User 69.221.233.1 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ page and article, as well as my user page. While I agree with the criticisms on the article's page, it's still vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the article. Enigma^msg 06:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And warned the user. In the future, Walter, please use the templates at WP:WARN. Thanks. — Satori Son 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm getting this. Satori Son, are you telling Walter Görlitz that a robotic warning template is better than using his own words.. ? If you are, you're very much in error. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, a robotic warning template is better than no words. There was no warning or any other communication on the IP's talk page prior to the template that Satori had left. I interpreted the suggestion as a helpful one, saying that there was a quick and easy way to leave a warning on a vandal's talk page. -- Atama^chat 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks, Atama. I did check out this edit and saw that it had words (in the edit summary). But looking at the whole picture, I note that it's the only one that does; and more importantly, I missed the fact that Walter hadn't put anything on the IP's talkpage. That's certainly more important than edit summaries, so the advice was good and I was wrong. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So you're telling me that I should warn a user who doesn't care and continues to vandalize the article's talk page now that you've locked the article down? You people live in a world where these vandals actually care about being civil. Get into the real world and block the IP already> I'm tired of wasting my time reverting the edits. If The admins won't do something, give me the ability to do something. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Walter, but nothing about this is going to change. If you try to go to WP:AIV to complain about a vandal, you will be told you must warn them first, and nobody will block until that's done. Four times. And Bishonen, it has long been practice that only 4 specific robot warnings will get anybody blocked. Note also, that the vandal bots are expecting to see robotic warnings, if they don't they'll start over with warning level 1 if they encounter vandalisms they can revert. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor M (talk · contribs), started a discussion attempting to gain consensus to remove the OTRS policy as a policy. Consensus was never achieved, and the discussion participants grow tired. This is akin to seeing spiderman on the tower... the editor does not does not understand that there is no consensus for the change. Too much time is going into the discussion. Please reference the now archived original discussion, where consensus among participants was to keep the policy. Note also this discussion started in a separate forum in an attempt to get another consensus. And the currently ongoing discussion. Please intervene, this is now a time sink and is crossing the line from debate to tendentious editing. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial discussion was on the subject of whether the page was correctly labelled as policy (it was based on a consensus of three people, though it has remained policy for a while - though, it hasn't been crosslinked or listed, and is one of the least-visited policies). The discussion has moved through various objections to OTRS policy, and counter-objections. Throughout this time, the number of responders who were OTRS users, or who were directly involved with the page, has been very high. Accusations of disruption, threats to block, and requests to stop discussion or move it elsewhere, have come from exclusively from OTRS users, and even from the very start. The opposition to discussion of this policy is overrepresented by OTRS users, who are a very small fraction of the community at large. The RfC at WT:OTRS was closed (using an archive box) by an OTRS admin actively involved in the discussion, and it certainly did not have consensus to keep. It should be noted that external responses were not decidedly for or against the OTRS position. I asked for input regarding the situation at the more neutral policy pump - here, responses like the following:

"I still wouldn't mark it as policy, since it's generally just an informative page, but I don't think there's anything that might give grounds for unreasonable censorship any more.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (concerning very recently changed wording)

"I agree that no page should say OTRS shouldn't be reverted, because OTRS volunteers do sometimes introduce problems. I saw one situation where a volunteer introduced a serious BLP violation to a talk page. [5] Editors have to be allowed to use their discretion in situations like that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"What the box says is that if the summary of a policy given in the list disagrees with the actual policy, the latter prevails. Nothing about policies not listed. I'm still awaiting an alternative explanation of why that policy (?) isn't listed. Peter jackson (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

have been typical, though of course OTRS users have also had their (disproportionate) say. I believe this to be a case of a vocal minority attempting to override widespread consensus on what that minority's censorship rights may be. I'm concerned that the policy is or may be used not to offer a way to get more information, but to authoritatively shut down discussion based on private reasons, in cases outside of BLP and Copyvio, etc. Yes, the discussion needs to be cleaner. I've tried to do this by moving the discussion into a statement of positions (rather than arguments) a couple of times, without success. The way to do this might be with a more formal method of discussion, such as a proper community RfC.    M   21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the above 3 signatures not linked? I was looking for a nowiki somewhere, but don't see it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are quotes. I tried to do the quotebox, but I'm screwing it up, so I did a codebox. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are ;) Please don't mess with my message, ok? I added " " these things, I think it worked.    M   20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In before tl;dr. NVS has this basically correct. (Disclaimer) I support the OTRS policy as written Protonk (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this report, reluctantly. M's intentions are good. His main concern is that policies should not contradict each other, and he is right. That is why he challenged the OTRS policy that OTRS edits should not be reverted without discussion, because it seems to contradict other policies that say anyone may edit anything, be BOLD etc. He is making the same objections on policy pages that advise people not to be BOLD when it comes to editing policy. I don't agree with him, but I respect his motivation.

However, his style in making his point borders on disruptive. He changes policies then reverts multiple times over objections; he starts discussions on project talk and user talk that continue with no end in sight, even when it's clear no one agrees with him; and he has ignored the results of at least one RfC. I would ask him here please to stop what appears to be a crusade to change the policies, tone things down a little, and take things more slowly. With less of a concerted push, he might actually end up achieving more, because less of the time will be spent arguing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are inaccurate, and this matter is unrelated. Please provide diffs.    M   20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unrelated, because the issue is your approach: changes to policy without proper discussion, a failure to recognize consensus, a lack of knowledge about the history and development of the policy, multiple reverts against objections, opening discussion on several talk pages so that no one can keep up; forcing people to devote a lot of time to responding. It is just your approach that needs to be changed, not necessarily your ideas. As I said, I respect your main aim, which is to make the policies more rational and consistent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are expected to provide diffs when you make serious accusations. I expect you to either <del></del> your accusations, or to provide evidence in the form of a diff. I'm treating this as a serious issue, and you should as well.    M   21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, while we have instructions on making policy, policies are descriptive statements of the way we work, rather than prescriptive instructions. There are exceptions, and then there is common sense. If an issue has come to light through OTRS in relation to non-public information, you will inevitably be in an unequal position, however, it makes sense that said information remains non-public. Therefore, restrictions in relation to OTRS are common sense, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered policy. You make clear that your dispute isn't that it is policy, but rather in how it came to be policy, which is something of an argument about process rather than the result, and would be viewed by many as overly legalistic. You will find that in the grand scale of things, nobody cares. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, my positions: it is not policy. It is not even a policy on meta. It did not come to be marked a policy page correctly. It contradicts other policy. It can be used to shut down open discussion. It helps OTRS deal with situations. OTRS users are good, but make mistakes. There has been at least one RfC that showed consensus for the 'prescriptive' variant. I'm not going to state my position on this matter since it takes too long. I'm not going to argue for any of these, this isn't the place, just please be careful not to misrepresent my positions. Feel free to ask me what they are, if it is relevant, though.    M   23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues you've raised are hyperbolic. It can be used to shut down open discussion when it threatens to make non-public information public. Your argument is akin to saying that we should ban flour because it can be used to make bombs. You've not presented any evidence of actual, wilful abuse of OTRS privilege. We can discuss this when it happens. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about OTRS, but about my behavior. I responded here.    M   00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that User M along with Kontiski, has been using the same tactics to try to significantly alter the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, moving the discussion elsewhere when failing to gain consensus on the article talk page etc. Xandar 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was recently added by a new user. He/she has added 41 people to the list. I assume the user is trying to make some sort of political point. Please review & delete Cat, if deemed warranted. ^rossnixon 08:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just nominated it for deletion, although I was not at the time aware of this post.-gadfium 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain what is wrong with this category? Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems trivial. Is there a category for people opposed to Obama not showing us his long-form birth certificate? ^rossnixon 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:insane nutjobs does not appear to exist yet.--Jayron32 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. It'd be huge... HalfShadow 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68.50.128.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yesterday, a user who was operating under IP address 68.50.128.120 was stirring up unwanted wikidrama towards me. This all stemmed from a month long debate about a certain information at Rebecca Quick which was ultimately resolved last week. But despite that, this user (who has also used IP addresses 162.6.97.3 & 76.114.133.44 as sockpuppets to evade blocks) felt the need to prolong this incident even though the hachet was already buried on this debate, resulting in unwanted wikidrama. I tried to ignore his comment by simply removing it, but he seems presistant on being obnoxious in his ways, and continue to bug me over a debate that is already done, gone, finished, over with.

As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Wikipedia when it was none of his business, and this is the proof [[1]] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Wikipedia, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Wikipedia community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.

The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden ^cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.

First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.

Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.

Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.

Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.

Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.

If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.

Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.

Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.

Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?

Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A [[2]]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.

Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:

First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.

Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.

Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.

Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.

Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.

Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Caden ^cool 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden ^cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden ^cool

In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it: I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Caden ^cool 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow baiting Caden

Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden ^cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.

Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:

• 17:15, 6 May 2009 64.210.199.231 (→External links)

• IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]

• 17:30, 6 May 2009 Mquayle (removed gossip reference).

• Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.

• 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
• 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
• 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
• 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
• 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
• 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
• Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
• 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
• 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
• 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
• 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))[reply]
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
• 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)

• This source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."

• 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
• 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
• 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
• 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
• 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
• 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
• 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden ^cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dencod16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thousands of edits over the last 7 months, not one edit summary. Reversing consensus decision on Talk:Daniela_Hantuchová#Ridiculously_overblown_article to separate detailed career information to a new article. Edit warring with editors attempting to uphold the consensus. There may be similar issues on the other tennis articles, I don't have the time to look. Oh and suggesting a compromise after having imposed the compromise <g> ! Yet another editor who seems disinterested in respecting basic community rules, to the detriment of those who do. :-( -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This user loves doing flame wars/edit wars in Wikipedia. Right after the Darna (2009 TV series) got protected he's off to another page to start a war. I did try to cooperate with him about this matter, but then he identifies my cooperation as a "vandalism" and again inserted the undecided section on the page without replying. Can someone please warn him.--Witchy2006 (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this user may be a sockpuppet to User:GMA Fan as this user User:GMA_Telebabad was blocked before he came into the article. See History of Darna (2009 series) Momo san ^Gespräch 14:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I found edits by Jo-R3l before the most recent edit war between GMA Telebabad and Witchy, she sure seems to accuse all opponents of socking rapidly. She's had a couple of 3RR violations in there as well, instead of going to the appropriate administrator's boards and reporting the issue. As well, it does appear that she's blanking a section from one article while supporting it's inclusion on the article about her favorite show. This looks like a Filipino pop culture conflict turned on Wiki edit war. Witchy says she's been editing for a couple years here, that appears true, she uses our guildelines and policies in her edit summaries, she should've moved for admin assistance rapidly, rather than edit war at multiple pages with multiple editors. I'd support short blocks for both editors. ThuranX (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did report it to administrators, yet they seem too slow and take too long to take action (and I dont blame them, Wikipedia is the least important thing in the world). Which makes it very hard for me to cooperate with the other user, specially if they keep reverting the page and doesn't want to cooperate. What else would I do? Allow them to edit the page without a decision and wait for administrator? Obviously, I would also revert their edits. Which comes into a loop and creates the edit war. Blocking would be very unnecessary without any warnings. And the edit war with User:GMA Telebabad only happened because I know that he's a sockpuppet of User:GMA Fan. And I never mentioned once I've been editing for 2 years, now, how did you know that? And yes, I do accuse people for socking (guilty about that), but it only happened when I got annoyed about my flame war with GMA Fan. -- Witchy2006 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said so on your user page. Check your user page edit history. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to give you that. :)--Witchy2006 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of being warned once the said user is not using Edit Summary properly and keeps on undoing other people's contribution without proper reasons. User Contribution evidently explains this. This behavior often leads to Edit war. Hitro talk 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A note to perusing admins, the dozen or so "undo edits by XYZ" in the editor's contribution history aren't a sign that they have trampled over 3RR. The 13 'reversion's on Kshatriya are all performed by this editor in sequence. No comment on the rest of the issues, but my finger jumped for the block button and I thought some explanation might be needed in case someone else went further. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inurhead was blocked on August 14th for 31 hours for edit warring and personal attacks regarding The Hurt Locker. For some backgroungd: the issues revolved around his extreme disagreement with some half dozen editors working on cleaning up and improving the article and his preferring his version. During his edit warring, he claimed everyone else was vandalizing the article and that he asked the half-dozen (or maybe more, did only a quick count) experienced editors not to edit war, but he was the only one edit warring. Looking at the article history, it seems like this actually went on for nearly 10 days before administrative action was taken after some editors, following proper dispute resolution process, posted a note at Films about the disagreement and asked for additional input. Inurhead was reported for his continued edit warring and personal attacks and blocked. He is now back from his block and posted a personal attack against some of the editors he disagreed with, accusing them of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing.[5][6] The accusations are so obviously false its ludicrous and a warning was left for him. However, he also appears to intend to once again attempt to start edit war on the article, as he has again reverted part of the article[[7]] to his preferred version of the plot[8], basically restarting the same edit war he was blocked for. It seems prudent to raise a flag for administrative reviewing of these actions and keeping an eye on this situation for awhile as it seems clear Inurhead will not accept the actual consensus agreed to on the article talk page and I'm concerned that he is only going to restart the edit warring and continue making these kinds of attacks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with personal attacks and has made his second revert[9][10] (as a note, my only interest here is in one of the Film members responding to the situation, reading through the discussion, and attempting to help resolve the problem and deal with what appears to be a disruptive editor. Have only reverted in response to the clear consensus on the article talk page and its edit history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an accurate assesment of the situation. It is unfortunate that Collectonian has fallen for the trick of the WP:MEAT puppets and sock puppets who have recently attacked The Hurt Locker page and tried to force me into a multiple revert. It should be noted in the event of a deletion discussion that if there is a user or multiple users who "suddenly" jump in and who normally do not participate in discussions, but who participate periodically in those of articles that were all created by a single user, but that s/he did not previously edit him/herself, this may be a sign of Meatpuppetry. As used by Wikipedia editors, refers to the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion.

When it is obvious that an account is being used for a single disruptive purpose, there may be reason in some cases to believe that its operator also has an account regularly used for productive editing, and its user does not want his/her regular account to be tarnished with the malicious behavior being performed by the second account. This may include vandalism, personal attacks, hoaxes, edit warring, POV pushing, or gaming the system. Ckatz has some limited administrator powers which prevent him from all out edit warring, and which likely have enticed him to potentialy create sock puppets or solicited (stealth and otherwise) meat puppets to do so.

I don't have the time to go back and document each and every instance of how his attacks started. But just look at the history of the page, and of the detractors Ckatz, Erik (who are meat puppets) and their likely sock puppets or meat puppets Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008. Several of the meat puppets, especially Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008, launched into disruptive canvassing and excessive cross-posting to bring other contributors to this page to augment their position with opinions (vote stacking) which match theirs.

Ckatz started this whole edit war with his malicious reverts. His first attack on the page was to repeatedly delete the name of Canadian actress Evangeline Lilly, a native of Vancouver. He did this multiple times for no reason. Despite being told that it was on her own blog and on IMDB:

• Here: [11]

• Here: [12]

• Here: [13]

• Here: [14]

He didn't question the inclusion of any other actor, yet repeatedly required sourced references for her inclusion. Again, she was listed on IMDB as well as on her own blog as being in the film. He refused to accept either of those as evidence. Then Ckatz spitefully began to revert any "Awards" and an Awards table that the film had, despite many other film pages having similar tables.

This he did Here:

• [15]

• Here: [16]

• Here: [17]

• Here: [18]

• Here: [19]

He also reverted sourced plot material and quotes from actor Jeremy Renner, for some reason, repeatedly.

• Here: [20]

• Here: [21]

This has been going on for over a year! Ckatz never made any positive contributions to this page and repeatedly deleted and reverted material and then solicited others to do it with him. When Ckatz "disappears" from a discussion Erik mysteriously always appears to take his place! This establishes their meat puppet link.

Ckatz and his meat puppets have also tried repeatedly to revert the year of the film from 2009 to 2008, despite not having any logical reason to do this (except in an attempt to remove it from 2009 lists, to hinder the film's availability to those perusing current release lists). They also tried to remove the link to 2009 in film, which is the page that lists all the U.S. release dates of films in 2009, and where The Hurt Locker is listed. Recently, Erik eventually came to a pre-meat puppet consensus (a "straw man" argument) to make himself look "fair" that it should probably be a "2009" film. Then he used that faked "neutral" position and his self-appointed status as King of the Meat Puppets to procede to competely restructure the page adding tedious and redundant titles and deleting material and references along the way. This, when he and others were asked by administration not to edit war!

Now he and others are guess what? Proposing to delete Evangeline Lilly's name from the credits again!

Since then, a mysterious "new contributor", likely sock puppet or meat puppet SoSaysCappy, has added unsourced and against WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM plot material, original writing without sources, and going into dialogue and tedious scene-by-scene breakdowns (again, against WP) which the meat puppet consensus has allowed (but which wouldn't allow any extensive plot material previously that I contributed which was more concise and which was sourced).

Ravensfire2002 is clearly a sock puppet or meat puppet of one of these two Ckatz or Erik, considering the precocious edit history. This person started contributing at a "pro" level this year showing considerable skill (a sign of a possible sock puppet), and doing malice with this account. This person also mysteriously jumped into the conversation, without prior contributions, making deletions and reverts. This person has been blocked for prior edit wars, specifically for his/her contributions to the Barack Obama birt certificate issue.

I don't have to tell you guys, because you see it everyday. But meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition of a majority view, which would not otherwise exist. The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is highly inappropriate. I seriously suggest that any administrator who wants to block me again, look at this situation a little more logically. The things I have added to the page have been thoughtful, considerate and well sourced and backed up by references and have been attempted to show the film as it is -- a criticially-acclaimed film. The only reverts I have done has been when someone has erroneously or maliciously deleted important info or when they have attempted to make digs at the film through semantics and tedious changes. I also suggest that someone do a sock puppet investigation of these meat puppet tag teams, particularly Erik and Ckatz to see if an administrator is guilty of violating his duties, and thus should be stripped of his administrator limited powers. Thanks for your time. Inurhead (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fallen for any tricks, thank you, and your continued asserstions and false accusations against multiple well-established, well-known editors is not helping our case at all. Erik is one of the Film project coordinators, is a crafter of several good articles, and has been editing at Wikipedia since 2005! Bovineboy2008 has been here since 2006 and is an active editor of film topics. SoSaysChappy has been here since early 2008 and is another editor with several good articles to his belt. All three are well known editors in the community, particularly around film articles, and are clearly unrelated. Ravensfire2002's account was registered in 2007, and he began more actively editing in 2009 working in a variety of topics. Considering you have been around since 2008 yourself, you should know better than to make these kinds of spurious accusations, certainly without any actual evidence, and against edit warring, calling other editors good faith edits "vandalism", and to continue making these personal attacks. There is no meet puppetry and there is no sockpuppetry going on here. Cease the attacks and accept that consensus is against you. Considering your length of time here, it seems likely you are interested in being a good editor, but your current actions are likely to cost you your editing privileges all together. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite another warning on his talk page, Inurhead is continuing to edit war[22], reverting anyone's changes to the article in question and completely ignoring the talk page consensus with his continued false accusations that everyone but him is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. This is really becoming obnoxiously disruptive and causing a lot of problems for the editors who are actually working to improve The Hurt locker because of Inurhead's continued reverting and malicious remarks. He has also reiterated his false claims at the original 3RR report that got him block, after the fact.[23]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for 72 hours. I'd call this resolved, in the short term. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked until they learn to play nicely. That may take a while given their recent behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feu Follet (talk · contribs) is repeatedly posting the same page, Futurepop after an AfD closed as delete, in addition to edit warring over linking of the page, edit warring on the AfD and attempting to revert an admin's closure of it as well as engaging in gross incivility. Could an admin address this? THanks, Triplestop x3 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the matter or request and any relevant links or diffs

Wikipedia:Abuse reports is undergoing a major revamping to make the entire project more efficient, but while I was cleaning up the old reports, I found a protected report that needs to be unprotected so I can merge the contents from the talk page. Could someone remove all protection from Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/203.129.33.225? Thanks! Netalarmtalk 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone also remove the protection on Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/Melbourne_High_School? Netalarmtalk 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the formatting. I'm contemplating changing that edit notice. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Both pages unprotected. In the future please use Requests for page protection for non-urgent protection matters. Thanks for revamping Abuse reports, godspeed! Protonk (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Zaxby (previous evidence of sockpuppetry is listed there) which was allowed to be archived due to a lack of further response within 24 hours. There seems to be fairly conclusive evidence, based on the articles edited by Zaxby, the insertion of the name "Ryan O'Hara" into articles and the creation of imagined personas on user pages, as well as a general editing attitude of lying and making subtle but somewhat unnoticable changes to statistics for athletes, to believe that this user is another account of User:Thechroniclesofratman. There are at least four accounts for this user confirmed as sockpuppets since 2007, and possibly more (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman) that this is simply the latest in a long line of puppets. It seemed incorrect to me for nothing to be done about this and to simply let the previous discussion be archived so quickly.

Zaxby's behaviour in the previous AN/I report was blockable enough but was reversed after it was found that he did not have a recent final warning. However I believe his behaviour mixed with the fact that it is likely that he is a sockpuppet who previously vandalised and block evaded on multiple accounts makes it enough that something needs to be done. His efforts to "be a good editor" since the filing of the previous AN/I report are questionable at best, consisting mostly of warning others of vandalism, mostly overzealously or incorrectly, and making a few equally questionable statistics changes. The vandalism warnings are equally disturbing since one of Thechroniclesofratboy's potential socks was previously blocked for pretending to be an Admin while accusing other users of vandalism. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if an admin either close or make a call on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Russavia. the disruptive editing has continued again today. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – There clearly still isn't a consensus for this right now this persuit of Keepsakes is looking more like a witchhunt then anything else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear editors, the page in question Arindam_Chaudhuri refers to a living person. kindly notice the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arindam_Chaudhuri&oldid=306857190 which is the last saved page in the history list of the said article (before I reverted). the edited page was saved last by a user called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi. i am not sure whether makrand joshi is the vandal but he has not reverted the obvious vandalism on the said page and has in fact made further additions to an already vandalised page. i have reverted the same as the page does not adhere at all to a living person's autobiography. i request you to kindly look at the page history and block obvious vandals as many statements are libellous. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism mostly took place over a week ago; any blocks at this point for that article alone would be by definition punitive. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User blocked. Nakon 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is a slight cause of concern for me, as the user does not have the signs that it is a new user. Although the contributions appear to be almost nothing at first, look closely and you'll notice they were all made on sysop user pages.. except for maybe one, and the responses after that. Could someone please explain to me how a new user finds sysop pages so easily?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Nakon 05:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with this user a bit earlier, and I think it's a sockpuppet. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question however, is of who? I'm going to ask for a comment by the users the suspected sock bothered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're giving this more attention than it needs. WP:RBI would suffice. Nakon 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say RBI, at least offer an explanation for how those userpages were found in that order.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware she'd posted to my talk page, but thanks for the heads up. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because I removed the message from your talk page. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's the I part. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Int3rnaut has a history of periodically making inappropriate edits to the Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds article and has previously received warnings about vandalism. After taking a break of several months, he has again vandalised the article - I have reverted his edit. I have tried to approach him to discuss the problem with his edits in the past but, as you can see on my talk page, he accused me of a personal attack against him and did not respond to my attempts to make peace with him.

Could someone please review this user's contributions and see if there is appropriate action that can be taken to dissuade him from altering the Nexus article again? Eliahna (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jardinefan101 (talk · contribs) just uploaded File:BabaluKO.jpg which is a copyright violating of Saturdays Strikeforce: Carano vs. Cyborg TV-broadcast where Renato "Babalu" Sobral was knocked out by Gegard Mousasi. The user has uploaded similar copyvios of article-subjects getting knocked out and added it to their articles in the past, and I was thinking it's time for a block. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note a username similarity to User:Bambifan101. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the recent mass spamming of articles by AlbertHerring which was the subject of an incident last month regarding the Semi-automatedcreation of unreferenced stubs and their deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, the same editor, this time under the name of Ser Amantio di Nicolao, has created hundreds of unreferenced stubs using automated tools without any regard for Wikipedia's content policies.

In accordance with WP:BLOCK which says that, I propose that this editor is blocked, as clearly he not paying any care or attention to quality control, and is recklessly creating stubs with no encyclopedic content:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely, i.e. bots operating without approval or outside their approval.

The mass creation of stubs which do not provide evidence of notability is undermining the whole of the Wikipedia project; for instance, it is impossible for Wikipedia:New pages patrol to carry out their work, and it is impossible for the various Wikiprojects to carry out their work if stubs are being created on a massive scale. My own concern is that the mass creation of articles which do not comply with Wikipedia's content policies is basically undermining the whole Wikipedia project where editors who operate automated tools do not make any effort to exercise any form of quality control.

It is not clear why he is enganged in article spamming on this scale, or why he is choosing such topics as German politicians such as Claus Peter Poppe or orchids such as Bulbophyllum abbreviatum, but and I feel this issue needs to be address urgently. I suspect mental health concerns may be an issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]