Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive437

Significant Contributions

I've spent the past two hours trying to discover this users : Joshii's contributions...

I've found none...

This account I believe is a sock account of a troll or sock puppet... THIS ACCOUNT SIMPLY DELETES.........

THIS USER GIVES VAGUE DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS/HER ACTIONS AND IF QUESTIONED ON HIS/HER ACTIONS REPLIES ? "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Joshii. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. " WHILE GIVING NO EXPLAINATION OR ACCOUNT OF HIS/HER ACTIONS.

This user has made no contributions to wiki, this user just deletes and gives the standard reply above.

I suggest this account should be deleted.--92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? ——Ryan | t • c 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this? And Joshii did explain his actions. Even if users' accounts were deleted, it would not be because someone disagrees with some of their edits, especially when Joshii has written featured articles and is being considered for adminship. This is not the definition of a sockpuppet, troll or vandal. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshii can be a lovely contributor, and still sometimes do things that are not ideal, as every person does. The user disliked his use of the word cr*p- and referring to other's edits, such language is undoubtedly bound to not be condusive to mutual respect and collaboration. I consider cr*p to be impolite and it is not appropriate to use on wiki about a real person's edits, no matter what you think of the edits it goes beyond bad manners. Sticky Parkin 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is a breach of WP:CIVIL the part which goes on about creating an uncivil environment "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")." No matter whether someone said my account to be deleted or anything I would never respond with such language. Sticky Parkin 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:CIVIL, might you please star out the highly offensive C-word in the above post? Thank you in advance --Badger Drink (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Star out" the highly offensive C-word? Oh, come on, that's r*d*c*l**s. (Especially since the language contains a C-word that actually is highly offensive—I don't see it in this thread, though.) Bishonen | talk 08:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

"Crap" is highly offensive language? Orderinchaos 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(No, hun, it's the other C-word that's offensive.) IMO it's offensive all right to call somebody's good-faith edits "crap", but it's not offensive to speak the word on ANI, by way of information. And no matter your sensibilities and local culture in that matter, I consider he "st*r out" business to be at all times ridiculous, because it draws attention to a word rather than hide it. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

After patiently verifying that Mr Parkin was, in fact, capable of using asteriks, I merely asked him to continue his good-faith effort to keep my poor heart from jumping up in my throat with the twisted tangled twitching throbs of total and absolute revulsion that such combinations of letters inspire within my person. Instead of a swift edit and a heartfelt apology, I find myself attacked! Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised with this downright cr*ss turn of events, considering that editors on this site work for a dank den of puerile perversion which dedicates entire articles to the abominable actions and detestable deeds of notorious, unapologetic infant-eaters. =( --Badger Drink (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Swift, I believe, has much to say about the use of dashes (since he hadn't the glorious asterisk) to obscure "dirty" words and proper names, as does Pope. Personally, I find "sh*t" much more shocking and salacious than its parent. When I see such things, I think, "what possible offensive things can I possibly think up to fill in those spaces," and I come up with not only poor old "shit," but "shat," "shot," and a whole family of things. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor Vandalism? Not Sure

92.8.139.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I wasn't sure whether this warrants a vandalism report per se but the template is handy for the tools it brings. I originally posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for advice and having contacted an admin who responded have posted it here. There is an IP editor, using a variety of IP addresses has edited articles related to British personalities and removed the term British and relabelled them all as English (Larry Lamb (actor), Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor), Bruce Mackinnon). The latter struck me as strange being a Scottish surname (and we Scots do object to being labelled as English).

This IP editor first came to my attention when I noticed an edit to a date page on my watch list, I then check his other contributions. I've not reverted all his changes, just those that weren't supported by citations. As soon as I've reverted, he immediately undoes those changes and has used a variety of IP addresses (dynamic IP address?). I'm not going to edit war over something so trivial, particularly as I'm not 100% sure his contributions are definitely vandalism. Having tried to explain my reasons for reverting, and issuing 4 content edit warnings it would appear the guy isn't listening.

I originally simply asked for advice but since then the same IP editor has followed me onto a friend's talk page and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Not sure why, though I have an inkling who this is, but they seem to be wikistalking. I would welcome second opinion and advice, I would also re-iterate I'm not edit warring I quit as soon as it was getting silly. Justin talk 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. You should try dispute resolution to resolve this. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, its not a content dispute, it was trivial and completely irrational behaviour by an IP editor. It can only be a content dispute if two parties are disputing the content and, to be honest, I don't actually have an interest in any of those articles. I only brought it up for advice because of the behaviour of that editor, more so after he started to follow me around wikipedia posting on me and my friends talk page. Seeing as he is so insistent on having things done his way, so be it. I can well do without the hassle. Justin talk 08:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

English is more precise than British. If you don't know he's wrong, why the fuck are you reverting him and leaving him vandalism templates? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More precise if its actually correct, as noted below no citation was provided, despite them being requested. Justin talk 11:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Justin A Kuntz" has yet again reverted my edits requesting sources for the birth details, despite them all being in the IMDB pages that are already linked in all the pages.

92.12.41.248 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You were asked to provide a citation, the edit summary was "rv pls provide citation". If it is in the IMDB pages, the correct response is to add that as a citation, not simply revert. Seeing as your IP is dynamic and changes every time you log on, its a bit difficult to communicate with you. Justin talk 11:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to my earlier comments. "Source" confirms birthplace not nationality, I rechecked just to make sure. You may well be correct but the source named does not corroborate the edit. Copied here as the user IP address contantly changes and he doesn't respond to talk page comments. Justin talk 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit war. Ironic that they accume me of edit warring, wiki-stalking and being irrational when these all accurately describe their own behavior.

92.12.29.14 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor is contuining to wiki-stalk and is now removing sourced edits on the Coldplay article.

92.10.4.231 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

dispute resolution

Added a report on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard trying the dispute resolution route. I guess this can be closed and archived now, no need to waste any more time over this. Justin talk 12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this case should be closed or archived - you have accused me of vandalism when it is in fact you vandalising pages by removing content, stalking my edits (going as far as to watch the pages I edited staight away) and removing my comments from your talk page by branding them threats when they were no such thing.

92.12.29.14 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In case an admin misses it due to the above comments, taking the advice above, I've gone down the dispute resolution route and added the problem with this editor to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard I guess this can be closed and archived now. Justin talk 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice on blocking?

User:Jm0371 (talk) has repeatedly uploaded lots of copyvio images, claiming them to be his/her own work, many of which have been discovered and deleted just in the last week. This isn't the first time that this has happened with this user; if you look at Jm's talk page history, it's full of image copyvio warnings, which Jm then proceeded to delete. Although Jm hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, this appears to be his/her usual pattern: edit several times on one day, do nothing for several days, edit some more on another day, etc., so there's no reason to believe that this lack of recent editing means that Jm isn't planning to continue editing. User:Ruhrfisch (talk) and I, both admins, have been considering at least a longterm block for the copyvios. Neither of us is extremely active in administrator-type actions, and we'd like advice: is this a good idea? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend's description of our thoughts on this. Would a six month or even longer block be in order here? This is one of those users whose work damages the encyclopedia much more than it helps it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Before considering a block, what about telling the user the consequences of continuing. I have left a clear warning on the users talk page. Perhaps we should see what effect that has? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it is always better to warn first, but I also note that 1) this user has deleted all previous warnings and questions about image sources with no replies (not even in the edit summaries) and 2) the images are often cleaned up in such a way that makes it less apparent that they are copyvios. For example, in the Lake County, Ohio courthouse photo, branches were removed except on a statue and the dome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations are a perfectly fair reason for long-term or even indefinite blocking. Putting the project at legal risk is just as disruptive and potentially damaging as regular vandalism. --jonny-mt 04:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More so, I would argue. — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

←According to the upload logs, this user has marked most of his uploads as "self-made" (listing himself as the "author" using three tildes "~~~"), but several of them have been deleted as improper license or blatant copyright infringement (often with a source url establishing this): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. However his last edit was on June 5 when he removed comment from his talk page (not a templated warning, but some no-nonsense advice in plain english) regarding this [17].

Blocking him now would probably be moot as I doubt he will return to this account. However at this point I do recommend deleting all of the remaining uploads which he has marked "self-made" as such assertions from him have thus far proven false whenever examined. — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that User:Jm0371 has been uploading aerial images on airports in Ohio such as the one on Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport Image:MansfieldAirport.png and claiming them as his/her own work, but they appear to had been taken from existing imagery such as on Google Earth. — OHWiki (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The shade of the coloration seems a little different, plus only Google Maps has the streets named, but the patterns of the greenery, and the positions of 3 airplanes in front of the hangar, in the two photos, appear to be identical, so I'm inclined to think they are from the same source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to delete all of his uploads? Image:LCK0608.png was deleted as a copyvio of this page, but in truth that page simply copies a public-domain FAA diagram, which can be gotten here. It's not self made, of course, but it's PD anyway. Replace the license for some of these, to be sure, but I don't think that we need to delete everything that is marked as self-made. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As the use that helped track down most of the mose blatant copyright violations, I would support deleting all of his contributions, particularly the Google Earth copies. However, like User:Nyttend, I agree that anything we can prove to be public domain probably could be relicensed as such.Dcmacnut (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How to respond to threat of blocking, how to get more time to receive info about an article?

Note: The original complainant has marked this issue as resolved, but that status is disputed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI part is resolved and the remaining part is an AFD matter suited for the AFD boardPresumptive (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I really want to get this question answered because after this is over, I want to write about petroleu, Shell Oil, and other topics.

I have asked for assistance in writing an article. An administrator threatens to block me if I create an article. Here's the history of the matter as objectively as I can report it.

EPISODE 1
I created an article on American author Sam Swope. According to sources, it looks like he won two awards. The article was deleted.

I researched the criteria and found that if an author wins an award, that could mean he is notable. So I recreated the article and mentioned the award. I think it was speedily deleted. I don't agree with the deletion, but I'm willing to drop it.

After it's settled that opponents don't care if an award establishes an author's notability, I let it go.

EPISODE 2
Joey Didier was probably the most notarious kidnapping/murder/male rape in Northern Illinois (people from Northern Illinois consider the north part of the state outside of Chicago to be that area, Chicagoland is the Chicago area). In 1975, the brutal kidnapping, rape, and murder terrorized the community for about 3 weeks. People still remember it today. Even though the city has 150,000 people, over 54,000 people (!) wrote protests or signed petitions in 1999 opposing parole. The killer has had parole denied 17 times. Each time, 10,000 or 50,000 people oppose it. It's probably the most notable murder in the city between 20,000 B.C. and 2008 A.D.

EPISODE 2, ACT 2
I mistakenly wrote an article about Joey Didier. Then someone told me that I should not write on the person but on the murder. The Joey Didier article was deleted. I am an easy to get along person. I can listen and I can live with it. To comply, I created a new article Murder of Joseph Didier. Little did I know that the person who wanted Sam Swope deleted has followed me and is very opposed to the Joey Didier article. I believe he thinks I am defying him and that he is mad that I created the "murder of .." article.

EPISODE 3
I clumsily wrote the Murder of Joseph Didier article. There was a copyright violation alleged even though I quoted the source. So it was deleted. I am not stupid, I learn. I learned not to use so much text even if I note the source.

EPISODE 4
I have totally re-written the murder article. Those people are still mad at me so instead of fighting, I try to find ways to improve the article and explain the notability. I have written for some help and I can further establish notability in about a week or so. This article is now re-nominated for AFD.

I know that the opponents seem to have a hot temper so I ask for temporary suspension of the AFD (even offering to blank the article but keeping it in the history) for a week or so while I wait to receive some information in the mail.

In return, I am threatened by Realkyhick that he will block me or get someone to do it. "re-create the article, you will be blatantly violating Wikipedia policy and will be blocked. " Realkyhick also warns me not to do housekeeping on my own user talk page and say's I'm a vandal for doing some housekeeping of my own user talk page.

For those who know the area in 1975, Didier is truly a notable topic. By trying to help Wikipedia, I get met with threats. Any suggestions on suspending the AFD for a week or so. This is a suggestion instead of possibly re-creating the article in a week or two (which will make a few people really angry). Note that the original AFD of the murder article did have some support about it's notability. About 4 or so people have noted it.

Summary: How to respond to threats? How to have some time to work on an article that I know further information is coming without having to possibly recreate an article and really cause anger?

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier_%282nd_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Didier

Presumptive (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should try to take all this a lot less personally. The articles have been deleted or nominated for deletion because they do not meet the notability criteria, not because someone doesn't like you. As for the block warning, blocking is a possible consequence of recreating deleted material. Surely you would not prefer to be blocked without knowing that what you did could lead to that? Kevin (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this and much else from the history of your talk pages shows a slightly more tendentious conversation than you represent above. I suggest you provide some of the requested references next time around. Learn from the situation and move forward. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you support Realkyhick. An administrator like him should not resort to threats and hostility. If additional time to recreat articles isn't granted (even with the offer of blanking the article page for a week or two), then Wikipedia suffers. Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

After a couple hours delay, you should probably plan on making a followup edit suggesting that there's some sort of "star chamber" of abusive admins that back each other up no matter what. Plans within plans and whatnot. An occasional "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" is appreciated for artistic merit. Oooooorrrrr... you could take this as a learning experience about avoiding massive copyvio (some previous articles were copy/paste jobs from other websites, apparently) and not being ingenuous about deleting the messages from specific people trying to get you back to the straight and narrow. So, become a productive member and move forward, or drop into the self destructive "Wikipedia will destroy itself if it doesn't allow MY ARTICLE" spiral. I hope you choose the former. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am frankly shocked at your attitude especially since you are an administrator and representative of Wikipedia. A more polite answer could be "The model Wikipedia administrator is polite and encourages others to help Wikipedia expand. If such was not the case, I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Sometimes people who aren't familiar with subjects don't realize the notability. Perhaps you should fully gather all the information possible and after a serious effort (which should be at least a month), then run it by someone." Rather, you are rude and sarcastic. God help Wikipedia. Presumptive (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, we don't apologize for following our own rules. shoy 12:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive, do you feel you should receive an apology when none is warranted? I read whatshisnames messages to you, even the ones you deleted from your talk page, and they seemed quite reasonable and polite. So I ask again, do you think you should get an apology even when it's not appropriate? On a practical matter, I can't apologize "on behalf of the Wikipedia community" even if it WAS warranted. I'm not an elected spokesman, I'm just another janitor with a mop. If a fake apology will make you feel better because you need the validation, than by all means, here you go: "I'm sorry you feel bad, and I hope you feel better." It doesn't cost me anything, and if you'd like to hang a victory sign on it and then go on to be a happy fellow editor, then go for it. If not, then consider apologizing to the happyhick guy for acting so silly and move on. Either way, I hope you transition out of "BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD" mode. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. If you'd like to transfer your anger to me, then go for it, I can help you w/ any RFC or sanction against me if it'll help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at the sources (!) rather than just assuming, this editor has a point that his articles were perhaps notable [18] [19] . He's mainly looking for advice about how to make an article that lives, as well as being unavoidably miffed at the person who deleted/put them up for AfD (a lot of us have been there. This is not really a matter for AN/I but there's no reason not to support editors making articles which have potential to be notable, and who will probably go on to write notable ones. Presumptive- I wonder if you might like to consider WP:ADOPT, to help with your article writing? Sticky Parkin 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As hard as it is to believe, the results are a mixture of results about the murders of 2 Joseph Didiers. The other Didier was apparently from the Denver area and was also killed in 1975. Also, this [20] is an interesting piece of canvassing, presumably from User:Presumptive, although he states in his ad that it isn't. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sam thingy author has some sources too. But looking at P's talk page there do seem to be various issues. I wish he would consider adoption, others hve suggested it on his page. Sticky Parkin 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, it's the mean wascally User:Realkyhick here. First of all, I'm not an admin. (I've been asked to apply for adminship by several editors before, but situations like this are one of several reasons why I have no burning desire for this.) Frankly, I've had quite enough of User:Presumptive, and I think it is high time he was blocked due to the totality of his misconduct. As User:DCEdwards1966 pointed out, Presumptive has tried to rally support for this article with this online classified ad. This is about as bizarre and blatant a violation of WP:CANVASS as I have ever seen. Even stranger was another editor using this ad as an example that this murder was notable, just because he ran a classified ad to rally support. I have tried in every meaningful, civilized way possible to explain Wikipedia standards in this matter to Presumptive, but he and a handful of others are obviously on a crusade to have this murder memorialized on Wikipedia, no matter what. The whole sorry mess is documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination). I am at a loss as to how to deal with this disruptive user any longer. Again, I think a temporary block is entirely in order here, as he has violated a number of Wikipedia policies, though you'd have to check the history of his talk page as he has removed the warning messages. (I wonder why?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This dude is straight up weird. He's somehow obssessed with this murder and going as far as to put out classified adds about it? Seems a little strange to me. Also, I've never seen "anally raped" in an article before. Usually it's just put as "raped". It's like the dude feels the need to describe it in detail.

Personally I agree with Hick, block the dude. Something just isn't right there. Not a personal attack. Just an opinion, when someone's spare time is basically spent editing a page about a murder 20 years ago and argueing about why it's important there is something very wrong with that type of individual. Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The classified ad merely asked for ideas on how to explain notability. It wasn't canvassing because it didn't tell people to start a letter writing campaign.

The above comment also shows how Seattlehawk94 has no idea about Joey Didier. Nearly every year, the story is brought up again on the news, in the newspaper, on TV, etc. This is not dragging up a 35 year old murder. There have been well over 100 murders in the region since then but none of them has the continued publicity of the Joey Didier murder. I ADMIT THAT MOST MURDERS ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA MATERIAL! (This one is)

Even goggling Joseph Didier or Joey Didier comes up with over a million hits, more than Eve Carson (white college student murdered in 2008), a murder debated on Wikipedia and was kept. This may be because of the regional coverage of Joey Didier every few months. Presumptive (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the hyperbole out of this. This google query filters out some common Didier's unrelated to this guy (there are still lots of non-murderer links here) and is closer to 4,000 instead of a million. There should be no need to exaggerate to make your point, get the references together and show the necessary WP:NOTABLE items being met and you shouldn't have a problem. If you'd like to assemble some in your userspace somewhere and take up one of the adoption offers or ask elsewhere for a second pair of eyeballs to tell you if the requirement is met (if you're not sure), that'd probably be the most effective and fastest way to get this article up and running without any more deletions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, only 4 of the results on the first page are about this Joseph Didier. 2 if you don't count the Wikipedia article (#1) and the classified ad (#3). There is a politician by that name as well as several entries about 1 or more Josephs from the 1800s. This search which adds murder and removes Wikipedia and Denver (because of the different murder that happened there in 1975) returns 11 results. And even then, most of those are not about this murder. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then this is an example that Google is not perfect. Nearly all of the references I found myself and they are not reported in Google. If there are only 11 results then I found more than google and I didn't use several of the google links (so am I a better search engine than google???) If I had time, I could probably find more references but the AFD is killing my enthusiasm to look for more and just see effort deleted. If it survives, I certainly will improve the article more. We should be mindful of the possible effort killing effect of AFD's. Presumptive (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem obssessed dude. Let it go, it's NOT NOTABLE. How many times do you need to be told that? It seems like you are just in need of creating SOMETHING, ANYTHING to feel important and say "I made that page!".

Why do you have to include how he was killed and write "he was anally raped" no one writes that kind of stuff unless they have severe mental issues. You don't see a synopsis of how Ted Bundy killed his victims. Most sane people reading encylopedias don't care to know anything but the fact he killed and raped them, they don't need a detailed description. If you want that, go post at a crime board (a serial killer in training board?). It's not material people really need to know about the case. "He was raped" is sufficent. I don't think we need to include much more than that.

That said..It's NOT NOTABLE to begin with. There are killings in EVERY state in the US and probably every place in Canada, Mexico, you name it. I don't think they all need an brief written on them. My grandfather was stabbed in the heart in 1955 in a small town in a state where it's population small enough that it's still talked about, I don't have a Wiki Page devoted to it because it's NOT NOTABLE. It's sad when someone is killed but....Sadly it happens all the time. Being a local story doesn't mean it's worthy of being in World Book or being on Wiki.

Just my .02 cents.

Why is this still going on anyway? Delete the article and let it go, people have offered to help you and you keep arguing. Getting kinda stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Condolences on your grandfather. There’s a difference. Your grandfather’s killer wasn’t the subject of a massive manhunt, unlike Joey Didier’s. Your grandfather’s killer did not create weeks of intense fear in the community, unlike Joey Didier’s kidnapping and murder. Your grandfather’s murder is not subject to news coverage every few months for 35 years, unlike Joey Didier’s. Your grandfather’s killer has not been denied parole by unanimous votes more than a dozen times, which is very uncommon, unlike Joey Didier’s. Your grandfather’s killer has not been subject to 54,000 protests (about half of the city’s adult population, albeit some of them may live in nearby towns so it could be less than half) unlike Joey Didier’s. These all contribute to notability.

I think the vast majority of murders don’t qualify for Wikipedia articles, such as the 1997 murder of Jack Mileski by Claire Welsh. Again, sorry about your grandfather but that's my assessment unless you have further information.

I also think that this topic is no longer ANI material. One of the editors that I consider hostile has toned down a bit so the original question posed (what to do?) is answered. Therefore, I will mark it as resolved. Presumptive (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• It gets worse: Presumptive has now copied and pasted much of the discussion above directly into the AfD. Let me repeat for emphasis: He has copied and pasted much of the above ANI discussion directly into the AfD. In addition, he has copied and pasted responses from the previous AfD (which ended with a speedy for copyvio, hence the 2nd AfD) into this AfD. There's got to be some kind of rule/policy/whatever against this. Presumptive is now completely out of control. Can someone please put the brakes on this guy? (Oh yeah, one more thing - he marked this discussion as resolved, which it obviously isn't. Can he do that, too?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Resolved, Realkyhick. The administrative question of what to do with threats is resolved. The only matter left is the AFD matter which is supposed to be in the AFD board, not the ANI board. If you want to extend the drama, it is your threat to block me that is inappropriate, rude, and mistreatment, just what this thread was originally posted for.

Can he do that, it is asked above? Yes, when the complainer (me) says the ANI part of the complaint is over because of sufficient peacemaking by others and the rest is an AFD matter, then it's resolved. Also note that my additions to the AFD are clearly marked in special type and explained. Presumptive (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Presumptive seems particularly knowledgeable of Wikipedia procedures for someone whose very first contribution was less than three weeks ago. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok this user has asked me for adoption (it's sad, I love having adoptees, it must be my biological clock lol :) ) so if people will allow me to advise his edits and so on, and ease off him a little bit, hopefully we can make a good editor out of him. Scientizzle has made an article about Presumptive's Sam thingy author, as he was notable. So you see, he created one article whose subject was notable, and one is at AfD but had a few news stories about it, so his choice of subjects is better than a lot of people for his first article. I've not read all the ins and outs but think with some guidance we can help get this user on track- no harm in trying- so I hope you'll all give him/me a few weeks grace as he was willing enough to ask for adoption personally.Sticky Parkin 13:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two sides of the story, Realkyhick is not even an admin and yet he is leaving final warnings after which people will be blocked [21]. Was this accidental use of a different template? I also think people going on above about Presumptive being mentally disturbed etc is a violation of WP:NPA. Anyway I want Presumptive to be able to move on now but I thought the thread should indicate that it's not just Presumptive who has made interesting edits. I am a non-admin and I would never use that template it would be 'Presumptive':) I would probably put 'this is the third (or whatever) warning...if you continue you may well be blocked from editing/ I will report you to WP:AIV which may lead to you being blocked from editing' or some such. Also he does have a right to keep his own talk page how he likes. Sticky Parkin 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through this entire discussion yet, but just to jump in: you don't have to be an admin to give a final warning. - auburnpilot talk 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not but I personally wouldn't as I don't have the power to block, also it's a bit rude unless the persons' an obvious vandal such as the obscenities on articles type or an IP vandal. A more individually tailored message, however brief, is always better for an editor about whom we should WP:AGF, who is trying to add to the encyclopedia, rather than a prank-style deliberate vandal. Sticky Parkin 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of process merge being attempted

This AfD was closed as "no consensus to delete." However, the closer added on some strange caveat that the article should be "selectively merged" when there was no consensus for that either. Now I'm being tag-team reverted as people try to enforce this ludicrous merge. If you look over the AfD, you'll see that there is clearly no consensus for ANYTHING there, which defaults to "keep", except in the mind of Sandstein, I guess. S. Dean Jameson 23:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

christ - that should be merged forthwith - wikipedia is not a memorial, not a news service etc etc. I see nothing wrong with people merging that content. Anyway - AFD is an administrative process, merging is an editorial process - the results of the afd should have no bearing on the merger (which should go ahead swiftly in my view). --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Look at the AfD. Read the article. It's not a memorial. That said, this isn't a place to debate WHETHER to merge it or not, it's to judge why they think there was consensus to merge at the AfD, when there was not. S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine - I suggest no action is taken until the proposed merge is discussed on the talkpage - I'll be heading over with a big fat MERGE in a minute. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Debate started here. I see no requirement for admin action as long as involved parties are willing to discuss this on the talkpage and clearly establish consensus for the merger. anyone have a problem with that solution? --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't WP:DRV the place to discuss "improper" AfD closures? AniMate 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• If the result was a deleted article, yes. It's not. It's an out-of-process merge being attempted. The tally from the AfD, even including all "deletes" as "merge" !votes, was 21-14. That's not "consensus" in any way, shape or form for deletion. S. Dean Jameson 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as they have ceased trying to discuss it without discussion and consensus on the talkpage - which it seems they have - there is no longer an "out of process" merge for admin to deal with. There is a discussion now happening on the article talkpage to discuss merger and that's an editoral matter for editors - no admin act is required. If the outcome there is merge - well that's what happens. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had to revert Fletcher's second attempt just a bit ago. And my point is, why do we need to rehash it? We discussed merging at AfD, and there was no consensus. There's no need for a new discussion, minutes after the AfD closed. There was not consensus to merge, even given Sandstein's odd closing statement suggesting there was. S. Dean Jameson 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD is administrative and merger is editorial. What is the outcome you are looking for here? For admin to state that a merge discussion cannot occur on an article talk page? best of luck with that one. So make this explict - what do you want an administrator to do? what is the action you want to be taken. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I want people to quit tag-team merging this while discussion (for some reason) continues on merging. A third person has now attempted it, putting me on the edge of 3RR. S. Dean Jameson 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That should stop - an uninvolved admin want to step in there and put a stop to this while debate is ongoing. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was no consensus to delete, but Sandstein suggested a merge, which is what I attempted before S. Dean Jameson began edit warring. While I understand "merger is editorial," in this case the outcome of the AfD suggested the merge. Can you clarify what weight that suggestion is supposed to have? Editors spent a fair amount of time and effort discussing the matter in the AfD; does that whole process now have to be repeated on the article's talk page? It seems to me the discussion has occurred and the process should go forward. Fletcher (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One person objecting does not equate to "no consensus". Three separate editors have attempted to merge the article, and Mr. Jameson has seen fit to revert all of them. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The editor is very pushy for the article not to be merged and even said on the articles talk page Did you even bother to read the AfD?[22] which is a rather rude question to ask since I've said that I agreed with the closing Admin. Bidgee (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus both at the AfD and at the subsequent talkpage discussion for a merge by my reckoning. I see no administrative action needed here in terms of preventing the merge. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No admin action is required. If anyone has a problem with the outcome of the AfD they should go to WP:DRV. AniMate 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• DRV is for DELETION review, AniMate, not MERGER review. And there's CLEARLY no consensus at the AfD. Even Sandstein said that on his talk, that further discussion should take place. But you guys have bludgeoned me into submission. Do what you want. I just won't be part of it, or of a project that allows this kind of editorial bullying. S. Dean Jameson 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. WP:DRV is for discussing all of the decisions that come from an AfD. That includes delete, merge, keep, and no consensus. AniMate 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• As I said, good bye. I won't be part of this. Scrambling password. S. Dean Jameson 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ok. Take a short break, realise that we're not out to get you, and come back to edit. This isn't bullying - you came and asked for an opinion, we gave it. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic appears to be an outgrowth of this discussion last week that resulted in this separate page being created. [23] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone who just joined on 19 June 2008, Killerofcruft seems beyond WP:AGF territory in his knowlege of process. The username alone seems to be a pointy one, not to mention the statement on his userpage. Cruft is a very subjective term and a new editor taking such a polemic stance on a wikipolitical issue seems bizzare. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

fyi - not sure why it's disappeared so quickly from here.. but no biggie.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not a new editor, just new under that name, as he openly stated in the thread pointed out in the above. It was archived because it was a closed issue. They don't keep closed issues on here very long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to explain my closing statement a bit more in depth. Here's what I already said on my talk page:

"Administrators may make authoritative decisions to delete articles through the AfD process, as described in WP:DP et al., but that community-delegated authority is not generally thought to extend to implementing deletion discussions that conclude as merge or redirect. While such closures are common in uncontested cases, a merge closure might be interpreted as an abuse of process in this instance, because AfDs are not really the proper venue to decide on mergers. That's why I described the outcome of the discussion the way I perceived it, but I did not attempt to implement that outcome through the authority of the AfD process. Such implementation - whether in the form of a direct merger or through additional discussion - is up to the community by way of the normal editorial process."

I apologise if my closing statement has generated unnecessary confusion.  Sandstein  05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that russert page up here on AN/I the day of or after his death? even then, consensus here was to merge it, so merge it. ARe we really at the level of bureaucratic process wonkery that we can hamstring ourselves for fun? ThuranX (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of User:Burrburr et al.

Burrburr came to my attention as a result of this complaint and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox. I think Burrburr's agenda can be summarized as opposing the description of various 19th century and earlier figures as pederasts, and accusing other editors of having a "subtle agenda" and of using misleading or fringe sources to promote the view of these historical figures as homosexual or pederasts or both. This may be a useful goal for all I know; the facts may be on his side. However, it is clear he is a serial sockpuppet abuser.

On my talk page he explains that he edits from a school with a shared IP. This may in fact be true. However, it does not explain multiple accounts on two different ISPs. It also strikes me as unlikely that a boarding school would encourage its students to make so many edits related to the sexuality of historical figures, or that many of its faculty would have the same interests. Consequently, I think the "shared IP" explanation falls far short of the truth.

Regardless of whether he is right or wrong on the content question, this behavior is a serious breach of community standards. Thatcher 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of covert deletions and even some flagrant vandalism here. Thanks for pointing these out. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if others could look through the contributions of these accounts and help undo any damaging edits (e.g., this deletion, made under the guise of being a bot). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I cleaned it up. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clear if you're asking for community review here, but Support permaban against perpetrator and all the socks. Way beyond acceptable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked all the accounts that had overlapping topics between them; mainly pederasty with regards to historical figures or baseball. The only ones left unblocked are Amoreta (talk · contribs), Mahbuebue (talk · contribs), Utumach (talk · contribs), and WinsomeDove (talk · contribs). east.718 at 04:27, June 24, 2008

  Thank you. Amoreta (talk · contribs) overlaps with Belcanti‎ (talk · contribs). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Just pointing out an odd bit of vandalism (not the first time it has been inserted) on the user page of blocked user User:McSaucePaste. The "My friends accounts" list (perhaps a trophy case full of sock puppets?) is also a tad suspicious. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigma has suggested User:SauceClone1 is a sock puppet here. You're probably right about the others too. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Canpop. Thatcher (talk · contribs) concluded (and I agreed FWIW) that there wasn't much to do. A bunch of kids from one school, at least one of which is a decent editor, and a few of which are vandals. The vandals are already blocked, the decent one isn't, and a bunch of others are inactive anyway. Not much to see here really. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AnonTalk spam

Diff Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We had a few of these recently. I've blocked this one, and recommend others that do this be blocked at the first sign of trouble. Friday (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP from that edit is an open Squid proxy on port 3128. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

organization/its employees editing/promoting its own article

I have already posted a note at WP:COIN about this. However, seems no one has acted on the issue yet. So, I'll summarize the incident here:

It seems that U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (which is NOT a Government agency) is being edited and promoted exclusively by its employees. For example, 206.239.219.184 (talk · contribs) is an IP that belongs to the organization itself. For the last few days, a large number of single-purpose accounts, or IP addresses belonging to the organization, have been advertising the organization in the article page, and also promoting its recent report by adding links to many articles.

Some of the accounts seem to be associated with people who are working for the organization. For example, Jonspangler1 (talk · contribs) seem to be a program officer working for the organization. Other single purpose accounts created only for adding links to the organization at various articles include:

• Landonfire (talk · contribs)
• Editor2423 (talk · contribs)
• IP 206.239.219.183 (talk · contribs) belongs to the organization
• YesdniL (talk · contribs)

Most of the activities of the above accounts include either editing their organization page by adding promotional material, or adding external links/references to their organization's website/report (e.g. diff).

I think this is a massive conflict of interest, and an attempt to promote their organization by employees of the org. While I have no idea about the notability of the "committee", it did get some news coverage in the recent days. But that doesn't entitle employees of the organization to promote their report by mass-addition of links to their site, or to promote their organization's article page. --Ragib (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

as for the article, you are right that it is almost certainly notable, but it does need documentation. Since you say you know of news sources, why don't you just add them. The way to deal with COI of this sort is for good uninvolved people to edit. As for the insertion of links, it would be a shame to blacklist their site, but the links can be removed and the editors warned. Anyone can do it, including yourself. for now, I've warned the editors you listed. DGG (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have requested the user Editor2423 (talk · contribs) to refrain from adding references to their own report. However, she claims that all additions are neutrally worded, so that doesn't fall under Conflict of interest. In other words, she implies that her/her colleagues' addition of references to their own report, to close to 30-40 articles since yesterday is fully justified and is not spam.

I'll request other admins to take a look at this, and decide whether or not such additions, even if neutrally worded, constitute COI in part of the report authors. --Ragib (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the definition of spam? involved parties adding references to their own works/products? if the survey is as important as they claim, other people will add it--Killerofcruft (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have just notified the user about this. The spammy edits also need to be removed. --Ragib (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by Tony1 (talk · contribs)

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

While browsing my watchlist earlier, my eyes were directed towards this diff which appears to be a personal attack towards Pmanderson (talk · contribs).

I believe this relates to the List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population article and this discussion which appears to be Tony1 suggesting that sockpuppeters involved in that discussion. I don't know the history between these two, but the edit summary appears to be a personal attack. I replied with this comment. Tony replied back saying I'm not welcome on his talkpage. This relates to disagreements we've had in the past. The only reason I commented was because of the uncivil language in the edit summary. The discussion escalated, with Tony1 demanding an apology off both me, PMAnderson and Fnagaton (talk · contribs), see [24], with Tony going onto say that he will remove any posts from his talkpage from either of us three unless he has an apology. Tony then promptly archived his talkpage without responding, putting a note in its place saying personal attacks from either Fnagaton or "DBM" (I presume DMN [me]) will be removed immediately. That being said, I don't think I made any personal attacks whatsoever. Thoughts on this and the personal attack made by Tony1 towards Pmanderson? D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DMN, considering the recent past, I reccomend removing this and avoiding Tony1 altogether. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony is using his talk page to misrepresent other editors, including myself, by making untrue accusations and personal attacks. I think someone needs to talk to Tony to remind him that he shouldn't be doing that. Tony making an apology would be the correct course of action here. Fnagaton 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest both of you, DMN and Tony, stay away from each other and avoid the drama. DMN, stay away from Tony's talk page, and you won't have to come to ANI all the time about him. And, as a note DMN, you might take note of WP:NPANPA. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To sum up what I see here:

• Tony and PmAnderson have a disagreement, possibly heated.
• PmAnderson suggests Tony takes a break.
• Tony responds that PmAnderson take a "long break". Tony writes "piss off" in his edit summary.
• DMN jumps in to call this a "personal attack".
• Fnagaton also jumps in, telling Tony to apologize.
• DMN's and Fnagaton's seperate issues with Tony take over the discussion.
• Everyone starts suggesting the other side apologizes.
• Tony archives the talk page, then states on talk "Further personal attacks by Fnagaton and DBM will be removed immediately".

I'd suggest DMN and Fnagaton generally avoid Tony's talk, and always avoid jumping in to a seperate argument. It was obvious in this case that that would do nothing but inflame the situation, which is exactly what it did. Tony did not make a personal attack, and everybody was equally argumentative and combative. The creation of this AN thread was an unnecesary escalation of the issue. This is not to defend one editor's actions over anothers, but rather suggesting a way to solve this problem. There are no admin actions required here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I deserve an apology from you for the wreckage you've made at MOSNUM with your aggressive, excusionary tactics, and your Checklisting of me some six weeks ago as a diversionary strategy. I was unaware that you'd denied the sockpuppetry but had observed the evidence for myself and seen others accuse you, whether directly or behind your back. OK, now I know, you deny it. Fine. But you come across as a very nasty player at MOSNUM (whether you are this is another thing, but I can only talk of the way you appear), so it's not surprising that I don't want your postings all over my talk page.

As for DMN, you might take a quick look at the roasting he received from others here after his straight ordering that I review his article in the lead-up to its FAC nomination, here. Offensive, I found it.

Manderson's comment that I should take a break from WP [if I didn't see a particular issue his way] I found particularly belittling, and responded in kind. It should be noted that Manderson and I have a long history of bickering at MOS concerning the basic role of MOS, which I find pretty wearing. It won't stop, unfortunately.

I do not intend to waste my time here, at what is essentially a payback for my previous resistance to unacceptable pushes and my objections to bad-faith behaviour, by all three. TONY (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, albeit some may see it as bossy, I wouldn't even call it that. Tony is just firm, not rude. Qst (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, let it go. Everybody, stop looking like kindergartners and arguing about arguing, grow a thicker skin and get on to writing the encyclopedia. Someone insulted you: so what?. Seriously, unwatch this page and each other's pages, all of you, and let it go. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So Gwynand and Qst just to be clear, as you are both defending Tony for telling someone to "piss off" if I was to tell you both to "piss off" would you both not take that as a personal attack and you would see nothing wrong with that?Fnagaton 18:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask you not to say it, and that's about it. It's not a personal attack. Please, nothing good is going to come from arguing in this thread, I suggest leaving it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you ask me not to say "piss off"? Fnagaton 18:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

<EC>Oh leave it be. Tony said it perfectly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton and DMN, please stay away from Tony's talk page, as each time you all dig into the long-standing inflammation that PMA's editing at MoS causes between the two of them, you take Tony's time away from the valuable contributions he makes to Wikipedia. Let it rest, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that, but I thought I'd be accused of a personal attack. So what SG said. Tony is a valuable asset to the project. Fnagaton...looks kind of disruptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I want to reiterate Gwynand's observation that nothing good is going to come from arguing in this thread. I have had enough experience with ANI to know that nobody here is going to get blocked or censured or anything like that. I also have had enough experience with ANI to know that if apologies are what you want, this is about the worst place to go about seeking it.

None of the four of you are going to get what you want here, so I really, really, really suggest that you all just let it go. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable to close/archive this as "no admin action required"? Everyone concur? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

uh, I have this principle about not closing threads too soon :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Jan Polak and Jan Polák

Resolved

 – user referred to help desk --Jaysweet (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Jan Polák to Jan Polak that is hes real name. Move Jan Polák (defender) to Jan Polák. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysOnion (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you can do that yourself...? Why does this need admin attention?? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant move pages. How to do that? AlwaysOnion (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a "move" button at the top of the page. However, this is a matter for the Help Desk, not the administrators' noticeboard. Please do not post here again with simple maintenance questions. Please see the welcome message on your talk page for more help in finding the resources you need. Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He can't do it himself because there exists a redirect at Jan Polak, making it necessary to go through the {{db-move}} procedure. (Note that the proposed name change does not check out against the article's fotbal.cz source.) Gail (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun/Hoax article?

Resolved

 – Article speedy-deleted --Jaysweet (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Standard of the United Royal Kingdom (Urkland Colony) House of Whetenall-Warner looks, at least to me, like a fun or hoax article. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The big picture of the two year old child that is claimed to be "King Jihan II" of great Britain might just suggest a hoax. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been tagged and nuked. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Block Bluesky21

Resolved

 – new user made a mistake

• Bluesky21 (talk · contribs)

Block user|Bluesky21 for the article Bluesky21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysOnion (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The user has been warned about creating articles like this, but creating a single vanity article is certainly not a blockable offense.

AlwaysOnion, are you sure you understand the point of the Adminstrators' noticeboard? This is supposed to be for very serious issues only. Please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting here again. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Idmidmidm is using Wikipedia solely for vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked – Zedla (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting the blocking of User:Idmidmidm on grounds that the account was only used today, and only to vandalize the pages Seven dirty words, Teat, and Erotica with references to motorboating. Swamilive (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV. Nakon 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Account hasn't vandalised after last warning and is not current. Suggest AIV won't achieve anything and we see if user returns and continues, in which case... --Rodhullandemu 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only account; no need to make Swamilive jump thru an extra hoop. Blocked Idminimim indef. But Swami, Nakon is right, next time please visit WP:AIV. --barneca (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of WP:AIV, but I will take it into account next time. Swamilive (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Involved admin needs uninvolved admin assistance

I am ready to block General Mannino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user that I have been involved with on more than one occasion for personal attacks, harrassment of other users, and disruption. I'd rather someone else make the block because of my involvement. Please review his contributions and take heed of the warnings I've issued. I issued this warning less than 24 hours ago and now this and this is what is pushing me over to the side of blocking. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - what a strange exchange. Can't say I'm comfortable blocking because of that last bit, but you can probably find another admin who is less tolerant. Tan | 39 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar. Do you have other diffs that are block-worthy? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing recent, but it does show a similar pattern of behavior. I'll have to go dig. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel personally threatened by this individual. He is Sicilian and just made this threat: "You don't earn the title "Don", you're no Mafia Boss, so go sleep with the fishes." That was after If you continue to do this I will inform an Admin. Please stop! "From now on, I don't what to hear from you, ever again, and if you message me ever again I will report you for a personal attack of harassment. Got it?, but then he left me message after that point. I didn't leave him a message after that one until he left me some. I really feel upset and threatened by this individual. What can I do? Change my user name? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a week. Telling another user to go die is wholly inappropriate. I welcome review on the block (as always). If anyone feels it was too harsh or too lenient, we can discuss that (personally I'd say too lenient over too harsh based on that last post). Metros (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This all started over Marlon Brando and the Talk:Marlon Brando talk page. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the whole "sleep with the fishes" thing is more of a dodgy Godfather joke, but it's still an inappropriate one considering the history of negative interactions with WikiDon. The 1-week block sounds about right to me. ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user has a stillborn untranscluded self-nom RFA with quite a history. I don't know if we let these stay or just delete them? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Generale d'Armata Mannino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just made a similar threat on WikiDon's user page. Account blocked for sockpuppetry and implied threats. I endorse the original block and perhaps a change to indef for sockpuppetry (maybe a CheckUser to confirm would be helpful). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And a sock puppet: MI General (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- (forgot to sign: ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Definite sockpuppets - the commonality "Starship Troopers" links them up. Endorse indef blocks all around. Tan | 39 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I mean what kind of person nominates themselves, and then uses a sock puppet account to give support? And that is the only support they get? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Oh I know, the same kind of a person that calls them self "General". Is that a Neapolitan Complex? ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably enough taunting, WikiDon. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I was just about to say something like a week seemed a little too long for incivility (that wasn't a death threat), and that I wasn't completely impressed with how WikiDon and MBK004 seemed to escalate things (IMHO), when the sockpuppetry account stuff pops up. So, I now endorse the 1 week block I came here to oppose. The RFA should be deleted; it's only purpose is as "evidence" of sockpuppetry, and that's no longer really necessary. I hold out some hope that the one account could be turned from the dark side (they have made some good edits), but they've used up quite a bit of goodwill, so I wouldn't argue too strenuously against upgrading to indef. But my own personal choice would be to see if a week changes his behavior. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. [25] Nevermind. Can't have that. --barneca (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The two (known) socks have been indef blocked. Per Barneca's diff above, indef blocking main account (if it hasn't been already). Tan | 39 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't behaved exactly how I should have, but after looking at the veiled attacks, I would hope that that this is regarded as an understandable lapse of judgment that everyone has once in a while. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Check user around?

Has anyone seen a check user around in the last half hour or so? I kind of want a CU to take a look at this. I have this sinking feeling that he actually is telling the truth that this recent one isn't his sockpuppet and that it's another returning vandal...I know that's sort of fishing, but I just have this odd feeling it's not his sockpuppet. Metros (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree Metros, and will ask a Checkuser (since I stepped into it and indef blocked the main account). --barneca (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only two seconds before I was going to block the main account, also. The names, the Starship Trooper references, the RFA, common pages edited... WP:DUCK. Tan | 39 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no one's disagreeing with you on that one Tanthalas39. He's even admitted to it being his sock. We're concerned about this recent one though. Metros (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, User:Generale d'Armata Mannino? One edit that threatens MBK? Quack. Tan | 39 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When you do, could you let me know who's looking into it? I'd like to email them. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah, too many edit conflicts on too many pages; you whippersnappers type faster than I do. Does anyone here do IRC (I wouldn't have a clue)? Might be quicker to find an active CU that way, and Metros could provide his comment in provate once we found one. If I don't hear soon, I'll do the plain vanilla WP:RFCU. And Tan, I think the point is, this last account could, conceivably, have been created to "frame" him. I know, Iknow, but something doesn't sit right with me, now that I blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been a valid indef block without this sock, Barneca. I wouldn't worry. Tan | 39 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it on the user's talk page, the second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll theory, er, I mean, second-sockmaster-on-the-grassy-internet theory, is largely discredited by the account creation time of the 2nd sock: 17 hours before this thread started, and 20 minutes after this edit. I'm with Tan on the WP:DUCK criteria now. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in case you were all curious, the thought I had related to the magic bullet (theory)Magic Bullet (appliance) fact that there's another sockpuppeteer out there who likes to harass WikiDon. I thought he possibly leeched onto this to attack WikiDon. But I, personally, don't feel inclined to pursue this further after seeing the creation log (silly metros decided to take a blocked user for his word when he said it was created after the block, what the hell was I thinking with that WP:AGF bologna). Metros (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm pulling my hair out with a completely flaky computer crashing on me every ten minutes. I missed all the fun. The RFCU is up now, for anyone who's still curious: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino‎. I personally would still be more comfortable with a CU confirmation. --barneca (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is choice. IP4240207xx (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

Just an update on this: General Mannino (talk · contribs) is now requesting an unblock which includes a possible personal attack against a checkuser and the involved admins plus continued accusations of wikistalking. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please hold off on this for a moment. Myself and another checkuser are discussing the matter right now as this case is not closed yet - Alison ^❤ 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since he removed my comments to him from his talk page: I had planned (after running it up the flagpole here) to reduce his block back to 1 week, since the second sockpuppet was determined by Checkuser not to be his. But his behavior on his talk page today leads me to believe it would be better to leave the indef block in place. I plan to modify his block log to show I was wrong about the sock accusation when the RFCU is complete (it is still ongoing). If anyone thinks the indef block is too much, they're welcome to review my decision, and if I'm not around, I'll defer to their judgement. --barneca (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case has now been concluded. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino. It has been revealed that WikiDon (talk · contribs) has also been involved in abusive sock-puppetry and I'd really like an uninvolved administrator to wrap-up this case - Alison ^❤ 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And my jaw hits the ground... I think this may warrant an entirely new thread, to attract uninvolved admins. Any objections to me doing so? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's for the best. I have a long paragraph ready to add, but I'll wait until you make a new thread. --barneca (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ultraexactzz has already reduced General Mannino's block back to a week, maybe a new thread isn't needed. I sort of disagree with the reduction, but have no serious problem with it; if General Mannino does not alter his behavior, he will be blocked again soon enough. However, the question remains what to do about WikiDon. I advocate an indef block for eggregious abuse of our trust, trying to frame another user, and wasting our time with fake death threats. This can't possibly require a "warning" that you shouldn't do this. I'm going to step back and let an uninvolved admin deal with it, though. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked WikiDon indefinitely - richly deserved, in my view. I'm doing up all the templates and niceties now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiDon, since then, has taken things rather badly. He's left a message on his talk page detailing what apparently happened. He's also left this conversation on my talk page. As what he did was more of an aberration rather than a long-term ongoing issue, and that he'd been a good contributor for years up until this, I've modified his userpage somewhat, and removed the indef notice. It's not something I'd regularly do, but we're not here to brand people nor cause any RL impact on their careers, for example. Let's cut the guy a little slack here, please - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What a messy situation. Little did I know that it was a sockpuppet I blocked, just not the one I was thinking. Alison and Thatcher, thank you for your hard work in sorting this out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody loves me - User:Roger Blitzen

Would somebody mind closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (3rd nomination) as a bad-faith nomination? It is obviously just an attempt by Roger Blitzen (talk · contribs) to tweak me (see contribs). I wouldn't bring it here except (a) the wrong AfD is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 24, and (b) the subject of the article is harassing someone else off-wiki in the belief that they are me, so I don't want to touch it myself. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section from the already closed AFD discussion and gave the user a warning for attacking another editor. Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dusti. I didn't notice that it was the old AfD because of the strangeness with the names. Would someone else mind finishing this off - removal of AfD notice on article, unlisting AfD, blocking user? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I remove dthe AFD notice and will unlist the AFD.....but I don't have the right tool to block the user....for some reason my name isn't included here yet :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a look at blocking this user? First contribution was inserting references to my username into an article. I'm not sure if the intention was to bring attention to me or the subject or themselves. They followed up with a somewhat misguided AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Band and then the clearly bad faith AfD which prompted this ANI thread. Add to that the two cases of vandalism of my user page [26] [27]. I'm not sure Dusti's templated warning is going to prevent future disruption. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The AfD on A Band was not suitable for a non-admin close, was it, as there were some delete votes, and it only ran for a day or something. Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not sure that germane to the block request, but you may want to bring it up with the closer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If my block request is inappropriate or misguided, at least please give me some feedback. Thanks Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. this thread seems to have slipped thru the cracks, and the user seems to be in that awkward grey zone between blocking and warning. I'll leave a somewhat more strongly worded message on their talk page than Dusti's; Roger's made some indication on Dusti's talk page he won't push things anymore, so I'm not comfortable blocking him right now, tho it's close. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, barneca. That ought to do it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a personal battle and this is just one of the many examples

Ok it started with me wanting to add some information to the Kanto (Pokémon) article. The User Artichoker kept removing my edit and it turned into a edit war. He told me that i would have to post in the talk page and get on consensus before i could add it, and everytime i tried to put the info back he removed it. He called it speculation and non notable and i cited it properly and everything. I went to the third option and this is what came of it. this cane be found on my talk page

Re: I'm being attacked and picked on by user Artichoker

I saw that; I posted on the talk. He's asking for consensus, but as yet he's the only one to oppose that I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it started going off course and Artichoker kept responding with sarcastic and demeaning comments on the Talk:Kanto (Pokémon) page. To make matters worst he continued to try and belittle be despite my best efforts to calmly show that the information has creditable sources, and could be cited properly as JeremyMcCracken commented on its proper citation. I even found creditable sources that not even he or anyone could depute but he continues to disrupt the article by trying to police it.

He tries and manipulate the conversation by taking thigns out of context, and getting me off topic. He also accuses me of personal attacks, and even put a warning on my talk page for the violations that he himself is guilty of too.

He also is trying say he is using policy and telling me to read and i have but no where does it say the info i want to put on the article is in any violation. And he keeps accusing me of personal attacks like i said but he has posted thing such as this

I think the pictures should go there and Useight thinks we needs some, so for the time being i don't see why we can't have them up why are you being so difficult about this, why must it be you to undo my contributions>? why couldn't you wait and let someone else undo it? you seem to be on of the few people with a problem, until this all started you were the only one with a problem.

You are not the police of this articleYami (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He told us he did not have experience in images, and once again please read WP:FUC. Artichoker^[talk] 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going read anything. I stand by my belief that this belongs in the article and what does his lack of experience with images have to do with anything Yami (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are not going to read Wikipedia policy and instead try to violate it, then this can't be helped, something more drastic will have to be done about you. Artichoker^[talk] 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read all those policies he has given me even the one i said i wouldn't and i see nothing wrong with the info i want to add, he is the only one that seems to think there is. Yes some have joined him but both have proven to be a little unreliable in terms of being able to make a unbiased decision that could drastically change this dispute's direction.

This is getting out of hand. All i wanted was to add some info, if it needed to be rewritten or changed a little to better fit the article I'd be fine with that. But to have one person try and tell me what i can or cannot put on the article is insulting.

I have put lots of time into this matter. I found everything he wanted but he still denies my contribution notability.

Every time i try to add it when i think its safe and i have proven its notability he just removes it again and it is only him. Him alone.

I'm losing my cool on this situation, and i know i've lost it a few time alreadyYami (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A concise summary of the underlying content dispute is the latest addition to WP:LAME, for anyone interested. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I must unfortunately admit I had contributed to said discussion, let it be known that Yami has on many occasions refused to accept Wikipedia policy.

Plus, when he actually did add in the info in a very indirect way, it really doesn;t sound all that great... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see where I have attacked this user. He continued to violate Wikipedia policy and accuse me and others of things we have never done i.e., "manipulating his words,"[28] "policing the article,"[29] "personally attacking him."[30] I have never even come close to committing any of those actions. I instead calmly brought up the policies he was violating and asked him to read them. He refused and continued to beat around the bush, argue, and bring up irrelevant facts. He had no decent sources for the inclusion of your information, and his image violates WP:FUC. The point is that he behaves harshly to anyone that disagrees with him, calling them biased and discouraging them from commenting. The evidence is all at Talk:Kanto (Pokémon), if anyone wants to read through that entire mess. Artichoker^[talk] 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:70.89.163.245

Resolved

User engaged in vandalism, as seen here. [31] When warned about it, he inserted a userbox claiming me to be a nazi. He has done this with three other user accounts. [32] [33] [34] [35]. See also his contributions.

McJeff (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite block page protection

Admin, User:Ryan Postlethwaite has blocked IPs, [36], from adding their say to Talk:The Great Hunger. There is actually no disruption on that particular page and I believe User:Ryan Postlethwaite is going beyond his brief regarding Wikipedia policy, "The Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". He has effectively blocked me from any comment on that page because I did not agree with admin-User:Angusmclellan barring User:Domer48, here[37]. I ask the page be unblocked please. 93.107.74.10 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue is not currently suited for this forum. It appears you have not attempted to discuss this with Ryan Postlethwaite before bringing it here (see the notice at the top of this page). Also, requests for unprotection go to WP:RPP in the first instance. I suggest marking this thread as resolved for now.  Sandstein  05:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please log in (you clearly hve an account) to leave a message on that talk page. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does he have to? The page isn't protected. I'm not trying to be funny here, but is there a good reason why this user must log in? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan is one of three neutral watcher appointed to mentor that page as created by the ArbCom decision in the GIF case, and is well within his rights to act to try to eliminate perceived disruption in his role as a mentor. SirFozzie (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is within his rights to do so, as it is also within my rights to demur. I believe that he has gone too far with the IP block measure, and I believe that it is uncalled for. I especially want the block to be lifted so I can have my considerations heard on the talk page. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems strange to me too. In the meantime, feel free to tell me anything you want said on that page, and I'll be glad to post it for you. I've yet to find anything you've said to be disruptive. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ned, although I know four computer languages, I still don't know my way around Wikipedia too well. I'll leave things hang here until Ryan gets on the scene, if that's okay with everybody. Thanks! 93.107.142.179 (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page because we've had a number of suspicious IP postings recently that are clearly from established users wanting to avoid scrutiny from their main account. 93.107.142.179 for instance is editing from a cellphone - that doesn't look good in my eyes. As a lot of problems with the page in the past have been assosicated with IP's and and banned users, I've protected the talk page for a couple of weeks to stop the nonsense and allow some conensus building to take place (discussion has reached a critical period). Ryan Postlethwaite 09:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Ryan, I have caused no problems on the page, and have added constructively at all times. If you believe any differently, show the diffs. I notice that you blocked IPs almost immediatly after I challenged Angus over his topic ban on another very learned editor. Many of the other involved editors are also very uneasy with the train of events over the last couple of days. I urge you to reverse the IP ban. This, "is editing from a cellphone - that doesn't look good in my eyes", got me quite amused, don't understand that.93.107.142.179 (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are seriously wishing to contribute to the discussion, why are you contributing from a cellphone? Why aren't you logging in, for that matter? Discussions like this can get very heated, and it's generally accepted that those with accounts are more highly regarded (in such discussions) than those without. If you choose not to create an account and log in, that's your lookout. Also, please get your terminology right - he hasn't 'blocked' anyone, he's semi-protected the page. Big difference. _TalkIslander 10:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ediors do not have to log in. And Ryan have you any evidence and if so can you supply diffs. BigDunc^Talk 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also by semi protecting he has blocked all IP from editing. BigDunc^Talk 10:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On this page they do, because of the problems associated with it. Also, we have one user who is currently banned from editing the talk page, and with the editing from a cellphone IP, it's extremely difficult to see whether or not it is him editing as an IP. This is clearly not a new user and it's comments like this that reduce the decorum of the page and turn it into a mud slinging match - we don't need that, especially on Talk:The Great Hunger. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, this isn't a new editor This IP editor had edited the talk page and article before as 93.107.137.69 (talk · contribs), 93.107.131.116 (talk · contribs), 93.107.143.66 (talk · contribs), 93.107.135.22 (talk · contribs), but of course being a mentor on that page you were aware of that already? Obviously not! BigDunc^Talk 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They are all me, and now Ryan has blocked me. I never said I was a new editor, but I am interested in this topic , and in the name change. Some editors on that page, I believe, are misinformed about the name of the topic, and I was adding some input to the discussion, as I have several history books on the topic. I am still expecting that this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". 93.107.142.179 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan has not blocked you from contributing. You can use your regular user account (which I am also sure that you have) and contribute into the discussions, rather than pandering about with multiple IP addresses in order to avoid scrutiny by your regular account. I'm closing this, because there will be no resolve and I see no issue at hand. I don't know what you wanted to resolve by posting it at ANI, when you need to seek another noticeboard. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, WP:RPP won't be a good place to resolve this. This is a matter that needs to be discussed by admins and other editors in order to reach a consensus before any other admin at WP:RPP will act. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you blocked because of the "silly" word, I have seen adjectives on Wikipedia that would put silly to shame. It was a very "questionable" block on the part of Angus, and pardon me to inform you that many other editors think that too. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are either Domer, or an editor closely in touch with him. This is exactly the reason why the edits need to be accountable on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We are know the sort of shit that goes on around the troubles article - more power to Ryan's buttons I saw. --Killerofcruft (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, theres an instance of "shit", stronger than "silly" I guess. Actually you are doing yourself a dis-service by saying "You are either Domer, or an editor closely in touch with him.", because you are totally wrong. I never ever engaged with Domer at any stage, only the evidence that I brought to his page today. And it does get out of hand when people make up events. Everything that I allude to is here to be cross-referenced on Wikipedia. 93.107.142.179 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an IP not causing any disruption. It does not matter if this 93 has an account or not, because anonymity is highly valued on Wikipedia, and always will be. Heaven forbid we look at the merits of his actions themselves. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

sock master User:Generalmesse

• User:Generalmesse
• User:Captainantoniocorelli
• User:MedagliaD'Oro
• User:Drunkgeneral
• User:Michaelsweatt
• User:RadioBerlin
• User:Rasputin65
• User:Solarinoridge
• User:Flylikeadodo
• User:Steyr2007 seem to be all the same user;

reasons:

• strong nationalist POV pushing of always the same (false) claim that "7th Bersaglieri took 6500 POWs at Mersa Matruth" and
• strong nationalist POV pushing in topics dealing with WWII battles with Italian participation
• this being the only topic that seems to be of interest to the users
• discussion resistant
• none of the above signs comments
• this: [[38]]
• all are experts at using google book search
• insults - i.e. this one - also this is the 1. edit in six months and it exactly supports the opinion of the above and insults User:Kirrages and me - or this one insulting User:Nick Dowling
• all have a very aggressive and threatening ton in their comments
• his primary sources are: "Radio Berlin" (during WWII - go figure! what a neutral source!) "Radio Rome" or even worse: "The three Italian divisions have held their own through the rigours of winter, which was particularly bitter for them," Hitler told the German Reichstag" (in April 1942) - he uses that (!) as a source to prove that Italians fought bravely during WWII
• if he is not pushing nationalist POV he is trying to justify the Dirty War in Argentina by quoting official (!) 1980 documents published by the perpetrating junta to describe the "danger" of the Argentine left...

in short: could an administrator please give him a stern and clear warning to cease socketpuppetry, to refrain from using sources that are unacceptable and to calm down in discussions. thanks, --noclador (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

just in: another insult --noclador (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an inkling this editor may cause trouble. I mainly edit on Falklands War topics and I noticed this comment[39] on the talk page of an editor I'd collaborated with. The comment "I believe I have done much to rectify their image as 'poor fighters'", caused me some concern, as it indicated a desire for a POV editing campaign, so I had a look at what this editor has been up to. Some of his contributions seems to reverse the emphasis of the article[40]. I don't know enough about the subject matter so I can't comment but at least one of the sources he'd removed (which someone else had commented on its reliability) contradicts his edit. Also he seems to dismiss official histories as biased and diminishing the contributions of the Italians[41]. He also seems in the habit of adding extraneous external links to articles that aren't referred to in the text[42]. At the time my impresion was of an editor who may simply be misguided but genuinely thinks he's making an improvement by overturning what he sees as false impressions. Justin talk 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to keep an open mind on this editor over some consisderable time. I've taken the view that the articles on North Africa are rather Allied-centric written using for the most part British / Commonwealth / US sources. I thought that a contributor with access to Axis sources might add balance i.e. even if he has an axe to grind, an Italian perspective would add value provided the text is NPOV. There have been considerable difficulties however because this editor 1) tends to be very undiscriminating - often choosing obscure and small engagements completely at odds with the scale the rest of the article employs 2) Sources are dubious (see above) and undocumented (e.g. a link to a website with no obvious author, credentials etc) 3) As aresult I have spent endless time copyediting (including the tedious business of formatting and documenting citations) 4)Huge reluctance to engage in debate to establish sources and create consensus - and on the rare occasions this has happened my moderate tone has been confronted with a rather more intemperate attitude. It's all rather frustrating. I wonder if it's the same guy as User:Giovanni Giove who behaved in a very similar way and is now blocked....Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

noclador -- have you considered filing a report at WP:SSP? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment much on the content, but I also had started to suspect sock puppetry, particularly a link between User:GeneralMesse and User:RadioBerlin. Mostly through their edit style, reference formating (or rather lack thereof), edit summaries ect.--Caranorn (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did consider to file an WP:SSP, but as the problem hasn't got out of hand I choose to file a report here. But now that Stephen Kirrage has pointed out that this might all be socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove I will file a WP:SSP. --noclador (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Report filed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:Giovanni Giove 2nd --noclador (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral viewpoint needed

Resolved

- this is a waste of time. it ends now.

I've come across an editor User:Manhattan Samurai whose behaviour is very inconsistent. Most of the time he appears to be making valid and useful contributions but occasionally he behaves completely inappropriately. For example here a whole page was replaced with a comment. And his use of talk pages goes from this to this. That was just the response to a deleted prod! Although I expressed my annoyance the reply was unexpected. I restored the page he wanted (with a reminder to be civil) and notified the user who prodded it. I'm not sure if this counts as threat, but it's not far off. He's removed all reference to these incidents from his talk page and has continued to be helpful in other areas since. He's been a user for less than a month. Is any action necessary? I don't care if anyone wants to have a go at me on my talk page but when it starts happening to others I feel the need to at least discuss it. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mallanox 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

i hae notified User MAnhattan Samurai about your decision to report him to the administraotrs. Smith Jones (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: That was a rather inelegant way to "notify" him: [43]. --barneca (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

fine ill edit it. It justs that it makes me angry when someone brings a WP:ANI page about a specific person, badmouths them behind their back, and then fails to notify them. Im sure that Mallanox intended nothing bad but it is still incredibly impolite that to report someone and not even give them a chance to harked themselves. and speak as to their own reasons for why they did what they did. Smith Jones (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Mallanox's "badmouthing" is the real concern here; did you read the diffs provided? I don't think Manhattan Samurai is in any position to complain about "badmouthing", and Mallanox appears to not be welcome on that talk page anyway. Back on topic: I'm puzzled, the other 190 edits seem to be very useful, very polite, very kind. Getting pissed off once in a blue moon, I suppose, can happen, but the vampire lit diff is just puzzling. Anyway, I've attempted to leave a note on MS's talk page, not sure if it will help or hurt but I tried. --barneca (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai seem slike a resaonable, responsible contributer and deserves what User:Barneca has attempted to do for him. He also deserves fair notice that his actions have led to his being writen up on WpA:ANI thats it. Oh, and it was really decent of you to go after my mispellings. Picture of politeness. Thank you for trying to reach out to User:Manhataan and get a better view ofwhy he blew like that other volunteer editosrs on that site. Smith Jones (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not really puzzling. I thought there was some Art in making a kind comment by blanking the page that I knew would immediately bounce back. I had seen it happen before with vandalism. That article on vampire literature is really fucking cool. I hope it keeps improving. It caught my attention at GAN. Also, how is my threat, "There will be no further pursuit. If you are looking for something to do then perhaps you could determine the age of Mr. Cabal, some of his exploits, and a further clarification of his gonzo journalism (I don't dispute this fact, but let us explore it), as well as any literary circles he may be associated with. yr. Most obedt. & very humble Sert." a threat? It suggests improving the article rather than pursuing further deletion. I do hate deletion especially when it occurs to a journalist or other notables.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mallanox. His behavior is erratic and completely uncivil to the point that WP:AGF is impossible to take into account even when he apologizes for something. In one edit he stated that I was not to pursue AfD on an article that I prodded, was deleted, and then restored because he later contested it.[44]. Yet in the very same edit, he called himself my humble servant. It's ridiculous and hostile. I'm sorry barneca, but threatening to shoot something, fictional or not, doesn't seem to make a "very useful, very polite, very kind" individual or even a sane one for that matter. However, the incident is quite recent and I believe it's likely too early for action. Still, this user needs to be watched or possibly enter into some sort of mediation. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong; I don't know that I interpret the comment he left you as telling you not to pursue an AFD, but you might be right. And the "shooting fictional characters" comment was obviously one of my two examples of his NON-useful, polite, kind contributions; I was commenting on his other 190 contribs; this seemed out of character (I'll make it 189 if we, reasonably, count his comment to you as bad too). I agree on the watching, I'm hoping/assuming this was an abheration. --barneca (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the stupidest thread I have ever seen. Manhattan, behave yourself and watch your language; you know what you're doing, now stop it. That is my gentle scolding for him. Now, the rest of you, please go away. --Selket ^Talk 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your deal is, Selket, but I will most certainly not "go away" on your say so, and I'm quite curious to know who the hell you think you are. --barneca (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Selket meant it like that necessarily. I took his/her comment to be an observation that no real action can possibly result from this thread so it's odd that it's become such an ordeal. Perhaps I was mistaken? --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source of my original outrage has returned. It would be better if everyone here went and voted on whether the Alan Cabal article should continue to exist. I think it is good knowledge and more should be written about him.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Selket's response made me laugh aloud and I actually agree. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Metagraph

User:Metagraph appears to be an editor with an axe to grind, who takes polite suggestions during policy debates about Wikipedia:Vandalism and suggests that anybody other than him is being "insulting" yet refers to authoritative resources as "blogs run by a bunch of mates." I would suggest that User:Metagraph is not only the party who is being insulting but that User:Metagraph is abusing Wikipedia:Huggle solely based on this bias without being qualified or expert enough to understand the issues involved. He seems to act as though his authority to edit is a divine right and "the free site anyone can edit" is strictly his domain, upon which he can have peasants shot who dare to hunt the king's rabbit just so they can eat a meager meal. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, id like to explain why this isn't huggle abuse and my rights should not be revoked.

User:Metagraph is abusing Wikipedia:Huggle solely based on this bias without being qualified or expert enough to understand the issues involved. This is not a reason for huggle abuse. Reverting all edits that are in violation of WP policy is exactly what huggle was designed for.

I reverted and warned using huggle to his first edit [45] which violated WP:RS, WP:BLP, and didn't make sense. The editor in question re-added the information, so i ceased to use huggle and politely explained to him why this information was reverted. (After i stopped him blanking his talk page long enough to actually speak to him). No violation of any policy, and i went out of my way to assist an editor. As per [46], i believe this annon editor assumes i reverted his additions with huggle, which i did not. They are all done manually, as one can see by these diffs; [47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57].. the list goes on. Notice their is no (using Huggle) at the end? Huggle abuse has not occured. This leads me to believe that this whole report is due to this editor feeling rather bitter, and attempting to take a cheap shot at me and my creditability.

Also, other editors that reverted his edits (I do not wish to incriminate, but show that i was not the only editor here that assumed his site was non-notable/other reasons): [58],[59],[60], and more which i cannot locate at this time (but will if requested by someone apart from the reportee, who seems to have made a hit and run accusation without sticking around). What this shows is that it was not huggle abuse, but more the editor feeling bitter about his so called 'authoritive site' (which he has never, ever backed up to actually be authoritive and credible) being removed, and all the free publicity gone.

Anyone that reads into this situation further will find that all this is taken out of context completely, and instead of a incident report is a biased, out of context personal attack on my good nature and character, and i hope this is taken care of swiftly.

What i did was remove this users website from the list of professional sources of some hip-hop articles as he fails per WP:ALBUM. The user ignored wikipedia policy, has a COI with adding this in the first place, and my so called 'authority' was sticking to Wiki policy to prevent the articles from becoming clogged with non-notable reviews. This user appears to have taken this rather personally, insulting wikipedia and my intellegence. As for the whole 'axe to grind' thing, i simply stated 'Insulting me will get you no where.' I am not sure how this editor took this, but it was indeed in my opinion a friendly reminder that insulting me or the project will not further this discussion. I admit i may have some fault here, however this is in no way just. Metagraph comment 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why i reverted his additions in the first place as well, i was following the standards of other editors deleting non-notable sources. I actually can't find this in WP:ALBUM, but im sure there is some legislation against it, and if not it is still considered in violation of WP:NOTEMetagraph comment 08:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass again

Resolved

 – Community ban imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this guy just isn't getting it, and his tone straight after an unblock suggests that he isn't going to, however much he protests. Penitence is not a convenience, in my book. --Rodhullandemu 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I better not see an unblock. This guy's wasted his welcome. Wizardman 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy is begging and pleading for yet another chance. His act reminds me of a WB cartoon called From Hand to Mouse. The mouse keeps begging for the lion to let him go, and each time the lion lets him go, the mouse exclaims, "Sucker!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask the question: Is there any admin who'd be willing to unblock this user? With a couple more responses of "No" to this question, and in the absence of a "Yes", I think the community ban can be effective - I think it's necessary too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Fclass has had more than enough chances. Neıl 龱 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would only defer to User:Mcelite on this, otherwise I see no reason for the indef block not to remain. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you see no reason for the indef block to remain for a user who has deliberately been so disruptive after making assurances that he won't be? :| Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on LessHeard vanU's edit summary (which was simply "good block"), I think he meant to say the opposite.... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes...I knew it was unbelievable :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a double negative, same outcome as I see no reason for the indef block not to remain. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I think I missed the last 'not' when I read it - that makes sense now. Cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Those can throw me too, I had to read it thrice before I got it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Philknight has also indicated his unwillingness to unblock. The community ban is effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good block, no unblock from me. _{1 != 2} 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is no unwillingness to not unblock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there is no misunderstanding that the consensus is not to be unwilling to not unblock. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note Barneca's canny double-double-double-double (octuple) negative: I do not disagree that there is no misunderstanding that the consensus is not to be unwilling to not unblock. The pith bein', keep em even numbered, y'all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Also, while I'm here, for posterity: Ncmvocalist didn't misread LHvU's comment; LHvU sneakily snuck a "not" into his previous comment during a fake coughing spell, after the fact. Sorry, LHvU, there are narc's everywhere. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr @ LHvU...lol. :) Thank you Barneca - I do read things properly after all :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"...and I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids..." (per every villian on Scooby-Doo) ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Death Threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked by zzuuzz - nothing else to see here for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Was brought up in a backlogged AIV notice, please see this Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly credible. Blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure that it deserves a longer block that what it got. I know IP's can't get an indef block, but they can recieve year long blocks. If you look at the ARIN report, its registered to, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, another ARIN lookup I did this morning to an vandal IP 121.44.87.131, was also registered to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Vandalism including death threats, even if it appears to be a pure hoax, cannot be tolorated. Personally, I think 3–6 months would suffice. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user will probably have a new IP address within a few hours. Even 31 hours is probably excessive for a StarHub IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's actually owned by StarHub Cable Vision Ltd, Singapore; APNIC is just the higher-level domain registry. I blocked for 72h but clashed with User:zzuuzz. If he comes back tomorrow evening (where I am), however, the next one will be much longer. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I still gotta push for at least a month, due to the nature of the vandalism. If this was a new editor, the account would be blocked indef. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have official policy on what to do with Death Threats? I see topics like this one come up every week at ANI. IMO it should be a indef block for users making death threats and a one year block for IP's making death threats. D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. How do you know the vandal is still at that IP - Isn't this a dynamic IP? If so, what does a longer block of that particular IP achieve? --barneca (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I can't find an official policy, can someone help out here? Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need an official policy? We block them for as long as they are using that IP/account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Relative to what Barneca says, if this is dynamic, then collateral could hit those who wish to edit, who are in no way involved in the past editing on wiki. Rudget (logs) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All the more reasson to see what happens when the block expires first. If they come back aggressively with the same IP, a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial. If it's a dynamic IP, well, they probably already aren't coming back, cuz they'd be back already, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Rudget (logs) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If they come back aggressively with the same IP, a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial - no. It's trivially simple to leave a modem connected for days at a time, waiting through the shorter blocks, then reconnect once the block gets long enough. People especially dedicated to the cause could probably pull off a repeat of the David Gerard vs. Traverse Mountain, Utah travers-ty, or the similar Yamla/Martinp23 vs. Qatar incident. These are all good examples why people who have blocking privileges should be expected to understand the fundamentals of I.P. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, so what's your suggestion then? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks which are long and/or wide should be limited to checkusers, who are more likely to understand the limitations and who have better tools to explore the harmful effects of particular blocks. There are a lot of foolish blocks that get made, such as /16s that span multiple ISPs, indefs of /32s that are clearly dynamic pool IPs. But getting people to accept limitations on their rights is often hard. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem here is that it was misunderstood what I meant when I said "a longer block should be fairly uncontroversial." I meant, if an IP makes a threat, gets a 31-hour block, and comes back and makes another threat, blocking them for 2 weeks or a month or something seems pretty uncontroversial to me -- it's the next step in probing to see how serious the troll is, etc. A huge percentage of 'em go away at that point. And those who don't, well, we take it one step at a time.

I'm not trying to say a six-month /16 rangeblock would be uncontroversial, dear god no :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

Resolved

 – Users blocked by east718 and LaraLove. Some pages semi-protected by SirFozzie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently removed the 'controversy' section on the article Jon & Kate Plus 8, which contained dubious and somewhat libelous information about the parents on that program, in accordance with WP:BLP. The editors involved were shut out of discussing the show on Television Without Pity, which I had become aware of after many posts were brought over to a site I do frequent (an anti-TWoP website; the moderators can be heavy-handed at TWoP at times), discussing their behaviors in criticizing the parents, especially the mother (the TWoP moderators, who had regulated the thread rather tirelessly for months, shut the thread after the actions of some of the regulars passed into off-site harassment, going as far as to call churches to cancel the parents' speaking engagements, and filing complaints with Child Protective Services for "abusing" the children by having them take part in the series).

I learned yesterday that they had moved to Wikipedia, so today I read the article (the first time I had done so, to my knowledge), and saw the "Controversy" section is basically a laundry list of their own personal grievances plus what they've aired out on Gosselins Without Pity, where the posters went after they were shut out from Television Without Pity. I removed the section, went through each sentence and reference, and suggested what needed to be done to rewrite the section with legitimate criticism and controversy (which this show does have, just not on the scale purported).

Now User:AintThatAShame and User:Wjcwm have outed me here complete with copying posts I wrote on the other site. If pressured, I guess I have a tiny conflict of interest, mainly in that I knew in advance that they were coming to Wikipedia because I knew who the people were to begin with. In my talk page discussion and advice, however, I remained neutral, like I was supposed to. I don't feel like I should be punished for knowing of these people, while I think I was doing a good job of being impartial in my analysis of the discussion and the recommendation that a new section be written due to BLP concerns. I've been here for four years, been an admin nearly that long, and actually interned at the offices when they were still in Florida; I don't like being shouted at that I must "be paid by Jon and Kate" to make their article accurate.

I do believe whatever I may think of those people or their posting has been checked at the door and that I'm acting more than fair in this dispute. I would like thoughts on how to deal with this down the road. Mike H. Fierce! 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this and based on the information found offsite (on BBB, GWoP, etc.), decided to block both accounts on the grounds that they arrived here in bad faith solely to insert negative fringe material in BLPs and grief any contributors that get in their way. There are already a number of uninvolved editors commenting on the talkpage there, and the presence of these two particular editors and their mudslinging won't be missed. east.718 at 23:05, June 24, 2008

Endorse the blocks, completely. Wikipedia's not the place to take your crusade against people global when you get kicked out elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Took a long time looking into this, and came here to say I thought blocking would be appropriate (accounts created only to harass), only to find that once again I think and act too slowly. So, while I'm here, I'll just endorse East's block, and also endorse Mike's actions on the article and article talk page. --barneca (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a follow up note, LordyBe! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) followed this up with a complaint on WP:AN about Mike H. As this is an obvious member of the group above, I have indefblocked this account. I would expect more throwaways soon. SirFozzie (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Mike, East, and SirFozzie's actions here. If any more throwaway accounts appear, I think they can be safely blocked. krimpet✽ 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm now receiving harassing notes on facebook:

Subject: hey babe!

"Diet much? maybe some laps around the yard instead of sitting your fat ass in your moms basement playing on Wiki all day would do you some good. You pig."

I reported them to facebook abuse but I just wanted to leave this note here so people can tell me where to proceed. I figured off-wiki harassment would happen. Mike H. Fierce! 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unoriginal troll is unoriginal. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the article as well. Upon checking my watchlist, I saw that Shalomsteph (talk · contribs) has been replacing the Controversy section despite warnings. Googling this nick brings up the BBB forums where this user is basically discussed as being disruptive elsewhere. Therefore, I've indef blocked this user as a SPA as well. LaraLove|Talk 04:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With the disruption spreading to the talk page and to off-WP, I semi-protected both the article page and the talk page for 96 hours to cool off any new SPA's that might come crawling out of the woodworks. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CameronPG

Resolved

 – Empty redirects have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R1. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

CameronPG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look over his contributions today (especially the redirects). He has a past history of going on rather disruptive editing sprees and being blocked for it. After a 6 month hiatus, he's started again creating all kinds of strange re-directs, new categories, and odd articles and adding links to said articles all over the place. Apart from the two "speedy delete" warnings I put on his talk page today, I'd rather not interact any further with him personally, or his father, who took me to task for warning his son about his disruptive editing last December and wrongly thinks I'm an administrator. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirects look OK to me. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are pointless but harmless, but many of them are re-directs to articles which have been deleted, in one case (Musical Notebooks) which has now been deleted for the second time. Does some sort of bot clean all that up? Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to have created 2 articles: List of Musical Notebooks songs and Musical Notebooks. He created several redirects to those two articles from other possible search strings. The two articles in question were deleted and that left about a dozen or so redirects that were linking to a deleted page. It's really not a big deal. All of the empty redirects are being speedied as we speak and the issue will be solved shortly. As far as any of the other redirects or categorizations this user has made today, I see nothing that would raise a red flag, it's all legitimate.

By the way, he should have been notified of this thread as a courtesy. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking the redirects out and for notifying him. That was remiss of me not to have done so immediately. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JacobDyer08's edit summaries

JacobDyer08 (talk · contribs) uses a very non-standard edit summary when editing. It's long, unrelated to anything he's actually doing and it usually goes like this:

my name is jacob dyer and i live in bristol. it is fantastic. i sound like barnaby bear. i like barnaby bear. one time he went to france. i went to france. but some kid burnt my neck. i didnt like it

or, after he was warned (again) about using such summaries

but my name IS jacob dyer and i DO live in bristol!

Although it might be humorous, it's diruptive to the other editors working on the same articles because, other than checking one-by-one all of his contributions, they have no clue as to what he's actually done before typing such an edit summary. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits are OK. They are mostly reversion of vandalism. The summaries are, however, seriously disruptive. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is a good-faith editor. What I think might be causing the problem is, when he was told to use edit summaries, he was not told what an edit summary is or how to use it properly. While I know there was a link, it seems like a plausible mistake, especially for an inexperienced editor. Just try to have a civil, non-warning like, discussion with the user and see what happens. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is good advice. I struck an earlier stern warning, and replace it with this. Perhaps young Mr. Dyer was just confused :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After I added the first note about edit summaries, I didn't see any further edits for a few minutes, so I assumed good faith and guessed that he was reviewing the edit summary page. I had considered bringing it here in the first place, but seeing the pause seemed good enough for me at the moment. As he's a new editor, I hope that he takes this issue to heart as vandal fighters are generally helpful. Slambo (Speak) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some established editors nearly always use blank edit summaries, or terse, one- or two-letter summaries, which convey no meaning to other users. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these types of edit summaries any better? GlassCobra 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No better at all, but they don't get templated or raised here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that a blank edit summary is better than the one he was using. It clutters up the history and makes it harder to identify changes.

The 2-letter edit summaries can actually be really handy sometimes, depending. I agree "rv" is pretty useless (yes, we know you reverted, thanks), as is "+" (we can tell you added content), but "ce", "sp", "wkfy", etc., those are pretty handy, IMO...

Anyway, I think Juliancolton was right that the poor kid just didn't understand what an edit summary was. As long as he stops, it's fine. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea Change

The end of the intro to the article Sea Change has an obviously weasel-worded statement lacking sources, so I added the {{who?}} tag at the end of it. User Stan Simmons removed the tag without providing a source, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he's new; then I added a {{ww}} tag. He then removed the tag again, so I went to his talk page and gave him a link to WP:WEASEL (to which he didn't respond). I then expressed my concern on the Sea Change talk page, and he didn't seem to get what I was saying, so I took the matter to WP:3.

After going to WP:3, Juliancolton agreed with me (and the guideline) and reinstated the tag, but Stan Simmons simply removed it again. I re-reinstated the tag and told him that I would seek an admin's help if he didn't stop (or at least add sources), but today he just removed the tag again.

Can something be done about this? Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user does not appear to comprehend what a weasel word is, so it might be best to leave a stern message on his talk page explaining what a weasel word is, and what may happen if he continues to edit war over whether {{ww}} should remain in the article. I'll keep an eye out for 3RR violations. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried leaving a message before, and like I said, the message was unanswered. The way this user's going, leaving even a stern message seems like it would be a waste of keystrokes. Anthony Rupert (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just posted another message on Stan's talk page, as well as a similar message on the Sea Change talk page. But I didn't reinstate the {{weasel}} or {{ww}} tag because I don't want to be accused of an edit war or violating 3RR. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea change... isn't that what you get back when you spend a few sand dollars? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound bitter, but why haven't any admins responded to this yet? There have been several incidents reported after this fact that have since been resolved. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admin action is required. I've made a non-admin contribution to the Talk page. Let's see if it helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need fresh eyes in the case of User:WikiDon v. User:General Mannino

Resolved

 – General Mannino block reduced to six days; Wikidon blocked indef by uninvolved admin Sarcasticidealist --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• WikiDon (talk · contribs) (socks: HoundDog23 (talk · contribs), Generale d'Armata Mannino (talk · contribs), IP4240207xx (talk · contribs))
• General Mannino (talk · contribs) (sock: MI General (talk · contribs))

This is in regards to this thread above, which now needs fresh eyes.

A quick recap: General Mannino and WikiDon got into a conflict earlier in the day in regards to the Mannino article. Things escalated into personal attacks, with accusations of stalking on both sides. MBK004 (talk · contribs) was considering a civility block on GM, and after this edit, perceived by some as a death threat and others as an innocent joke, enacted a 1-week block on General Mannino.

A few editors were about to step in and say the block seemed excessive, but then new evidence came to light. This aborted RfA was uncovered, which, among other things, was polluted by GM using the sock MI General (talk · contribs). And then, this infamous edit occurred, and everybody freaked. General Mannino was indef blocked -- not solely because of the threat from the Generale d'Armata Mannino account, but the diff was known at the time, so it is hard to say exactly how much that came into play.

It has now emerged that the edit above ([61]) stating an explicit threat and implications of IRL stalking against WikiDon, was in fact from a sockpuppet of WikiDon himself. It was also uncovered that HoundDog23 (talk · contribs) is also a sock of WikiDon. The latter account has generally been used in a positive manner, but also participated in the earlier edit war at Mannino. To date, no action has been taken against WikiDon, so that will clearly need to be an outcome of this thread, I am afraid.

To muddy the waters further, General Mannino, in responding to what he felt was an unjust indef block for a sock that he claimed was not his (which ultimately proved true), made a rather unwise unblock request, in which he complained that Alison (talk · contribs), the admin running the Checkuser, may be biased against him because she is Irish and he is Italian. A quite unflattering moment for GM, and normally I would think this would be the nail in the coffin that would mean the indef block should stand -- but I can't help but wonder if he would have said something so dumb if WikiDon had not pulled the fake sock shennanigans.

Alison has wisely requested that this be handled by a previously uninvolved admin. I agree fully. This situation has just been too confusing for those of us who have been deeply involved. Clearly, action needs to be taken against both users, but it is unclear exactly what the severity should be. To those who chose to sort this out, I say: Good luck :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Update: Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) has reduced the length of General Mannino's block to six days, i.e. restoring the balance of the original 1-week block for personal attacks. It remains to be decided what action to take against WikiDon. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) False flagging and attempting to frame another user (for threats, of all things) earns you an indefinite block in my book; this is not the type of person who usually has a demeanor compatible with a project built on collaborative editing. GM's conduct isn't above board either, but his current six-day block seems about right for an immature threat probably made in anger. We can always keep an eye on the latter's behavior and see if they reform. east.718 at 21:19, June 24, 2008

(e/c x2)I'm most certainly involved, but I can't help chiming in. First, Metros enacted the 1 week block after reviewing MBK's thread here, not MBK004. Then, I upgraded to indef (prematurely). Ultraexactzz has already revised General Mannino's block back to the original week, and although I'm not sure how i feel about that, I won't argue. I would say GM's situation needs no further discussion; I don't really see Ultraexactzz's decision being overruled, given what's happened.

However, the question remains what to do about WikiDon. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino‎, there's yet another sock of his uncovered. I advocate an indef block on WikiDon and all his socks for eggregious abuse of our trust, trying to frame another user, and wasting our time with fake death threats. This can't possibly require a "warning" that you shouldn't do this, and I view trying to frame another user as just about the worst use of sockpuppetry there is; worse than block evasion, worse than vandalism. I'm going to step back and let an uninvolved admin deal with it, but that's my two cents. I'm now off for a quick self-administred trout slap for the hasty indef block. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already indef-blocked WikiDon based on the above thread, before this one existed. If you think that was premature, my apologies, but this appears to be a pretty flagrantly deserved indef block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist indef blocked WikiDon. I am satisfied with that, so marking this resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, I am very sad to see a contributor as prolific as WikiDon disappear over such a dumb, dumb incident. I don't see how it can be anything but an indef block, but this sucks.  :( --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that in his explanation he talks about the dark side of human nature, in others, while it appears that he went down that path himself. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, given the conversation on my talk page, I'd love to see a finite date placed on his block rather than the indef that he got. While what he did was seriously wrong on a whole number of levels, I see it more as an aberration and something that is decidedly out of character than an ongoing thing. The guy needs a break from enwiki - no question of that - but indef? That's a bit harsh, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. I'm seeing a degree of contrition that your typical bad user seldom displays. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What? He was in a dispute, and created a sock account with the sole intention of getting his opponent indefinitely blocked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He has posted a very sad story to your talk page, Alison, and I can see how it would elicit some sympathy, but he's only sorry because he got caught - do you think if he had gotten away with it, he would have felt sorry? Balls. If we have to have a finite date, I would make it some time in 2108. Neıl 龱 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(I have commented out the resolved tag, since there is now discussion on whether to make WikiDon's block finite)

This situation really, really depresses me.  :( I was about ready to say that I endorse reducing it to a finite block, but I thought I'd pop over and see what is going on at his talk page.. and then I see that IP4240207xx (talk · contribs) was also a WikiDon sock. I am very disappointed to see what he wrote in regards to it there... He says the sock existed due to a login problem and that Jimbo was aware of it, so therefore it was a legitimate alternate account. That is all fine and good, but you can't take your legitimate alternate account and use it to give the appearance that multiple people are taunting a blocked user you recently had a dispute with, as he did in the pile-on at User talk:General Mannino the other day.

Since our blocks are preventative rather than punitive, I really don't like to see a long-standing productive contributor disappear over a single incident, no matter how egregious that incident is. If there's no reason to believe he'll do it again, why punish him for it? "Good for the goose/good for the gander" is poor logic here, IMO -- we don't operate on simply truisms like that. (No offense Neil, I have a very high level of respect for you, I just think you're wrong in this case :) )

That said, even though I keep wanting to forgive WikiDon, I keep finding out something else that makes my jaw drop. What on earth was he thinking??  :(

I guess, on balance, I think I would support reducing it to a finite block, with the following restrictions:

• No use of sockpuppets, or even legitimate alternate accounts, or an IP, or anything. All edits are from the WikiDon account, no matter what.
• No communication whatsoever with blocked editors. I would even go so far as to say no commenting on blocked editors, unless specifically asked by someone for details related to ongoing enforcement.

(Oh geez, I had not yet read his plea on Alison's Talk page... just read it now. Now I'm even more depressed about this... heh...)

Anyway, that's my proposal. WikiDon did about the dumbest thing he could do, but he only did it once (or at least, only over the course of one day). Do we really believe he's likely to do it again? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment... thinking about the goose/gander thing, here is why I think it is different: Yes, if we lift WikiDon's indef, some people will say, "Hey, you are letting him off with a free pass just because he's done a lot of work for the encyclopedia! Enforcement should be the same!" However, this logic is deeply flawed, because again, our enforcement is preventative, not punitive. If somebody had been at enwiki for a week, and then did what WikiDon did, we might rightly be suspicious that they were planning this all along and/or that this is likely to be the normal M.O. for this person. But clearly, I don't think WikiDon edited for four years so he could build up enough trust to --- to what? Momentarily confuse a few editors & admins, and get a dubious contributor's block extended? And I think it's obvious from his past contributions that this is not his normal mode of behavior. This is not "that type of editor," and we all know that perfectly well.

I still think a case can be made that the indef should stand -- this was about the dumbest thing he could have done -- but arguments that involve something along the lines of "we wouldn't even have this conversation if he was a new editor" are flawed, IMO. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see a pressing need to have this conversation now. Indef isn’t the same as infinite. There have been other people that have been allowed back on after a suitable interval (which seems, historically, to be between 3 months and 1 year, depending on the severity of the problem, the level of friendship they cultivated, the personality of their mentor, and (most heavily correlated) the results of a random number generator). I also sympathize with the issues he’s been dealing with.

However, I suggest leaving it indef for now, rather than finite, and have him request an unblock in some number of months, at which time he will hopefully be in a better frame of mind, we won't be quite so pissed off, and we can discuss it then. I will say that his long explanation seems to indicate still not "getting it", but I see that conversation as better for later, than now.

Alison suggested somewhere (can’t find it now) that he pick a different Wiki, like Simple or Commons or Wiktionary or some other language, with less conflict, and start the long journey of building back up the broken trust. I agree; I’d look more favorably on a return in X months if there was a history of good work elsewhere. I’d also add my opinion (which I suspect others disagree with) that the key is to simply avoid all significant disputes at his new Wiki, and accept that with his history, he’s probably always going to be at a disadvantage in that he’ll always kind of need to walk away from a fight, including here if he returns. The price you pay, I think. Others probably will want to see evidence of good dispute resolution, I don’t know.

Anyway, executive summary is: leave indef for now, suggest work on another project for a while, open possibility of unblock review in some number of months, when he's got a decent editing history elsewhere, and perhaps gains perspective about how unjustified his actions were. --barneca (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

After a suitable interval, like some number of months or a year, he could ask for an unblock. Allowing an unblock too soon, if it's to happen at all, would open a serious can of worms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I kindof hope WikiDon sees this. Might make him feel better to know we might consider an unblock at some time in the future...

I'll put the resolved tag back in, since it is resolved, for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Angelucci

• Michael Angelucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about a musician which asserts some notability, however the creator is: User talk:Mangelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...so I tagged for COI and references, after he removed the tags[[62]] Brewcrewer tagged for refs, which Magneluccie also removed [[63]] after adding a couple of questionable refs. I reverted and warned him on his talk page and then a few minutes later User talk:Michael Angelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starts editing the article and removes the tags again LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Legotech,

Sorry for the confusion! I'm brand new to this and unfamiliar with all the procedures. When I first saw a message indicating that my page had been flagged, I went back and added links to some of my concerts and awards for verification and then deleted the flag. I assumed the message kept appearing automatically since I didn't include any references in my initial page. I didn't realize that a real-life person was creating those messages each time!

Please check out the reference links I added. If I need to do more to legitimize the document please let me know. I appreciate your help - my apologies again if I stepped out of line somehow.

-M Michael Angelucci (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED

Well, even after I added references to my work I'm still getting flagged. I've decided to delete the whole page and pass the details on to an administrator.

As an aside, it seems to me that more discretion is warranted before someone blithly writes up an incident report on another user, particularly when that user has been registered for less than 24 hours. Give people a chance to adapt and learn the system before you threaten to ban them from posting/editing and basically run them out of town ...

Michael Angelucci (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you also pay more attention to messages left on your talk page and if you don't understand them ask the relevant editor for assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The 13th Apostle"

This site is getting weirder every day. I was doing some NPP last night when I stumbled across a new user's article titled The 13th Apostle. The complete text was (and is) as follows: "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" without even so much as a period. Both authors were redlinked, so I tagged it as an A1, especially since the person who posted couldn't even say what it was about. It was still here this morning and I thought it might have been because of a backlog...but another legit user removed the tag, stating in the edit history that there was enough content and that I should take this to AfD. There is no way I am going to clog AfD with something like this; it's a waste of the community's time and mine as well and I'd just as soon nominate it for a feature before I did that. Would someone kindly do away with this? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently it seems to have a G2 tag on it (which makes no sense to me, it's clearly not a test page). However, I agree entirely that it's CSD:A1 material. ~ mazca ^talk 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know and I'm sorry about the tag, but I didn't want to get in an edit war over it. My original tag was A1. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • A quick Google shows it's a self-published work ([64]). Speedied under A3, no substantive content. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • The amazon page has HarperCollins listed as the publisher... --Onorem♠Dil 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • HarperCollins also say that HarperCollins publish it [65]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. It's always nice knowing that you have my back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (SIX EDIT CONFLICTS LATER) Scratch some of my last - a Google search when my brain is working shows it exists ([66]), but no reviews in any media, no reliable sources out there. Drs Richard and Rachael Heller have co-published a lot of non-fiction books, many of which have appeared on the New York Times bestseller's list, but do not have an article. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 28,000) As does Harper Collins. A little less haste may have been in order here. Does the fact that we have a bad article on our hands equate to a speedily deletable article? I was on my way there, having read this thread to see what could be done, but it had already gone in a puff of smoke. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the removal of the A1 tag. There was clearly enough context to figure out what the article was about. The article may have been short, and there may not be any reliable sources for it, but the book's title along with the author's names provided more than enough information to identify the subject of the article. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't anything there except a declarative sentence; see my original comment. You wouldn't have had much to work with.  :) I'm certainly not against its recreation with proper content. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a prod next time. Not sure this needed ANI attention. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Exactly - the entire content was "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" - by all means if you can find reliable sources and some more content, go for it. Neıl 龱 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • With multiple best-sellers, might they be worth an article themselves? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: This site is getting weirder every day.  :) I apologize for creating such a problem, but I wanted to avert an edit war. I wish the original poster had put this much effort into the thing first! :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Grey Knight; it's strange that a pair of established authors like these have no articles. I feel better about this; it seems I may have uncovered a couple of glaring red links! BTW, I dig the username. It reminds me of a medieval playset I had as a kid. It was filled with...you guessed it...tiny plastic grey knights! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

admin assistance required by email

Resolved

 – Cool, we're done here... Alex Muller 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin be willing to email me to discuss a matter of concern. I don't want to discuss it here for reasons that will become clear in my response. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody's gotten in touch with you yet; if not, you may have better luck picking an admin that appears active and has e-mail enabled, and e-mailing them. I'm not sure anyone is going to jump on a request like this one, since it sounds both mysterious and tricky! :D (I'd offer to help, but me != admin) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoot Allemantando - you can email me if you want. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm available too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks - will do, don't worry it's not that tricky - need a second view on something without a lot of wikidrama. I'll fire something off to Ryan. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go next?

An IP (User:158.230.100.102) has repeatedly added the same uncited, and possibly POV-pushing (Space Wolves are the best-type thing) edits to Space Wolves article, despite being asked repeatedly to either give some references, or to discuss it on the articles talk page (as on his talk page). I gave the unsourced references to lvl 3warnings, and the general level 4 warning, but the editor still refuses to discuss anything, so I'm unsure of what I do next. RfCU seems to be out, because no-one else has tried to engage the user over these edits, and the editor doesn't seem to want to discuss anything and a (admittedly probably to early) AIV report was dismissed, so I'm unsure of my next step.

I also note that User:Ashleythor8sxd has also made the same edits, though I'm assuming that this is the IP above logged in. This is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I recently became aware of just how much in-universe material there is on Wikipedia about Warhammer 40,000. It was kind of fun for me to read some of it, as it reminds me of when I was in my early teens and used to play it :) But a lot of that stuff is faaar too much in-universe detail for an encyclopedia article.

Not sure if that relates to this case or not. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 - Vandalise again.

Resolved

 – No vandalism - no action needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See talk page on 141.228.250.137 for previous "edits". My vote is to block this IP range for significant period again such that we can concentrate resources on other matters. Electron9 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has made three edits (1, 2 and 3) since April, none of which are classed as vandalism. An IP isn't re-blocked simply because a past block has expired. ——Ryan • (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 changed the capacity from 4 to 8 GB for standard sd-cards which is a completly untrue statement. And quite obvious such with the proof on the same page.. So this together with previous block make me think that the behaviour will be repeated. Electron9 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More trouble at Barack Obama

Resolved

 – 2 weeks full protection (which can be shortened once communication actually takes place on the talk page. Removed full prot but watching carefully - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Scjessey has again claimed consensus without actually having it, and has again reverted, triggering another edit war with this edit: [67]

Don't protect the page. Block and topic ban the offender.

Someone skating on thin ice like yourself isn't in a position to demand blocks/bans. AN/I's not to be used as an implement in your Obama-related content disputes, Kossack4Truth. Shem^(talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When threatened with a two-week topic ban, Scjessey took a voluntary two-week "Wikibreak" from the article, but returned after only four days (demonstrating his dishonesty) and immediately started causing trouble. See discussion here. Scjessey has consistently employed false accusations, snide remarks and edit warring, rather than dialogue, to advance his cause. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously K4T's claims are absurd. Please see this edit to refute his ridiculous claims of dishonesty. Obviously one edit doesn't count as "edit warring". Kossack4Truth is not even taking part in the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, so it isn't clear why he has made this baseless incident report in the first place. I am completely bemused by this accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI report here is quite problematic. K4T has been tendentious here in the past and was nearly topic banned. He is not currently contributing to the talk page or main page. His only involvement is the above report, calling on an editor he has had repeated run-ins with to be blocked and banned over a single edit that ended up getting adopted within a few minutes but that he mischaracterizes as an "edit war". In so doing he rehashes a personal attack he has made before over a trivial issue he knows is resolved, that Scjessey's early return ten days ago from a self-imposed wikibreak is "lying" or "dishonest". Making a false report like this is certainly disruptive, and seems to have succeeded in disruption as evidenced by the drama and unnecessary article protection. No slight intended to administrator involved - thanks for the quick action but with all due respect I think you were hoodwinked :). Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Urgh, 2 weeks full protection (for the time being, if someone can say that a consensus is reached then I'll drop it back to semi). Petty argument won't get anyone anywhere. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. There was no edit war, and certainly nothing going on at the time the report was filed. If you look at the talk page, there is indeed a consensus for the edits. The entire sequence of edits here is as follows:

• first edit by Scjessey:[68]
• reversion (removes edit) by Noroton:[69]
• reversion (restores edit) by Clubjuggle:[70]
• reversion (removes edit) by Akron:[71]
• final reversion (restores edit after apparent consensus) by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:[72]

All users involved reached consensus:

• Scjessey and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agree to edit:(implied - they made it)
• Noroton agrees to edit:[73]
• Akron and Clubjugle agree to edit:[74]

All of this was more than 16 hours ago', and as you can see all parties agreed to implement the edit as an interim edit that preserves the status quo, while making a minor clean-up of language, while the consensus discussion is ongoing on a larger issue. The article has been stable for two weeks now, ever since the last edit protection was lifted. Under the circumstances I urge that edit protection be lifted so that the diligent editors who are working on the article can continue, as they have for the past weeks, to work on a stable article. One thing we could use, though, is some sage guidance on matters of civility, and also in terms of moderating to establish consensus or lack thereof. We also have a fair number of outstanding sock puppet reports that need some attention from people who have experience in that regard. I will probably comment, separately, about the filing of this ANI report, which itself seems to be disruptive. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've also requested unprotection at penwhales talk page. I really hate that my ill considered revert last night might be responsible for this. Please reconsider. Arkon (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure a consensus has been established yet (see bottom section of talk page for what I'm talking about), although I've temp. lifted it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed all are agreed that there is no long-term consensus yet as to the final state of the article. The brief series of reverts last night concerned an interim version that people agreed will stand until then. There's some lingering incivility but nobody seems to be ready to give up on the discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

97.92.41.0 and Fark.com

Anonymous IP has been making several WP:NPOV edits to Fark.com and appears to be currently involved in an edit war with TheRegicider ([75]). I just reverted and warned him on his talk page just now. May require a future IP ban. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth bringing up again if the edit warring flares up. For now, seems to have been calm for several hours. Will check back. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment - Someone protect my user page please?

Resolved

 – Final warning given to user by Neil. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've had to revert edits by User:Certified.Gangsta twice in recent days: edit, revert, edit, revert.

I've been in several disputes with User:Certified.Gangsta before, which is why I now avoid all contact with him. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to try to provoke me with false but provocative edit summaries like "please make your identity as a sockpuppet clear, otherwise it's deception".

I'm reverting his edits as a matter of principle: I'm leaving my user page blank at the moment because I'm not happy with the quality of writing that I had there before; but I feel I have the right to leave my user page in whatever state I wish to.

Anyhow, I've posted a warning on User talk:Certified.Gangsta, here, but he is persisting. I really don't want to get into a dispute again, but I can't stand having my user page messed around by an editor I don't particularly like. Help, someone? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Chairboy has warned Certified.Gangsta - if CG edits your userpage again, he will be blocked. Neıl 龱 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've done a selective deletion of the 4 most recent edits to your userpage - in case anyone is wondering why he's linking to revisions that don't exist. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Much appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Giant-Killer

Resolved

Has Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) actually made any non-disruptive edits? In addition to all the various warnings on his talk page, he's now engaging in such flagrant editorializing at Viktor Rydberg that I'm just rolling him back. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking it over, but a cursory glance shows me it's just a content dispute. He appears to discuss his edits though. I'm still looking over it, regardless. — _Maggot^Syn 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at his edits in this content dispute? They are awful (putting it mildly). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If Jack the Giant-Killer has ever made constructive contributions, he is long past that stage now. I frankly see no reason to tolerate a single-topic pov-pushing account around just for the sake of entertainment. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC) the urgency of this appears to be petering out, thanks to Moreschi's intervention. I do not think any further action is necessary for now. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, marking as resolved. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK delay

Hi - this may not be the right place, but there aren't any active DYK admins at the moment and the DYK update is delayed already. I've prepared the update, but an admin is needed to update it now. Vishnava _talk 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You could probably just go on #wikipedia-en ^connect and ask for an admin to update it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That usually gets no response even though it would in theory take 1 minute to cut and paste....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Would another admin take a look at my recent actions on this article? I think I'm reverting insufficiently-justified deletions of sourced content, but I could see how others might think I'm merely edit-warring. Thanks. Dppowell (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that it might be viewed as edit warring by "others", then I suggest that this is a strong indication you should stop reverting and start discussing the matter with the other party(ies). This is not the place, anyway, to get support for your editing decisions, but I would advise not reverting again without opening a dialogue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My request was not intended to "get support for my editing decisions," thanks. I've little knowledge about Conrad Black, and less interest; the article made my watchlist some weeks ago when I noticed vandalism during RC patrol. Rather, I thought someone might be able to tell me whether reverting the deletion of sourced content in this instance legitimately constituted vandal-fighting. It seemed like a grey area. It's a moot point, as another editor has since moved the text in question to Wikiquote. I'll take your opinion of the appropriate use of ANI under advisement. Thanks for responding! Dppowell (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your reversions so far at this article are/were a matter for an admin, nor are/were they a matter for discussion here. They were the actions of an editor. I can't see how you think you did them with your admin's hat on. You were not, as they say, wielding the mop. Move along please, nothing to see here, people. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but I might have within a few minutes, had the situation continued to escalate. I was (and still am, really) seeking input on whether that would have been inappropriate. Per the top of this page: If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. By asking for other admins' opinions, I was trying to ascertain where the line was before I stepped over it. I suppose I'd be getting better answers if I'd done a better job asking the question: when is deletion of sourced material vandalism, and when is it an editorial issue? Compare to a situation I recently encountered at P.E.O. Sisterhood, where a group of editors was also trying to suppress sourced material. In that case, temporary semi-protection of the page was appropriate. That clearly wasn't appropriate here, but had the anonymous editor continued to blank sourced content, perhaps a block would have been. On the other hand, LHvU's opinion is that I'm an involved editor, so that would seem to rule out a block. Was it really so inappropriate for me to seek guidance here? I don't think so. I wasn't wielding the mop, but I had one hand on the handle. Dppowell (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN might have been better, but I'm sorry I didn't read this sooner or I would have responded (something about the title of the thread repelled me). If you are acting as an editor in an article, the same editorial assistance is available to you as to any other editor -WP:3RR, WP:RFPP, etc. Just yesterday I asked for page protection for an article where there were some messy SPA/BLP issues because I had recently edited the article - a neutral admin made the decision. I *did* remove a BLP violation after protection, but that is explicitly covered under WP:BLP. Does that help? Risker (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A little. I think the reason I'm hung up on this is that I have never edited Conrad Black for content and didn't see myself as having "a horse in the race." I thought that by reverting the removal of properly sourced content, I was undoing obvious vandalism...but I wasn't sure, which is why I came here in the first place. :-) Dppowell (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dppowell, I don't think it's that complicated. First of all, your reverts were not controversial. They haven't inflamed the situation. Secondly, there are a number of admins and non-admins who frequent AN and AN/I who would be more than happy for a quick one-to-one conference. Ask them - they're there to help. Regarding removal of sourced material, the question must always be "Is there a very good reason to revert this under the five pillars?" But that's an editorial decision, not an admin one. I think that here the golden rule surpassing all others for admins is that "If I would do this as an experienced editor, knowing as I do the fundaments of the encyclopedia, it must be OK for an admin to do so too". Wielding the mop is not something you've done here, so no worries. You have only acted as an editor, but let's look at your case exactly from an admin's POV, to finish. Firstly, don't go over 3RR - get someone else involved. An outside opinion is what you need here. If you're right, they'll tell you, and vice versa. Secondly, no admin powers were on the table, as I read your case. You weren't talking to people as an admin. Lastly, if you want to mop up because it's turned into a brawl (which it hasn't here) put a 48 hour prot on the article, send 'em all to talk, and remember that there's always plenty of admins around to look in and back you up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Alasdair. The more I reflect upon it, the more I realize I was overthinking it. I have an irrational fear of being hauled up on this noticeboard and being accused of mop-abuse, and sometimes that leads me to think too far ahead. This was one such occasion. Dppowell (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine how intimidating it is for the average editor who's never paid attention to this page. Noroton (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP hitting my talk hard

Resolved

 – Thanks Antandrus _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably the same person since the re-direct is the same but this isn't pretty and being as it's almost midnight here, I'd like to not come back to a history full of that in the morning. Not sure about temporaily semi-ing my own page, but can someone have a look? IPs are, as of now.

• 189.177.40.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.128.205.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.184.82.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.11.98.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, for whoever is awake and can handle. Appears like it would be whack-a-mole. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and general disruption by User:Furtive admirer

Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) has been POV pushing on Jonathan Pollard. I reverted his mostly unsourced additions and gave him a {{uw-npov2}} warning. He then reintroduced his POV edits, this time introducing blatant vandalism[76] (notice the last part about "cause of global warming"; Furtive admirer later claimed that this was to prove a point[77]). This time I gave him a {{uw-vandalism4}} and included that diff in the warning.[78] His response was to accuse me of being paid to edit.[79] I then warned him not to make personal attacks, and expanded on my reasons to revert him.[80] He also was warned by another user against making personal attacks.[81] And yet, he choose to once again attack me[82] ("You should go to law school and then you will be paid for your attempt to intimidate and impeach witnesses", "Go find someone else to bully. You enjoy it a lot" ...)

What can be done about this user? Rami R 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, it seems Furtive admirer is going to step back from the article. If she does so, then this is moot. If she continues ro POV-push and add deliberate misinformation, please bring this up here again. Neıl 龱 10:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent my revisions to Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister last night after responding to Rami's threats. I did not log on here to have such difficult interactions and verbal abuse. I thought this was a credible source; obviously, you can't handle the truth (Jack Nicholson).

Carol's response is: "I wish you peace and thank you for such a nice job you did on the entry.

XXX Carol"

FYI: If you want verification of any of the additions I made, her email address is: <deleted email>

I have also contacted Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's father, and though he is in his mid-90's, I suggested he deal with you directly, and/or have author, Mark Shaw correct (see footnote #24 on Pollard Page: ^ Shaw, Mark. Miscarriage of Justice, The Jonathan Pollard Story. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. 2001.) your errors with his sources. Obviously, you have serious issues here with writers and regretfully look at the glass half-full. I didn't realize how skeptical you are; you appear to alienate anyone with a triple digit IQ; it obviously reduces the quality and the integrity of your project, which now bears no weight in my ongoing acquisition of cultural literacy. My brother did warn me in advance about your treatment of contributors.

Rami, it is obvious you did not realize i was a female. You probably would have behaved better. First impressions are lasting. My dad always said, "You can catch more flies with molasses than vinegar."

This is definitely a waste of time and energy...

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with Rami R's "rvv" edit summaries, and the general treatment of Furtive admirer. While a lot of the stuff FA added to the article had severe bias and style problems, there was also some relevant and cited information mixed in -- and in any case, it certainly was not vandalism. When I see cases like this, I feel more sadness than I do anger... FA is clearly trying to do the right thing by protecting the reputation of a friend and making sure the "real story" (as she sees it) is told. The fact that her edits go against numerous Wikipedia policies is due to a lack of knowledge, not malice.

I'm going to see if any of her edits from yesterday can be salvaged. -Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) On a side note, you may actually be able to catch more flies with vinegar, but we get your point... ;)

Well, okay, less of the edits were salvageable than I thought. Still, I really don't like people throwing around the V-word, especially in a sad case like this. I'll leave it alone for now, but what it with that, please? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added a note on FA's talk page (I didn't realise until today that she had left me a message as that was on my User page) hopefully explaining the issues. I agree with the comments about vandalism - I am prepared to assume good faith, and labelling those edits as vandalism is not helpful. It was full of bias and undue emphasis, but I doen't think she was deliberately disruptive or trolling. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to the article "Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming." is clearly vandalism-- for whatever purpose it was added. DGG (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was added by an IP, and Rami reverted a dozen edits by Furtive admirer along with that edit in the "rvv" edit summary. Even though FA later admitted the IP was her, I don't think that was known for sure by Rami at the time. So I still don't care for the edit summary. I'm not asking for admin action on it or anything, I'm just saying I wish we were nicer to users who are clearly trying to do the right thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless I read the diff wrong, that bit of vandalism was added by Furtive admirer, at [83]. a few edits earlier, at [84], she added the edit "Following Pollard's arrest, Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova boasted to Jonathan that he would make it impossible for any Jew in America, let alone anyone, to support him.", an unsourced BLP accusation. I'm looking at the edits under her name, not at Ramis. Anyone who would add those two edits, let alone all the other violations, should be prevented from further work on the article. DGG (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you are right. I got confused because of this, which re-added the WP:POINT-y joke from an IP. I did not realize it had been already added earlier.

I have struck a number of my comments above, in accordance with this. Perhaps I should strike more, I'm not sure... I have been imagining what I would feel like if I knew someone who was sentenced to life in prison under circumstances I felt were unfair, and I admit that may be clouding my judgment in how this user ought to be treated. Because of events in my personal life right now (nothing major, just some property fines I feel are ludicrously excessive) I may also be particularly susceptible to the image of a "hanging judge" messing up someone's life for no good reason. If I'm in the wrong here, I apologize. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atten: Jaysweet and StephenBuxton--- Thanx much for your rational sensibilities. Your parents brought you up with a PMA ! (positive mental attitude) Having been involved with the Pollard Case for more than 18 years, I happened on your site and was appalled by the typical mess the contributors have sourced. I didn't realize the technical requirements were so copious --- beyond my scope. so... i have enlisted author Mark Shaw, author (see footnote # 24 on the Pollard page) to review and make corrections. His book was neutral, written from the Defense and Prosecutorial points of view. He will take up matters. If you edit him out, you just might as well shut the site down!!! He will clarify with his sources many of your omissions and errors. For example, that in fact: "From March 6, 1987, until June 10, 1988, Pollard was held for all practical purposes incommunicadoo in the hospital wing of the center set aside for the Criminally Insane" in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners..."According to a communique from Michael Quinlan, director of the Bureau of Prisons, the order to transport Jonathan Pollard to Springfield was directed by 'Attorney General Ed Meese, the Justice Department, and the Office of Navy Investigations'."(see Pollard page footnote # 24 p.148) or that "while in prison Jonathan could have won his freedom if he had singled out certain jewish leaders as coconspirators". (same footnote , p.157); or the Alan Dershowitz affidavit attesting to an exparte conversation with Supreme Court Justice Goldberg and Judge Robinson (p.123);or, "Joseph diGenova encountered the media on the courthouse steps and continued his venom-filled tirade against Pollard. 'The sentence imposed reflects the severity of the damage...It is likely Pollard will never again see the light of day.'"(p.143) I read the history of the page and it seems you have been struggling with this page for more than 5 years. That is unreasonable. It may be in part because it appears none of you are American Citizens and haven't realized or perhaps are now beginning to with the treatment of the prisoners held without charges since 911, that America treats selective prisoners much like the KGB. Wikipedia can be a great source for the Truth rather than sourced material contracted out by the Federal Government, especially the CIA, which is how the notorious Seymour Hersh receives his primary earned income. I really think there are too many chiefs patrolling this website and not enough Indians, if you get the US metaphor. Perhaps, you might want to insert the sourced info above and salvage some of my efforts. Finally, I strongly recommend you remove Rami from this patrol assignment and reassign him to a less controverisal page. He is negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature. he does not know how to handle people. he could have seen i was new to the site, simply based on my entries. he does not teach; he dictates. best regards for a postive outcome to this issue, both on your site and for Pollard's sake. "The Truth is on the march and nothing shall stop it." Emile Zola Furtive admirer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you can all see, User:Furtive admirer clearly does not understand Wikipedia's purpose, and continues to make personal attacks against me. This cannot continue. Rami R 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Furtive admirer, you are doing it again - please assume good faith! First off, Rami was not doing anything wrong in reverting your edits that you made, as they were adding a lot of undue bias and opinion to the article. Ok, maybe the wording used in the edit summary was a little harsh (but only a little), but there was nothing wrong in his actions. He had seen that the edits included something about controlling satellite systems to control global warming or some such nonsence. That would ring alarm bells in any editor that spoof info had been added and so all the rest of the information could well be suspect. In that instance, reverting all edits is appropriate.

Might I suggest the following course of actions. First one is to you, Furtive Admirer. Please stop assuming that people who are removing your edits are out to get you, and please stop labelling such people as "negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature" as this sort of behaviour is unnacceptable. Please read all of the policies that I told you about on your talk page before you make any further edits.

Secondly, to Rami and FA. Let what has gone on before pass, and start afresh.

Thirdly, allow FA to make her edits, citing sources (see WP:CITE for help there). Rather than others automatically reverting them, go through them instead and edit them to remove bias, point of view and original research (by original research, I mean information without references).

Fourthly, if the changes are not to everyone's satisfaction, please follow the dispute resolution process (see WP:DR) until you reach an article that is going to satisfy everyone.

Finally, FA, please do not post email addresses or other personal information on Wikipedia. See WP:OUTING for further information.

Everyone happy with that? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One other comment here, and this is assuming good faith edits regarding controlling the satellite system. If you look at the section it was added to, you can see that it was regarding a novel that was apparently based on the character of Jonathon Pollard: Pollard's story is frightening. It calls up images of a shadow government, totally inconsistent with the American concept of a Democracy whose elected leaders are subject to laws they are pledged to uphold. His story inspired the movie Les Patriotes (The Patriots) by French director Éric Rochant in which US actor Richard Masur portrayed a character resembling Pollard. Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming. It is possible then that rather than stating Jonathan is a Blofeld-type character, the edit was meant to imply that he is being portrayed as such. It does of course go without saying that any unsourced comparrisons are original research and should be reverted. Please note that this is only an assumption. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Murphy9977

This user [85] continues to try to add inflammatory and admittedly unsourced comments to Joe Torre's page, in regards to the Mitchell Report. So far he has ignored warnings. This is not exactly vandalism, it's more like edit-warring, albeit conducted over 3 weeks time instead of constantly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give this the "quick once over" and perhaps reply on the basis of taking it to AIV when they next transgress - but I saw the editors comments to Wknight94 and enacted a 31 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put it here instead of AIV because it was a bit more than just random vandalism. 31 hours might not be enough to get his attention, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It got their attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members

Camden, New Jersey could use protection against IP edits. It's currently the target of an ongoing campaign of vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses, as its history reveals. It's apparently a coordinated effort by members of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity according to this comment on Cooper University Hospital, which has been the target of similar, persistent mischief over several months. See Talk:Camden, New_Jersey#Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members for detailed information about similar vandalism on other articles. This has been going on for months and continues to escape serious administrator intervention because the edits are coming from so many different IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've semi-protected this article, with an expiry time of 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please place such requests at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism campaign is more complex than can be addressed by protecting one article, which is why I posted it here. Perhaps my comment above wasn't clear enough. It's a campaign of ongoing vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses on multiple articles; Camden, New Jersey just happens to be the latest target. It's disheartening that past appeals for administrator intervention against these vandals have gone nowhere. Instead, the typical response is a quick scold on a minor procedural point, which ignores the bigger issue. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What other action were you looking for? Is there a pattern to the IPs? Or to the targets? Or something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no obvious pattern to the IPs. Some of the targeted articles involve Camden, New Jersey, but not all. The frequent edit-summary taunts about "the Network" and references to "TKE" are what suggest it's a coordinated campaign by fraternity members using different PCs. Background information is here and here. The action I'm looking for is an administrator's guidance on how Wikipedia handles this kind of persistent vandalism. There must be a more effective way to respond than just blocking IP addresses one at a time and protecting individual articles, right? Especially when there's ample evidence that the vandalism is coordinated, has been occurring for months, and almost certainly will continue on other articles from other IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more steps need to b taken so I have decided to void the "resolved" tag since its not really resolved per se. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a user formerly named "Teke", I'll take further action. Keegan^talk 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the chapter in question a call in the morning. I spent two years as a TKE president, and I'm quite ashamed as a proud Wikipedian. Keegan^talk 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect external action will need to be taken. This "network" is not going to be stopped by simply blocking IPs. Enigma ^message 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the university should help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what university or chapter would that be? The TKE Chapter Map doesn't show a chapter in Camden and the disruptive edits don't suggest an obvious geographic origin to me beyond Camden. &#151;Whoville (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's Rowan University. Keegan^talk 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I contacted the prytanis of Rowan chapter as well as a couple others in surrounding areas and told them if they heard anything, please ask them to knock it off. Other than that there's not a lot much more we can do. Keegan^talk 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) most of the TKE stuff is because Wikileaks has posted their manual. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. And, of course, all websites using MediaWiki are actually just secretly subsites of Wikipedia. Makes me glad there are no fraternities in Australian universities. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unless I'm wrong Wikileaks published Kappa Sigma's manual, not TKE's. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand POV vandalism

Resolved

 – Gilabrand (who was not vandalising, BTW) got fed up and decided not to edit the article (see Talk:Zionism and Racism) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand is repeatedly renaming the article Zionism and racism allegations to Racist allegations against Zionism and vandalizing the article so as to make it an accusation that allegations against Zionism are racist. Strongbrow (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. Strongbrow would do better to concentrate on improving the article rather than blanket reverting any attempts to make it comprehensible. This is an article that was slated for deletion and has improvement tags on it. If I am not allowed to improve it, in the way I believe it should be improved, because Mr. Strongbrow doesn't like it, then I have no reason to continue working on Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding statements into the introduction such as "The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is very thin, and some believe they are one and the same" is clearly an attempt to inject your bias. Strongbrow (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had a problem with that, you should have gone to talk. For your information, I was paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." --Gilabrand (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI. Please take it to the article Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7

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

---

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed) has been trying to have his prior failed RFA deleted via MFD and is now edit-warring on the closed MFD. Doesn't seem willing to listen to reason as evidence by the discussion at his talk page. Since he has asked me to stop posting on his talk page, I am posting here for a an uninvolved administrator to review the situation and determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. –xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen general immaturity problems from this editor. He threw a similar tantrum once before, as I recall, demanding that his images be deleted. I hate to say it, but it might be best for the project if he does storm off in a huff. At any rate, he's been warned, the MFD has been protected. If he keeps stirring the pot, a block might be warranted but I have little confidence it would help. I don't see that further admin action is required, though. Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both the MFD and the RFA are now protected, so I suppose no further action is required. –xenocidic (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be taking a whole bunch of people to the Admin Board - as per my important notice. But cna I be botehred? No. The WMF is just a waste of my time. BG7even 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Between that important notice and the legal warning/threat he made, plus the fact that he is "retiring", an indef block might be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And per his request for an indefinate wikibreak enforcement. –xenocidic (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ecOk. Well, If I wanted to, I could also take legal proceedings over my notice. But am I? No. And do you know why? Because I cannot be bothered to a) waste my time and b) stoop down to some people's levels when it is so much nicer for everyone to just come forward. I do not care to be honest. But how would you like it if:

a)you had to deal with exams

b) you were still grieving after the loss of a loved one

c) you have people trying to stop you deleting things for legitimate reasons, yet the WMF still ask for money? If you ask me, Wikipedia would have so much more space left if they decided to delete all the so-called "archives" and wouldnt have to ask for any donations for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegoblin7 (talk • contribs) 15:57, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dont see that Blue Goblin is understanding the whole "no legal threats" thing, and I think that the best thing for everyone, including him, would be an indef block per WP:THREAT. If in the future he wants to take the time to understand that throwing around warnings of legal action aren't acceptable if he wants to continue to edit, then we can remove the block. But until then... should be blocked now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Hes not understanding, yes. But is blocking here actually going to help? At first, I was going to support a block, but now I think someone just needs to explain things more clearly to him. — _Maggot^Syn 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in that were any legal threats? And actually, I do understand it. If you want to block me fine, I couldnt care less. As ive stated in several places, the WMF sucks, and I really cba any more. BG7even 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He's requested the wikibreak enforcer be put on his account indef. I haven't gone for the indef option, just 4 days - hopefully once he takes a break he'll see things in a different light. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We can only hope. Good call Ryan. — _Maggot^Syn 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried explaining it, he doesn't seem willing to listen. His argument-from-server-space is a red herring (hard drive space is cheap - its other resources the WMF needs). He just doesn't want his failed RFA on record (he admitted he is "ashamed of it") and doesn't understand archives are kept for a reason. –xenocidic (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I only meant clearer than what we've already tried. This may prove impossible though. — _Maggot^Syn 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

May be a moot point: [86] (although there are ways around it, of course)... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My only concern was that he clearly isn't understanding whats going on. I felt it would be unfair to block indef for this. But he does need a time out. — _Maggot^Syn 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against IRC chats about people, sure. But is that userpage necessary? I hate it when people leave in a huff, expect support and then return five minutes later. Ergh... Rudget (logs) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little baffled by why he is making a big deal out of that RfA.... I think that is the least embarrassing failed RfA I have ever seen! Most of the opposes were along the lines of, "You are doing great work, but I want to see a little more of it before we give you the mop." Damn, if I had a failed RfA like that, I'd point to it with pride! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BG7, I'm replying to you here (which I assume you're watching), as you've blanked your talkpage. A failed RFA is nothing to be ashamed of; plenty of people pass RFA after many failures (four people this month alone have passed on their third attempt). I know you're annoyed after all the hassle you've been getting about various portals – and the fact that one of our more disruptive characters was targetting you at one point – but that's not a reason to leave Wikipedia. You've a lot of valid contributions (which I why I supported you in your RFA, lest you forget); even if you don't plan to come back right away, please don't put yourself in a position where you get yourself blocked and can't ever come back. This is the eighth busiest website in the world, and because of that it works to stricter rules than some other places, but once you get used to them they're not a problem, despite what some people might say. And because we're so successful, writing articles here does something that writing on specialist sites doesn't; it means people who don't already know about the subject get to find out about it, because of what you told them; 800 people have read your National Tramway Museum article this month alone, for instance.

Regarding server space, Ryan's right; it's not server space that we need the money for, but bandwidth. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, every version of everything (even the deleted articles) has to be kept for copyright reasons, and storage really isn't the issue; that money is to pay for bandwidth to stop the annoying "freezes" you sometimes get when you try to edit (six million users a day is a lot of traffic).

If you do go, good luck, but I really hope you don't. We have a lot of bad editors (and some bad admins) but you're not one of them. (edited to add) There are ways to disable the Wikibreak enforcer; if you do want to come back & don't know them, email me and I'll either tell you how or disable it for you. – iridescent 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved; see my talkpage. – iridescent 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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