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.
I have an IP-user here who vandalises spontaneously, and has received several warnings this year, each removed with immature retorts.. there are such gaps between each incident that it makes it difficult to call it persistent vandalism and indef. block, I imagine. After a minor bout with said idiot using the IP, they are now using the talk page as a soapbox to condemn Wiki practices, its editors, Jimbo Wales, etc, and declare themselves immune to being blocked or otherwise prevented from further vandalising Wiki at will. Wonder if someone can look into the comments, and determine a legitimate course of action. Personally, I suspect this may be a banned editor with a no-life grudge.. but given my lack of knowledge into who has been banned, or the reaction they may have, I cannot suggest who to checkuser to help determine who may be behind it, if indeed anyone. Perhaps others may have a better idea who this childish troll is, from experience.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the User:Rrodic case is so recent, please review the edits of User:Mosalman. He has the appearances of being yet another sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000. He is reverting any edits by User:Marco Guzman, Jr and is welcoming editors (including himself) that have edited articles related to NYU Poly. The account was created shortly after Rrodic was blocked. Oh, and he just gave one of his other blocked sockpuppet accounts a barnstar here. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I reverted one edit by User:Marco Guzman, Jr, which was clearly inapropriate and promotional ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Higher_education&diff=528913137&oldid=528912513)-- Mosalman ( talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And no, I am not related to Rrodic in anyway-- Mosalman ( talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci ( talk, that IP is not at all related to me. The IP is also trying to keep the PhD level UTexas, Austin(which was oringinally there) and remove the MS level CalPoly, Pomona which Marco put up for promotional purposes. I think that article shouldn't have any picture because the pictures are POVs-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mathsci ( talk).....but I am not a sockpuppet account. :)-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
How am I a troll? And what's wrong about welcoming people? These are Wiki love messages-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I welcomed myself only so that I get a list of Wiki rules that I can study. I tried helping out other new users also in this way-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed - also
Bobagirl (
talk ·
contribs) -
Alison
❤
07:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I know own-talk-page issues from blocked users aren't that big of a deal, but seeing as Mangoeater1000 has a long, disruptive history, and seeing as he's escalated from general nastiness here to full-on name-calling and gay-bashing here, is there any way we can say that in the future, all of his socks should have talk page access summarily revoked? Just seems like it would save admins a lot of time, if he's going to make it a regular thing to harass other editors from his talk pages after getting blocked. Perhaps by leaving a note under the sockmaster notice at the main account's userpage, telling any admins implementing future blocks that they should revoke talk page access while they're at it? I'm not quite sure what policy/convention is on this, but his behavior's obviously problematic, and he's done nothing to show that the community should have faith that his sockpuppets will use their own talk pages for legitimate purposes after getting blocked. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Black Kite has blocked talk page and email access. That's all that can be done for the moment. Mathsci ( talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ( [2]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ( [3]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ( [4]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ( [5]), he was still adding original research ( [6]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ( [7] and [8]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ( [9], [10], [11], and [12]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ( [13] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ( [14] and [15]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC ( talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything
vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this
User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here:
User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha
Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way.
NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix
NE Ent
12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ( [16] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ( [17]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ( [18]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC ( talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The only problem: He does not know what is introspection. He continues using bad syntax, poor grammars, unsourced and incorrect information, etc.. -- Meow 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Meow will you stop that?! Every single thing you said was freaking false info. I source, i fix, i fix grammars, and fill the article with TRUE INFO! Meow, how do you like if someone contributes and a freaking dude stops by and says you don't do ANYTHING! Once in for all, stop meow, i can't stand you behavior. Can't you say anything true about me, as i KNOW that you intended that.-- ✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Although Enemy of the Jihadis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for personal attacks and harassment, I have this morning received a further dozen abusive emails from this account. Please disable email access, and please remember to do so in all future recurrendces of such abusive vandalism! RolandR ( talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Milesgive3030- is at it now. Blocked, but still allowed to email. I now have a large number of grossly offensive emails. I don;t particularly care, but this needs to stop. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a couple of run-ins with him in the past as well, though your issues with him appear to make mine fade into insignificance. I for one hope that something positive comes from
TimTrent's complaint to law enforcement. I've left a suggestion on Tim's talk page as to where he can find contact details for police aid. —
Oli OR
Pyfan!
11:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Roland - I don't think there's much chance of that. When people send email through wikipedia, it basically just acts like any other email client you can name (gmail, outlook, etc.) If Wikipedia were to be prosecuted for emails sent using its software, then those other clients should be prosecuted as well for all the illegal emails sent through them. — Oli OR Pyfan! 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
@Maggie Dennis: Previous discussions on email abuse have produced nothing, with pathetic suggestions that new users might need to send ten emails immediately, or even 100 if they are part of an education project, therefore anyone victimized needs to suck it up. The WMF should provide serious resources to (a) add a filter to email; and (b) provide a staffer who will follow up available legal paths with extreme LTA cases such as the one under discussion (someone who specializes in such things). It's lovely to have people adding feedback to articles, but serious money also needs to be spent on serious problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In November, IP 93.42.210.45 (see User talk:93.42.210.45) was blocked per WP:NLT for a series of edits and edit-summaries at Freeboard (skateboard). More recently, a number of addresses from the same range (93.42.2XX.XX) have appeared at the same article to make ostensibly the same edits (removing sourced content and replacing it with un-sourced promo-spam about a particular Italian company that makes a competitor product). The IP has also contested a number of PRODs to Italian skateboarder articles on the basis that he/she is "doing a university assignment" on the subjects in question. I think it is more likely that the person is an advocate/employee of the company for which they are spamming.
IPs include:
There may be others but the edit histories of each of the above are almost entirely focussed on this one article and the collective group have been editing in this way since early 2012.
I have asked for semi-protection over at WP:RFPP and have informed the editor responsible for reverting most of the vandalism to date ( SQGibbon). But I have since realised the IP-range commonality and have come to the conclusion that the article would not be the subject of nearly as much vandalism were this IP range prevented from editing it. Other IP edits to the article have been entirely good faith and helpful and we certainly don't want to stop that. If action is taken against the IP range then the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw my RFPP request.
Regardless of the content of the edits, moving to a new IP address and continuing to edit would seem to be a clear case of WP:EVASION. The content of the edits simply compounds the problem. Stalwart 111 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Sir or Madam, please delete/deactivate my global account on WP whith immediate effect. I made some contributions on en.WP and de.WP. (You can check all of them.) - I'm deeply sorrow, but I can no longer ignore all the rude and impolite behaviour, that I have encountered. You may check everything I've done, there is nothing to hide. - What I won't stand any longer are all the people that don't follow the basic rules and are just outright indecent and impolite. Thank you and goodbye Yours -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing that I can see needing any admin action here or on the Deuth Wikipedia. Seems to be a content dispute and the editor got upset with a section being referred to as off topic (I think...Bing translations of German are a little difficult to read). I have reached out to the editor. Now the ball is in their court.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
User:98.113.167.211 posted this
[23] on my user page, which I consider to be a personal attack.
The user is an SPA who has only edited
Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, adding long unsourced claims and statements, introduced with phrases such as “We spoke to an alumnus of the yeshiva who prefers to remain anonymous.” My tagging of these statements with a
who? and a
citation needed led to this outburst.
Arjayay (
talk)
11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Reported user: YahwehSaves ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YahwehSaves refuses to sign her posts with signatures, escalating what should be accidental or newbie-type incidents that are normally resolved upon notification. This adds to frustration from editors not knowing the source of comments, confusing them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign YahwehSaves' signature for her. Unfortunately, bots dont always catch missing signatures. The relevant behavioral guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures, which states "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."
Looking at YahwehSaves' talk page, she was notified of using signatures by User:SineBot on 5 occasions from May 2011 until even now in December 2012. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. In 2012 alone, users have left personalized messages offering help to learn how to place signatures. [29] [30] [31] [32] One user even started signing YahwehSaves' themselves everytime a response was left. [33] [34]; the same frustrated editor left a message on my talk page believing "nor will you get any acknowledgement back even if you confront (YahwehSaves) on it directly." I left a message assuming good faith for YahwehSaves on December 19, offering suggestions but requesting the problem either be fixed or that she start a discussion asking for any help needed. [35]. Afterwards, YahwehSaves left another post without a signature on an article talk page.
I would recommend blocking YahwehSaves indefinitely until the user provides acknowledgement of their behavior and assures that she will begin conforming with WP:SIGNATURE. I would do it myself, but am semi-involved in some discussions where she is present. Certainly there is more damaging behavior on WP, but this persistently disruptive behavior has left editors that deal with YahwehSaves frustrated ... and it's so easy to fix.— Bagumba ( talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What's odd is that, having chosen a proselytizing account name (one that I would prefer to see changed, but which appears to be acceptable under current username guidelines) the editor is shying away from publicizing it. One would think that they would want to see it all over the place!
In any case, while guidelines certainly aren't mandatory, one should always have a good reason to not follow them, and it's hard to see what reason YS could have for using a signature other than "I don't want to." Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This user, judging from the talk page, also seems to have had a fair number of adjustment issues aside from forgetting to sign posts. Intothat darkness 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
For random, slightly helpful notes, I will recall that we ended up blocking an editor once who refused to actually provide a link to his userpage in his sig (he had created a plaintext custom signature.) Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember the user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The current wording was edited on 7 June 2012. I see nothing in the talk page discussing the change in wording. Arguably the edit was a simplification of prior wording without a change in meaning.
The edit was a wordsmithing of a bold edit on 7 June 2012, adding:
During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.
I reject the notion that a bold addition to a page can transform a guideline into an actionable policy with no community discussion!
I'm reverting, unless someone can point me to the discussion leading to the major change. Let the community discuss.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who recently told Bagumba they weren't going to be able to get YahwehSaves to sign their posts, after seeing Bagumba trying to elicit that courtesy from the user. My comment wasn't intended to provoke an ANI posting... I was just trying to save Bagumba from wasting their time because I already knew what the outcome would be. All attempts to discuss signatures with the user go ignored, whether on their talk page or on article talk pages. Just exactly why that is, I have no idea. YahwehSaves and I have been able to have conversations about other topics (mostly military medals), and obviously they want to contribute here, albeit somewhat eccentrically at times. If there is some reason why he or she can not sign, I do wish they would tell us, which would make it easier to understand why this is a problem. When a user doesn't sign their comments, it can create confusion in conversation threads and inconvenience other editors who come to the thread later and have to do research in the history to figure out who said what, or cause routine edit conflicts with sinebot when conversations are going back and forth. That ends up becoming a disruption. At the same time, we don't want to be capricious and/or eager to levy rules on people just because they don't conform to our expectations or extend the same courtesies we take for granted and/or extend ourselves. So... this is really a question of balance, isn't it? On the one side is editor freedom to do as they wish, and on the other side is the detriment to others caused by the mild but repetitive effect of the disruption. Where do we strike that balance? I'm not sure myself. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
For those waiting for a response from YahwehSaves, edits at two different articles since this thread was started still have no signatures. [36] [37] Like AzureCitizen, I also now believe this will not change. A block seems to be the only action that might change the behavior.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I blocked the account for 24 hours. The more problematic thing for me is that the user has not responded to several requests on their talk page and has not responded here. I will unblock if the user agrees to change their editing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could i get someone to look a User talk:FY789 actions - Despite being warned 2 times he/she seems not to care about our copy right policies. Has added 3 times now (may be 4 times by the time I have written this) is copy and pasting copyright info to the Australia article from here over and over. user has been warned 2 times and is simply adding back the text and not replying on there talk page. Looking for a block or some sort of admin actions pls. Moxy ( talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No. This isn't a copyright violation. I am putting it my own words.
FY789 ( talk) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I remember this user from a while back – this is a sock of Bowei Huang 2 ( talk · contribs). -- MuZemike 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently edit warring with FROESES ( talk · contribs) who is removing part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and keeps on reinserting Islamic honorifics in the Caliph article. I've already reverted the MoS six times and the article twice. The user has been notified on their talk page by me and two other users. Can someone take a look at it? jonkerz ♠talk 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Omerli issues death threats (to an active but blocked user) [38]-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello I have reason to suspect this user is yet another block evader. In recent days there has been a spate of IP vandalism attacks on Peter Hitchens and several IPs have been blocked in connection with this. The users have then been coming on my talk page and writing abuse and offensive remarks as well as other editors who dare to challenge them. Firstly IP 94.7.158.48 vandalised Peter Hitchens and hurled abuse at me. While they were blocked IP 2.223.63.122 came on the article and made the same edits, they then abused my talk page, the talk page of "Clockback" and deleted my comments on the blocked IPs talk page. They have subsequently been blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion. Yesterday IP 94.14.142.147 vandalised the Mail on Sunday article with the same libellous remarks about Hitchens then proceded to write very abusive messages on my talk page and the talk page of user Clockback. Admin Wormthatturned very kindly blocked them for 31 hours which has now expired but I feel this is a sustained campaign against me and Clockback by a serial block evader. I would like this user investigating to see if this abusive behaviour can be stopped. Thank you. Christian1985 ( talk) 01:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought i put an IP to IP message on his talkpage asking other IPS to leave him alone, for the sake of not only themselves but also for all IP editors, for Christian1985 and for the good of wikipedia. 199.101.61.190 ( talk) 09:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone review the edits and accounts of User:72nino and User:Dinobasher. They are purely disruptive edits by someone who has a beef with me. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 04:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
New user Special:Contributions/Saloon.cat is unusually energetic in proposing deletions. Well, WP does ask people to be bold, so I can't censure him for energy. He may however become a little too energetic: see Talk:Maggie Out. I have to turn my attention away from my computer; perhaps somebody else could keep a friendly eye on his edits. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor User:Evelynheaven (whose IP is almost definetely User:76.104.128.57) is claiming to be Evelyn Amielia Eirayonia Heaven Bovaxx, possessed by God and Adam. The user sent me an email claiming they were wanted by the US, Russia, and Britain and that I should put their edit back after I reverted this edit by their IP to Eve. See also User:Evelynheaven/sandbox. Could an admin take care of this? Thanks! Vacation nine 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AndyTheGrump has repeatedly called me a troll and accused me of being a sockpuppet in this talk page discussion. [39] [40] [41] [42] When Andy removed warnings from his talk page, his edit comment was "fuck off, troll" [43] I asked him to please focus on content, not contributors, and not to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without filing at SPI, which I saw an admin had told someone who did that a few days ago. Andy was warned five times, including by another editor who said "Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive": [44] [45], [46] [47] [48] Thank you. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Trolling by blocked ipsock of banned editor Mikemikev |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've looked at this sequence of events. While editing under the influence is not ideal, and calling someone a "fuckwit" is not something I would encourage, my judgement is that Andy's behaviour here falls short of the blockable. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to lance this debate and drain it of the puss.
I suggest this request for immediate action be closed down with prejudice. Hasteur ( talk) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a new, and rather inflammatory comment on the talk page of White privilege. Because there has been a history of previous WP:CAN violations at this page, I am perhaps more sensitive to the language of this comment, but it appears to me to be threatening additional canvassing.
the comment is from an ip editor ( User Talk:71.127.139.4), and can be found here
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The account User:Sonymusicireland (which shares a name with the record label of Niall Breslin) deleted half his page the other week. [53] [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.202 ( talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My recent interaction with Administrator KillerChihuahua has been extremely unpleasant. Here are just some of the many words this person has used to attack me:
"ignorant", "abstruce", "sarcastic", "patronizing", "insulting", "childish", "not civil", "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy", "troll-like" and many other suggestions. Of course always hiding behind the old idea, 'I'm only talking about how you are behaving and not name-calling'.
This all started with a well sourced edit I made at the God page which was reverted and which turned into a couple topics I began at Talk:God. Administrator KillerChihuahua responded to everything I posted and had a very strong opinion on the subjects I brought up, evidenced by the overwhelming counter point content this person added in response to my points. This part is fine.
What I believe is highly questionable is how the Administrator mixes the role of being an adviser of Wikipedia policies with being a person with a personal bias on a topic. This includes exaggerating the advisory and authority role when no major violation of policy is being committed. It includes the Administrator bullying and making veiled warnings and threats, again, without major justification. Example:
In general, it seems to me this is an Administrator drunk with power and control who makes me question whether or not I want to be a part of a community that allows people like this to throw around their authority to push editorial biases and enforce their beliefs. I am still new here and have been learning the ropes, but being treated this way leaves a bad taste, especially when it's coming from an Administrator. If some experienced people have time, I'd like to know what they think of the content on my talk page, User talk:Allisgod and on Talk:God between myself and KillerChihuahua. I acknowledge I have made mistakes in the dialogue, but I don't believe they warrant the kind of treatment I've received and most importantly, I would think an Administrator is held at a higher standard. Allisgod ( talk) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I should have organized some diffs:
1) VERY liberal use of Wikipedia policy to force her way and close discussion [55]
2) UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting...nasty and snotty...bitchy" [56]
3) UNJUSTIFIED THREAT of hounding [57]
4) Making UNJUSTIFIED Accusations of 'assuming bad faith' when she is clearly assuming bad faith using metaphors [58], accusing me of "trolling" [59], accusing me of "hostility and rudeness" [60].
5) More UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "ignorant" [61]
6) More subtle THREATS - "If you ever actually understand anything I say on the first go, I might decide you don't need help. but as it is you are merely providing more evidence that you do." [62] Allisgod ( talk) 11:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll try the instructions again to fix those diffs but I'm frankly shocked at your quick responses here and how there are apparently no standards for an administrator's language or harassment, not even a 'hey, maybe you shouldn't be name-calling, bullying, threatening users who you simply disagree with being that you are an Administrator'. In that case, I find this website to be basically corrupt and discouraging to better contributors. Allisgod ( talk) 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Just so no one thinks I'm abusing my "authority" or trying to "hide" something, I'm making this request here. I would like Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 blanked as I'd rather not have my name come up with the absurd discussions taking place on those pages. Blanking them will still make it possible for anyone who wishes to do so to review the history and anything on them, but will prevent search engines from associating me with that filth. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP address User talk:69.27.21.250, issued to Neumont University, may be involved in the process of legal proceedings against the WMF or it's users. In accordance with WP:NLT, could this IP be blocked from editing until this is over? I'm not sure what, if anything Philippe is able to tell anyone at this time, however Philippe may be able to elaborate on this. I know this IP isn't all bad most likely, but probably more than one user on this IP is taking action against Wikipedia for some reason.
Thanks, gwickwire talk edits 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding.
Incidentally, the more relevant quote from WP:NLT is this one:
So I'm afraid that Deskana is wrong - one cannot edit Wikipedia while legal action is underway. So if the IP is involved in legal action against the WMF they must not edit. If they do, they should be reminded that they cannot edit, and if editing continue, they should be blocked to ensure there is no editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, that IP has made no legal threat, and has not filed any action against the WMF. I'm seeking contact with them in a matter that's not public, and my message was intentionally vague. Sorry for any confusion, but there should be no block of that IP (for that reason, anyway - I make no determination about any other block reasons that may be outstanding.) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Belchfire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
He's just labeled this edit summary [66] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller ( talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus a few redirects.
I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR ( talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working
Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.
I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.
In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.
In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'
If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"
Being as there are current pages:
Nicholas van Rensselaer
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V)
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V)
And yes even a:
Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
and lets not leave this one out in the cold either:
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)
I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR ( talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FiveSidedFistagon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII ( talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ( [68]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [69]. AllyD ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Belchfire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
He's just labeled this edit summary [71] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller ( talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus a few redirects.
I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR ( talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working
Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.
I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.
In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.
In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'
If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"
Being as there are current pages:
Nicholas van Rensselaer
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V)
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V)
And yes even a:
Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
and lets not leave this one out in the cold either:
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)
I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR ( talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FiveSidedFistagon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII ( talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ( [73]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [74]. AllyD ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User 255000 has made several reports to the Username admin board. While those users are problematic Meridian has not made any attempt to talk to the users to sort out the situation, and problematic behaviour is best tackled with the correct policies. Username policy shouldn't be used because it allows an editor to come back with a different name and continue previous behaviour. Note that Meridian is young, male, has English as a second language, wants to be an admin, uses Twinkle and rollback, and has several "vandal patrol" style pages listed on their user page. Individually none of these are concerning, but collectively they are a useful flag for editors who may be making over-enthusiastic contributions to the admin / meta side of WP rather than building content. This is a problem because it damages gnomes, some of whom will just drop out of contributing. Like I say, it's only gentle guidance that this person needs. -- 87.113.116.168 ( talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks! Well, I knew my mistakes regarding these issues for not engaging them. Sorry for that guys. Yes, I don't discuss them to the user I'm reporting because it is already given that their only intention on why they registered to Wikipedia is to edit only that interests them and also to use Wikipedia as a mean of promotion. I also report users that has already made bad faiths although I doesn't apply this to all (and that is why I got here). Maybe I really made deeds that is bad for others but I will and I am trying to fix those because it is hard for a Wikipedian to work when someone is not feeling great with you. Well, sorry for that IP and I will work on that and re-prove myself to make myself worthy with this right given onto me. Regards, Mediran ( t • c) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is single purpose account that has been editing [75], [76] the MusclePharm page removing large chunks of sourced content and replacing it with corporately prepared material, claiming the previously added material is "outdated". Despite numerous requests to discuss edits on the article's talk page, warnings about WP:COI and content blanking, this user continues to edit war, and insert unsourced material. Since this is a publicly traded company, and based on the language of the material inserted, this appears to be a WP:COI situation where an employee or advocate of the company is removing material and added unencyclopedic material for public relations purposes. -- Yankees76 Talk 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few hours ago Toddst1 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) discovered that GloZell Green ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been subject to an AFD in June that closed as delete and based on the long series of deletions in the page's history, deleted the article and salted it. However, after a DRV that closed as "no consensus", the article was recreated in someone's sandbox and then moved back into the mainspace, after which it went under AFD again but that closed as keep. As I do not think Toddst1 will be responding to the message I left him that quickly, I think it would be better to get the word out here to fix this error as it was a valid article that met the issues stated by the original AFD.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Benyoch's contributions to Wikipedia were "generally" constructive, but he is unable to accept criticism and this has led to Wikihounding that is most definitely not constructive. I first became aware of Benyoch when he made some edits to New Lambton, New South Wales (I have most Hunter Region related articles on my watchlist) which, although flawed in their implementation, [77] represented a reasonable attempt by an editor with only 9 edits in his history. I had no real interaction with Benyoch until March 2012, when he started editing Paterson, New South Wales (also on my watchlist), reverting the edit of a well established editor, [78] and adding an image gallery of random pictures of the area. [79] The reversion of the other editor also restored some categorisation errors that had previously been made by Benyoch. [80] In fact Benyoch's edit hadn't been a reversion of a single edit, it was a reversion to an earlier version of the article, which reverted reasonable edits by 2 humans and a bot. [81] After a "discussion" about that on the article's talk page, in a case of what appears to be "tit for tat", Benyoch headed to Talk:Raymond Terrace, New South Wales where he started a discussion titled " Intention to delete gallery of pictures", although the article did not actually contain a gallery. [82] Although that discussion went on for two weeks, there was then a generall lull until I made a blunder (I blame Firefox) at Vacy, New South Wales. Although I tried to explain this on the talk page, [83] Benyoch subsequently started attacking me and the civility level dropped. As I explained at the DRN discussion that I tried to start,( link), Benyoch resorted to writing inappropriate edit summaries, [84] [85] [86] [87] making baseless allegations, [88] and resorting to the odd personal attack, even attacking me on my talk page. [89] As well as that direct attack, he added a few non-constructive trolls to existing discussions there. [90] Benyoch chose not to participate in the DRN discussion, despite a reminder form another editor. [91] Instead, he resorted to puerile attacks on his talk page, such as this one that I removed when I fixed his archiving for him. [92] Since then, he has made some thinly veiled attacks, obviously still aimed at me, [93] but persists in wikihounding at articles that he has never edited. At Talk:Steven D. Binder, not content with this attack, two hours later he added this post, in which he refers to my alternate account, which is rarely used for anything other than edits in my own userspace. It has only been this month that I've started using the account to do some work using AWB. In the spirit of WP:DENY, I reverted the edits, although I did note in the edit summary, "Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor". I had let it rest there, but today, Benyoch reappeared at Talk:Steven D. Binder and, in his first edit today and the first since posting there previously, struck out a comment that I had made to another editor, with the edit summary "Strikethru: Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor." a cut and paste of my own. [94] Just to clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, as I explained elsewhere, I made that post because I had responded to that editor, explaining I was busy and would address his post in a few hours, [95] but instead of giving me the courtesy of waiting to me allow to respond, he posted more stuff and then immediately rushed to DRN about an issue that had barely been discussed - the comment was valid and not an attack, just an expression of dismay. In short, there was no reason for Benyoch's post. There are other examples that seem to point to this editor following me around Wikipedia; this edit 20 minutes after mine on an article he'd never edited previously, and it was the only article he'd edited that day. Similarly, Benyoch's only edits for 9 November 2012 were to City of Lake Macquarie, an article he had never edited before and which I had edited only hours earlier. [96] On their own, these edits don't really seem out of the ordinary but, together with edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder and the attack on my talk page, I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding. At this point, I'm hoping that a third party will at least warn him about wikihounding. There's no point me doing so, anything I post is ignored and deleted quickly. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Benyoch has been notified of this discussion, here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Too quote an editor above, 'How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution'? Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK boys, why not just give me your warning about wikihounding, as The Legend wants, and any other warnings you like, and be done with it. Then I will be off. You wont ever hear from me again. I am closing my account - the reason: AussieLegend's editorial bullshit. There ya go AussieLegend - the place is all yours, just as you want it to be. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a curious matter that no one has yet thoroughly analysed AussieLegend's critique of me here, wherein you will find links to the diffs in question. Hoary has made a stab at it, but mainly deals with the peripherals rather than the substance. And so editors will have to make an effort and read around to see how everything has to be done his way. Have none of you the gumption to take an alternative opinion and stand up for the weaker editor who gets thrashed by the stronger over such small things? Not one of you, thus far, I notice. Ask Aussie about the time he told me, more or less, that I had nothing valuable to contribute or say until I could match his 72,000 edits. I had less than a 1000 at that time; so being a newbie is more than just a start date. Ask him why he didnt demonstrate full disclosure by reporting how I thanked him for an edit on HMAS Cerberus? Ask him why he will report some alleged houndings because I am said to more or less immediately make an edit after he has on a page, but not report all the other time he has made an edit on a page/s and I didnt do anything? You see, for AussieLegend his claim to 'full disclosure' is selective self-puffery and, in my view, dishonestly so because all he does is game the system to support his critique of others. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit? Why can it not be after him? Unfortunately for me Aussie and I live in the same geographical region, and so our watchlist would be similar. in fact, when AussieLegend mmyakes an edit watchlist gives me a mental prompt as to my interest in that article; and as with so many articles on my watch list I go visit that page to check the validity of the edit and to make a contribution. That is my methodology. I didnt think it to be a big deal, but AussieLegend wants his special space around articles, in my view he wants to maintain a form of ownership. Selective reporting to a 'tribunal' such as this is nothnig more than gaming the system in order to discredit another editor. Its about time someone seriously examined his methodology, otherwise, with editors like him around, who package themselves in WP:CottonWool, wikipedia will be a lonely and hard place void of feelings and the valuable interest and contributions of others. I am actually asking some of you more experienced editors than I am, and administrators, to take him to task, even if it means you have to do some hard and serious digging to see how he operates. To be sure, I am not the first to express such concerns. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Now here is an example of the his jargonising of wiki, over which we came into conflict... The lead of an article states, "[a certain place] is a locality within [a certain local government area]". Now I ask each of you admins who have an interest in the pursuing fairness and understanding in these proceedings,
AussieLegend, in the interests of fairness I request you refrain from answering these questions, as yet anyway, and refrain from communicating your interpretation of the term to other admins. Thank you to all.
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Benyoch for 12 hours purely because of the tendentious nature of the edits here, which were spiralling out of control. No opinion on the merits of the OP, simply a response to the process under way here. Happy for any admin to unblock without reference to me if they feel this is too harsh. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Since at least 2009, a dynamic San Francisco Bay Area ip has dozens of times requested that the article discuss an as-yet-unproven commercial test developed by the UC Davis MIND Institute, claiming to detect maternal antibodies related to the development of autism. No reliable secondary sources are ever offered (to my knowledge, there are none), commercial sources and sources related to the product are sometimes offered, and in spite of having this discussion with scores of IPs in the same range dozens of times, nothing has changed in the research or the discussion that would indicate there are reliable sources backing text that could be added. The IP has a persistent case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT that consumes article talk. See Talk:Autism/Archive_13#Summary of past discussions with IP 76.2C IP 75 and other 70 ip range for a very small sampling of past discussions. Since it is a frequently changing dynamic IP, I don't know what can be done to prevent this recurrence on article talk; if we archive the discussion or hat/hab it, it just recurs. If IP is ignored, it just fills up the talk page. I also don't see much utility in notifying the current IP, since the IP changes frequently within discussions on the same day, so I will notice article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
So, now he's going at my talk page. Could we also notice admins to delete this IP everywhere he posts? People respond to him on my talk, unnecessarily. [102] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Frimoussou ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user first came to my attention a few months ago when they were repeatedly removing Template:Subjective category from various LGBT-related categories without explanation. In the last month their behaviour has become more and more disruptive: this has included editing other users' talk page comments (including archived comments, with edit-warring) and singling out one editor in particular for repeated attacks and insults, which they are also edit-warring to restore.
Although I can find nothing especially worrying about their article edits, and their editing in general remains infrequent, Frimoussou's approach to contributing in other areas and interacting with other users leaves a lot to be desired and I believe that a block is becoming increasingly warranted. Super Mario Man 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/71.178.112.242 has commenced editing in the same way and the same type of articles as Special:Contributions/71.178.108.23. Per [103].EdJohnston or Osiris might want to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 05:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts [108] [109] [110]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.
I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts [115] [116] [117]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.
I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would someone neutral but with knowledge of the area please take a look at the edits of User:88.72.229.34? I reverted their removal of sources on the Azerbaijani American article, but I'm not conversant enough with the topic to judge the rest of the edits, although I know there's been disruptive action in that area recently Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Tomcat7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I hate to bring this here, but I think this warrants it. Tomcat7 continues to edit war after a RFC/U into his edit warring has been created. The diff in question. [118] I did issue a warning prior to the RFC/U filing on Dec 17th. [119] Discussion has continued on Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder from December 11th across two GA's and two separate discussions on that page. Easier bits to read are here [120] and here [121].
Edit reverts relating to the one source tag in particular.
This has gone on for too long, and even my opening of the RFC/U into his edit warring has not discouraged him from removing the tags even after all the warnings and discussions from several users. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't want to discuss this further, but here is my response. Everything began with me translating a random article from the German Wikipedia, namely Friedrich Eckenfelder. I never knew this artist before and I saw that no English versions exists. So I took the opportunity to translate it for a wider readership. User:Wuselig was the main contributor of this article, and brought this article to "Lesenswert" (similar to Good Article) status, with an overwhelming decision. Now I did the same here. The article stayed very long in the queue, but finally a user named User:ChrisGualtieri, who, it seems, has no interest in art, posted his review. Well, it was a poor one because he first said that he put the article on hold, but then suddenly changed his mind. He then posted a very lengthy block text, and noted "TLDR", perhaps in response to the main contributor Wuselig who stated that he was glad that someone translated it to English. Chris claimed that text in Wikipedia is copyrighted and must be attributed, but actually that is not true. He did not even bother to read WP:ABOUT, and began further pushing his view. After a quarrel at the GAN talk page, Gualteri seemed to have forgotten me. However, suddenly a user started to review it, while Gualteri took the opportunity to add huge banners on the top, and place tags, such as citation needed tags, after almost every sentence. He also stated that there should be more sources, but I reminded him that there were no more reliable third-party sources. Then he watched my contributions on former featured list nominations or featured lists, and performed radical changes. For example, in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a featured list, he removed source and text and added a citation needed tag, claiming that the sources do not confirm what the article claims. Actually, both sources clearly supported the content, further outlined on the talk page. In Abel Prize, he also put citation needed tags, but now he was correct, so I added sources. Then he and User:NapHit, who rants when I add premature lists to FLC and is allegedly on vacation, unfairly stated on the nomination page of Golden Eagle Award, that I did no changes and just responded to the nominator for fun. Actually, I made an error somehow (perhaps forgot to save my changes), which I think happens at some point. Then he started a "request for comment", why I really don't know. It would be wise if he would eventually leave me alone and stop watching all my contributions, to avoid further disuptive edits and accusations. That is all what should be done, but it seems that Gualtieri does not want peace and instead wants to ruin the good atmosphere. Oh, and he often ignore my and others' comments, for example on his talk page he did not even responded to my comments and opened a request for comment. -- Tomcat ( 7) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No comment on the edit war, but we are now at two failed GAs due to copyright issues. I'm a lot more concerned about that then I am about the back-and-forth and the RFC going on. Wizardman 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see WT:ANIME#Mass vandelism???, Aakeem00 ( talk · contribs), and Aakeem077 ( talk · contribs). Good raise 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this edit by User:Cydevil38 is very problematic, since I see it as inappropriate canvassing. Per the page at WP:CANVASS, this message is quite biased in its message, since it uses loaded language which accuses editors which disagree with him to be "Chinese POV editors", and he has specifically chosen to notify a partisan audience, and not all relevant sides. I see this as campaigning and votestacking, and this has not been the first time that this has happened with this editor. This is a long-term issue, and I am under the impression that this editor thinks that this is perfectly fine behaviour. Not to mention, this editor has specifically ignored calls to engage in proper and thorough discussion in September 2012 on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is now edit-warring because he thinks that there is "insufficient discussion" regarding an article merge ( Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences into Goguryeo controversies). -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues. I more than welcome constructive edits and discussion from neutral parties. Cydevil38 ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the bigger problem here is that User:Cydevil38's style of editing exclusively involves repeated reverts, no discussion with opponents (but canvassing of supporters), and heated nationalist rhetoric. Even if I opened a dozen RfCs, AfDs, and merge discussions on the topic, it would not change his behavior. After all, the "pure blood theory" article did go through AfD, yet disruptive Korean nationalist SPAs like Cydevil continued their attempts to blank, deface, and destroy it. This user's reverts don't even come with a rationale. Reopening the merge discussion for a few more months is not the solution. As Benlisquare points out, it's extremely difficult to find any contribution of Cydevil's that does not boost Korea or denigrate its opponents; that consist of civil dialogue with other editors; or that refute the obvious conclusion that he is not here to build an encycopedia. Shrigley ( talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me ask again, Cydevil38. I write articles about silly Japanese cartoons and boring, nerdy computer nonsense. Shrigley writes articles about Chinese biographies and history. What do you usually write about on Wikipedia? What is the only thing you write about on Wikipedia? Taking that into account, should you be crying wolf about me and others and giving us various labels? You might take offense at this, but I certainly believe that your sole purpose here is to engage in POV wars. You have not done anything other than fight for your sacred nation here; prove me otherwise. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
First, I would like to humbly ask the admins and other editors to take their time to take a look at my previous contributions to Wikipedia on issues concerning Korean history and culture before judging me based on the accusations made by Benlisquare and Shrigley. On articles of significant controversy, I devote significant amount of time to engage in discussion where I try my best to find reliable and NPOV sources to back my arguments and attempt to draw consensus. If the dispute escalates, I am often the first one to ask for attention and participation from neutral editors by initiating request for merge, request for comment, request for third opinion or request for neutral point of view. I have learned the importance of these efforts from my very unpleasant experience in the extremely heated POV wars on Goguryeo and related articles many years before, where much content that I have written in these articles remains to this day with the exception of the Northeast Project, where much content was deleted by Shrigley before he made the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies.
Second, I admit that I have been rather succinct to discussions on the Northeast Project on the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies. In this regard, I would like to apologize to User:Rincewind42 for not engaging in extensive discussions, including the circumstances in which Shrigley had deleted most of the contents of the Northeast Project. This is because, as a doctoral student, I had not sufficient time to be involved in what I anticipate to become a very controversial and prolonged discussion and edits, knowing the edit history of Shrigley where he had made numerous unilateral edits without consensus on Korea-related articles that I believe to be extremely unreasonable, prejudiced and unreliable. I have been so far silent on his edits due to the preoccupation of my studies. However, now that I have submitted my last finals paper for this semester as of December 22nd just before midnight, and with worsening of the situation with the recent involvement of Benlisquare, I decided that it was appropriate to first notify WP:Korea before making a major edit to the Northeast Project and prepare myself for extensive discussions defending my edits. I admit that perhaps my wording was inappropriate in the notification at WP:Korea, but nonetheless I do not rescind my position and my previous arguments that both Benlisquare and Shrigley are POV editors, although I admit Benlisquare's are far more reasonable in his arguments than Shrigley despite my longer history of disputes with Benlisquare and his history of edits on Korea-related articles, and an extremely offensive comment he has made on me in the last ANI report, to which I remember with much bitterness and anger.
I ask that admins and other editors consider my circumstances with regards to my recent involvement in the Northeast Project before taking accusations by Benlisquare and Shrigley at face value. To this end, I wholeheartedly agree with User talk:Heimstern that it is important for the Wikipedia Project for , I quote, all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Again, I welcome the involvement of neutral parties to decide upon the merit of argument made by both myself and my disputants, and participate in the discussion and series of edits that is to come at the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 ( talk) 07:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add to the case that I have just found out that Shrigley is a new account of Quigley, also an editor with a long history of POV edits in Korea-related articles. More disturbingly, collective action of Benlisquare and Quigley have lead to the permanent ban of a Korean editor, Kuebi, on the grounds of edit warring and POV pushing with their ANI notices. The result of Kuebi's permanent ban was his or her edits on Pure blood theory of Korea, in which both Benlisquare and Quigley engaged in fierce edit warring. They have been reverting my edits, to which either I have explained in discussions or no-one objected to, and they persisted on their reverts in my absence and without my knowledge which Kuebi in turn has been reverting. I am concerned as I have also been accused twice by Benlisquare on the ANI board, and the current and only editors engaged in edit warring with myself are Benlisquare and Quigley/Shrigley, "coincidentally" in all articles I am currently involved. While I will not defend the past actions of Kuebi, I shall appeal to the action the admin has taken with regards to edit warring on Pure blood theory of Korea, as I believe the action was taken on false pretenses by Quigley/Shrigley. Cydevil38 ( talk) 10:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been some conflict over this page. One of the two conflicting editors is "wondering" if the other is Derwick's lawyer - a user with the same name has posted legal documents relating to the case on a file posting website. Since Derwick have a defamation case running, and have included their Wikipedia page in it, this seems a reasonable question. I have excised a significant amount of UNDUE coverage of the case, and made a few other minor tweaks. I have also requested from both conflicted editors a statement of their relation to Derwick if any. It would be useful if this situation could be reviewed to see if there is any need for administrator intervention in this incident, and incidentally to improve the article. (Spanish speakers might be able toc check more of the background.)
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC).
DPL bot is creating The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles repeatedly and placing the {{ dablinks}} tag. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles ( check the deletion log). I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing tags on it. DPL bot has created the page 2 times. I read somewhere that a malfunctioning bot should be reported at ANI. Please look into this immediately. Thanks! Forgot to put name ( talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here who can help me or I have to quit. This User with IP address User:76.1.129.56 posted this at my talk page which sounds like vandalism, after when I reverted the edit; another User:Mrt3366 restores the same edit with his edit summary circumspect. Previously I had detected one edit of User:Mrt3366 as copyvio and labbeled, indicating the site from which the text was copypasted. User:Mrt3366 removed the copyvio template and reverted the edit with his edit summary vandal. The user oftenly uses these harsh and abusive words in his edit summaries. Previously he threated me in his edit summary. My request is an immediate action as desired. MehrajMir (Talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SnrRailways seems to have a pathological hatred of the term Train station and is trying to systematically purge the term from Wikipedia, even when it is in piped links and does not show on the page. User:Edgepedia has requested that this activity cease pending the outcome of this discussion at WikiProject UK Railways but editing has now resumed while the discussion is ongoing. An IP has pointed out that User:Wedensambo has a remarkably similar history of removing train station links and has been active on Japan railway articles while SnrRailways has not been editing. I believe systematic changes on this scale may need prior approval as would be needed for bot changes.-- Charles ( talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
And User:Wedensambo? Similar concern - please see contributions. I must say for me the interest/concern is not so much whether it's automation per se or not; it is whether there is consensus, preferably at some centralized point such as a project, for these large-scale changes. Show me a place where it's been properly discussed and agreed, as a mass update, and I will be content. At the moment it has the worrying feel of an individual crusade and I would like to avoid this. Best wishes to all DBaK ( talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
De-archived to request further assistance - Stalwart 111 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MX896 ( talk · contribs) has created about 40 redirects this morning, most if not all dubious, some removed, some up for speedy. At AIV but seems to have stopped for the nonce. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll indeff him, does anyone have the tools to fix these rapidly? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the course of 2 months, 5 edits, all vandalism of specific Jewish institutions which the user seems to disapprove of. I'm unclear how to investigate if this is the only IP address implicated, as it may be just a dynamically assigned address that was used by this user multiple times over several months. More vandalism may exist. 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmanheim ( talk • contribs)
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.
Please protect the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations from the constant IP blanking. 82.132.217.109 ( talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User
has expressed disatisfaction with article
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.
Hi,
User:Skarloey keeps undoing/deleting my additional information I add to the station information section to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. He/she keeps deleting information that I add and he has given no reason for doing this when I post questions on his talk pages as to why he/she deleted this information.
Alastair Carr ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The main page about the line is perhaps not the best place for detailed information about its individual stations. This kind of information belongs on the separate pages created for each station. All the main page seeks to do is provide a brief introduction and in this respect I would have to agree with User:Skarloey's changes. Lamberhurst ( talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Alastair Carr ( talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Alastair, the problem is that a lot of the information which you have added about the various stations is not of relevance to the article, and a lot of it is needlessly duplicated. It is simply unnecessary to include information about disabled access at intermediate stations (that sort of information is purely unencyclopaedic and quite honestly un-noteworthy). That sort of information would be more appropriate on the company's website than on Wikipedia, as is information about access to workshop buildings and the like - we can take it as a given that access is restricted. Also, is it really necessary to include the line diagram on each individual station's page? There is already the information box at the foot of each page, noting the station's location in relation to the others. Also, we do not need the diagram on the main R&ER page twice. I am still not particularly convinced about it having "collapsible" sections between stations, as all this succeeds in doing is restricting the amount of information which is given. When editing Wikipedia, I try to stick to the maxim - use what is useful; discard what is not. May I assure you that I most certainly do not have a "chip on my shoulder", Alastair, I merely feel that some of your additions to the article(s) have not been particularly beneficial or useful. As an aside, don't we all have better things to be doing on our Christmas Day?! Skarloey ( talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to add, you say that I didn't reply when you posted about it earlier on my user page - there was little over an hour between you posting on there and posting with your "concerns" here! Perhaps it would have been better to have undertaken a discussion there, rather than this massive over dramatisation here in an administrative area. Skarloey ( talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
[154]?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
[156]?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone sort out the edits on this. In the last 40 minutes it's been the subject of vandalism from 2 new accounts but I can't rollback without losing some valid edits by other editors. The two jokers are User:RaymondHolianBers and User:MattMarleyBers both of whom I have reported to AIV. The last clean version prior to their activity is this one. NtheP ( talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have unavoidable commitments that prevent me following this through, and am involved too. We need to check out edits by User:Sk8terguy27 (whose RfA was removed as unsuccessful last week). I took him to task re a copyvio here. Also, see this which is one of his earlier contributions, a cut and paste copyvio from this. I'm guessing there is more, but simply haven't the time to investigate further. User being notified. Moriori ( talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has been courtesy blanked. Please do not restore it.--v/r -
T
P
16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Tailsman67, who is defacto community banned, has been using two IPs ( 98.71.62.112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) to engage in disruptive editing at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(North_America) and wikihounding on the contribution page of administrator Sergecross73 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as well as disrupting the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon. He was issued a final warning, but he has continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings ( [158]). Can someone please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I told you I have no interest in followin Sergecross73 nor what he does aslong as it doesn't effect me,also I can't stop my Ip from changing.About the "disrupting" on the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style,yeah I'm sorry about that.Right now I'm moving on.And it was suggested I get a defacto community banned,but they held it(I think)and bet it all on the last ban I had,seeing if I could hold out that long,and I did.I continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings because I felt the need to reply so it doesn't seem I chicken on the subject,but if you read I have posted my last comment. 98.71.62.112 ( talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 98.71.62.112 ( talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Per the growing consensus, I have raised the discuss on AN [159] Blackmane ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Serious sounding threat of violence here. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2/3rds of 9 involved editors want these out but have been frustrated by extreme efforts of what looks like one editor. WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS (for LCC as a source), and WP:UNDUE apply. Requesting help to enforce this. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary. In October 5 editors (including 2 ips) opposed and 3 wanted to keep. However there was no elaborate discussion among 3 of those 5 editors. The Discussion ended when Django passively conceded to I7laseral's points.
Now 2 months later MalesAlwaysBest tried to reignite the discussion, and claims that the 5 editors prior are still part of the discussion. Perhaps they are, but wikipedia is not a vote. No consensus is reached. Right now there is only a discussion between me and him.
The Friday names are long-standing, they have been used on the wiki articles since the conflict began. They are widely noted, as hundreds of reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN< Reuters, ect had made note of their use throughout the conflict. During the Egyptian and Yemeni Arab Spring events they were used on their wikitimelines. I don't see whats the problem here. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I received a message from some IP user saying that I had deleted his entire account. I'm not sure how I did it, seeing as the admins cannot even do that, but I'm turning myself in for it anyway. Obviously, he is not a block evading disruptive editor, but a new user who cannot seem to find his account information. I've asked him for information regarding his account, and he's remained tight lipped. He said that he was going to report me, but has not, so I assume he must be too busy with real life or trying to figure out what his old account was to do so, and am filing the report on his behalf.
I mean, clearly, I somehow deleted his account, and he's the victim, and not a block evading troll. I trust y'all will know how to handle this. :) Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
RightGot ( talk · contribs) has a history of problematic AfD proposals, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 phenomenon which he thinks should be deleted because the world didn't end. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am totally not happy to have to report DouglasTheMovieGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but my requests, advice begging and warning falls to deaf ears. Mr. DouglasTheMovieGuy is adding excessive detailed plots on the articles of the movies The Stalking of Laurie Show and Sweet Temptation (film). Bigger problem then that is that the inclusion of the cast is copyvio from IMDb ( Duplication Detector Sweet Temptation and Laurie Show). I have advized him, warned him, warned him again and begged him to stop. But as result I got this and this. An other edit made very clear that he is aware of the copyvio and tries to disguise it. As non-administrator, I can't do any more. The Banner talk 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About a week ago, Buck Winston ( talk · contribs) was blocked after edit warring on several pages to add the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs to articles that aren't really relevant. Several were to seasons of reality shows that happened to have gay cast members/contestants, and he was particularly selective in the application. For example, he added the category to The Amazing Race 4 and The Amazing Race 21, presumably just because the winners of those seasons were gay life partners, while ignoring the fact that pretty much every season has had at least one gay or lesbian contestant (in two separate cases there were 4). Today, after presumably having taken the week off to gather himself, his first article edit was to reinsert this category despite a vast consensus against it. Further removals of this category have been termed by Buck Winston as homophobic as he reinserts it ( examples 2 and 3).
It seems that he will not abide by the consensus laid out (at least on one page where the regular editors believe it is unnecessary), that he went to canvass for support and the fact that his first edits upon resuming editing after the Wikibreak were to edit war again and combine that edit warring with vaguely directed attacks means we have a problem a-brewing.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't make heads or tails of the contributions history here, but this is definitely not productive for the encyclopedia. 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 ( talk • contribs)
"Match played 26 December" means match played 26 December. I have no idea how this could confuse people, unless they are just frustrated little men that have no power in real life, so they bully people anonymously on Wikipedia. There are thousands of pages without timestamps on Wikipedia, why pick on the ones I edit? I update footballer's pages every single weekend, including goals scored. I have also included external links for Soccerbase.com to corroborate this. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, without looking for any credit, yet every week, there are sad little men reverting them out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 ( talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Example of an average Wikipedia contribution from me. Reading defender Ian Harte had incorrect number of appearances (listed as 79) as of time of Man City game. I corrected this to 76, his correct number of appearances as of Man City game. I edited his page since, to acknowledge his 77th League appearance against Swansea midweek. Playoffs don't count, right? This is all corroborated on Soccerbase. Another Reading player Noel Hunt and MK Dons player Shaun Williams are other footballers whose appearance stats are constantly being incorrectly changed by other people to include Cup and Playoff appearances. But why acknowledge the good contributions I make? This is about a reputation I have undeservedly built up amongst nerds like you. Keep blocking my IP. Ever heard of civil rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully people will see, I have provided this person with the link to the discussion regarding datestamps and timestamps, they ignored it, so I even went so far as to copy & paste it to there talk page, so that they have the proof right in front of them that what they're doing is wrong. Yet this hasn't worked, the person continues to remove timestamps and cause problems relentlassly. I am just about out of ideas, clearlt the person has no interest in contributing or coming to a compromise or talking about it as they either ignore it or blank their page. What else is there to do? Pippin0490 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Socionics&action=history -- Th4n3r ( talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
[161] Dunno what ought to be done here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" [163]. I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here [164]. On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit [165] and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here [166], and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here [167]. After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here [168].
I had warned Kereći svatovi here [169] and again here [170]. Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff ( WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Article „Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja“ speaks about two geographical regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were under occupation of Hungary. Both regions (Bačka and Baranja) were only geographical areas and had no any official administrative status either in Yugoslavia or in Hungary. User:Peacemaker67 wants to include infobox „fomer country“ in this article, and from his infobox, one can conclude that this geographical area was former country with its flag, capital, currency, etc, etc. It is not only that User:Peacemaker67 included this wrong infobox, but when other users told him that infobox is wrong, Peacemaker67 started revert war and continued to move his infobox back to article. It is obvious case of user which knowingly add false info to article trying, for some reason, to make that these two geographical areas look like a former country. Bačka and Baranja had no any kind of official administrative status, were not former country, had no flag, coat of arms, capital, leaders, currency, etc. Infobox that was introduced by Peacemaker67 is simply unacceptable for an encyclopaedia that aims to be accurate. If administrators iam to perform some action here, they should perform it against person that inventing non-existing former country and that tries to create infobox of that non-existing country in Wikipedia. If administrators are not familiar with this period of history of Bačka and Baranja, they should research by themselves what were administrative divisions of Yugoslavia and of Hungary. In Yugoslavia, both regions were part of province Danube Banovina. During Hungarian occupation, Bačka was part of Bacs-Bodrog county and Baranja was part of Baranya county. So, is infobox „former country“ proper infobox for two geographical regions with no administrative status? I think not, and several more users agree with that. User:Peacemaker67 is the only one who thinks that these geographical regions were some fictional former country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.146.192 ( talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The editor User:William S. Horn has made a legal threat on my talk page [178] and on the talk page of the Jennifer Horn article. [179] He has a self-confessed conflict of interest (spouse of the article's subject), and is demanding that the article be deleted or he will take legal action. -- Drm310 ( talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:
\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b
which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 ( talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 ( talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:
Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston ( talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.
I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.
This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.
-- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:
\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b
which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 ( talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 ( talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:
Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston ( talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.
I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.
This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.
-- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.
Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.
The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.
Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.
Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart 111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I have manually de-archived this thread to try to get some admin attention before it closes. The vandalism continues - this time the "facts" were reinserted with a bad direct link as a "reference". Fixing the link produces a Forbes profile which does not support the claimed facts anyway - here. This seems to be a clearly bad-faith attempt to reinsert the same dubious "facts" using fake/bad references, again, to create an attack page. Can someone please block the vandal in question? Stalwart 111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Could some involved editors please take a look at the template Template:Infobox women and impose a decision on its content, either way it goes? It has been the theatre of a slow-motion edit war between me and another editor for three months now. A previous ANI failed to put an end to this. I would like to achive any kind of consensus on this dispute (described in the previous ANI) so that this can finally end.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, can you please look into User:Sepsis II recent editing practice, on the Operation Pillar of Defense article.
Sepsis keep making cumulative reverts of unrelated edits/users, with uninformative outraged edit summaries(like "undoing shamelessly blatant propagandizing"). I have contact the user ( #Revert) explaining that he reverted several unrelated edits(creating collateral damage), asking him to make separate edit that address each issue with informative edit summaries. To which he responded with blanking my post and making the same revert. This time his edit summary stated "undoing acknowledged collateral damage", I contacted him again( #ARBPIA_notice)(maybe this not a duck, but some kind of miscommunication) stating that the same issues still stand and that I find his cumulative reverts disruptive, asking him to self-revert and if wish reintroduce each issue with appropriate edit summary or discuss this. To which he responded with blanking my post again.
So I'll appreciate if someone can look into this. Because honestly, I am really sick and tiered with the edit warring and general incivility on this article and I find Sepsis unexplained cumulative reverts, disregard to other users and refusal to engage only to prompt edit warring, cause tension and make collaboration even more difficult. Thanks Mor. -- Mor2 ( talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reason: Repeated WP:NPA despite repeated messages and warnings:
(PS: I do not recall that I've ever posted an ANI before.) -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Prompt attention to [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#"today is the birthday of Dattatreya"]] is required, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi admins, Fearing a potential edit war at lough neagh so raising the issue. User:Mo aimn is refusing to acknowledge the outcome of the discussion here Talk:Lough Neagh on topic "Basin Countries". I have corrected the vandalism but as this page is under 1RR I expect Mo to be back in 24hrs. Please can someone look into this.... Factocop ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, you, Factocop, alongside GoodDay and a whole load of others, are collectively responsible for almost 500 edits of edit warring and 440KiB of talk page discussion all over one frelling detail. And not a one of you has written anything about, say, the petrified wood that is one of the things that Lough Neagh is most famous for, and that forms a significant part of its entry in several other encyclopaedias, or the inflows and outflows, or the historical differences in water levels, or the geology.
So, having looked into it, I now have some questions: What use are you and they to the writing of this article, or indeed to Wikipedia? You've collectively and individually contributed a sum total of nothing on the topic in six and a half years. Moreover, you edited exactly one article during your three-month Troubles topic ban, and even that was Ireland-related, but the day it ended you're back at Troubles topics, and indeed at the very same article that got you topic banned for three months, with the same one-note melody. Are you simply incapable of substantive writing about anything else, so when banned from your one note you have nothing of worth to offer the encyclopaedia at all?
I note, almost in passing, that this edit is a revert of this edit that in turn was reverting you, in contravention of your restriction at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions.
I probably should have just blocked them for the portion I had to hat, but I tried to assume a little extra good faith. At this point it is easy to see they are unfamiliar, thinking they are, and are just trolling. I'm kind of busy right now so will just leave this in the capable hands of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This report concerns a recent interaction between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is the primary author (by edits). In response, Malleus made several personal attacks against Cornellier. After making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page ( an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ( "now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he proceeded to state on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ( "maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Reading the review it's clear the insults, disparaging remarks and accusations were unwarranted and a distortion of Cornellier's posts. To his credit Cornellier seems to have ignored them - the next person might not be able to resist such provocation. Chromium Oxide ( talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather skeptical of a new account that immediately complains at ANI about a personal attack directed at another user. That and the wikilawyering request to be unblocked and subsequent rants on his talk page [197] make me think Chromium Oxide was just here to cause drama. postdlf ( talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted, CrO2 does seem to pass the duck test, however I think a discussion on the merits of his original complaint (without regard for who the complainant is) is warranted. I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis: In what situations do you think calling someone a "fucking idiot" or "ignorant idiot" is acceptable? If you think that such gross violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are allowed, can you please start discussions at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to alter these policies to allow such conduct? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 08:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Smith012 is an old but infrequently used account (started editing under this name on July 3, 2009) that seems to have degenerated to an activist WP:SPA on South Asian Caste related articles. These articles fall under wikipedia discretionary sanctions ( discussion here), which can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Over the course of a lengthy period of time, his edits have repeatedly failed to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. Here, he even revert-warred with a bot I warned him once on his talk page [198], and tried to engage in dispute resolution on the article talk page [199], but he has ignored my requests [200] and continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Some kind of preventative measure, up to and including discretionary sanctions, may be necessary. Handyunits ( talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This user is violating Wikipedia policy on neutral sources, deleting referenced sources without justification. I have requested a third opinion and have reported him as a vandal to an administrator. I have requested dispute resolution in the form of a third opinion and have taken the issue to the talks page for other editors but so far this user has not complied in the interest of the article and continues to provide no justification. I have warned him about misconduct on Wikipedia and provided him a warning and i have requested a dispute resolution for the second time on the talks page. However this user is not seeking the resolution. Smith012 ( talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career ( | article | history | links | watch | logs).
The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg ( talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle ( talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 ( talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the SPI result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? -- 71.231.75.104 ( talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Iamthemuffinman ( talk · contribs)
Folks, just to let you know I have indef blocked Iamthemuffinman with talk page access revoked, for a series of events that should be clear from his talk page - essentially, personal attacks at User talk:MisterShiney, and escalating threats (including a threat to sock) on his talk page. Anyone who knows him will remember his past battlefield approach and personal attacks, his vandalism spree, his global account lock, and the goodwill a number of us extended to him to allow him back. In the circumstances, I think my actions are justified. I'm bringing this here to ask people to be on the lookout for any socking from him - it's late where I am, and I'm off to bed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we have some socking as was suspected here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion, which I'm guessing needs to be renamed now if iamthemuffinman is the sockmaster. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wondering if an admin could have a look at whether Givton Hanoch could be moved to Hanoch Givton. I note that three articles have been deleted at the latter title due to the identity of the author. Hack ( talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways; he clearly did run an unauthorized bot, but changing [[A|B]] to [[B]], where B redirects to A, is something done automatically by authorized bots. Just because "A" is something he hates, doesn't mean that that that particular edit was wrong. If he changed [[A|C]] to [[B|C]], that would be different.
I'm not necessarily saying that the block should be overturned, but the bot performed a legitimate, approved, function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Lukabeograd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is returning every six months or so to anachronistically credit Yugoslav results in various sporting articles exclusively to Serbia. This includes results both from the pre-1992 SFR Yugoslav era and from the 1992-2006 FR Yugoslav/Serbian and Montenegrin era.
Such edits make up the large majority of the user's contributions. They are subtle and do not necessarily get noticed within reasonable time (some of the changes I reverted this morning were three months old). But they are POV and problematic. See, for instance Water polo at the Summer Olympics. Lukabeograd's change is this. Note the presence of Croatia, another part of the former Yugoslavia, on the list, demonstrating why this is problematic (there is no reason to prefer the one over the other).
The point has been flagged up on the Lukabeograd's talk page three times before today, including two formal warnings of Arbcom discretionary sanctions applying to the Balkan region ( WP:ARBMAC). I raised the issue with the admin who issued both Arbcom warnings and he asked me to bring it here for another admin to review. I've raised it here instead of at WP:AE because AE would seem to be a touch extreme and faff-filled (but if someone feels the need to transfer it, please do). Kahastok talk 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
wacky stuff going on at Talk:Individualism can somebody intervene. Thanks. -- Penbat ( talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a personal attack in this contrubution and violation of this policy.-- Rapsar ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Following a disagreement with Nableezy in which he opined that a source that published content stating that it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires was nevertheless a reliable source, he proceeded to summarily nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I find this unnecessarily combative.
Nor is this the first time of such practise. Nableezy had never edited Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants created by Darkness Shines in March, yet he felt compelled to request a speedy nomination in December after a disagreement with Darkness Shines. Ankh. Morpork 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So Ma'an did in fact include what you falsely accuse them of not including, and your charge of it being an inaccurate and antisemitic news organization displays your partisanship more acutely than it does theirs. Having once again provided me with an assist, do you want to stop here? nableezy - 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Medics said the boy was hit by machine gun fire, either from Israeli helicopters or tanks that took part in the incident.
Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.
The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.
Modern ignoramuses can start here [204]. All wire services move opinion pieces, some in large numbers, and have for decades. This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant. One or the other. Dan Murphy ( talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Wrk678 made this silly post about a at the time living person [216]. They readded [217] it when someone attempted to remove it. They then made more silly suggestions (the victim may have died by this time so perhaps technically not a BLP violation) [218] despite the fact our article which had been pointed out to them offered fairly obvious explainations as I later pointed out here [219] (before just deleting the entire section). If that's not enough for a indef, I have been monitoring this editor since I first saw them since I have good reason to believe based on similarity of question type (e.g. on chemicals and harm to the body) and writing style and other obvious similarities that the editor is yet another sock of User:Kci357 who was finally blocked for good for good after exhausting the communities patience at the encyclopaedia proper, to be reallowed back in after implying they would behave only to quickly return to said behave and get blocked again. [220] BTW despite their denials [221], I'm confident Kci is a sock of User:Kj650 and many other identities besides at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, quite a few of which were never blocked simply abandoned hence the fairly incomplete list. I never bothered open a CU since I believe it will have to be based on behaviour evidence alone and the editor's behavious seemed to be borderline acceptable (in particularly they seem to have stayed away from deleting stuff from articles they disagree with even when it's sourced while adding their own unsourced stuff). Nil Einne ( talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pretty unexciting stuff I'm afraid, but could an admin cleanup the page move mess between Wikipedia:JumpSoft --> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JumpSoft --> JumpSoft. There is a substantial amount of page history at Wikipedia:JumpSoft that could do with merging into JumpSoft. I haven't requested this via CSD tags because Wikipedia:JumpSoft is not a valid redirect to article space and therefore ultimately needs deleting. Pol430 talk to me 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have worked hard on the Tom Rice article, but yet Moriori deleted most of the information I made on 00:56, December 23, 2012 [ Dif] that I felt was need to create a good article and the reason Moriori deleted the information according to a message left on my ( talk) page that improve it from a bloggy, pov, poorly written mishmash to a reasonably encyclopedic article (an ongoing task). I took it from this abomination to this. I was trying to make the Tom Rice article to the Tim Scott article. Also to me the following left on my ( talk) page sounds like a threat to me: "I have reverted you and suggest you don't revert me again. Instead, if you believe I am wrong you can report me elsewhere or ask for comment elsewhere." and this is because I accused Moriori of vandalism which I have felt she has committed on the said article. Sk8terguy27 Talk 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) User Moriori has been notified that he/she is subject of a discussion here.
Based on reading this and a look through your edits, a copyright investigation is looking likely, as it seems the majority of your "work" violates copyright. Already cleaned up one article and am finding more. Wizardman 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) More copyvios/ plagiarism found at David Bennett (American football); nearly all of the material has been ripped directly from [222] and [223]. -- MuZemike 04:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've given a final warning, which I think is quite generous. -- Rs chen 7754 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an administrator please look into fixing this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_False_Positive 68.50.128.91 ( talk) 23:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Something's not right with this account that was created a few minutes ago: Special:Contributions/Lljjp. Could an admin examine this? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
An SPI has been created for User:Lljjp as a sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but now this user is continuing to bombard my talk page with accusations after being told to stop. Need some assistance from an admin to make this stop. 72Dino ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Earlier today, I removed about a dozen images identified as non-free from List of architects of Baku. About half those images were included in the list section; the other half were in a gallery displaying the work of various listed architects. None of the images had NFCC rationales supporting their inclusion in that article. No argument has been advanced suggesting that such use can be allowed under applicable NFCC policy.
One minute later, User:Yerevanci began restoring all the images to the article, declaring them to be public domain. In response to my remocal of the images, he altered their underlying file pages, changing the original identification of the images from nonfree to public domain. Yerevanci was not the original uploader of the images, and there is no reason to believe, especially given the very short timespan involved, that Yerevanci made any significant efforts to verify the applicability of his boilerplate tagging. In general, the public domain claims he makes with regard to the images require that either the date of death of the photographer or the circumstances of the original publication be established; however, for all of these images, the identity of the photographer has not been provided, and the original publication has not been ascertained. These are simply photographs found on various websites, with no discernible provenance, of 20th-century subjects. Absent more information, we cannot presume these images to be PD. The original tagging was careful and correct, and Yerevanci should not have summarily altered it or restored the images.
Yerevanci is a combative user (see an earlier section on this page, for example), and the article is already entangled in the sort of disputes that often spread across articles even tangentially related to ethnic controversies. Some of his other image uploads/uses are clearly problematic at best (eg, putting a nonfree image in a BLP infobox). I suspect community intervention is likely to be more productive, perhaps necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
“ | originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication. | ” |
This user has range of ip addresses here.Already used many for the same cause and some of them get blocked too.Some diff,s are with this range [224],with other range [225].Did all disruption with same tone and in common articles as Vidya Balan, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara ,[[Wanted (2009 film)]]. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 07:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
He's back [226]. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about
User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"
Many thanks
Rich(MTCD) T| C| E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.
My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.
Many thanks, Boomage ( talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage
Hello albert square
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).
Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage ( talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please enforce the no legal threats policy against this POV pusher? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Joy doesn't have the half of it, alas. There's a whole theatrical company of single-purpose characters here:
They all have interests that span only a small set of articles:
Uncle G ( talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about
User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"
Many thanks
Rich(MTCD) T| C| E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.
My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.
Many thanks, Boomage ( talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage
Hello albert square
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).
Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage ( talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have an IP-user here who vandalises spontaneously, and has received several warnings this year, each removed with immature retorts.. there are such gaps between each incident that it makes it difficult to call it persistent vandalism and indef. block, I imagine. After a minor bout with said idiot using the IP, they are now using the talk page as a soapbox to condemn Wiki practices, its editors, Jimbo Wales, etc, and declare themselves immune to being blocked or otherwise prevented from further vandalising Wiki at will. Wonder if someone can look into the comments, and determine a legitimate course of action. Personally, I suspect this may be a banned editor with a no-life grudge.. but given my lack of knowledge into who has been banned, or the reaction they may have, I cannot suggest who to checkuser to help determine who may be behind it, if indeed anyone. Perhaps others may have a better idea who this childish troll is, from experience.
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the User:Rrodic case is so recent, please review the edits of User:Mosalman. He has the appearances of being yet another sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000. He is reverting any edits by User:Marco Guzman, Jr and is welcoming editors (including himself) that have edited articles related to NYU Poly. The account was created shortly after Rrodic was blocked. Oh, and he just gave one of his other blocked sockpuppet accounts a barnstar here. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I reverted one edit by User:Marco Guzman, Jr, which was clearly inapropriate and promotional ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Higher_education&diff=528913137&oldid=528912513)-- Mosalman ( talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And no, I am not related to Rrodic in anyway-- Mosalman ( talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci ( talk, that IP is not at all related to me. The IP is also trying to keep the PhD level UTexas, Austin(which was oringinally there) and remove the MS level CalPoly, Pomona which Marco put up for promotional purposes. I think that article shouldn't have any picture because the pictures are POVs-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mathsci ( talk).....but I am not a sockpuppet account. :)-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
How am I a troll? And what's wrong about welcoming people? These are Wiki love messages-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I welcomed myself only so that I get a list of Wiki rules that I can study. I tried helping out other new users also in this way-- Mosalman ( talk) 06:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed - also
Bobagirl (
talk ·
contribs) -
Alison
❤
07:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I know own-talk-page issues from blocked users aren't that big of a deal, but seeing as Mangoeater1000 has a long, disruptive history, and seeing as he's escalated from general nastiness here to full-on name-calling and gay-bashing here, is there any way we can say that in the future, all of his socks should have talk page access summarily revoked? Just seems like it would save admins a lot of time, if he's going to make it a regular thing to harass other editors from his talk pages after getting blocked. Perhaps by leaving a note under the sockmaster notice at the main account's userpage, telling any admins implementing future blocks that they should revoke talk page access while they're at it? I'm not quite sure what policy/convention is on this, but his behavior's obviously problematic, and he's done nothing to show that the community should have faith that his sockpuppets will use their own talk pages for legitimate purposes after getting blocked. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Black Kite has blocked talk page and email access. That's all that can be done for the moment. Mathsci ( talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Earth100 has had a history of problematic editing. Over the past 2 weeks, he has been involved in an edit war, and I brought him to AN/I for continued personal attacks and fighting against another editor. As of that AN/I he had added original research to articles ( [2]), reverted edits that had cleaned up references and removed grammar errors ( [3]), and was warned for what another editor labeled a personal attack ( [4]). I've been a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a couple years, so I have a lot of cyclone articles on my watchlist, and I noticed that even after I had tried to explain to him the rules of original research ( [5]), he was still adding original research ( [6]), removing maintenance tags without adding references ( [7] and [8]). I have attempted to explain to him numerous times what is and is not allowed ( [9], [10], [11], and [12]), but he has continued, and refuses to listen ( [13] - the only thing actually in the reference that he listed was the crossing of Palawan after going through the Sulu sea. There was no mentioning of weakening to a category 2 or 1 storm, and there is no mention of decreased convection on its southeastern side). The pattern of disruptive editing has just continued, and any time I have tried to actually have discussion and get proper sources, he just tells me that the sources are wrong, and he's an expert, so it's not original research ( [14] and [15]). For the most part, he is helpful to the project, but errors end up getting introduced when information is not properly referenced (and even more so when information not in the source) is placed in. Inks.LWC ( talk) 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll also note that Inks.LWC initial post here is fairly well done as it contains many diffs and not so much verbiage. Two suggestions: First, never call anything
vandalism which is not blatant and intentional disruption -- use the term disruptive editing instead. Secondly discussing on a talk page is highly preferred instead of relying on edit summaries, so this
User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha is good but it would be better here:
User_talk:Earth100#Typhoon_Bopha
Talk:Typhoon_Bopha because you get more help for other editors than way.
NE Ent 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)fix
NE Ent
12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Earth100 is going to acknowledge that what he's been doing is inappropriate or disruptive. He's still not properly citing claims ( [16] - where an image made for the Wikipedia article was used as a source in that very own article, this morning), he's engaging in original research ( [17]), and he's becoming more antagonistic against me ( [18]). I don't want to badger him into coming here if he doesn't want to participate in the AN/I, but at the same time, I (and the other WPTC editors) don't have time to correct disruptive edits (nor should that be our responsibility on this large of a scale). Inks.LWC ( talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The only problem: He does not know what is introspection. He continues using bad syntax, poor grammars, unsourced and incorrect information, etc.. -- Meow 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Meow will you stop that?! Every single thing you said was freaking false info. I source, i fix, i fix grammars, and fill the article with TRUE INFO! Meow, how do you like if someone contributes and a freaking dude stops by and says you don't do ANYTHING! Once in for all, stop meow, i can't stand you behavior. Can't you say anything true about me, as i KNOW that you intended that.-- ✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Although Enemy of the Jihadis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for personal attacks and harassment, I have this morning received a further dozen abusive emails from this account. Please disable email access, and please remember to do so in all future recurrendces of such abusive vandalism! RolandR ( talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Milesgive3030- is at it now. Blocked, but still allowed to email. I now have a large number of grossly offensive emails. I don;t particularly care, but this needs to stop. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a couple of run-ins with him in the past as well, though your issues with him appear to make mine fade into insignificance. I for one hope that something positive comes from
TimTrent's complaint to law enforcement. I've left a suggestion on Tim's talk page as to where he can find contact details for police aid. —
Oli OR
Pyfan!
11:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Roland - I don't think there's much chance of that. When people send email through wikipedia, it basically just acts like any other email client you can name (gmail, outlook, etc.) If Wikipedia were to be prosecuted for emails sent using its software, then those other clients should be prosecuted as well for all the illegal emails sent through them. — Oli OR Pyfan! 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
@Maggie Dennis: Previous discussions on email abuse have produced nothing, with pathetic suggestions that new users might need to send ten emails immediately, or even 100 if they are part of an education project, therefore anyone victimized needs to suck it up. The WMF should provide serious resources to (a) add a filter to email; and (b) provide a staffer who will follow up available legal paths with extreme LTA cases such as the one under discussion (someone who specializes in such things). It's lovely to have people adding feedback to articles, but serious money also needs to be spent on serious problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In November, IP 93.42.210.45 (see User talk:93.42.210.45) was blocked per WP:NLT for a series of edits and edit-summaries at Freeboard (skateboard). More recently, a number of addresses from the same range (93.42.2XX.XX) have appeared at the same article to make ostensibly the same edits (removing sourced content and replacing it with un-sourced promo-spam about a particular Italian company that makes a competitor product). The IP has also contested a number of PRODs to Italian skateboarder articles on the basis that he/she is "doing a university assignment" on the subjects in question. I think it is more likely that the person is an advocate/employee of the company for which they are spamming.
IPs include:
There may be others but the edit histories of each of the above are almost entirely focussed on this one article and the collective group have been editing in this way since early 2012.
I have asked for semi-protection over at WP:RFPP and have informed the editor responsible for reverting most of the vandalism to date ( SQGibbon). But I have since realised the IP-range commonality and have come to the conclusion that the article would not be the subject of nearly as much vandalism were this IP range prevented from editing it. Other IP edits to the article have been entirely good faith and helpful and we certainly don't want to stop that. If action is taken against the IP range then the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw my RFPP request.
Regardless of the content of the edits, moving to a new IP address and continuing to edit would seem to be a clear case of WP:EVASION. The content of the edits simply compounds the problem. Stalwart 111 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Sir or Madam, please delete/deactivate my global account on WP whith immediate effect. I made some contributions on en.WP and de.WP. (You can check all of them.) - I'm deeply sorrow, but I can no longer ignore all the rude and impolite behaviour, that I have encountered. You may check everything I've done, there is nothing to hide. - What I won't stand any longer are all the people that don't follow the basic rules and are just outright indecent and impolite. Thank you and goodbye Yours -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing that I can see needing any admin action here or on the Deuth Wikipedia. Seems to be a content dispute and the editor got upset with a section being referred to as off topic (I think...Bing translations of German are a little difficult to read). I have reached out to the editor. Now the ball is in their court.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
User:98.113.167.211 posted this
[23] on my user page, which I consider to be a personal attack.
The user is an SPA who has only edited
Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, adding long unsourced claims and statements, introduced with phrases such as “We spoke to an alumnus of the yeshiva who prefers to remain anonymous.” My tagging of these statements with a
who? and a
citation needed led to this outburst.
Arjayay (
talk)
11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Reported user: YahwehSaves ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YahwehSaves refuses to sign her posts with signatures, escalating what should be accidental or newbie-type incidents that are normally resolved upon notification. This adds to frustration from editors not knowing the source of comments, confusing them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign YahwehSaves' signature for her. Unfortunately, bots dont always catch missing signatures. The relevant behavioral guideline is Wikipedia:Signatures, which states "Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned."
Looking at YahwehSaves' talk page, she was notified of using signatures by User:SineBot on 5 occasions from May 2011 until even now in December 2012. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. In 2012 alone, users have left personalized messages offering help to learn how to place signatures. [29] [30] [31] [32] One user even started signing YahwehSaves' themselves everytime a response was left. [33] [34]; the same frustrated editor left a message on my talk page believing "nor will you get any acknowledgement back even if you confront (YahwehSaves) on it directly." I left a message assuming good faith for YahwehSaves on December 19, offering suggestions but requesting the problem either be fixed or that she start a discussion asking for any help needed. [35]. Afterwards, YahwehSaves left another post without a signature on an article talk page.
I would recommend blocking YahwehSaves indefinitely until the user provides acknowledgement of their behavior and assures that she will begin conforming with WP:SIGNATURE. I would do it myself, but am semi-involved in some discussions where she is present. Certainly there is more damaging behavior on WP, but this persistently disruptive behavior has left editors that deal with YahwehSaves frustrated ... and it's so easy to fix.— Bagumba ( talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What's odd is that, having chosen a proselytizing account name (one that I would prefer to see changed, but which appears to be acceptable under current username guidelines) the editor is shying away from publicizing it. One would think that they would want to see it all over the place!
In any case, while guidelines certainly aren't mandatory, one should always have a good reason to not follow them, and it's hard to see what reason YS could have for using a signature other than "I don't want to." Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This user, judging from the talk page, also seems to have had a fair number of adjustment issues aside from forgetting to sign posts. Intothat darkness 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
For random, slightly helpful notes, I will recall that we ended up blocking an editor once who refused to actually provide a link to his userpage in his sig (he had created a plaintext custom signature.) Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember the user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The current wording was edited on 7 June 2012. I see nothing in the talk page discussing the change in wording. Arguably the edit was a simplification of prior wording without a change in meaning.
The edit was a wordsmithing of a bold edit on 7 June 2012, adding:
During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.
I reject the notion that a bold addition to a page can transform a guideline into an actionable policy with no community discussion!
I'm reverting, unless someone can point me to the discussion leading to the major change. Let the community discuss.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who recently told Bagumba they weren't going to be able to get YahwehSaves to sign their posts, after seeing Bagumba trying to elicit that courtesy from the user. My comment wasn't intended to provoke an ANI posting... I was just trying to save Bagumba from wasting their time because I already knew what the outcome would be. All attempts to discuss signatures with the user go ignored, whether on their talk page or on article talk pages. Just exactly why that is, I have no idea. YahwehSaves and I have been able to have conversations about other topics (mostly military medals), and obviously they want to contribute here, albeit somewhat eccentrically at times. If there is some reason why he or she can not sign, I do wish they would tell us, which would make it easier to understand why this is a problem. When a user doesn't sign their comments, it can create confusion in conversation threads and inconvenience other editors who come to the thread later and have to do research in the history to figure out who said what, or cause routine edit conflicts with sinebot when conversations are going back and forth. That ends up becoming a disruption. At the same time, we don't want to be capricious and/or eager to levy rules on people just because they don't conform to our expectations or extend the same courtesies we take for granted and/or extend ourselves. So... this is really a question of balance, isn't it? On the one side is editor freedom to do as they wish, and on the other side is the detriment to others caused by the mild but repetitive effect of the disruption. Where do we strike that balance? I'm not sure myself. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
For those waiting for a response from YahwehSaves, edits at two different articles since this thread was started still have no signatures. [36] [37] Like AzureCitizen, I also now believe this will not change. A block seems to be the only action that might change the behavior.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I blocked the account for 24 hours. The more problematic thing for me is that the user has not responded to several requests on their talk page and has not responded here. I will unblock if the user agrees to change their editing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could i get someone to look a User talk:FY789 actions - Despite being warned 2 times he/she seems not to care about our copy right policies. Has added 3 times now (may be 4 times by the time I have written this) is copy and pasting copyright info to the Australia article from here over and over. user has been warned 2 times and is simply adding back the text and not replying on there talk page. Looking for a block or some sort of admin actions pls. Moxy ( talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No. This isn't a copyright violation. I am putting it my own words.
FY789 ( talk) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I remember this user from a while back – this is a sock of Bowei Huang 2 ( talk · contribs). -- MuZemike 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently edit warring with FROESES ( talk · contribs) who is removing part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and keeps on reinserting Islamic honorifics in the Caliph article. I've already reverted the MoS six times and the article twice. The user has been notified on their talk page by me and two other users. Can someone take a look at it? jonkerz ♠talk 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Omerli issues death threats (to an active but blocked user) [38]-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello I have reason to suspect this user is yet another block evader. In recent days there has been a spate of IP vandalism attacks on Peter Hitchens and several IPs have been blocked in connection with this. The users have then been coming on my talk page and writing abuse and offensive remarks as well as other editors who dare to challenge them. Firstly IP 94.7.158.48 vandalised Peter Hitchens and hurled abuse at me. While they were blocked IP 2.223.63.122 came on the article and made the same edits, they then abused my talk page, the talk page of "Clockback" and deleted my comments on the blocked IPs talk page. They have subsequently been blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion. Yesterday IP 94.14.142.147 vandalised the Mail on Sunday article with the same libellous remarks about Hitchens then proceded to write very abusive messages on my talk page and the talk page of user Clockback. Admin Wormthatturned very kindly blocked them for 31 hours which has now expired but I feel this is a sustained campaign against me and Clockback by a serial block evader. I would like this user investigating to see if this abusive behaviour can be stopped. Thank you. Christian1985 ( talk) 01:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought i put an IP to IP message on his talkpage asking other IPS to leave him alone, for the sake of not only themselves but also for all IP editors, for Christian1985 and for the good of wikipedia. 199.101.61.190 ( talk) 09:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone review the edits and accounts of User:72nino and User:Dinobasher. They are purely disruptive edits by someone who has a beef with me. Thanks, 72Dino ( talk) 04:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
New user Special:Contributions/Saloon.cat is unusually energetic in proposing deletions. Well, WP does ask people to be bold, so I can't censure him for energy. He may however become a little too energetic: see Talk:Maggie Out. I have to turn my attention away from my computer; perhaps somebody else could keep a friendly eye on his edits. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor User:Evelynheaven (whose IP is almost definetely User:76.104.128.57) is claiming to be Evelyn Amielia Eirayonia Heaven Bovaxx, possessed by God and Adam. The user sent me an email claiming they were wanted by the US, Russia, and Britain and that I should put their edit back after I reverted this edit by their IP to Eve. See also User:Evelynheaven/sandbox. Could an admin take care of this? Thanks! Vacation nine 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AndyTheGrump has repeatedly called me a troll and accused me of being a sockpuppet in this talk page discussion. [39] [40] [41] [42] When Andy removed warnings from his talk page, his edit comment was "fuck off, troll" [43] I asked him to please focus on content, not contributors, and not to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without filing at SPI, which I saw an admin had told someone who did that a few days ago. Andy was warned five times, including by another editor who said "Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive": [44] [45], [46] [47] [48] Thank you. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Trolling by blocked ipsock of banned editor Mikemikev |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've looked at this sequence of events. While editing under the influence is not ideal, and calling someone a "fuckwit" is not something I would encourage, my judgement is that Andy's behaviour here falls short of the blockable. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to lance this debate and drain it of the puss.
I suggest this request for immediate action be closed down with prejudice. Hasteur ( talk) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a new, and rather inflammatory comment on the talk page of White privilege. Because there has been a history of previous WP:CAN violations at this page, I am perhaps more sensitive to the language of this comment, but it appears to me to be threatening additional canvassing.
the comment is from an ip editor ( User Talk:71.127.139.4), and can be found here
-- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The account User:Sonymusicireland (which shares a name with the record label of Niall Breslin) deleted half his page the other week. [53] [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.202 ( talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My recent interaction with Administrator KillerChihuahua has been extremely unpleasant. Here are just some of the many words this person has used to attack me:
"ignorant", "abstruce", "sarcastic", "patronizing", "insulting", "childish", "not civil", "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy", "troll-like" and many other suggestions. Of course always hiding behind the old idea, 'I'm only talking about how you are behaving and not name-calling'.
This all started with a well sourced edit I made at the God page which was reverted and which turned into a couple topics I began at Talk:God. Administrator KillerChihuahua responded to everything I posted and had a very strong opinion on the subjects I brought up, evidenced by the overwhelming counter point content this person added in response to my points. This part is fine.
What I believe is highly questionable is how the Administrator mixes the role of being an adviser of Wikipedia policies with being a person with a personal bias on a topic. This includes exaggerating the advisory and authority role when no major violation of policy is being committed. It includes the Administrator bullying and making veiled warnings and threats, again, without major justification. Example:
In general, it seems to me this is an Administrator drunk with power and control who makes me question whether or not I want to be a part of a community that allows people like this to throw around their authority to push editorial biases and enforce their beliefs. I am still new here and have been learning the ropes, but being treated this way leaves a bad taste, especially when it's coming from an Administrator. If some experienced people have time, I'd like to know what they think of the content on my talk page, User talk:Allisgod and on Talk:God between myself and KillerChihuahua. I acknowledge I have made mistakes in the dialogue, but I don't believe they warrant the kind of treatment I've received and most importantly, I would think an Administrator is held at a higher standard. Allisgod ( talk) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I should have organized some diffs:
1) VERY liberal use of Wikipedia policy to force her way and close discussion [55]
2) UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting...nasty and snotty...bitchy" [56]
3) UNJUSTIFIED THREAT of hounding [57]
4) Making UNJUSTIFIED Accusations of 'assuming bad faith' when she is clearly assuming bad faith using metaphors [58], accusing me of "trolling" [59], accusing me of "hostility and rudeness" [60].
5) More UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "ignorant" [61]
6) More subtle THREATS - "If you ever actually understand anything I say on the first go, I might decide you don't need help. but as it is you are merely providing more evidence that you do." [62] Allisgod ( talk) 11:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll try the instructions again to fix those diffs but I'm frankly shocked at your quick responses here and how there are apparently no standards for an administrator's language or harassment, not even a 'hey, maybe you shouldn't be name-calling, bullying, threatening users who you simply disagree with being that you are an Administrator'. In that case, I find this website to be basically corrupt and discouraging to better contributors. Allisgod ( talk) 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Just so no one thinks I'm abusing my "authority" or trying to "hide" something, I'm making this request here. I would like Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 blanked as I'd rather not have my name come up with the absurd discussions taking place on those pages. Blanking them will still make it possible for anyone who wishes to do so to review the history and anything on them, but will prevent search engines from associating me with that filth. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP address User talk:69.27.21.250, issued to Neumont University, may be involved in the process of legal proceedings against the WMF or it's users. In accordance with WP:NLT, could this IP be blocked from editing until this is over? I'm not sure what, if anything Philippe is able to tell anyone at this time, however Philippe may be able to elaborate on this. I know this IP isn't all bad most likely, but probably more than one user on this IP is taking action against Wikipedia for some reason.
Thanks, gwickwire talk edits 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding.
Incidentally, the more relevant quote from WP:NLT is this one:
So I'm afraid that Deskana is wrong - one cannot edit Wikipedia while legal action is underway. So if the IP is involved in legal action against the WMF they must not edit. If they do, they should be reminded that they cannot edit, and if editing continue, they should be blocked to ensure there is no editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, that IP has made no legal threat, and has not filed any action against the WMF. I'm seeking contact with them in a matter that's not public, and my message was intentionally vague. Sorry for any confusion, but there should be no block of that IP (for that reason, anyway - I make no determination about any other block reasons that may be outstanding.) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Belchfire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
He's just labeled this edit summary [66] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller ( talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus a few redirects.
I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR ( talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working
Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.
I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.
In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.
In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'
If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"
Being as there are current pages:
Nicholas van Rensselaer
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V)
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V)
And yes even a:
Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
and lets not leave this one out in the cold either:
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)
I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR ( talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FiveSidedFistagon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII ( talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ( [68]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [69]. AllyD ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Belchfire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
He's just labeled this edit summary [71] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller ( talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus a few redirects.
I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR ( talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working
Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.
I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.
In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.
In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'
If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"
Being as there are current pages:
Nicholas van Rensselaer
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V)
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V)
And yes even a:
Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
and lets not leave this one out in the cold either:
Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)
I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR ( talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FiveSidedFistagon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII ( talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
After a little investigating, I am now even more certain that the reporting IP is a sock. Any admins who feel like a sock hunt, come on over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: The IP user had indeed been blocked as a sock. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This WP:SPA user has repeatedly created articles about his business Bridgnorth Mole Catcher and removed speedy notices from the page as well as removing notifications from User talk:Daveno14 ( [73]); also trying to use that Talk page as an alternative placement of the advertising material. The user has also resorted to placing a speedy notice on another editor's User page: [74]. AllyD ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User 255000 has made several reports to the Username admin board. While those users are problematic Meridian has not made any attempt to talk to the users to sort out the situation, and problematic behaviour is best tackled with the correct policies. Username policy shouldn't be used because it allows an editor to come back with a different name and continue previous behaviour. Note that Meridian is young, male, has English as a second language, wants to be an admin, uses Twinkle and rollback, and has several "vandal patrol" style pages listed on their user page. Individually none of these are concerning, but collectively they are a useful flag for editors who may be making over-enthusiastic contributions to the admin / meta side of WP rather than building content. This is a problem because it damages gnomes, some of whom will just drop out of contributing. Like I say, it's only gentle guidance that this person needs. -- 87.113.116.168 ( talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks! Well, I knew my mistakes regarding these issues for not engaging them. Sorry for that guys. Yes, I don't discuss them to the user I'm reporting because it is already given that their only intention on why they registered to Wikipedia is to edit only that interests them and also to use Wikipedia as a mean of promotion. I also report users that has already made bad faiths although I doesn't apply this to all (and that is why I got here). Maybe I really made deeds that is bad for others but I will and I am trying to fix those because it is hard for a Wikipedian to work when someone is not feeling great with you. Well, sorry for that IP and I will work on that and re-prove myself to make myself worthy with this right given onto me. Regards, Mediran ( t • c) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is single purpose account that has been editing [75], [76] the MusclePharm page removing large chunks of sourced content and replacing it with corporately prepared material, claiming the previously added material is "outdated". Despite numerous requests to discuss edits on the article's talk page, warnings about WP:COI and content blanking, this user continues to edit war, and insert unsourced material. Since this is a publicly traded company, and based on the language of the material inserted, this appears to be a WP:COI situation where an employee or advocate of the company is removing material and added unencyclopedic material for public relations purposes. -- Yankees76 Talk 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few hours ago Toddst1 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) discovered that GloZell Green ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been subject to an AFD in June that closed as delete and based on the long series of deletions in the page's history, deleted the article and salted it. However, after a DRV that closed as "no consensus", the article was recreated in someone's sandbox and then moved back into the mainspace, after which it went under AFD again but that closed as keep. As I do not think Toddst1 will be responding to the message I left him that quickly, I think it would be better to get the word out here to fix this error as it was a valid article that met the issues stated by the original AFD.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Benyoch's contributions to Wikipedia were "generally" constructive, but he is unable to accept criticism and this has led to Wikihounding that is most definitely not constructive. I first became aware of Benyoch when he made some edits to New Lambton, New South Wales (I have most Hunter Region related articles on my watchlist) which, although flawed in their implementation, [77] represented a reasonable attempt by an editor with only 9 edits in his history. I had no real interaction with Benyoch until March 2012, when he started editing Paterson, New South Wales (also on my watchlist), reverting the edit of a well established editor, [78] and adding an image gallery of random pictures of the area. [79] The reversion of the other editor also restored some categorisation errors that had previously been made by Benyoch. [80] In fact Benyoch's edit hadn't been a reversion of a single edit, it was a reversion to an earlier version of the article, which reverted reasonable edits by 2 humans and a bot. [81] After a "discussion" about that on the article's talk page, in a case of what appears to be "tit for tat", Benyoch headed to Talk:Raymond Terrace, New South Wales where he started a discussion titled " Intention to delete gallery of pictures", although the article did not actually contain a gallery. [82] Although that discussion went on for two weeks, there was then a generall lull until I made a blunder (I blame Firefox) at Vacy, New South Wales. Although I tried to explain this on the talk page, [83] Benyoch subsequently started attacking me and the civility level dropped. As I explained at the DRN discussion that I tried to start,( link), Benyoch resorted to writing inappropriate edit summaries, [84] [85] [86] [87] making baseless allegations, [88] and resorting to the odd personal attack, even attacking me on my talk page. [89] As well as that direct attack, he added a few non-constructive trolls to existing discussions there. [90] Benyoch chose not to participate in the DRN discussion, despite a reminder form another editor. [91] Instead, he resorted to puerile attacks on his talk page, such as this one that I removed when I fixed his archiving for him. [92] Since then, he has made some thinly veiled attacks, obviously still aimed at me, [93] but persists in wikihounding at articles that he has never edited. At Talk:Steven D. Binder, not content with this attack, two hours later he added this post, in which he refers to my alternate account, which is rarely used for anything other than edits in my own userspace. It has only been this month that I've started using the account to do some work using AWB. In the spirit of WP:DENY, I reverted the edits, although I did note in the edit summary, "Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor". I had let it rest there, but today, Benyoch reappeared at Talk:Steven D. Binder and, in his first edit today and the first since posting there previously, struck out a comment that I had made to another editor, with the edit summary "Strikethru: Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor." a cut and paste of my own. [94] Just to clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, as I explained elsewhere, I made that post because I had responded to that editor, explaining I was busy and would address his post in a few hours, [95] but instead of giving me the courtesy of waiting to me allow to respond, he posted more stuff and then immediately rushed to DRN about an issue that had barely been discussed - the comment was valid and not an attack, just an expression of dismay. In short, there was no reason for Benyoch's post. There are other examples that seem to point to this editor following me around Wikipedia; this edit 20 minutes after mine on an article he'd never edited previously, and it was the only article he'd edited that day. Similarly, Benyoch's only edits for 9 November 2012 were to City of Lake Macquarie, an article he had never edited before and which I had edited only hours earlier. [96] On their own, these edits don't really seem out of the ordinary but, together with edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder and the attack on my talk page, I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding. At this point, I'm hoping that a third party will at least warn him about wikihounding. There's no point me doing so, anything I post is ignored and deleted quickly. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Benyoch has been notified of this discussion, here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Too quote an editor above, 'How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution'? Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK boys, why not just give me your warning about wikihounding, as The Legend wants, and any other warnings you like, and be done with it. Then I will be off. You wont ever hear from me again. I am closing my account - the reason: AussieLegend's editorial bullshit. There ya go AussieLegend - the place is all yours, just as you want it to be. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a curious matter that no one has yet thoroughly analysed AussieLegend's critique of me here, wherein you will find links to the diffs in question. Hoary has made a stab at it, but mainly deals with the peripherals rather than the substance. And so editors will have to make an effort and read around to see how everything has to be done his way. Have none of you the gumption to take an alternative opinion and stand up for the weaker editor who gets thrashed by the stronger over such small things? Not one of you, thus far, I notice. Ask Aussie about the time he told me, more or less, that I had nothing valuable to contribute or say until I could match his 72,000 edits. I had less than a 1000 at that time; so being a newbie is more than just a start date. Ask him why he didnt demonstrate full disclosure by reporting how I thanked him for an edit on HMAS Cerberus? Ask him why he will report some alleged houndings because I am said to more or less immediately make an edit after he has on a page, but not report all the other time he has made an edit on a page/s and I didnt do anything? You see, for AussieLegend his claim to 'full disclosure' is selective self-puffery and, in my view, dishonestly so because all he does is game the system to support his critique of others. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit? Why can it not be after him? Unfortunately for me Aussie and I live in the same geographical region, and so our watchlist would be similar. in fact, when AussieLegend mmyakes an edit watchlist gives me a mental prompt as to my interest in that article; and as with so many articles on my watch list I go visit that page to check the validity of the edit and to make a contribution. That is my methodology. I didnt think it to be a big deal, but AussieLegend wants his special space around articles, in my view he wants to maintain a form of ownership. Selective reporting to a 'tribunal' such as this is nothnig more than gaming the system in order to discredit another editor. Its about time someone seriously examined his methodology, otherwise, with editors like him around, who package themselves in WP:CottonWool, wikipedia will be a lonely and hard place void of feelings and the valuable interest and contributions of others. I am actually asking some of you more experienced editors than I am, and administrators, to take him to task, even if it means you have to do some hard and serious digging to see how he operates. To be sure, I am not the first to express such concerns. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Now here is an example of the his jargonising of wiki, over which we came into conflict... The lead of an article states, "[a certain place] is a locality within [a certain local government area]". Now I ask each of you admins who have an interest in the pursuing fairness and understanding in these proceedings,
AussieLegend, in the interests of fairness I request you refrain from answering these questions, as yet anyway, and refrain from communicating your interpretation of the term to other admins. Thank you to all.
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I have blocked Benyoch for 12 hours purely because of the tendentious nature of the edits here, which were spiralling out of control. No opinion on the merits of the OP, simply a response to the process under way here. Happy for any admin to unblock without reference to me if they feel this is too harsh. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Since at least 2009, a dynamic San Francisco Bay Area ip has dozens of times requested that the article discuss an as-yet-unproven commercial test developed by the UC Davis MIND Institute, claiming to detect maternal antibodies related to the development of autism. No reliable secondary sources are ever offered (to my knowledge, there are none), commercial sources and sources related to the product are sometimes offered, and in spite of having this discussion with scores of IPs in the same range dozens of times, nothing has changed in the research or the discussion that would indicate there are reliable sources backing text that could be added. The IP has a persistent case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT that consumes article talk. See Talk:Autism/Archive_13#Summary of past discussions with IP 76.2C IP 75 and other 70 ip range for a very small sampling of past discussions. Since it is a frequently changing dynamic IP, I don't know what can be done to prevent this recurrence on article talk; if we archive the discussion or hat/hab it, it just recurs. If IP is ignored, it just fills up the talk page. I also don't see much utility in notifying the current IP, since the IP changes frequently within discussions on the same day, so I will notice article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
So, now he's going at my talk page. Could we also notice admins to delete this IP everywhere he posts? People respond to him on my talk, unnecessarily. [102] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Frimoussou ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user first came to my attention a few months ago when they were repeatedly removing Template:Subjective category from various LGBT-related categories without explanation. In the last month their behaviour has become more and more disruptive: this has included editing other users' talk page comments (including archived comments, with edit-warring) and singling out one editor in particular for repeated attacks and insults, which they are also edit-warring to restore.
Although I can find nothing especially worrying about their article edits, and their editing in general remains infrequent, Frimoussou's approach to contributing in other areas and interacting with other users leaves a lot to be desired and I believe that a block is becoming increasingly warranted. Super Mario Man 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/71.178.112.242 has commenced editing in the same way and the same type of articles as Special:Contributions/71.178.108.23. Per [103].EdJohnston or Osiris might want to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 05:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts [108] [109] [110]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.
I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could another admin or three please take a look at the discussions on my talk page User Talk:Qwyrxian#MMA Flags and User Talk:Qwyrxian#Admin grievances., User Talk:Qwyrxian#In case you aren't aware, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#So let me get this straight., and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I feel threatened by your comment? The short version is that User:JonnyBonesJones took what I believed (and still believe) to be actions in direct contravention to both MOS:FLAG and a specific discussion on WT:MMA; I told the user to stop, and threatened a block for further disruption. Over the course of this, perhaps I chose my words unwisely, but JBJ has taken part of my words out of context and has, in my opinion, gone to make WP:POINTy edits on other sports articles, claiming to be acting in my name. Regarding the underlying question (when/how is it appropriate to use flagicons on lists of people in sporting articles) I intend to seek guidance at MOS in the next few days, but need time to craft my concerns clearly (and it's 10:00 pm on Christmas-eve-eve, and I'm not willing to make promises on when I'm going to get around to that). In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps it might be best for the encyclopedia if JBJ stopped the aggression masked by an "Oh really? Isn't that what you meant? And you're involved! And I feel threatened by you!" attitude. I'm not recommending any specific admin action, though I think a nice talking to from someone who isn't me might help matters. And, as always, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it wrong and take whatever action is appropriate in that regard. After I notify JBJ, I don't know when I'll be back on; it might be soon, or it might be a day or more. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Support indefinite block, per Bushranger. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For a moment it looked like JonnyBonesJones was starting to respond to Amadscientist's approach (and we should thank Amadscientist for those efforts). But after the latest abusive outburst on JonnyBonesJones's talk page, I have upped the block to indefinite and revoked his ability to edit his talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have recently attempted to edit several articles previously edited/started by User:JoshuSasori, but he has reverted almost all of my edits on flimsy grounds. The worst case is Sonezaki Shinjū (1978 film). Even when I quoted clear MOS guideline, he continued to quote the same argument at me again and again. Basically, I wanted to include an English translation of the Japanese title in parentheses, in accordance with WP:NCF#Examples and WP:UE; but he insisted that because the film doesn't have an "official" English title then we can't do that. I also wanted to include mention in the opening sentence of the film having been produced in Japan, as per MOS:FILM. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines to him several times, but he continued to revert my edits. By obstinately refusing to budge, he forced me up to 2.5 reverts [115] [116] [117]. He then posted two 3RR notices on my talk page: this is ridiculous, since he has reverted me more than I have reverted him. He has also persisted in quoting Elvis Presley lyrics instead of providing comprehensible edit summaries/replies to me.
I am not sure if I am in the right place, but this user's childishly acting like he owns every article he has ever contributed to is somewhat upsetting. It is difficult to demonstrate with diffs, but most of his comments towards me are also tinged with sarcasm. This is probably the worst example: even though some of the articles on Japanese cinema that he has edited were worked on by me about six years prior, he seems to assume that I am a troll who only decided to edit Japanese cinema articles in order to undermine him.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would someone neutral but with knowledge of the area please take a look at the edits of User:88.72.229.34? I reverted their removal of sources on the Azerbaijani American article, but I'm not conversant enough with the topic to judge the rest of the edits, although I know there's been disruptive action in that area recently Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Tomcat7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I hate to bring this here, but I think this warrants it. Tomcat7 continues to edit war after a RFC/U into his edit warring has been created. The diff in question. [118] I did issue a warning prior to the RFC/U filing on Dec 17th. [119] Discussion has continued on Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder from December 11th across two GA's and two separate discussions on that page. Easier bits to read are here [120] and here [121].
Edit reverts relating to the one source tag in particular.
This has gone on for too long, and even my opening of the RFC/U into his edit warring has not discouraged him from removing the tags even after all the warnings and discussions from several users. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't want to discuss this further, but here is my response. Everything began with me translating a random article from the German Wikipedia, namely Friedrich Eckenfelder. I never knew this artist before and I saw that no English versions exists. So I took the opportunity to translate it for a wider readership. User:Wuselig was the main contributor of this article, and brought this article to "Lesenswert" (similar to Good Article) status, with an overwhelming decision. Now I did the same here. The article stayed very long in the queue, but finally a user named User:ChrisGualtieri, who, it seems, has no interest in art, posted his review. Well, it was a poor one because he first said that he put the article on hold, but then suddenly changed his mind. He then posted a very lengthy block text, and noted "TLDR", perhaps in response to the main contributor Wuselig who stated that he was glad that someone translated it to English. Chris claimed that text in Wikipedia is copyrighted and must be attributed, but actually that is not true. He did not even bother to read WP:ABOUT, and began further pushing his view. After a quarrel at the GAN talk page, Gualteri seemed to have forgotten me. However, suddenly a user started to review it, while Gualteri took the opportunity to add huge banners on the top, and place tags, such as citation needed tags, after almost every sentence. He also stated that there should be more sources, but I reminded him that there were no more reliable third-party sources. Then he watched my contributions on former featured list nominations or featured lists, and performed radical changes. For example, in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a featured list, he removed source and text and added a citation needed tag, claiming that the sources do not confirm what the article claims. Actually, both sources clearly supported the content, further outlined on the talk page. In Abel Prize, he also put citation needed tags, but now he was correct, so I added sources. Then he and User:NapHit, who rants when I add premature lists to FLC and is allegedly on vacation, unfairly stated on the nomination page of Golden Eagle Award, that I did no changes and just responded to the nominator for fun. Actually, I made an error somehow (perhaps forgot to save my changes), which I think happens at some point. Then he started a "request for comment", why I really don't know. It would be wise if he would eventually leave me alone and stop watching all my contributions, to avoid further disuptive edits and accusations. That is all what should be done, but it seems that Gualtieri does not want peace and instead wants to ruin the good atmosphere. Oh, and he often ignore my and others' comments, for example on his talk page he did not even responded to my comments and opened a request for comment. -- Tomcat ( 7) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No comment on the edit war, but we are now at two failed GAs due to copyright issues. I'm a lot more concerned about that then I am about the back-and-forth and the RFC going on. Wizardman 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see WT:ANIME#Mass vandelism???, Aakeem00 ( talk · contribs), and Aakeem077 ( talk · contribs). Good raise 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this edit by User:Cydevil38 is very problematic, since I see it as inappropriate canvassing. Per the page at WP:CANVASS, this message is quite biased in its message, since it uses loaded language which accuses editors which disagree with him to be "Chinese POV editors", and he has specifically chosen to notify a partisan audience, and not all relevant sides. I see this as campaigning and votestacking, and this has not been the first time that this has happened with this editor. This is a long-term issue, and I am under the impression that this editor thinks that this is perfectly fine behaviour. Not to mention, this editor has specifically ignored calls to engage in proper and thorough discussion in September 2012 on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is now edit-warring because he thinks that there is "insufficient discussion" regarding an article merge ( Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences into Goguryeo controversies). -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues. I more than welcome constructive edits and discussion from neutral parties. Cydevil38 ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the bigger problem here is that User:Cydevil38's style of editing exclusively involves repeated reverts, no discussion with opponents (but canvassing of supporters), and heated nationalist rhetoric. Even if I opened a dozen RfCs, AfDs, and merge discussions on the topic, it would not change his behavior. After all, the "pure blood theory" article did go through AfD, yet disruptive Korean nationalist SPAs like Cydevil continued their attempts to blank, deface, and destroy it. This user's reverts don't even come with a rationale. Reopening the merge discussion for a few more months is not the solution. As Benlisquare points out, it's extremely difficult to find any contribution of Cydevil's that does not boost Korea or denigrate its opponents; that consist of civil dialogue with other editors; or that refute the obvious conclusion that he is not here to build an encycopedia. Shrigley ( talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me ask again, Cydevil38. I write articles about silly Japanese cartoons and boring, nerdy computer nonsense. Shrigley writes articles about Chinese biographies and history. What do you usually write about on Wikipedia? What is the only thing you write about on Wikipedia? Taking that into account, should you be crying wolf about me and others and giving us various labels? You might take offense at this, but I certainly believe that your sole purpose here is to engage in POV wars. You have not done anything other than fight for your sacred nation here; prove me otherwise. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
First, I would like to humbly ask the admins and other editors to take their time to take a look at my previous contributions to Wikipedia on issues concerning Korean history and culture before judging me based on the accusations made by Benlisquare and Shrigley. On articles of significant controversy, I devote significant amount of time to engage in discussion where I try my best to find reliable and NPOV sources to back my arguments and attempt to draw consensus. If the dispute escalates, I am often the first one to ask for attention and participation from neutral editors by initiating request for merge, request for comment, request for third opinion or request for neutral point of view. I have learned the importance of these efforts from my very unpleasant experience in the extremely heated POV wars on Goguryeo and related articles many years before, where much content that I have written in these articles remains to this day with the exception of the Northeast Project, where much content was deleted by Shrigley before he made the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies.
Second, I admit that I have been rather succinct to discussions on the Northeast Project on the suggestion for a merge with Goguryeo controversies. In this regard, I would like to apologize to User:Rincewind42 for not engaging in extensive discussions, including the circumstances in which Shrigley had deleted most of the contents of the Northeast Project. This is because, as a doctoral student, I had not sufficient time to be involved in what I anticipate to become a very controversial and prolonged discussion and edits, knowing the edit history of Shrigley where he had made numerous unilateral edits without consensus on Korea-related articles that I believe to be extremely unreasonable, prejudiced and unreliable. I have been so far silent on his edits due to the preoccupation of my studies. However, now that I have submitted my last finals paper for this semester as of December 22nd just before midnight, and with worsening of the situation with the recent involvement of Benlisquare, I decided that it was appropriate to first notify WP:Korea before making a major edit to the Northeast Project and prepare myself for extensive discussions defending my edits. I admit that perhaps my wording was inappropriate in the notification at WP:Korea, but nonetheless I do not rescind my position and my previous arguments that both Benlisquare and Shrigley are POV editors, although I admit Benlisquare's are far more reasonable in his arguments than Shrigley despite my longer history of disputes with Benlisquare and his history of edits on Korea-related articles, and an extremely offensive comment he has made on me in the last ANI report, to which I remember with much bitterness and anger.
I ask that admins and other editors consider my circumstances with regards to my recent involvement in the Northeast Project before taking accusations by Benlisquare and Shrigley at face value. To this end, I wholeheartedly agree with User talk:Heimstern that it is important for the Wikipedia Project for , I quote, all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Again, I welcome the involvement of neutral parties to decide upon the merit of argument made by both myself and my disputants, and participate in the discussion and series of edits that is to come at the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 ( talk) 07:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add to the case that I have just found out that Shrigley is a new account of Quigley, also an editor with a long history of POV edits in Korea-related articles. More disturbingly, collective action of Benlisquare and Quigley have lead to the permanent ban of a Korean editor, Kuebi, on the grounds of edit warring and POV pushing with their ANI notices. The result of Kuebi's permanent ban was his or her edits on Pure blood theory of Korea, in which both Benlisquare and Quigley engaged in fierce edit warring. They have been reverting my edits, to which either I have explained in discussions or no-one objected to, and they persisted on their reverts in my absence and without my knowledge which Kuebi in turn has been reverting. I am concerned as I have also been accused twice by Benlisquare on the ANI board, and the current and only editors engaged in edit warring with myself are Benlisquare and Quigley/Shrigley, "coincidentally" in all articles I am currently involved. While I will not defend the past actions of Kuebi, I shall appeal to the action the admin has taken with regards to edit warring on Pure blood theory of Korea, as I believe the action was taken on false pretenses by Quigley/Shrigley. Cydevil38 ( talk) 10:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been some conflict over this page. One of the two conflicting editors is "wondering" if the other is Derwick's lawyer - a user with the same name has posted legal documents relating to the case on a file posting website. Since Derwick have a defamation case running, and have included their Wikipedia page in it, this seems a reasonable question. I have excised a significant amount of UNDUE coverage of the case, and made a few other minor tweaks. I have also requested from both conflicted editors a statement of their relation to Derwick if any. It would be useful if this situation could be reviewed to see if there is any need for administrator intervention in this incident, and incidentally to improve the article. (Spanish speakers might be able toc check more of the background.)
Rich
Farmbrough,
03:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC).
DPL bot is creating The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles repeatedly and placing the {{ dablinks}} tag. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles ( check the deletion log). I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing tags on it. DPL bot has created the page 2 times. I read somewhere that a malfunctioning bot should be reported at ANI. Please look into this immediately. Thanks! Forgot to put name ( talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone here who can help me or I have to quit. This User with IP address User:76.1.129.56 posted this at my talk page which sounds like vandalism, after when I reverted the edit; another User:Mrt3366 restores the same edit with his edit summary circumspect. Previously I had detected one edit of User:Mrt3366 as copyvio and labbeled, indicating the site from which the text was copypasted. User:Mrt3366 removed the copyvio template and reverted the edit with his edit summary vandal. The user oftenly uses these harsh and abusive words in his edit summaries. Previously he threated me in his edit summary. My request is an immediate action as desired. MehrajMir (Talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SnrRailways seems to have a pathological hatred of the term Train station and is trying to systematically purge the term from Wikipedia, even when it is in piped links and does not show on the page. User:Edgepedia has requested that this activity cease pending the outcome of this discussion at WikiProject UK Railways but editing has now resumed while the discussion is ongoing. An IP has pointed out that User:Wedensambo has a remarkably similar history of removing train station links and has been active on Japan railway articles while SnrRailways has not been editing. I believe systematic changes on this scale may need prior approval as would be needed for bot changes.-- Charles ( talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
And User:Wedensambo? Similar concern - please see contributions. I must say for me the interest/concern is not so much whether it's automation per se or not; it is whether there is consensus, preferably at some centralized point such as a project, for these large-scale changes. Show me a place where it's been properly discussed and agreed, as a mass update, and I will be content. At the moment it has the worrying feel of an individual crusade and I would like to avoid this. Best wishes to all DBaK ( talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
De-archived to request further assistance - Stalwart 111 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MX896 ( talk · contribs) has created about 40 redirects this morning, most if not all dubious, some removed, some up for speedy. At AIV but seems to have stopped for the nonce. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll indeff him, does anyone have the tools to fix these rapidly? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the course of 2 months, 5 edits, all vandalism of specific Jewish institutions which the user seems to disapprove of. I'm unclear how to investigate if this is the only IP address implicated, as it may be just a dynamically assigned address that was used by this user multiple times over several months. More vandalism may exist. 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmanheim ( talk • contribs)
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.
Please protect the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations from the constant IP blanking. 82.132.217.109 ( talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User
has expressed disatisfaction with article
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.
Hi,
User:Skarloey keeps undoing/deleting my additional information I add to the station information section to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. He/she keeps deleting information that I add and he has given no reason for doing this when I post questions on his talk pages as to why he/she deleted this information.
Alastair Carr ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The main page about the line is perhaps not the best place for detailed information about its individual stations. This kind of information belongs on the separate pages created for each station. All the main page seeks to do is provide a brief introduction and in this respect I would have to agree with User:Skarloey's changes. Lamberhurst ( talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Alastair Carr ( talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Alastair, the problem is that a lot of the information which you have added about the various stations is not of relevance to the article, and a lot of it is needlessly duplicated. It is simply unnecessary to include information about disabled access at intermediate stations (that sort of information is purely unencyclopaedic and quite honestly un-noteworthy). That sort of information would be more appropriate on the company's website than on Wikipedia, as is information about access to workshop buildings and the like - we can take it as a given that access is restricted. Also, is it really necessary to include the line diagram on each individual station's page? There is already the information box at the foot of each page, noting the station's location in relation to the others. Also, we do not need the diagram on the main R&ER page twice. I am still not particularly convinced about it having "collapsible" sections between stations, as all this succeeds in doing is restricting the amount of information which is given. When editing Wikipedia, I try to stick to the maxim - use what is useful; discard what is not. May I assure you that I most certainly do not have a "chip on my shoulder", Alastair, I merely feel that some of your additions to the article(s) have not been particularly beneficial or useful. As an aside, don't we all have better things to be doing on our Christmas Day?! Skarloey ( talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to add, you say that I didn't reply when you posted about it earlier on my user page - there was little over an hour between you posting on there and posting with your "concerns" here! Perhaps it would have been better to have undertaken a discussion there, rather than this massive over dramatisation here in an administrative area. Skarloey ( talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
[154]?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
[156]?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone sort out the edits on this. In the last 40 minutes it's been the subject of vandalism from 2 new accounts but I can't rollback without losing some valid edits by other editors. The two jokers are User:RaymondHolianBers and User:MattMarleyBers both of whom I have reported to AIV. The last clean version prior to their activity is this one. NtheP ( talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have unavoidable commitments that prevent me following this through, and am involved too. We need to check out edits by User:Sk8terguy27 (whose RfA was removed as unsuccessful last week). I took him to task re a copyvio here. Also, see this which is one of his earlier contributions, a cut and paste copyvio from this. I'm guessing there is more, but simply haven't the time to investigate further. User being notified. Moriori ( talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has been courtesy blanked. Please do not restore it.--v/r -
T
P
16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Tailsman67, who is defacto community banned, has been using two IPs ( 98.71.62.112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) to engage in disruptive editing at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(North_America) and wikihounding on the contribution page of administrator Sergecross73 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as well as disrupting the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon. He was issued a final warning, but he has continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings ( [158]). Can someone please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I told you I have no interest in followin Sergecross73 nor what he does aslong as it doesn't effect me,also I can't stop my Ip from changing.About the "disrupting" on the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style,yeah I'm sorry about that.Right now I'm moving on.And it was suggested I get a defacto community banned,but they held it(I think)and bet it all on the last ban I had,seeing if I could hold out that long,and I did.I continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings because I felt the need to reply so it doesn't seem I chicken on the subject,but if you read I have posted my last comment. 98.71.62.112 ( talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 98.71.62.112 ( talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Per the growing consensus, I have raised the discuss on AN [159] Blackmane ( talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Serious sounding threat of violence here. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2/3rds of 9 involved editors want these out but have been frustrated by extreme efforts of what looks like one editor. WP:NPOV, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS (for LCC as a source), and WP:UNDUE apply. Requesting help to enforce this. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary. In October 5 editors (including 2 ips) opposed and 3 wanted to keep. However there was no elaborate discussion among 3 of those 5 editors. The Discussion ended when Django passively conceded to I7laseral's points.
Now 2 months later MalesAlwaysBest tried to reignite the discussion, and claims that the 5 editors prior are still part of the discussion. Perhaps they are, but wikipedia is not a vote. No consensus is reached. Right now there is only a discussion between me and him.
The Friday names are long-standing, they have been used on the wiki articles since the conflict began. They are widely noted, as hundreds of reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN< Reuters, ect had made note of their use throughout the conflict. During the Egyptian and Yemeni Arab Spring events they were used on their wikitimelines. I don't see whats the problem here. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I received a message from some IP user saying that I had deleted his entire account. I'm not sure how I did it, seeing as the admins cannot even do that, but I'm turning myself in for it anyway. Obviously, he is not a block evading disruptive editor, but a new user who cannot seem to find his account information. I've asked him for information regarding his account, and he's remained tight lipped. He said that he was going to report me, but has not, so I assume he must be too busy with real life or trying to figure out what his old account was to do so, and am filing the report on his behalf.
I mean, clearly, I somehow deleted his account, and he's the victim, and not a block evading troll. I trust y'all will know how to handle this. :) Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
RightGot ( talk · contribs) has a history of problematic AfD proposals, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 phenomenon which he thinks should be deleted because the world didn't end. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am totally not happy to have to report DouglasTheMovieGuy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but my requests, advice begging and warning falls to deaf ears. Mr. DouglasTheMovieGuy is adding excessive detailed plots on the articles of the movies The Stalking of Laurie Show and Sweet Temptation (film). Bigger problem then that is that the inclusion of the cast is copyvio from IMDb ( Duplication Detector Sweet Temptation and Laurie Show). I have advized him, warned him, warned him again and begged him to stop. But as result I got this and this. An other edit made very clear that he is aware of the copyvio and tries to disguise it. As non-administrator, I can't do any more. The Banner talk 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About a week ago, Buck Winston ( talk · contribs) was blocked after edit warring on several pages to add the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs to articles that aren't really relevant. Several were to seasons of reality shows that happened to have gay cast members/contestants, and he was particularly selective in the application. For example, he added the category to The Amazing Race 4 and The Amazing Race 21, presumably just because the winners of those seasons were gay life partners, while ignoring the fact that pretty much every season has had at least one gay or lesbian contestant (in two separate cases there were 4). Today, after presumably having taken the week off to gather himself, his first article edit was to reinsert this category despite a vast consensus against it. Further removals of this category have been termed by Buck Winston as homophobic as he reinserts it ( examples 2 and 3).
It seems that he will not abide by the consensus laid out (at least on one page where the regular editors believe it is unnecessary), that he went to canvass for support and the fact that his first edits upon resuming editing after the Wikibreak were to edit war again and combine that edit warring with vaguely directed attacks means we have a problem a-brewing.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't make heads or tails of the contributions history here, but this is definitely not productive for the encyclopedia. 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 ( talk • contribs)
"Match played 26 December" means match played 26 December. I have no idea how this could confuse people, unless they are just frustrated little men that have no power in real life, so they bully people anonymously on Wikipedia. There are thousands of pages without timestamps on Wikipedia, why pick on the ones I edit? I update footballer's pages every single weekend, including goals scored. I have also included external links for Soccerbase.com to corroborate this. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, without looking for any credit, yet every week, there are sad little men reverting them out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 ( talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Example of an average Wikipedia contribution from me. Reading defender Ian Harte had incorrect number of appearances (listed as 79) as of time of Man City game. I corrected this to 76, his correct number of appearances as of Man City game. I edited his page since, to acknowledge his 77th League appearance against Swansea midweek. Playoffs don't count, right? This is all corroborated on Soccerbase. Another Reading player Noel Hunt and MK Dons player Shaun Williams are other footballers whose appearance stats are constantly being incorrectly changed by other people to include Cup and Playoff appearances. But why acknowledge the good contributions I make? This is about a reputation I have undeservedly built up amongst nerds like you. Keep blocking my IP. Ever heard of civil rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully people will see, I have provided this person with the link to the discussion regarding datestamps and timestamps, they ignored it, so I even went so far as to copy & paste it to there talk page, so that they have the proof right in front of them that what they're doing is wrong. Yet this hasn't worked, the person continues to remove timestamps and cause problems relentlassly. I am just about out of ideas, clearlt the person has no interest in contributing or coming to a compromise or talking about it as they either ignore it or blank their page. What else is there to do? Pippin0490 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Socionics&action=history -- Th4n3r ( talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
[161] Dunno what ought to be done here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" [163]. I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here [164]. On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit [165] and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here [166], and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here [167]. After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here [168].
I had warned Kereći svatovi here [169] and again here [170]. Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff ( WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Article „Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja“ speaks about two geographical regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were under occupation of Hungary. Both regions (Bačka and Baranja) were only geographical areas and had no any official administrative status either in Yugoslavia or in Hungary. User:Peacemaker67 wants to include infobox „fomer country“ in this article, and from his infobox, one can conclude that this geographical area was former country with its flag, capital, currency, etc, etc. It is not only that User:Peacemaker67 included this wrong infobox, but when other users told him that infobox is wrong, Peacemaker67 started revert war and continued to move his infobox back to article. It is obvious case of user which knowingly add false info to article trying, for some reason, to make that these two geographical areas look like a former country. Bačka and Baranja had no any kind of official administrative status, were not former country, had no flag, coat of arms, capital, leaders, currency, etc. Infobox that was introduced by Peacemaker67 is simply unacceptable for an encyclopaedia that aims to be accurate. If administrators iam to perform some action here, they should perform it against person that inventing non-existing former country and that tries to create infobox of that non-existing country in Wikipedia. If administrators are not familiar with this period of history of Bačka and Baranja, they should research by themselves what were administrative divisions of Yugoslavia and of Hungary. In Yugoslavia, both regions were part of province Danube Banovina. During Hungarian occupation, Bačka was part of Bacs-Bodrog county and Baranja was part of Baranya county. So, is infobox „former country“ proper infobox for two geographical regions with no administrative status? I think not, and several more users agree with that. User:Peacemaker67 is the only one who thinks that these geographical regions were some fictional former country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.146.192 ( talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The editor User:William S. Horn has made a legal threat on my talk page [178] and on the talk page of the Jennifer Horn article. [179] He has a self-confessed conflict of interest (spouse of the article's subject), and is demanding that the article be deleted or he will take legal action. -- Drm310 ( talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:
\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b
which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 ( talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 ( talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:
Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston ( talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.
I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.
This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.
-- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:
\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b
which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 ( talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 ( talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:
Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston ( talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.
I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.
This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.
-- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.
Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.
The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.
Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.
Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart 111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I have manually de-archived this thread to try to get some admin attention before it closes. The vandalism continues - this time the "facts" were reinserted with a bad direct link as a "reference". Fixing the link produces a Forbes profile which does not support the claimed facts anyway - here. This seems to be a clearly bad-faith attempt to reinsert the same dubious "facts" using fake/bad references, again, to create an attack page. Can someone please block the vandal in question? Stalwart 111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Could some involved editors please take a look at the template Template:Infobox women and impose a decision on its content, either way it goes? It has been the theatre of a slow-motion edit war between me and another editor for three months now. A previous ANI failed to put an end to this. I would like to achive any kind of consensus on this dispute (described in the previous ANI) so that this can finally end.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, can you please look into User:Sepsis II recent editing practice, on the Operation Pillar of Defense article.
Sepsis keep making cumulative reverts of unrelated edits/users, with uninformative outraged edit summaries(like "undoing shamelessly blatant propagandizing"). I have contact the user ( #Revert) explaining that he reverted several unrelated edits(creating collateral damage), asking him to make separate edit that address each issue with informative edit summaries. To which he responded with blanking my post and making the same revert. This time his edit summary stated "undoing acknowledged collateral damage", I contacted him again( #ARBPIA_notice)(maybe this not a duck, but some kind of miscommunication) stating that the same issues still stand and that I find his cumulative reverts disruptive, asking him to self-revert and if wish reintroduce each issue with appropriate edit summary or discuss this. To which he responded with blanking my post again.
So I'll appreciate if someone can look into this. Because honestly, I am really sick and tiered with the edit warring and general incivility on this article and I find Sepsis unexplained cumulative reverts, disregard to other users and refusal to engage only to prompt edit warring, cause tension and make collaboration even more difficult. Thanks Mor. -- Mor2 ( talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reason: Repeated WP:NPA despite repeated messages and warnings:
(PS: I do not recall that I've ever posted an ANI before.) -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Prompt attention to [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#"today is the birthday of Dattatreya"]] is required, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi admins, Fearing a potential edit war at lough neagh so raising the issue. User:Mo aimn is refusing to acknowledge the outcome of the discussion here Talk:Lough Neagh on topic "Basin Countries". I have corrected the vandalism but as this page is under 1RR I expect Mo to be back in 24hrs. Please can someone look into this.... Factocop ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, you, Factocop, alongside GoodDay and a whole load of others, are collectively responsible for almost 500 edits of edit warring and 440KiB of talk page discussion all over one frelling detail. And not a one of you has written anything about, say, the petrified wood that is one of the things that Lough Neagh is most famous for, and that forms a significant part of its entry in several other encyclopaedias, or the inflows and outflows, or the historical differences in water levels, or the geology.
So, having looked into it, I now have some questions: What use are you and they to the writing of this article, or indeed to Wikipedia? You've collectively and individually contributed a sum total of nothing on the topic in six and a half years. Moreover, you edited exactly one article during your three-month Troubles topic ban, and even that was Ireland-related, but the day it ended you're back at Troubles topics, and indeed at the very same article that got you topic banned for three months, with the same one-note melody. Are you simply incapable of substantive writing about anything else, so when banned from your one note you have nothing of worth to offer the encyclopaedia at all?
I note, almost in passing, that this edit is a revert of this edit that in turn was reverting you, in contravention of your restriction at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions.
I probably should have just blocked them for the portion I had to hat, but I tried to assume a little extra good faith. At this point it is easy to see they are unfamiliar, thinking they are, and are just trolling. I'm kind of busy right now so will just leave this in the capable hands of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This report concerns a recent interaction between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is the primary author (by edits). In response, Malleus made several personal attacks against Cornellier. After making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page ( an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ( "now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he proceeded to state on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ( "maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Reading the review it's clear the insults, disparaging remarks and accusations were unwarranted and a distortion of Cornellier's posts. To his credit Cornellier seems to have ignored them - the next person might not be able to resist such provocation. Chromium Oxide ( talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather skeptical of a new account that immediately complains at ANI about a personal attack directed at another user. That and the wikilawyering request to be unblocked and subsequent rants on his talk page [197] make me think Chromium Oxide was just here to cause drama. postdlf ( talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted, CrO2 does seem to pass the duck test, however I think a discussion on the merits of his original complaint (without regard for who the complainant is) is warranted. I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis: In what situations do you think calling someone a "fucking idiot" or "ignorant idiot" is acceptable? If you think that such gross violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are allowed, can you please start discussions at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to alter these policies to allow such conduct? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 08:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Smith012 is an old but infrequently used account (started editing under this name on July 3, 2009) that seems to have degenerated to an activist WP:SPA on South Asian Caste related articles. These articles fall under wikipedia discretionary sanctions ( discussion here), which can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Over the course of a lengthy period of time, his edits have repeatedly failed to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. Here, he even revert-warred with a bot I warned him once on his talk page [198], and tried to engage in dispute resolution on the article talk page [199], but he has ignored my requests [200] and continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Some kind of preventative measure, up to and including discretionary sanctions, may be necessary. Handyunits ( talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This user is violating Wikipedia policy on neutral sources, deleting referenced sources without justification. I have requested a third opinion and have reported him as a vandal to an administrator. I have requested dispute resolution in the form of a third opinion and have taken the issue to the talks page for other editors but so far this user has not complied in the interest of the article and continues to provide no justification. I have warned him about misconduct on Wikipedia and provided him a warning and i have requested a dispute resolution for the second time on the talks page. However this user is not seeking the resolution. Smith012 ( talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career ( | article | history | links | watch | logs).
The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg ( talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle ( talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 ( talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the SPI result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? -- 71.231.75.104 ( talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Iamthemuffinman ( talk · contribs)
Folks, just to let you know I have indef blocked Iamthemuffinman with talk page access revoked, for a series of events that should be clear from his talk page - essentially, personal attacks at User talk:MisterShiney, and escalating threats (including a threat to sock) on his talk page. Anyone who knows him will remember his past battlefield approach and personal attacks, his vandalism spree, his global account lock, and the goodwill a number of us extended to him to allow him back. In the circumstances, I think my actions are justified. I'm bringing this here to ask people to be on the lookout for any socking from him - it's late where I am, and I'm off to bed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we have some socking as was suspected here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion, which I'm guessing needs to be renamed now if iamthemuffinman is the sockmaster. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wondering if an admin could have a look at whether Givton Hanoch could be moved to Hanoch Givton. I note that three articles have been deleted at the latter title due to the identity of the author. Hack ( talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways; he clearly did run an unauthorized bot, but changing [[A|B]] to [[B]], where B redirects to A, is something done automatically by authorized bots. Just because "A" is something he hates, doesn't mean that that that particular edit was wrong. If he changed [[A|C]] to [[B|C]], that would be different.
I'm not necessarily saying that the block should be overturned, but the bot performed a legitimate, approved, function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Lukabeograd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is returning every six months or so to anachronistically credit Yugoslav results in various sporting articles exclusively to Serbia. This includes results both from the pre-1992 SFR Yugoslav era and from the 1992-2006 FR Yugoslav/Serbian and Montenegrin era.
Such edits make up the large majority of the user's contributions. They are subtle and do not necessarily get noticed within reasonable time (some of the changes I reverted this morning were three months old). But they are POV and problematic. See, for instance Water polo at the Summer Olympics. Lukabeograd's change is this. Note the presence of Croatia, another part of the former Yugoslavia, on the list, demonstrating why this is problematic (there is no reason to prefer the one over the other).
The point has been flagged up on the Lukabeograd's talk page three times before today, including two formal warnings of Arbcom discretionary sanctions applying to the Balkan region ( WP:ARBMAC). I raised the issue with the admin who issued both Arbcom warnings and he asked me to bring it here for another admin to review. I've raised it here instead of at WP:AE because AE would seem to be a touch extreme and faff-filled (but if someone feels the need to transfer it, please do). Kahastok talk 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
wacky stuff going on at Talk:Individualism can somebody intervene. Thanks. -- Penbat ( talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a personal attack in this contrubution and violation of this policy.-- Rapsar ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Following a disagreement with Nableezy in which he opined that a source that published content stating that it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires was nevertheless a reliable source, he proceeded to summarily nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I find this unnecessarily combative.
Nor is this the first time of such practise. Nableezy had never edited Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants created by Darkness Shines in March, yet he felt compelled to request a speedy nomination in December after a disagreement with Darkness Shines. Ankh. Morpork 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So Ma'an did in fact include what you falsely accuse them of not including, and your charge of it being an inaccurate and antisemitic news organization displays your partisanship more acutely than it does theirs. Having once again provided me with an assist, do you want to stop here? nableezy - 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Medics said the boy was hit by machine gun fire, either from Israeli helicopters or tanks that took part in the incident.
Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.
The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.
Modern ignoramuses can start here [204]. All wire services move opinion pieces, some in large numbers, and have for decades. This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant. One or the other. Dan Murphy ( talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Wrk678 made this silly post about a at the time living person [216]. They readded [217] it when someone attempted to remove it. They then made more silly suggestions (the victim may have died by this time so perhaps technically not a BLP violation) [218] despite the fact our article which had been pointed out to them offered fairly obvious explainations as I later pointed out here [219] (before just deleting the entire section). If that's not enough for a indef, I have been monitoring this editor since I first saw them since I have good reason to believe based on similarity of question type (e.g. on chemicals and harm to the body) and writing style and other obvious similarities that the editor is yet another sock of User:Kci357 who was finally blocked for good for good after exhausting the communities patience at the encyclopaedia proper, to be reallowed back in after implying they would behave only to quickly return to said behave and get blocked again. [220] BTW despite their denials [221], I'm confident Kci is a sock of User:Kj650 and many other identities besides at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, quite a few of which were never blocked simply abandoned hence the fairly incomplete list. I never bothered open a CU since I believe it will have to be based on behaviour evidence alone and the editor's behavious seemed to be borderline acceptable (in particularly they seem to have stayed away from deleting stuff from articles they disagree with even when it's sourced while adding their own unsourced stuff). Nil Einne ( talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pretty unexciting stuff I'm afraid, but could an admin cleanup the page move mess between Wikipedia:JumpSoft --> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/JumpSoft --> JumpSoft. There is a substantial amount of page history at Wikipedia:JumpSoft that could do with merging into JumpSoft. I haven't requested this via CSD tags because Wikipedia:JumpSoft is not a valid redirect to article space and therefore ultimately needs deleting. Pol430 talk to me 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have worked hard on the Tom Rice article, but yet Moriori deleted most of the information I made on 00:56, December 23, 2012 [ Dif] that I felt was need to create a good article and the reason Moriori deleted the information according to a message left on my ( talk) page that improve it from a bloggy, pov, poorly written mishmash to a reasonably encyclopedic article (an ongoing task). I took it from this abomination to this. I was trying to make the Tom Rice article to the Tim Scott article. Also to me the following left on my ( talk) page sounds like a threat to me: "I have reverted you and suggest you don't revert me again. Instead, if you believe I am wrong you can report me elsewhere or ask for comment elsewhere." and this is because I accused Moriori of vandalism which I have felt she has committed on the said article. Sk8terguy27 Talk 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) User Moriori has been notified that he/she is subject of a discussion here.
Based on reading this and a look through your edits, a copyright investigation is looking likely, as it seems the majority of your "work" violates copyright. Already cleaned up one article and am finding more. Wizardman 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) More copyvios/ plagiarism found at David Bennett (American football); nearly all of the material has been ripped directly from [222] and [223]. -- MuZemike 04:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've given a final warning, which I think is quite generous. -- Rs chen 7754 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an administrator please look into fixing this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_False_Positive 68.50.128.91 ( talk) 23:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Something's not right with this account that was created a few minutes ago: Special:Contributions/Lljjp. Could an admin examine this? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
An SPI has been created for User:Lljjp as a sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but now this user is continuing to bombard my talk page with accusations after being told to stop. Need some assistance from an admin to make this stop. 72Dino ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Earlier today, I removed about a dozen images identified as non-free from List of architects of Baku. About half those images were included in the list section; the other half were in a gallery displaying the work of various listed architects. None of the images had NFCC rationales supporting their inclusion in that article. No argument has been advanced suggesting that such use can be allowed under applicable NFCC policy.
One minute later, User:Yerevanci began restoring all the images to the article, declaring them to be public domain. In response to my remocal of the images, he altered their underlying file pages, changing the original identification of the images from nonfree to public domain. Yerevanci was not the original uploader of the images, and there is no reason to believe, especially given the very short timespan involved, that Yerevanci made any significant efforts to verify the applicability of his boilerplate tagging. In general, the public domain claims he makes with regard to the images require that either the date of death of the photographer or the circumstances of the original publication be established; however, for all of these images, the identity of the photographer has not been provided, and the original publication has not been ascertained. These are simply photographs found on various websites, with no discernible provenance, of 20th-century subjects. Absent more information, we cannot presume these images to be PD. The original tagging was careful and correct, and Yerevanci should not have summarily altered it or restored the images.
Yerevanci is a combative user (see an earlier section on this page, for example), and the article is already entangled in the sort of disputes that often spread across articles even tangentially related to ethnic controversies. Some of his other image uploads/uses are clearly problematic at best (eg, putting a nonfree image in a BLP infobox). I suspect community intervention is likely to be more productive, perhaps necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
“ | originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication. | ” |
This user has range of ip addresses here.Already used many for the same cause and some of them get blocked too.Some diff,s are with this range [224],with other range [225].Did all disruption with same tone and in common articles as Vidya Balan, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara ,[[Wanted (2009 film)]]. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 07:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
He's back [226]. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about
User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"
Many thanks
Rich(MTCD) T| C| E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.
My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.
Many thanks, Boomage ( talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage
Hello albert square
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).
Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage ( talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please enforce the no legal threats policy against this POV pusher? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Joy doesn't have the half of it, alas. There's a whole theatrical company of single-purpose characters here:
They all have interests that span only a small set of articles:
Uncle G ( talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about
User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"
Many thanks
Rich(MTCD) T| C| E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.
My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.
Many thanks, Boomage ( talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage
Hello albert square
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).
Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage ( talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)