should not be moved. That means other then "You have no consensus". Moving to the propertitle is uncontroverisal, unless someone comes with a substantiated argument against it. And I haven't seen any. Your action serve just one purpose: You trying to make a point! And I know your history all to wel, Rambutan. — Edokter • Talk • 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given a reason, twice. Read the article talkpage discussion again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted Porcupine has called Edokter stupid and has asked to be civil. This also seems to have something to do with the soundtrack thread on Edokter's talk page. Rlevse 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that his reasoning was stupid (see the article talkpage) and it was you who asked me to be civil.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:KETTLE issue. Both editors need to be more civil here, and this is a really petty issue. I'm sure it can be resolved when both parties cooperate in a meaningful fashion. Melsaran (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given Porcupine a final civility warning on his talk page. Rlevse 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it as I never made a personal attack. Also WP:TEMPLAR.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being disruptive and WP:POINTy again." Was no one else amused by this? — madman bum and angel 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was particularly amused.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how was that so amusing? Melsaran (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pun based on his username: porcupines are known for their sharp quills, i.e., points. Newyorkbrad 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have now commented on the naming issue. Hopefully any concerns about consensus, and residual disruption, will soon dissipate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad username block