Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive344

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A Heads up 2 A special request for page protection 3 User:Ungurul 3.1 User:Moldopodo a well known troll, disruptive and edit warrior and his war against official name of one city 3.2 Help request to block longer Moldopodo, continuous edit warring after numerous warrnings 4 User: Knataka 5 Complaints4U 6 Range block? 7 User:Truther truther 8 Disruption by Bill edmond 9 User:38.100.43.50 10 Dbachmann (talk · contribs) 11 malicious tagging for deletion of Joan Perez de Lazarraga 12 Requesting 2 range blocks 13 User:Cush 14 Persistant harassment 15 User:SamEV 16 Static IP spammer 17 User:James Emtage 18 Requsting block of Lynx515 19 Arthur Ellis sockuppet 20 Racist POV additions at White flight 21 Block on Giano lifted, but autoblock remains 22 POV pusing at Greg Williams (radio personality) 23 Racist comment on discussion page 24 A conflict between user GoWest8 and admin IrishGuy 25 User:UP1340 26 User:Gp75motorsports 27 Revert warring on ANI (note above thread) 27.1 Temporary semi-protection of ANI 28 Stalker 29 Canvass at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß 30 Disruption of Shelby, Mississippi 31 Porn site adder 32 David Miller (Canadian politician) 33 Talk:James I of England 34 V-Dash drei 34.1 RFCU 35 Pro pedophile advocacy userbox 36 Waterboarding 37 Pedophile-identification userbox 38 User:Shibumi2 edit warring on Talk:Waterboarding 39 User:Flibbitywibb 40 Propose extending ban to indefinite for user Gazpacho 41 User:Simplonicity and Template:History of the Chinese 42 Turkics in Armenia <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia 43 Problem with Gorgoroth editor 44 Davidkevin (talk · contribs) persistent personal attacks, hostility, assumptions of bad faith, etc 45 Edit vs. a revert 46 Deliberate Fair Use Rationale vandalism 47 POV pushing on Religion in the United States 48 Is this possible? 49 User:Laos blocked in 2006 asking for unblock 50 User:Sagbliss 51 Public-access television 52 Possible block evading sock puppet 53 Using a mailing list to delete a template 53.1 Proposed block of Pixelface 53.2 Unblock 54 User:Orangemarlin 55 User:Boehner 56 Editor constantly reverting page to factually incorrect state 57 Changes made by 82.148.96.68 58 India related articles showing up as nonsense to be deleted 59 Long-time abuse by User:24.7.81.82 in television related articles 60 Anon Spamming Articles 61 Slow edit war at Baillieston 62 68.123.72.85 automated additions/categories 63 Possible block of user making repeated disruptive edits to Theresa Duncan article 64 User:hopiakuta 65 Admin TerriersFan abusing his position

[edit] A Heads up

I do not wish to get involved with what is a somewhat unstable user, but indef blocked and banned Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to have returned as BBhounder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The editing pattern could not be more consistent, and BBhounder is obviously familiar with wiki syntax, code etc.

Jeeny has also been editing from her IP 65.27.201.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

The above IP is now going about removing sock templates and trying to remove this notice here at ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.45.183 (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're both now on 4 reverts to this page and this is going only one place. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

222.155.43.145 (talk · contribs) may be related per edits at Negro. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets reporting possible sockpuppets? Interesting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A special request for page protection

I know this normally would be brought up with WP:RFPP, but there are a whole bunch of articles here that need protection due to the stated request for vandals to vandalise the pages. I believe that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has gotten some but not all of this, but is it possible to protect the rest? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles listed there had been protected after similar problems last month; I'm semi-protecting the rest for a week. If a week isn't long enough, feel free to adjust. --Coredesat 07:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ungurul

User Ungurul has unilaterlally moved a number of pages, for example Balti steppe to Balti depression. For this page, for example, the term balti depression exists nowhere in science or literature, it is a merely invented term by the user User:Dc76. The User Ungurul has never justified or intervened before on the Balti steppe talk page to explain whatsoever. I am also afraid this user is related to User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1 or simply the famous sock pupetter User:Bonaparte in other words. On the newly created page Balti depression, User Ungurul has also lied ont he problem of copyright. Namely the source indicated (www.beltsy.md) is not used, all other sources are clearly indicated, both on the very same page, as well as on my page, as there was a previous discussion on this very subject and sources on discussion page of Balti (as referred to city in Moldova)--Moldopodo (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

[edit] User:Moldopodo a well known troll, disruptive and edit warrior and his war against official name of one city

(I have reformatted header so it is a sub section of the one above.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked before and was unblocked with condition he will not revert Romanian/Moldovan articles. See his block log long history of POV-pushing. Instead, he broke the rules and now he's engaged in revert wars. What is astonishing is that he's not accepting the official name of the city, instead he's pushing his POV again and again.--Ungurul (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, even on French Wikipedia he was blocked :) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that Moldopodo has already complained about Ungurul above. Does this constitute a content dispute? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Moldopodo_reported_by_User:Ungurul_.28Result:_.29. looks like a content dispute to me^[1].--Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request to block longer Moldopodo, continuous edit warring after numerous warrnings

Please somebody stop User:Dc76, aka User:Bonaparte, aka User:William Pedros at French Wikipedia ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros ), aka newly registered User:Ungurul. I can't even work on the article Balti steppe (translating and editing, as well as adding pics) as the article is being deleted every other 2 minutes...--Moldopodo (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Well, is not true. This vandal Moldpodo was blocked here and also on French wikipedia. This is not a joke, he constantly pushes POV and is disruptive. No wonder he got blocked so many times and on different wikipedias as well. See French wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo He can't fool anybody. --Ungurul (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are having a content dispute, over whether this article should be named Balti steppe or Bălţi depression. The administrators' noticeboard does not make judgements in content disputes; there are a number of suggestions at dispute resolution which I advise you to try. Remember that, whether you are right or wrong, edit-warring is prohibited at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He was unblocked with condition he will avoid Romanian articles. He did not follow the rule! Ungurul (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

After a closer look, I see that both of you are in violation of 3RR, so I've blocked you both. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Knataka

The following message has been copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive342 - the bot put it there before it was resolved! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has persistently spammed and vandalized articles in Wikipedia. This user has also received warnings regarding these (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knataka&oldid=178845574), as well as a warning by an administrator for edit warring (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnataka&diff=178887030&oldid=178845574). In addition to this, this user may need to be monitored, as there is a strong possibility of sharing of accounts or sock-puppetry as suggested by the administrator here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=prev&oldid=179128524. There is no doubt that one of this user's sockpuppets/accounts/IPs include 76.212.8.87, and it is very possible that there are others as the user continually suggests on the user's talk page. I request the user (and sockpuppets etc.) be blocked to prevent any further disruptive edits. I also request that this user be monitored thereafter so to ensure there is no other suspicious activity thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this, the user has continued disruptive edits and edit warring as can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179326314 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179677425 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&oldid=179756004. This continual vandalism, lack of npov, edit warring and the potential threat of sock-puppetry and so on has unfortunately continued. Please block the user ASAP so that this does not continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints4U

I recently saw this edit posted about me on another user's page: 'I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User:Iamandrewrice. I can see that you are clearly on the right side of the debate - but both you and User:Iamandrewrice are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care. If you were to avoid breaking that rule - then asking one of the admins to put a block onto User:Iamandrewrice for breaking the rule would be reasonable. I'd be inclined to do so myself because this is an especially annoying person - but since you are also (currently) breaking the rule, that would likely get you in trouble too and I'd prefer that didn't happen. I'll paste a similar complaint on Iamandrewrice's talk page. Either way, the warring has to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)'

I would like to have an explanation of this, as I find it all very very insulting, very. He says how he doubts I would care about anything... and that im an annoying person, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! What is going on here? What am I supposed to have done? And what has happened to my account? I havn't logged on in a while, so I havn't really kept up with what people have replied to me. What is this about me being a stockpuppet? Huh?! What the HELL?! And my name is ANDREW! NOT AMANDA! NOT ANNABELLA! NOT BEN! OR GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE YOU BOTHERED CALLING ME??? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM?! OH MY GOD. OH MY F'ING GOD, HAS BENNN LAVENDER LOGGED ONTO MY F'ING ACCOUNT? OMG IM GOING TO F'ING KILL HIM. I SWEAR... F'!

BUT IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, YOU BLOCKED ME FROM LOGGING ON! I HAD TO BLOODY MAKE A NEW ACCOUNT! PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I'M NOT STUPID! ImAJewWhatAreYou? (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. It makes things so much easier when socks out themselves. BLACKKITE 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's even more fun when they take the time to use ALL CAPS to make sure we don't miss their rant on ANI.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range block?

If somebody can take a look at this: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650. This user comes back almost every day with a different IP. Most recently, this morning/last night (see above threads here and here). Can a range block be issued to stop the constant harassment from the banned User:Hayden5650? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have used two, seperate small-ish range blocks to knock out most of the IPs. Hope this helps, GDonato (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope that takes care of it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Truther truther

I'm beginning to be worried abou that user; after a fairly long a protracted dispute on Joseph Schlessinger where I and DGG did our best to avoid BLP concerns, this user (one of the editors involved) has taken to post the material that was excluded from the article to his user page.

Given that I was involved in the dispute while trying to settle things down, I was hoping some other admin could step in? — Coren ^(talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed, and a polite note left pointing the editor towards userpage policy. BLACKKITE 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption by Bill edmond

Bill edmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a continually disruptive-presence on Nigeria-related articles, such as Imo State and Igbo people. He was previously Igbigbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who also used socks Academicigbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Pauletta4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to make it seem like his position had more support (see Special:Undelete/Imo State, which I had to delete because of a copyvio he introduced). He received several blocks on the Igbigbo account due to his disruption and his use IPs and socks to continue revert-warring on Imo State while blocked.

As his reappearance with the Bill edmond account shows, he still refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy. He is using 75.118.53.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to revert in tandem with his latest account, and has gone far over three reverts in a day on Igbo people. Worse of all, he absolutely refuses to respond to the requests and warnings from me and others. I request this user be blocked, as he is clearly unwilling to adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:External links (failure to adhere to those being the reason I'm reverting him on Imo State), and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which he has consistently violated to evade blocks and make his position seem to have more support. Picaroon (t) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:38.100.43.50

Refuses to gain concensus on the Campus Watch article, goes around deleting "neoconservative from organizations tagged as such, has been warned to knock it off, and is being uncivil, as shown from the refusal to discuss the issue, not to mention accusing me as a vandal. I've been watching the Campus Watch article for a while. Removing this: [2] repeatedly. Every other diff is the same. DodgerOfZion (talk) Not to mention the 3RR vio's. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Even with warnings, he's not stopping. DodgerOfZion (talk)

User making disruptive edits, after warnings, considered vandalism, and reported to AIV. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. BLACKKITE 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why 31? Not that I'm weighing in on the specific block, I've just seen 31 in a lot of vandal's block logs and wondered why it's 31, not 24, 36, or some other nice even multiple of 12. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly why: it is not a multiple of twelve. I believe the theory is that since it is an odd number, it helps "break the pattern" of abuse. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, being "more than 24" helps make the block stick (since it will properly cover "tomorrow at the same time") without encouraging cycles. As for why 31 specifically, it's just one of the values in the default drop down menu. Convenient. — Coren ^(talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't mind a 55 hour option for a 2 day and a bit tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Who would you ask for that? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably one of the MediaWiki pages. I looked, but couldn't find anything relevent. I never knew quite the best way to look for stuff in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Mediawiki:Ipboptions - and, I've found Special:Allmessages is a good way to find those pages (since it'll even find the ones that don't currently exist, but could be set to depart from the default) —Random832 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann (talk · contribs)

Dbachmann thinks it is worth the full weight of his adminship to push his personal point of view to full protect Indo-European languages:[3]. Remind: "Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism"The pretext is "edit war", still the only "edit war" I can see is his fanatism to revert without giving details. See history: [4]. How much of an "edit war" is evident with this history? He did not even bother to TALK before I reverted his unaccounted edits. Instead of supplying a justification to his previous edits, he rather had the page protected. Of course after having his personal edits restored first. A clear case of admin abuse to me. By the way, the protection was not requested according to the procedure to protect a page. Rokus01 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected by Angr. [5] I have refactored the title of this section. Mathsci (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 is forum shopping with his "evidence". [6][7] Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected" Please refrain from your mercenary attitude to jump into the fire for defending the undefendable, and come up with loose accusations that only show how involved you are in soapboxing that won't help your friend at all. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he asked Angr to protect the page and you have made no attempt to produce any. Please provide diffs. I could only find this communication [8] to you from Angr, confirming my statement. Your other very odd comments above smack of conspiracy theory. On the other hand you have actively encouraged another editor to find fault with and report Dbachmann whenever possible. [9]: « If you see any evidence of his violations against WP:NPOV (especially where he tries to smother multiple views) or WP:OR (making unsourced claimes), outright violations of WP:CIVIL or anything else of the kind, I urge you to help making Wikipedia a better place and denounce this behaviour asap at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. » Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Note this occurred 4 days ago and the parties have been discussing in the talk page in between. Gnangarra 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as resolved matter at arbcom and incident 4 days old, contact the arbitratories for any intervention. Gnangarra 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

this Rokus character keeps pestering me on my talkpage about this protection, with which I had nothing to do, 15 hours after he had been told as much. Anyone care to hold his hand and explain the situation to him in a soothing tone? Or, alternatively, wave about the old baton a little to make him behave? dab (𒁳) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] malicious tagging for deletion of Joan Perez de Lazarraga

This is a pretty low-temperature incident, but it struck me as pretty malicious, so I'm reporting it.

I translated the Basque Wikipedia page on a major Basque writer, and it was tagged for deletion because it supposedly didn't indicate why the subject was important. This is completely unjustifiable if you read the article, which explicitly states the notability of the subject.

Article: Joan Perez de Lazarraga

User who tagged it: User talk:I love entei

His/her reasoning for the tag was that the article was "poor," had broken links, and other things having nothing to do with the notability of the subject. See my and his/her talk pages for the discussion. (He/she even went so far as accusing me of copying and pasting the text from a website.) He/she removed the tag, but if I hadn't been around to contest the tag, the page might've been deleted.

I'd like an administrator or someone with authority to give User talk:I love entei a stern talking-to, because unjustifiable taggings for deletion are arguably more malicious than ordinary vandalism. Vandalism is easily reverted. It's not so easy to revert a page's deletion.  Madler  05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These type of edits are what I cringe at. Tagged with CSD A7 _one minute_ after the article was completed, giving no time or notice that the page needs to be revised. Instead of offering helpful suggestions or tips, a label is slapped in the hope that the article can never be improved nor modified to meet a sort of minimum standard. It's the lazy way out of editing, in my opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider I love entei's edits malicious, but I would consider them inappropriate, for the reasons Seicer mentions and also the fact that the article did assert notability. --Iamunknown 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why he feels the need to have his user page semi-protected, as it's never been vandalised. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in idle speculation, but he/she created a two-sentence article earlier the same day (Dec 22) that got tagged for deletion: Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. Anyway, I just want someone to tell this guy/gal that what he/she did wasn't right. He/she's acting okay now.  Madler  06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting this drop, since they guy/gal seems to be playing nice now.  Madler  04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting 2 range blocks

There is an IP out there that has been massively sockpuppeting in the past few days across two large ranges, and one small one. This has involved massive userpage vandalism and user talk page vandalism (see [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]). The ranges are as follows:

• 220.255.4.128/27: 220.255.4.133, 220.255.4.135.
• 116.14.0.0/16: 116.14.26.88, 116.14.19.34, 116.14.112.226, 116.14.31.80, 116.14.86.42, 116.14.64.101
• 121.7.0.0/17 (may also be /16, don't know yet): 121.7.197.88, 121.7.200.93, 121.7.203.74, 121.7.207.139.
• At least one known registered troll sock: Jimbo da Whale. Also possibly Youdontwannaknowmeordoyou.
• All IP's have a whois trace back to Singapore.

Due to constant harassment for literally days, I believe it is well time to throw a range block up on these IPs. I realize this is a last resort measure, but there has been constant harassment from the IPs on userpages and user talk pages for days, and most range blocks are thrown up for far less. I thank you ahead of time for your action. Autoblock disabled would obviously be a good idea, but admin's judgment on whether to allow account creation, given that user has created accounts before, and it is clearly keeping a list (i.e., is knowledgeable), is open. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are requesting an indef tariff? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not. I was going for 1 month would be good. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay... Would it be best if it was for a week in the first instance? It could always be extended, but even one week will cover the Christmas/New Year period for a location with a significant Christian population. I've not done a range block before, so I want to be sure that collateral damage is limited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

One week would be good. I leave it up to you to decide if it should be anonymous only, or if account creation should be blocked. For the former, there would be little collateral damage; the latter would expierience more, but would not block registered users, and users could still register, though they'd need to wait some time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do anon only, and for one week. If any other admin comes across this discussion and decided to vary the block then I will be happy with whatever they decide. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. The 116.14.xxx range was already blocked for a month since two days ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a month-long /16 block sounds awfully scary. Do we typically do that? Could protection be used instead? I fear shutting off huge chunks of Singapore. Also, the 121.7.0.0/17 block won't even cover the range listed above. You're looking for 121.7.128.0/17, although 121.7.192.0/18 or smaller would still cover the ones listed. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The month long block was already in place when I attempted a week tariff, so you might wish to speak to the admin who placed it. As for the correct range numbers, please amend as you see fit - this was my first set of range blocks and I am happy for them to be corrected as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due repsect, Wknight, this user has been harassing us for days, and protecting several people's talk pages, over a dozen user pages and another dozen talk pages, etc. for a week seems less respectable. Yes, we do range blocks all the time, and precisely for this kind of thing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll raise the other issue - about the month-long block - with the admin directly, or maybe at WP:AN. Just thought maybe you'd have insight about a precedent for a range block of that size for that long. I've done range blocks but only for very short times. As for the more recent blocks, I'll correct those as far as I can. If protection can be done instead, that's always preferable to a range block. There was a good-faith user once who hated anonymous users and would intentionally vandalize anonymously to get us to shut down those addresses. I think they were from the same region of the world too (southeast Asia). I worry this is the same case (although the name doesn't come to mind). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Should this be here or after the next?) Theres got to be a valid reason for those. You guys can band together, circlejerk, etc, block for all eternity but users of IPs change all the time. So its gonna get worse. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hildanknight is what you're looking for. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cush

Could someone please try to persuade Cush (talk · contribs) to lay off the personal attacks?

I am concerned that the latest outburst may mark a resumption of the situation a few months ago, when Cush mounted a series of personal attacks on me (see e.g. [15]) because Cush thinks that fiction should be exempt from notability/verifiability guidelines[16], and I had tagged some articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a standard "no personal attacks" warning, in case the user has not seen it before. If the attacks persist, well, I guess you know the drill. Sandstein (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistant harassment

Apologies up front for not having the time to compose an aesthetically pleasing report endlessly full of supporting links; I simply don't have the time at this moment and no longer feel this can/should wait...

• RYNORT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 69.244.181.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

USER:RYNORT (self-identified as 16) was recently blocked for going on a vandalism rampage (some examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and leaving blatantly inappropriate attacks on other editors and other immature comments (see edits here, here) after Wikipedia editors rebuffed his political agenda . The blocking admin (in an extraordinary application of good faith), after apprently receiving an email in which the user said his account was compromised, unblocked him with words of warning regarding conduct and safeguarding his account.

I've been out of pocket for a few weeks, and have had limited time online. However, I've recently had a barrage of attacks directed at me (some directly from this user, some from an IP I suspect to be controlled by the same user). Some examples:

• Conspiring to game the system
• Attack & stalking threats ("you are now on watch")
• Accusations of "paranoia"
• More rambling ("your sole intention for being at wikipedia is so you can form a LYNCH MOB")
• Another rant ("McCarthyite tactics", "Are you a fan of J Edgar Hoover? He tried to arrest twelve thousand Americans for 'subversion.' Would you like to round up all the conservative editors at wikipedia and put them in a 'holding tank' too?")
• What is a Lunjio?
• "Wikipedia is a waste" (again) - What is a Knol?
• More made up warnings
• Long attack ("utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos")
• SSP - notice the idiosyncratic "lol", often done by USER:RYNORT. Also, for more SSP evidence, notice the consistant misapplication of headers (using only one =) when posting new sections by both the IP and by the account RYNORT in diffs here, here, here, and here. Good evidence that it's all the same kid.

There's plenty more evidence and other melodrama on the talk pages of articles and in the contribution history of the IP and user account. I don't really have time to formally initiate WP:SSP and WP:RFC proceedings right now (happy holidays!) but hopefully ANI admins will take more immediate (even if temporary) action to stop the harassment and disrutpive behavior. Your time in reviewing this is appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. Would have done it for a week but the user was previously indeffed and promised to behave, evidently he did not learn from that incident. I've done my own review of the user's contribs and did not see any positive contribution (but plenty of the above). The fact a political agenda is being pushed is mostly irrelevant, it's actually more the egregious examples of bad behaviour which stand out in this user's case. Orderinchaos 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SamEV

Refuses to use reach a consensus on the talk page and does wholesale deletions on number of sections and if or when they are reverted refuses to go to the talk section in violation of Wiki:Be Bold as can be seen here [17] Placed in edit's and calls them copyedit but in reality some of it is near vandalism [18] with "Yet the decades that followed were filled with tyranny, factionalism, economic difficulties, rapid changes of government, and exile for political opponents" and " after forcibly silencing or exiling many of his opponents and mainly due to political and economic reasons" as well as a comment that is near vandalism and violates NPOV with edits that included "Dishonest to the core, he was a master manipulator" [19]. UnclePaco (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, you want to use dispute resolution; this doesn't require administrator help. Shell ^babelfish 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Static IP spammer

• 89.248.136.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 100% link spam since August. Not current. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked. --Coredesat 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:James Emtage

Hi, I'm not quite sure to do about the above user. He went thorugh a period of "experimenting" with certain pages, and now is convinced about removing discussion content. I asked an administrator and they said that talk should, as i thought, not be removed. I have since warned him (twice , once in September) only to find him removing the warnings User talk:James Emtage. I hope someone can help.

Cheers Thenthornthing (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator by the way, I just want to say that a user has the right to remove what they please from their talk page it is a sign that the warning was read. Also it is still in the history. Rgoodermote  23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but from another article I was told not. Thenthornthing (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You said the last warning was in September right, well that would give a reasonable time frame for the user to remove the warnings from the talk page. Rgoodermote  23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically, I should just leave him, but what if he removed content from the articles talk page again, shall i warn him again via his talk page? Thenthornthing (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user removes it from a talk page and it does not belong to him (this means an article's talk page or if it was not his comment) then you are entitled to warn the user. Rgoodermote  23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You should politely ask him not to remove content from article talk pages, without a big red warning sign, and point him to the relevant guideline. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right ya, I id try politeness but it didn't wotk so i thought i'd be more stricter. Anyway, any more future incidents and i know what to do then. Cheers guys Thenthornthing (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requsting block of Lynx515

I am requesting Lynx515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is blocked for breaching WP:NPA, and placing bad faith warnings on his own user page. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked as a vandalism account only . It could have went to WP:AIV.--Sandahl 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis sockuppet

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) appears to be back using 64.26.147.175 (talk · contribs), which is similar to ip addresses he has used before (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ceraurus). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Can we get a block on this please? I"m going to go revert his edits. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Quickly revert the edits, and from now on, have the socks blocked on sight, so he can stop. You can also create a log of him on your userspace. —BoL @ 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm here for: requesting that the ip be blocked. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems extremely unlikely that this is anyone other than banned user Arthur Ellis. Blocked for 72 hours, post here again if he shows up again. Picaroon (t) 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist POV additions at White flight

Please check the history of White flight. There are currently a couple of IPs, and some registered users attempting to insert racist material into the body of the article. Not sure if this qualifies for RFPP, so I brought it here. Thanks, Mr Which??? 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not quite needed yet. It's still manageable right now. Come back here or go to RFPP if it gets out of hand. —Kurykh 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave vandalism warnings to both IPs and have watchlisted the page. If it continues then protection can be considered then. BLACKKITE 00:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think it was quite ready for RFPP. I just felt that admin warnings might carry a bit more weight than one coming from me, especially as a contributor to the article. Mr Which??? 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, new IP arrived, idiocy added again. Reverted+blocked the IP and semi'd the page for 48 hours. Even trolls have to take time off for Christmas, surely...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I really don't like having to chase around bad faith contributors like that. Appreciate the help. Mr Which??? 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block on Giano lifted, but autoblock remains

Could an admin take care of this? Somehow, though the block has been properly reversed on User:Giano II, the autoblock remains. Mr Which??? 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Check Giano's user talk page. ElinorD found the autoblock and resolved it. --Coredesat 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pusing at Greg Williams (radio personality)

An anon IP has been pushing an angry, POV edit here, and then reinserting it after I removed it. Mr Which??? 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That IP has made two edits, ever. Mr Which, please don't post every single problem edit you happen to encounter here - this page is for serious matters that you've failed to find a resolution for after a number of attempts in other, more informal venues. Please exhaust all reasonable venues before posting here-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So, should I simply continue to revert him, and then post it here, and be accused of 3RR as I have been in the past? If you didn't want to do anything about it, why even respond? This was an "incident", where an anon IP posted vile, disgusting edits to an article about a living person. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP, which I understand is a core policy. If your brusque response was intended to have a chilling effect on editors reporting problems to AN/I, consider it done. Mr Which??? 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should follow policy. You should discuss problematic edits with users, and on the article's talk page; you only did that after you posted here, and haven't given it any reasonable time to work. You should use the comprehensive dispute resolution procedure; you've not done so. You should post vandalism concerns on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; you've not done so. You should post BLP concerns on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you've not done so. If you feel less inclined to post to this board then good, that was my intention. This board is for serious entrenched matters requiring urgent administrator intention. Your complaint is none of those things - it's everyday POV pushing that's reverted hundreds or thousands of times by dozens of editors, admins and not, every single day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Finlay, whilst I agree with the principle that this board is meant for "serious entrenched matters", I do not think it is in our best interest to discourage editors from posting here or to respond to good-faith requests with the tone with which you have responded to MrWhich's request. Please consider responding in a more constructive manner in the future; MrWhich, please do not be discouraged from reporting here, but do also note that there is WP:AIV which might have been a better venue for this incident.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

People are fond of posting here because they can't be bothered with the hard work of negotiating with other users. It's difficult, often annoying, to deal with people who don't seem willing to behave rationally. But that's how Wikipedia works. Administrators solve very little; asking them to solve a problem is like asking the air force to open a jar for you - they can get it done, but the collateral damage is often high. The false idea that administrators are special is rife on this page; that only administrators can solve your problem; that if you see something bad happening then you need to call 911 and report it here. That's a deeply flawed approach, one that does the whole Wikipedia great disservice. Everyone is equally responsible for fixing things, and there is such an overwhelming volume of low-level abusive edits that essentially almost everything has to be solved by ordinary individual contributors acting alone, with no magic powers or booming authority. This page should be, must be, the last resort people come to when all the other stuff has failed. Every time someone posts stuff here when there are better venues, everytime a pointless discussion wages here, every time someone tries to make policy here when they should use the proper pages, it fills this channel with noise and obscures the important work this board is intended for. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Finlay, I don't think that we disagree. I would suggest, however, that in addition to attempting to influence how this board is used, we also change our attitude to those who may not be as familiar with its function. Your comments unfortunately do seem to have a chilling force behind them. We should not respond to good-faith requests of good-faith editors in a manner that will discourage them from future such comments. This could have been accomplished in far less words with a simple statement like, "Account blocked; in the future, please consider reporting incidents of blatant vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism". --Iamunknown 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now with assumptions of bad faith ("can't be bothered"?!?)? I reverted the edits once. He reinserted, and I left a message at his talk and posted it here. You treated my like I did something wrong. And these are not "low-level abusive edits." As for posting to the "proper venue", some of us clearly aren't as familiar with all the "venues" as you are. Treating us with disrespect hen we make a good-faith report is certainly unbecoming of an administrator. I'll repeat: if you didn't want to deal with it, just ignore the problem, and let other admins deal with the problem. Don't insult the editor trying to solve the problem. Mr Which??? 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you don't feel like dealing with the problem (a WP:BLP concern), then please feel free not to respond. It's not just simple "POV pushing." But as I said, if you intended your post to have a chilling effect on posting real concerns here, consider it done. And feel free not to respond to this note. Mr Which??? 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Both edits are essentially vandalism, but the editor hasn't re-inserted since your warning on their talkpage. Proper procedure is to warn on the talkpage, as you did, then escalate through warnings and if s/he re-inserts after BV or level 4, take it to WP:AIV. Anchoress (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I considered it more serious because of the WP:BLP concerns. Mr Which??? 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the edit is libellous or offensive enough to require oversight, you can email requesting oversight or post to the BLP noticeboard. Anchoress (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The reason I posted it here is because this board is very active, and I felt that we needed immediate admin attention on the page. Check out the anon IP' post on the talk page accusing me of vandalism. Clearly not a guy who is planning on stopping his insertion of this material. Mr Which??? 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist comment on discussion page

I removed this comment (including "This article seems to establish that the only thing being niggardly has to do with being black is being an ignorant nigger! Haw haw haw.") from the Talk:Controversies about the word "niggardly" page with the edit summary "remove obviously offensive comment". The editor who wrote it has now restored the comment. I don't think there's any question that the comment has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. I'm not going to deal with it any more. Perhaps someone else will. Noroton (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a first-and-only warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A conflict between user GoWest8 and admin IrishGuy

Please pay attention to the dispute between me, GoWest8, and administrator IrishGuy. On 20 December there was a conflict of edits in Garry Kasparov article between me and user Miyokan. I have argued my actions and have invited the other side to search for some compromise repeatedly User_talk:GoWest8 User_talk:Irishguy#User:GoWest8_Garry_Kasparov. Then I have tried to explain clearly that there's no any sources for information which I had removed from the article (look User_talk:GoWest8 comment IrishGuy 19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC) then GoWest8 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC); also another my comment GoWest8 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)). But I had not received any response to my arguments and was banned by this admin twice for "Vandalism" and "Disruptive editing". It's an obvious absurdity for me, taking into account that I had motivated and explained my actions and didn't get any answer. I think his opinion and his actions in the discussion are very biassed. GoWest8 2 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I've blocked the account GoWest8 2 (talk · contribs) indef for block evasion. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why never evade bans, even if it's a dispute. Happy Holidays from —BoL 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UP1340

Taken from UP1340's userpage:
Some of you may have noticed UP1340 editing articles having to do with trains. He's my younger brother and has PDD; he just happens to have an obsession with all things train-related. I only recently caught him editing Wikipedia articles and would prefer that he be banned from editing, but I'm having trouble finding where you can nominate your OWN account for being blocked. If someone more knowledgeable about wikipedia could nominate him for being banned from editing, with this message in mind, it would be great. As for now I've changed his PW and deleted his email address from his account settings so hopefully he won't be able to log in. I'm really sorry for the trouble he's caused--he means no harm, but can't really understand why what he's doing is 'bad.' He thinks he's helping.
Message was added by user.

Nominating user for block as requested. I'm a bit confused about the process myself. If this needs to be moved, feel free to do so. Hellbus (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You can look at it two ways, assume good faith and block as per the request of an older family member of an underage user, or assume its a compromised account which would also warrant a block until such time that it was assured the original owner had control of it again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gp75motorsports

user promised to focus more on mainspace

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do with Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? His "ChampionMart" has been nominated for deletion which makes about the 5th MFD he's had on his user space creations. See Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gp75motorsports for the list of MFDs, which have all taken place in the last few months. There seems to be a large disparity between his user and Wikipedia space edits against his mainspace edits. Does anyone have an idea about how to convince this user to stop creating these subpages that don't meet Wikipedia standards? Perhaps some probation could be put in place? Obviously, this can't keep going on. Metros (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I've read BURO THREE TIMES and I've tried to organize all my projects to meet BURO standards. I set the project up, go over BURO and slowly reconstruct the project over a period of weeks and when the project finally begins to adhere to standards, I open it. Unfortunately people like you come along and make damned sure this process doesn't get completed. Just give me another six weeks to smooth it out and if it still doesn't adhere, nom it again. All I need is time. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports, you've been doing the same thing over and over again. The community's patience has been clearly exhausted for this kind of behaviour, and I've blocked you for a month to prevent this kind of stuff. I sincerely hope that you will contribute purposefully after the block has expired. --Maxim_(talk) 15:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've declined the unblock request for that reason. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a completely inappropriate and manifestly excessive block. He is a good-faith contributor who has made genuine contributions to articles. While his projects are not necessarily helpful, they are not deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. I am going to reduce the block length to 48 hours accordingly; if anyone disagrees, we can discuss it here. Walton^One 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the reduced block either, but I think you're minimizing the problem a bit. Those projects may not have been deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia, but his unwillingness to listen when people kept telling him they were unhelpful and possibly disruptive is where the problem lie.

At any rate, he now seems willing to restrict himself from making more of those in the future, and that's good enough for me. — Coren ^(talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether that could have been achieved by a strong warning instead of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitimate and interesting question, but now completely academic. I think everyone here now agree that the reduced block is adequate, and whether it was necessary or superfluous is a moot point given the desirable result that GP75 will make some effort to avoid such disruptive projects in the future. Shall we stop beating the dead horse and call the incident closed? — Coren ^(talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly those who blocked and endorsed the block might want to state how they would handle similar incidents in the future. That would actually improve things going forward, and then we really could close the incident. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would have given one last stern warning, and probably only blocked for a week at first. But I don't think I would endorse the block differently than I have now, even in retrospect. As a rule, I will abide by the judgment of my colleagues, and not reverse or reduce a block unless the {{unblock}} provides me with a very compelling reason, or if there was misconduct by the blocking admin (which was emphatically not the case here— I may not agree with the duration, but I don't doubt the blocking admin honestly felt that duration was appropriate).

Note that I'm all in favor of lifting or shortening a block when the blocked editor provides credible reassurances that the reason why they were blocked will be fixed, or no longer applies. This was not, in this case, apparent: GP75 requested unblock mostly (IMO) on wikilawyering around WP:BURO rather than acknowledge he should desist entirely (has he has afterwards). — Coren ^(talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block reduction to 48 hours. I'm also not entirely convinced that a block was the best way to deal with this. A strongly worded warning that a block would be the next step would have been better. Don't assume that people know that "numerous MfDs of their user subpages and ANI threads about them" = "previous warning and license for the first admin to lose patience to block them". I certainly have never thought that. And in any case, blocking for inappropriate use of userspace is a tricky one at the best of times. Discussion (as happened at the MfDs), followed by escalating warnings, should precede any block for borderline inappropriate userspace use (stuff that can be speedied is generally clearcut userspace abuse - stuff that needs to go to MfD is more debatable). Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This block seems a little much to be honest. He's creating the subpages in good faith, even if we do keep having MfD's over them. It's not clear cut userspace abuse - he's trying to help other users (even though I personally think there's better ways to do this). A block like this has the potential to alienate good faith users and chase them away from the project. A warning is all that was needed in this case, then blocks could have been discussed. Gp75motorsports isn't the most disruptive user we have here by far, and I'm sure he'd have listened to concerns. This seems more like a punishment than a protective measure. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hence why I reduced the block length. As I said on Maxim's talk page, this block was manifestly excessive. Walton^One 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacking clear consensus that this user's activities are against policy, which you don't have, this block was an abuse of admin powers.

Blocking someone for a month for activities confined to their own userspace subpages which are intended to foster community? Maybe misguided, and maybe we shouldn't have them here, but what happened to AGF?

Manifestly bad judgement here. I am unblocking. Please do not do this again. If you want to create consensus and policy against doing this, do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad judgement indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As GWH unblocked with reference to this discussion, if we WP:AGF regarding GWH's actions, there was no wheel-warring. I agree that a block was unwarranted, although the situation was approaching the point where it might have been needed. The editor needs to understand that his efforts are ill-conceived: even if these ideas are open for discussion, his implementations of them have a long record of failing badly. I favor a stern warning, and I believe the aborted block serves this purpose. Xoloz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, whether the block was entirely warranted at this point is disputable, but simply reverting another admin's block without discussion with them is never a good thing. — Coren ^(talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GWH complied with the policy you've cited. Xoloz (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes discussion like this can bypass the need to discuss. WP:WHEEL and WP:BLOCK are not a license for an admin to defend their blocks in the face of clear disagreement. Sometimes it is better to admit to error, rather than try and defend it. Also, it is direct clashes like this between admins over interpretation of blocking policy that leads to swift acceptance of arbitration cases. Regardless of the need to block at all, an immediate block of one month on Maxim's part seems to indicate a preference for immediate, lengthy blocks, rather than warnings, discussions, and shorter blocks. Tough admins versus soft admins, if you like. This is something that should be addressed to avoid any increasing divergence and inconsistencies in block lengths (the length of a block someone receives shouldn't be dependent on which admin they get). I've tried to raise general discussions before on what sort of things are appropriate for 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour, 1 week, 1 month and longer (up to indefinite) blocks, but standards seems to vary wildly and not bear much relation to WP:BLOCK. What is the best way to tackle this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to fix this in general. Divergence between the "tougher" admins and the more "lenient" ones is unavoidable, unless we agree to mire ourselves into the complicated bureaucracy and politics of a written codification of blocks, or bind ourselves to precedent law. Outside of egregious abuse, I think we simply need to accept that blocks et al. will depend on which admin you stumble on. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Coren) No, we don't need to accept anything of the sort. A more specific blocking policy would not necessarily entail a growth in bureaucracy and politics; indeed, if well-drafted, it could be very simple, and would protect users from being driven away by the excesses of overzealous admins. I propose something like the following:

• The account of an established user in good standing (i.e. not a "throwaway" vandal account) may be blocked only if any of the following apply:
  • S/he has violated the three-revert rule and has continued reverting after warnings.
  • S/he is deliberately and repeatedly damaging the quality of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content in some way, and has continued to do so after being warned.
  • S/he is harassing or attacking other users, or in any way impeding other users from improving the quality of the encyclopedia.
• Administrators should always ensure that such a user has been given multiple warnings and a fair chance to change their behaviour, before issuing a block. The block should not be for an excessive length of time considering the gravity of the offence. The user should also be told exactly why they have been blocked, and (unless there are supervening privacy concerns) the block should be discussed at WP:ANI. Walton^One 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're stuck having to agree to disagree there, because each of those suggestions appear like Bad Ideas to me. We're already giving way too much leeway to trolls, provided they either skirt the rules or contribute some fraction of constructive edits. You're suggesting making blocks even harder in those cases.

Wikipedia's biggest problem right now aren't the throwaway vandals— those are trivial to deal with and cause nothing but easily fixed short-term disruption. The problem is the persistently problematic editors who manage to avoid community wrath by either skirting the rules (keeping just under 3RR, remaining superficially polite) while still causing vast amounts of stress and aggravation to the real good editors who eventually just walk out in disgust because we don't do anything about them.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think GP75 is one of those trolls I talk about. — Coren ^(talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between one of these problematic editors you talk about, and a relatively new, inexperienced, but still bold and brash editor, who hasn't quite understood how things work around here yet? Not all "real good editors" sprout fully formed upon the plains of Wikipedia. Some take a while to grow and learn. There are also many good and productive editors who (much like Jekyll and Hyde) have moments when they are disruptive and unproductive (for varying reasons). The point is that such decisions and judgments are difficult to make. You can't judge at RfA whether someone will be good at making these judgments. That is why we have ANI, AN and ArbCom, so longer discussions can get better results than single admins (or small groups of admins) getting it wrong sometimes. For the record, I agree with Walton. Established users that were previously in good standing (and may still be) should always get a warning and the chance to defend themselves. And emergency blocks in such cases need only be short one, rather than indefinite. And the lifting of a block should come with an apology if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth's summarised pretty much what I was going to say. There is no clear, objective definition of a "problematic editor". Vandals, as you say, are easy to identify and deal with, as are the blatant POV-pushers and trolls. But I've seen plenty of established editors who make copious beneficial contributions to the encyclopedia, but have a problem with civility or are unnecessarily combative or prone to edit-warring. Such people often end up being labelled "trolls" or "disruptive users" but they should not be described as such, and should only be blocked as a very, very last resort. From both a pragmatic perspective (since we need to recruit and retain contributors) and a moral perspective, a user who makes contributions in good faith to the encyclopedia earns certain privileges which we do not grant to vandals: they should be given as many chances as possible before being blocked, they should be fairly and adequately warned if their conduct violates policy, and, if they are blocked, they should be informed precisely which policy they have violated and how they can alter their conduct in order to conform to community standards. Blocks should not be issued according to the arbitrary caprice of individual admins. Otherwise we cease to be, in any meaningful sense, a community. Walton^One 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring on ANI (note above thread)

222.155.45.183 (talk · contribs) and 65.27.201.206 (talk · contribs) are currently revert warring on this page, 65 accusing 222 of being a reincarnation of banned Hayden5650 (talk · contribs), and 222 accusing 65 of being a reincarnation of banned Jeeny (talk · contribs). 65 is an IP formerly used by Jeeny, and 222 is a spa. Beyond that, I can't tell what is what. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I reported both to AIV for the editwarring; 222.155 was blocked 31 hours as a result, 65.27 apparently not noted by the admin on AIV. Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't check 65.27's talkpage and see the same block issued, just took AIVHelperBot's word for it. Whoops! Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650, 222.155.45.183 is most likely an IP of Hayden5650. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on 222.155.43.145 (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary semi-protection of ANI

I have semi-protected ANI for 1 hour due to the two IPs listed above continually reverting one another. Unfortunately, I have to run in a minute, so I'm not sure that I'll have time to figure out who's the sock, and who's not. If any admin thinks this action is excessive, feel free to revert. However, it seems that the disruption is worth 1 hour of semi-protection. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

since the two accounts have been blocked, I'll unprotect (but maintain move protection. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever IPs in the 222.155.0.0/16 and 222.153.0.0/16 are acting up, please block those ranges (anon. only, account creation blocked) for a few days. 222.155.45.183 and 222.155.43.145 were unquestionably Hayden5650. 65.27.201.206 was very likely Jeeny. Picaroon (t) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I remember handling Hayden's case for a time while he was still posting under that account. I'm honestly not surprised about recent developments. Orderinchaos 08:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalker

User:Bramlet Abercrombie appears to be stalking me and undoing all my edits, all he ever does nowadays is undo my edits, no constructive contributions. Appears to be an SPA with a massive grudge against the foundation but that is not what concerns me, what concerns is his single minded stalking of my edits and reverting them time and again. he has been blocked a few days ago for edit warring and since then has dedicated himself solely to this pursuit, making the hard work that I am doing feeling like it is a waste of time. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant stalking and reverting - given previous block, I have blocked for 72 hours. Input appreciated as to whether this is reasonable, or should be longer given editor's obvious SP. BLACKKITE 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Support indef-block; classic wikistalking and shit stirring. Reminds me of the Manchester POV pusher, to be honest. Will ^(talk) 19:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, now appears to be more content dispute. Have told user I will unblock if he desists. BLACKKITE 19:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  A content dispute moves into wikistalking after about thirty or forty "Undid revision by User" summaries. Will ^(talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  You could (though I wouldn't) argue that there wasn't consensus for the original edits. I have unblocked, with the proviso this goes to talk before *any* more edit-warring takes place. BLACKKITE 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't particularly think the user's editing in good faith; The userpage gives away the "Wikipedia Badman" belief he seems to be devoting his edits to. Will ^(talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Man, did that editor have a get out of jail free card up his sleeve? I looked through his history and it looked like nothing but stalking to me. Jeffpw (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has agreed to stop. IF he doesn't stick to that promise, then he will be blocked again. BLACKKITE 20:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Have you looked at his userpage? Can you honestly say you think he is here to contribute in good faith, in order to improve this project? There's a fine line between WP:AGF and outright naiveté. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, there is. Admins aren't infalliable. Let's hope my AGF proves to be right. If it doesn't, there are options. BLACKKITE 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  I personally agree with the notion of "last chance" unblocks, although I think they need to be scrupulously enforced. That being said they should only be used when we have a commitment from the user to improve. If we don't, and this level of stalking and bad behaviour is apparent, we should block. Orderinchaos 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The overstock trolling on his talk page is pretty blatant. Mind, I'm not a great fan of persistent abusers like Bagley who blame Wikipedia for the collateral damage caused by preventing their abuse. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and I also agree this user can't possibly be here to contribute constructively. I would indef. --Coredesat 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't. Has anyone actually checked Bramlet Abercrombie's edits, SqueakBox's edits and the Talk:Larry Sanger talk page? Consensus is against SqueakBox's opinion, and now he is going across the wiki editing with his POV. --Iamunknown 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was just coming here to say the same thing. SqueakBox's edits seem to be totally inappropriate here. Metros (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, I see what you mean now. --Coredesat 23:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Both sides have a point. Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate as far as the co-founder issue is concerned. But Bramlet just arbitrarily reverted every single edit Squeakbox made, including edits that had nothing to do with the co-founder issue, such as here and here, regardless of the merits of those edits.--Atlan (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted all of SB's against consensus (and verifiability) edits regarding the "co-" issue. I was careful to revert only those edits that pertained directly to that discussion. But SB was point-making with the initial edits, and making such mass-edits, without consensus, was out of line, in my view. For the record, I don't have any axe to grind in the Sanger thing. I just wasn't willing to let a particular POV be mass-edited across the project without consensus. Mr Which??? 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no objections from the guy who reverted back to SB - I reverted only the "undo" edits due to the pretense of Wikistalking. Will ^(talk) 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted back to SB's point-y mass-edits?!? If what Bramlet did was "stalking" SB, does that mean you were "stalking" me? (Note: I don't believe this, I'm just pointing out the specious nature of SB's initial complaint.) Mr Which??? 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Orangemarlin

After numerous warnings from many editors I put an alert out on this user. In response, he has suggested that users, apparently including me, should be executed. [113] Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like it, but I have to go right now. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) While intemperate, this is not a serious threat. Your userpage states that English is not your first language; please be aware that hyperbole of this sort is common in English (especially American English). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he clearly speaks of executing people in a figurative sense, as in blocking accounts. Nothing wrong here.--Atlan (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the figurative "X ought to be shot" or "...hung from the nearest tree" metaphor from my own breed of English. It's frequently used in relation to public figures, and I think most people who use it would be utterly shocked if the target of their comments did meet their end with a bullet. Orderinchaos 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Guido is a disruptive element to this project. He has stalked me to other articles in which he has absolutely no interest, until he went on the attack. Time for him to be blocked AGAIN. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and may be an insinuated threat, which is illegal and does not belong on WP. Even if it was somehow being metaphorical, it's completely inappropriate. Even if Guido is a disruptive editor. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a metaphor...please have a thicker skin, people. OrangeMarlin is a prolific contributor and I seriously doubt he would ever suggest real-world violent action. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about with respect to the coach of the Los Angeles Kings, but that was merely a fleeting thought. And as a physician, I took that oath, something to do with "do no harm." This is kind of ridiculous AN/I, isn't it? Can we close it and move on to more serious things like drinking beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite silly: American English is rife with such terms. In fact, I suggest you watch 12 Angry Men, and not how Henry Fonda's character rips apart the prosecution's reliance on the phrase, "I'm going to kill you". Guido, as a linguist I know that the Dutch are generally fairly good with English: British English. Not the same thing, really. •Jim62sch• 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Fonda was wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that. American television is the primary English influence in the Netherlands. A Dutchman will say gas and garbage instead of petrol and rubbish, without even knowing whether that's American or British English. But that's another discussion entirely. I will say though, that while the Dutch are generally proficient at foreign languages, colloquialisms are not their strong point.--Atlan (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider this normal conversation, then perhaps it's time that somebody gives you a wake-up call. Language differences do not play here, it's the attitude. An attitude, that is universally unacceptable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought the problem here was a death threat. So now it's an attitude?--Atlan (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase in question was "I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it." Obviously Orangemarlin was speaking figuratively, but there is room for increased drama and misunderstanding there. If you mean "I think we should block a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get blocked as well, so be it.", then say that. Effectively, if there were any trolls around, OrangeMarlin fed them by using such language. Best to avoid using such language, rather than waste time having to defend yourself like this. Of course, the blow-up over semantic issues obscures the point that blocking indiscriminately and causing collateral damage is a bad idea, and will likely get admins desysopped rather than thanked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fonda was wrong? Not sure what version you saw, but certainly not the real version.

As for the Dutch and learning English, I'm not so sure that British English still isn't what's taught, but perhaps it isn't. Nonetheless, colloquialisms are the hardest part of any language to learn.

I like this "An attitude, that is universally unacceptable". Shame it isn't true. •Jim62sch• 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is a problem here, but not an easy one to solve. A number of articles attract virtually no attention other than from POV-pushers; that leaves one or two good Wikipedians fighting the NPOV corner against all comers, and leads to burnout - at this point trolls will often come along to poke them with a stick. It happens that many (though by no means all) of these good Wikipedians are admins. Wikipedia, as a project, seems to have "delegated" management of POV targets to a people who are then considered expendable, or even considered the source of the problem, when burnout strikes. As they get more experienced, the POV-pushers become more adept at querulous argumentation, citing policy and constantly trying to establish a new "neutral" average between their POV and the current state of the article, a kind of ratchet effect. Cold fusion has twice been reverted to the 2004 FA version due to the pernicious effect of "fringecruft", there are many other articles where minority activists dominate the agenda. I've seen this at articles like Simon Wessely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and user:ScienceApologist is one of the on-admins who is burning out fighting off the kooks. The bad news is, when that happens, the kooks will move in big time. Watching articles prone to kookery is a thankless task, I go back every couple of months to Crop circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and sometimes I'm horrified at what's been done. This is not an especially healthy situation for the project, but these articles at the margins, the ones that form the core of the fringe cosmology obsessions, Remote viewing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and other paranormal subjects, simply don't get enough eyes to impede the POV-pushers, because most editors (rightly) can't tolerate the stupidity that goes on there. I also think some people are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is now probably the number one most important place to promote your fringe view, mad theory, band or whatever. I don't know a good way to fix this. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly couldn't agree more with Guy's comments above. It's a big problem in politics areas too, even fairly mainstream ones. The worst ones are those who persistently fly under the radar but are pretty much incapable of improving the encyclopaedia, as they do far more damage to our credibility and integrity than even the worst vandal, who is guaranteed to get reverted by a neutral outsider or article watcher at some point. Orderinchaos 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is something that cannot be fixed, and that will eventually (probably soon) grind Wikipedia to a halt. At some point we will simply run out of undisputed topics.

What happens on Wikipedia is furthermore a reflection of the world, where tolerance, civility and interest in the truth diminish by the day. It is only normal, alas, to find the same here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It can certainly be addressed ("fixed" is an ambitious word). It's not hard to identify accounts which employ Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy at the expense of the encyclopedic mission and policies. I can name offhand half-a-dozen such single-purpose advocacy accounts, most with real-life conflicts of interest. It is currently very difficult to restrict such abuse, particularly as current sentiment appears to extend significantly greater understanding and benefit of the doubt toward a nascent single-purpose agenda account than toward longtime contributors attempting to deal with such problems. The answer is simple: restrict such accounts aggressively if they prove unwilling to subordinate their real-life agenda to the goal of writing a respectable encyclopedia. As to Guido's contention that the world today is less tolerant and civil than it was 10, 50, or 100 years ago, I wonder whether someone who's not white, male, European, Christian, heterosexual, etc would share that view. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not belong to that privileged group. I've experienced discrimination for many years an I can tell you: it's getting worse fast. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcell and JzG. There are an increasing number of accounts that exist only to attack stable articles, and introduce unsourced or poorly sourced nonsense. I typically see several a day. Many people in WP are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, in denial about this problem. But it is real, and I can show many many examples of just pure nonsense pushing.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting conversation. I would favor Mastcell's approach, except that it's unclear to me that he'd identify the correct people to oust from Wikipedia. Perhaps a better approach would be to beef up the efforts to grant "featured" status to articles that deserve it, and then make an exception to 3RR: anyone can revert as often as they like to the most recent version that passed Featured Article Review (FAR).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you placed on some restricted editing by ArbCom? And didn't you violate it recently with a 3RR? So, you're point is what? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your point is here, Orange Marlin. Editors placed on editing restrictions or who have recently been blocked shouldn't have that waved in their faces unless it is relevant to what is being discussed. How would you feel if people kept bringing up this incident in a few months time? For what it is worth, I see Ferrylodge's point about featured articles. The pointh is that if a group of editors take an article by the scruff of the neck and work hard on it (on a draft page if need be), and then carefully integrate the changes and pass it through FAC, then there is a standard there to keep to. That is much better than incessant low-level edit wars. And the amount of referencing needed for FAC sometimes reduces the potential for edit warring full-stop. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While not especially helpfully phrased, Orangemarlin kind of has a point: the fact is that Ferrylodge almost certainly would not agree with most neutral admins' choice of who to oust, because he's the kind of editor that sits right on the margins of actual bannability, hence the broadly worded content restriction allowing pretty much summary banning from any article on his hot topic by any uninvolved admin, given evidence of disruptive editing. That he has edited such articles disruptively despite this restriction is probably not a good sign. So, yes, there will be people like Ferrylodge who will hotly dispute the decision as to who should be restricted or politely asked to leave, we should listen to such concerns courteously but always with an eye to the editor's history. Sure, some inveterate POV-pushers may occasionally highlight a genuine problem with Wikipedia, but most of the problems identified by such people are actually the problem I identified above but seen fomr the other end: they are not being allowed to skew the article far enough their way. In some quarters, the existence of people like this - Judd Bagley being a canonical example discussed recently - is seen as proof positive that Wikipedia is evil and failing. As far as I can see it, the fact that we kicked Bagley off is a good thing and we should not feel ashamed of that, even though we may regret the fact that some people are constitutionally unable to contribute to the encyclopaedia that should not stop us from recognising these people and showing them the door. I believe that the very high profile of Wikipedia coupled with the relatively small resources and practically non-existent hierarchy makes this perhaps the largest single challenge we currently face. Simple things like everybody watchlisting the date article for their own birthday, or maybe choosing one hotly disputed topic of only tangential interest to them, may help to offset the problem of long-running wars between dedicated armies of POV-pushers and small bands of defenders of the wiki. Arbitration cases like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 are informative; see the infobox on talk:Lyndon LaRouche for the escalating dispute on that article and its related subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, this stuff is cropping up elsewhere in relation to Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and/or edits he has performed in. See: user talk:JzG#User:Guido den Broeder, WP:WQA#User:Filll (II), WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin and now WP:WQA#User:Filll (III). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm scared. Oh wait a minute, Guido is fishing for a forum to whine about me. And JzG's comments were started by me--you can read his reply. So, since I wet myself in fear of the attack by Seicer, let me go get drunk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is not an isolated incident; you have been commented upon elsewhere for your rather controversial edits. Your comments above in this matter and elsewhere are evidence that you could really care less regarding the outcome of discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look more closely at the places where he has been "commented upon," I think most would agree that Orange Marlin should be proud. His editing behavior is noteworthy only because so few are willing to stand up to those who constantly add fringe gobbledygook to Wikipedia, quite frankly. Antelan ^talk 06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Equally, I suspect, there are articles where POV-pushers have failed to gain traction, and where those keeping the articles NPOV and in good condition, are remaining civil and not burning out. What is needed is to find more people that won't burn out, or at the least to actively replace those that burn out. Burn out is, to a certain extent, unavoidable. More, and less discriminate, blocking won't solve the problem of burn out. Getting more new editors involved will. Has anyone considered that the reason some people are feeling all alone and burnt out is because their attitude to editing has driven off some POV-pushers (but not all) and new editors? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there someplace we can figure this out? With the US Presidential Election comign up, all the political articles relevant are also taking a beating. In fat, I posted all over about a Huckabee group actively conspiring off-wiki to muddle the article, only to be rebuffed and ignored all over. The article's being defended, but I had a stretch off wiki due to real world, and in that time one of the biggest pro-Huckabee editors swept in, removed all criticism, redistributed tiny toned down versions into the rest of the article, and thus eliminated about half of the bad stuff about Huckabee in the article, despite its' being sourced and so on. It's too late to fix it now, and I'm dropping the article from my watchlist, becauseof that real world stuff (health).

Perhaps we need a POV-Pusher project, or NPOV taskforce, where we can list an article a day, and members sweep in, restore a real NPOV, and then move to the next? we could all agree to keep 'fixed' articles in our watchlists, thus assuring that multiple eyes would review for true neutrality and so on? It would really only take three or four neutral eyes on an article to keep it straight, though banging articles into shape can be tough. Those most likely to do well on this already know how to use the talk page, and build consensus... Just an idea... ThuranX (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boehner

I'm a bit concerned for the new user Boehner (talk · contribs). I'm not going to provide diffs here, as he only has 16 contributions so far. But of those 16 contributions, all but the one to his user page have been reverted by a variety of users. In just a short time, he managed to get into two edit wars and subtly push an anti-Global-Warming POV on three different pages, mainly through addition of unsourced weasel statements, most recenttly with a false edit summary. I'm bringing this here since I'm honestly not sure what to do with him. While his POV-edits and intentional blue-linking of his userpage scream banned sockpuppet to me, I'm very much struggling to assume good faith, as this may just be a newbie in need of serious intervention. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, who's the Global Warming editor that this might be? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Been struggling to place this one. Maybe yet another sock of User:Scibaby (who has been doggedly persistent), but the approach is somewhat different. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the username was not appropriate but its done. Happy sock hunting! Brusegadi (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's a fairly common name. The leader of the Republican party in the U.S. House of Representatives is John Boehner. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Boehner for 24 hours as he returned about 30/40 minutes a go to Global warming with more of the same after being warned. Gnangarra 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor constantly reverting page to factually incorrect state

Now, I rarely bring anything to ANI, since I try to stay out of edit wars and out of the spotlight, generally. But I noticed the other day on my watchlist that Qpel had be reverted to a factually incorrect state by User:Timharwoodx, who claimed my edits were full of grammar errors. OK, I have no issue if someone thinks my grammar is atrocious--just tell me what the problem is and I'll fix it! But reverting to a factually incorrect version is obviously inappropriate, so I reverted and asked him on his talk page to point me to the grammar errors so I could fix them, while keeping the information correct. He then proceeds to revert me again (with an inflammatory edit summary) and personally attack me on the article's talk page while refusing to engage in discussion. I reverted a second time, but as I don't want to get into an edit war (and he's refusing to do anything except insult me in the third-person on the talk page), I figured I would bring it here.

What should I do? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)`

(Comment from passer-by) I find it quite amusing that the first reversion of the text, which cited poor grammar, contains a blatant spelling error. FWIW, I believe this reversion was a bad one. Ros0709 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the reversion; I think yours is in the right. Of course, if Tim brings up some valid points then please consider them. As for him; his language is quite nasty indeed. I'd suggest taking a calm approach; the one you took on the article's talk page seems a bit too excited, though it is on the right track. I left a note on the article's talk page; hopefully the user will be able to communicate with a third party without being aggressive. I'll leave a note on his talk page about this, too. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this is an English Wikipedia, this is by no means resolved to fluent English writers, per Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#Should I use American English or British English?. In fact, we welcome those that have English as a second language. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made by 82.148.96.68

I hope this is the right place for my questions. I cannot find any information on what to do with my problem. I noticed that 82.148.96.68 made a lot of edits. Some of these were clearly vandalism, but a lot were just changes of dates and numbers. These are quite difficult to verify. I have been at it for a while, but I cannot put all my effort on just verifying and reverting changes from this user. What should I do? Is it allowed to revert all changes from a certain user, if some changes are found to be vandalism?

For example, today the user made 8 changes on airline pages within 11 minutes. He/she changed a lot of dates from 2007 to 2008, and in one case 2009. By checking sources I managed to find evidence of at least one case of vandalism. I also found one case from yesterday, and two from before that. None of these had been detected earlier. Judging from the talk page, he/she has a history of vandalism.

Thus, I wonder about two things: Firstly, what to do with the user? I have never thought about indefinite block of an anonymous IP address is a good thing up until now. Secondly, how can I request help to go through all of the changes made by this user? Or can we revert all of the changes to save us all a great deal of work? --τις (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone with the Chuck Norris method. Let's see how he responds. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back a few as they were referenced to a specific edition of Flight International from 2007 and the new figures had no reference at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India related articles showing up as nonsense to be deleted

Don't know why or how to fix it, but a number of India related articles are showing up in Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it's just a database hiccup. It should work itself out. --Haemo (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

{{IndicText}} was vandalized earlier. Null editting the pages should solve the problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha! thought it might be that, but didn't see how. Dlohcierekim 22:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-time abuse by User:24.7.81.82 in television related articles

This user (under multiple IP numbers) has long vandalized multiple television-related articles by posting blatantly false information (for example, posting television premiere dates as far in the future as 2023 without any supporting resources, or sans any hope of verifiable information). When he is given a final warning, he will stop posting for a period -- basically long enough to get out from under any notion of being banned. He has, however, been banned on multiple occasions. He does not communicate with anyone when they post a warning to him or a note to him. Is there anything that can be done to stop him outside of continually watching and grabbing him each time he posts? --Mhking (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Address has now been blocked for one week following report to AIV. Can anyone determine how static this IP is, there might be a case of a tariff involving months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's comcast cable internet. Thje only edits are from the vandal, so I think it's safe to assume a static IP and block for 3 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Addhoc (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I hope I haven't overreacted over this --Mhking (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Spamming Articles

An anon is spamming Wikipedia with links to the Cyber Crimes Us Organization. This person is even adding such links to articles where they are not directly relevant. It seems that every single edit made from this IP address has been to add these links. Here are some diffs: [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], & [121]. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he stopped about 24 hours ago, so there's not much to do. Just keep an eye on them. --Haemo (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most of what's left. But as Haemo said, there isn't much we can do, since it was a while ago and the IP has stopped. —Kurykh 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I nuked the remaining spamlinks. MER-C 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow edit war at Baillieston

Baillieston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Involved users

• Rumsitna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Smur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Boratt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Blairtummock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• and others

Appears to have been going on for the last two months or so. This only came to attention after one of the participants posted on my talk page in a canvassy sort of way. No attempt has been made to discuss on the talk page and bad faith is being assumed. MER-C 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 68.123.72.85 automated additions/categories

FYI - ip address 68.123.72.85 is definitely running some automated tools to improperly categorize any article related to Christianity. A quick look at the IPs Special:Contributions/68.123.72.85 is an obvious indicator of abuse; Also someone needs to mass-undo all these changes because they are all way out of hand... --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible block of user making repeated disruptive edits to Theresa Duncan article

This was posted in the middle of the page, I am just posting it at the bottom.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I got fouled up. Candy (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User 75.32.190.138 has recently been making repeated deletions of external links on the Theresa Duncan article, and during the past 24 hours has reverted attempts to undo his edits far more than three times. His comments are grossly uncivil and he has disregarded attempts to discuss his changes on the article's talk page. He is trying to push his own POV; no one else has come forward to support him as the authority he says he is. Note that he has identified himself as Alex Constantine on the talk page but has never registered and has made edits from other IPs as well. A review of the revision history of the Theresa Duncan page should make this clearer. Candy (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP was blocked for 24 hours by Pigman. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ioeth (and Pigman). It took me about 20 minutes to make my post (I am not that experienced at this!), and I think that must have been done after the last time I checked the page! Candy (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All the same, good job and thank you for making the report. Keep up the good work! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:hopiakuta

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. Gimmetrow 23:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) With the best will in the world to User:hopiakuta (I perceive him as well-intentioned) and other users, I am aware from experience that there are communication challenges here, and it's not just a one-way issue. He (?) clearly thinks in a different manner, both functionally and structurally, from the mainstream. I feel a little guilty discussing him in his absence (?), but it seems fairly clear that the issues are not going to go away; however, I am also aware that several users have made valiant attempts to decipher the issues with him. I don't think he would welcome the deletion of his user page; having seen it, it seems to be a place where he keeps things of interest to him. It may seem like gibberish to some, but I'm sure to him it makes perfect sense. The issue seems to be how we can talk to hopiakuta, perhaps off-wiki, to try and reach some accommodation for his (and our) obvious differences. Although he uses a screen-reader, that is not the only issue, and I'm not sure where this can fruitfully go. However, with twelve minutes to go until Christmas, I wish him, and everyone else, the compliments of the season. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, he does not seem to use a screen reader, he's said he uses an ordinary browser (albeit one with, apparently, unicode problems and large page issues) with a large font. —Random832 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be nice to hopiakuta! Delete the user page? That's like vandalism, isn't it? For some of the world, it's Christmas. What a thing to do during Christmas; vandalise a user page and try to say it's the community's consensus. Hi, hopiakuta, welcome to WP! Congolese (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think if he wants to put stuff we don't get/understand on his userpage, as long as it's not directed at other editors or offensive, who cares? We have a diverse community and many of this user's mainspace contributions improve the encyclopaedia - often minor edits making needed corrections. I'd worry more frankly about the POV pushers and vandals and trolls who actually damage the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, if that were the case, but there are some perfectly understandable statements made by him in that other discussion. When he can describe his symptoms without all the templates and such, and can therein avoid linking every other word, the fact that it happens elsewhere seems to me to be a matter of intent, especially if he's making a mess of things to try to make a POINT to get some sort of accessibility implementation (which I do not believe would solve the problem). MSJapan (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. —Random832 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please AGF. Read the linked sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. This person, if you read their off-Wikipedia writings, writes like he does here everywhere. Please don't disparage a person with obvious problems! Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My partner's a psych and reckons whatever it is limits his ability to organise, so he have to have everything in front of them while he works. Hence the seemingly random storage of all sorts of pasted text and linked text in userspace (note he does *not* do this in mainspace). He's obviously very intelligent and is well versed in the English language, which is great as it means he can be of use and benefit to the project, and in fact, if one examines his contributions, is of use and benefit to the project. Therefore why treat him like he's doing something wrong? We're aware of the issues, so we can assist him in his goals here where he requires it and ignore whatever he chooses to do in his userspace, which he obviously sees as a necessary part of him being a solid contributor. The rules on userspace are basically for two reasons - to prevent it becoming pseudospace (i.e. articles that don't meet our notability or other criteria effectively finding a new home) and to prevent it from becoming a home for personal attacks or other directed abuse or BLP violations. Neither of these is occurring. Orderinchaos 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin TerriersFan abusing his position

Could someone please deal with this admin. TerriersFan is yet again abusing his position by excluding IP editors who don't agree with him. Please see Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the associated Talk page. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection is valid due to repeated adding of unsourced information, but as an editor, TerriersFan should have asked another admin (here or on WP:RFPP) to do so. — Edokter • Talk • 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No - a single addition of material that apparently was sourced. Problem is TerriersFan didn't rank the source, so because he seems to think he owns the article, he simply SPd it to stop those annoying IPs from contributing. This is not the first time he's done it - check his request for Admin. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On Terrier Fans request for admin! One person made reference to his alleged refusal to accept consensus, and that was quickly countered by other editors, and shown to be a reaction to a warning Terriers Fan gave. This is not a reaction to a "single edit". Indeed, it was me and not Terriers Fan who reverted the addition. This article has been plagued by vandalism and unhelpful edits by IPs, which is a serious problem in an article where WP:BLP issues have to be considered. Several instances of IP vandalism have occurred since semi-protection was removed, and this unhelpful edit (it was sourced, but quoted the source selectively) was simply the catalyst for re-instating protection. I had previously asked whether it should be reinstated in an edit summary. The user making this complaint seems to be engaged in a vendetta, hiding behind multiple IP addresses (he has already changed it since his initial post). Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't change it, my ISP changes it. No vendetta, just observing what's been going on at the article in question. There are in fact three users, of which TerriersFan is one, who own the article and implicitly require other contributors to seek permission before editing. The tactic of SP, which as pointed out above should not be used by an admin with an editing interest - is one of the methods used to force compliance. A check of the edit history will show numerous examples of semi-protection by TerriersFan on grounds which are unsound. Look also at the suggestion by another user for a timeline (start of Talk). TerriersFan invites the user to "be bold" then tells him "don't do it".

This is a long shot, but there is a slight possibility of sockpuppetry here - and it is only slight. The users in question are TerriersFan, Harry was a white dog with black spots and The Rambling Man. Checkuser might be worth trying. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a baseless acussation, two of those users are admin who work on separate areas of the project outside of this article, there is no evidence suggesting sockpuppetry, and a request will most likely be declined because checkuser is not for phising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That these users are sockpuppets of each other is patently rediculous. Even insinuating so does not do your position any benefits on this. I will review the protection and see if it was appropriate, however don't go throwing around baseless accusations of sockpupettry; these are three long standing Wikipedia members with long histories of positive contributions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here he goes again, making ludicrous accusations from behind an IP address. He has been rumbled on his ludicrous misrepresentation of Terriers Fan's request for admin debate, so now he is changing tack. And again, he misrepresents Terriers Fan above. He did indeed tell the editor to be bold, but he didn't then tell him "not to do it" - he said, don't put an incomplete timeline in the article. Do it in the sandbox and add it when it is finished. That is quite different to the implication above, This user is not to be taken seriously if he can't even get his facts straight. The grounds are certainly sound in this case, and as I have said before, when WP:BLP is concerned, urgent action is sometimes required. In future, if Terriers Fan feels the need to semi-protect this article urgently, I hope he will then confirm his decision with other admins. But he certainly has done nothing wrong, as has already been pointed out. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Yes, you're probably correct. I am not making an accusation. I did say there was only a slight possibility, and so there is. Personally I doubt it, but you never know. I mention it only because the three "owners" of the article have very similar views, which verge on the obsessive, as to how the article should develop. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I have removed protection in the interest of starting dialogue and achiving harmony on this article. See the article talk page for more details. Conditions have been placed on this protection removal, and if the conditions cannot be met by the parties involved, the article will be reprotected. I hope this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the protection. I hope it stays unprotected. Harry, you clearly don't like IP editors - big time! Have you ever considered going to an alternative Wiki where they aren't allowed? Alternatively you could start a debate, or go to the current one (which I assume exists) to make Wikipedia a "logged-on user only" project. There are merits in having Wikipedia as such, and I wonder if it might be good thing. My complaint is that since Wikipedia does allow IP editing, you try to undermine the policy. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with IP editors. I only have problems with them (and any editor) when they vandalise and make unhelpful edits, and I definitely do object to IPs like you who hide behind IP addresses to make ludicrous accusations and disparage people without the accountability that you demand of others. Please stop it. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor who edits using their IP address is "hiding" a lot less than one who chooses a pseudonym. —Random832 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)