Tedickey (talk · contribs) has repeatedly vandalized German American internment‎, Italian American internment, and Japanese American internment. He has also violated WP:3RR. His talk page shows that he has an extensive history of vandalism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on what we call vandalism here. These look like category disputes to me. Please take any 3rr violations to WP:AN3. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They are category disputes, but I note that Tedickey's edit summaries are getting less and less civil, one said 'reverting some of the vandalism', implying JCDenton had done more than what was covered in the one reverting edit. Further, JCDenton has certainly supported at least one of his assertions, I note that Tedickey seems to be more interested in ignoring those supports, to some end of his own. I already looked in at Japanese American internment, and have restored the category supported by evidence on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I did ask Tedickey to stop using the word vandalism so freely and he may be calming down with that, at least. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"vandalism" and "rvv" are much the same here. For better context, I read through the last few dozen edits, including this. It would be nice if someone would caution JCDenton2052 about his use of the term. Tedickey (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would caution Tedickey about his potential violation of WP:COI in editing Berkeley Yacc, CDK (Mike Glover), Dialog (software), Lynx (web browser), ncurses, tin (newsreader), vile (text editor), Vttest, and xterm. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain this further and provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is who I think it is, I believe the COI might have to do with the possibility that this is the account of Thomas E. Dickey, a rather well known open source software engineer who is the current author/maintainer of those software packages listed above. He's a decent fellow, if somewhat opinionated about autoconf (oh the rants). I will note that our policy does not preclude him from editing those articles if he does so in a way which complies with WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(tin (newsreader) is maintained by a different person, noting that Thomas Dickey does maintain tin's autoconf script, as well as the other programs mentioned ;-) Tedickey (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, please forgive me for that oversight. I use the emacs newsreader, gnus, on the command line because I'm lazy... --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious too, since I try to be neutral and use reliable sources which are easily verified. Note that I'm editing and improving several articles in each topic that I have some interest in, keeping in mind both the letter and spirit of WP:COI. Tedickey (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I recommend you give WP:Twinkle a try? It's a java script that adds a number tools which are very helpful in fighting vandalism. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at it briefly a few times, but, am usually editing with Opera (due to startup time and runtime overhead), found that its window wasn't that visible (recalling from last week, was hard to read), and just to check on this machine, Twinkle's window isn't showing up (yes, I do have JavaScript enabled). I might look closer depending on what I'm working on. Tedickey (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been reminded of the arbcom's harassment campaign, and am disgusted that I ever returned to en-wiki. Please delete my account. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted, but you are free to invoke your right to vanish. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hereby release all my edits into the public domain. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good, but the software doesn't allow deletion of accounts for the reasons above, so we can't even if we want to. Try activating WP:VANISH instead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you RTV, you're supposed to actually leave. A quiet name change is allowed if you're staying. This doesn't seem to be a vanish issue, though, but rather someone who's upset. There doesn't appear to be any action to take here. - Revolving Bugbear 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So Long! And Thanks For All The Fish! --Dragon695 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The user created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbcom. Cenarium (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the above, given that he exercised his right-to-vanish and that the page was not completed in the least bit. If anyone finds that controversial, or if there is a more formal process to go through, feel free to restore it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the images he's uploaded, probably all of them are copyvios. I don't have time to look over them at the moment so I'm posting them here. Yonatan ^talk 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Mickey117 had access to a lithograph machine back in 1924, so it is very unlikely he did make the images as stated in the rationale (certainly not the older ones). However, it is possible that the older ones are in the public domain - they look like the freely distributed publicity/poster images that would have been used in campaigns. However, since they are currently being used in a list of Lebanonese Presidents rather than the individual subject articles I would suggest that they are zapped until the licensing issues are clarified. (Please note that I have no expertise in this field, although I play dumb on the internet). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see a number of logos for Lebanese political parties as being public domain. I don't know the Lebanese copyright system but I would assume that copyright is respected^{[citation needed]} and so, images like Image:Muslim-Ulama.jpg would a non-free logo^{[citation needed]} which would freely belong at Union of Muslim Ulama but not for illustrative purposes like it is being used at List of political parties in Lebanon. I think the images are fine (and very helpful) but problematic licenses and usages^{[citation needed]}. Just needs a little help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for such assertions. We do not have any such treaty with Lebanon, the last time I checked. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What would we need a treaty for? Its unclear whether the images are public domain in Lebanon, and its unclear whether they were published long enough ago to qualify for public domain in the US. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, we assume that they are still under copyright protection. Mr.Z-man 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ibrahimzai (talk · contribs) and Mullberry (talk · contribs) have edit warred on several articles, IPs have also disrupted these articles. It is suspected that the users are sockpuppets of, respectively, Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and NisarKand (talk · contribs). Cenarium (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny I just asked for Full Protection of Hammasa Kohistani. Can you prove they are socks? (no need to I looked). Rgoodermote  01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Article I mentioned is now fully protected for 3 days. Rgoodermote  01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's likely, the contributions, and they accuse each other. Their personal war has been during for some times now, according to their CU pages, Wikipedia:requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam and Wikipedia:requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Maybe they should be updated. Cenarium (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other pages they have been warring on? I didn't check the pages they edited on. Rgoodermote  02:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. This should be enough time for a checkuser on both of them. Blueboy96 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That alleviates my fears that they were still edit warring. It seems IPs were involved. Anything done about them? Rgoodermote  03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Ibrahimzai (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Beh-nam. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser has confirmed all of those accounts along with a few others. Resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is constantly removing deletion templates on Marco flores, an article he created. Do something about it! This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 09:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

John Howard and Talk:John Howard are still warring[6] over each other[7]. Really it's a mess that shouldn't have happened and I can't see it ending which also puts anyone off from improving thee article. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, and I agree that protecting it will not help because whichever version it gets protected in will mean that the supporters of that version will be disinclined to discuss it. I see that there have been previous attempts to form a consensus (by an evil vote) which seems to have just consolidated the opposing camps. I think an RfC with more outside voices would be an avenue to explore, verily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the not protecting the article as really it doesn't solve the issue. The past RfC I came in as an outside view (I'm not a person who has a one side view and wouldn't bother me if it was or wasn't included back into the article) but the main issue I have is how we seems to have groups which are just attacking each other rather then trying to improve the article which puts Wikipedia project in a bad light with editors who can't seem to work with each other. Lets hope there is some way to get the article back on track. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I nominated Manpower Incorporated (Honorverse) for deletion May 18 but an administrator restored it, saying I hadn't tagged the article itself with the afd1 tag. I use TW, which like all the tools his its quirks and doesn't always work -- but, TW managed to create the discussion page and log entry fine. Can someone check the page history to confirm that there really wasn't an AfD tag on the article? --EEMIV (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You put up a prod tag on the 18th (not an AfD tag) which was quickly removed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, which is why I hit the xfd button on the Twinkle bar. I'm just trying to ascertain whether this is a Twinkle bug -- it just struck me as odd that it created the user page notification, the log entry and the discussion page not a tag on the article itself. Anyway, thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If there was an AfD tag, 1) I and presumably other editors would have been aware of AfD discussion and would vote there and 2) I wouldn't have undeleted the article. Since there was no AfD tag, and thus interested editors who watchlisted the article were not aware of the discussion, I have restored it so it can be properly AfD tagged.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A glitch, a bug, a gremlin, software, wetware, I see no worries here, the AfD's on again and editors'll know it's there. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this user you'll see he's been blocked multiple times, and a large percentage of what he does is flame and vandalize. I don't know him, have never had a beef with him, but still he's not playing legit. --Mrcolj (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is stale. The anon in question hasn't edited in almost three weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to give some input into this thread on my talk page? I'm being asked to rename an article, however there is an objection to that editor's request. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MLB 07: The Show is an article on a game that had a rather large trivia/OR section. It was originally removed by User:Socby19 ([8]) on the basis of being OR, trivia and Wikipedia not being a game-guide. It was swiftly readded by User:HPJoker ([9]) without any reason but he likes it. A few months later, I found the article and removed the section on the same grounds, and User:Baffler readded it as he was the main author of a large number of them. I removed it again, and got a third opinion from User:Billscottbob which agreed with my position that this section is not suitable. He left it alone after the ensuing conversation on the talk page.

Troublingly, User:HPJoker has returned and decided to be somewhat aggressive in doing so. He originally readded it stating [10] "we decided to keep this in a long time ago. keep it here.", despite the fact there had only been one person agreeing with him to keep it, compared to 3 against (including the 3rd opinion). I removed it [11], and continued to press the point of it being wildly against policy on the talk page (same section as linked above). Last night he decided to readd it with the edit summary "for spite." [12] suggesting no intention to actually build the encyclopedia but simply push his own opinion on the matter, and then followed it up with a personal attack on the talk page, blasting me for, uh, being English, not watching baseball for that long and supporting the wrong team (although quite what this has to do with my opinion being valid, I have no idea...). He also stated "Well this is a fourth opinion. And that other user is an admin so that should be enough." when no such admin ever posted on the matter, as far as I'm aware. Any help in this situation would be great. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your action is correct. The removed items are trivial gamecruft and are longer than the rest of the article combined. I will drop a note on the talkpage and HPJoker's talkpage to that effect and see if we can't defuse the situation. Exxolon (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not call those personal attacks. If you want to hear a personal attack, just tell me.

BTW I made the first edit without reading it, just assuming that some prick might've just came along and removed it. BTW AGAIN I DIDN'T PUT IS BACK JUST BECAUSE I LIKE IT. THAT IT 100%. I just don't see whats wrong with them. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously not helping yourself with this sort of attitude. Wikipedia is not a Battleground. The information is being removed not because there's anything wrong with it but because it's against policy and unencyclopedic. Trying to bait editors by offering to attack them is really not constructive either. I've just posted another lengthy explanation on the article talk page - please read this. As I said there editing against policy is not very helpful - either try and get the policy changed or open an RFC on the article and solictit more help, discussion and opinions. Wikipedia works best when editors are polite and constructive even if they differ on the best way to construct things. Exxolon (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin versed in image policy take a look at this? The user created Hydrogeochemistry as an amalgam of material copied and pasted from various websites. I have a feeling that the images that he/she uploaded are wrongly tagged as {{PD-self}}. For example, it looks as if two of the images are from http://www.rocksandminerals.com/rockcycle.htm and http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwaquifer.html. BuddingJournalist 07:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The UGSG works are public domain (although {{PD-self}} isn't the right tag there), while the images from the private website are blatant copyright violations and can be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. That being said, leaving a nice note on their page pointing them to the policy on non-free content and explaining that they should provide sources for even freely-available public works would be less bitey than taking everything down. I would do it myself, but sadly I'm just about to shut down and step out.... --jonny-mt 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the infringing images and changed the tags on others to be correct (and informed the editors who uploaded them). Black Kite 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if the user has re-uploaded the infringing images and once again tagged them with {{PD-self}}. BuddingJournalist 16:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've done the same again, and warned them this time. Since they've created an entire article (even if it was a copyvio) they can hardly claim they don't understand it.Black Kite 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj Apologist where the result was delete. But the article Imperial Apologist is still present with AfD notice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a red link.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Whoever closed the AfD only deleted the redirect but the discussion was clearly about the article, which I have deleted following the consensus of the closed discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the article name was changed during the AfD discussion. What about the transclusion? 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The creator of this article (who is apparently its subject) blanked the page and tagged it G7 CSD. I, on my first day as a wide eyed admin ploughing through a CSD backlog, checked the first edit, saw it had been made by the tagger and hence deleted the article. I was later told the article had a history of contributions by other editors. So I restored the article because it's not a speedy and my deletion, going by the tag and first/last edits, was a mistake. This article has almost everything, COI, BLP, OWN, suspected socks, sourcing disagreements and a very upset editor/subject who today, wanted the article gone. I'm watching it but I think it's going to need all the eyes it can get for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold here and deleted. I think all in all that is the best option, with the huge COI here. Let's allow this article to die. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a great use of WP:IAR to me. Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A dispute of this sort belongs in AfD. not AN/I. DGG (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was an AfD, but it didn't seem to help. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gathered that the thinking on this is, it's a big nest of worries for such a marginally notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone disagrees there is always WP:DRV. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This case has become too complicated for WP:AIV because the vandalism is occuring from different IPs, but all IPs are through Hughes Network Systems. The same erroneous information has been added to Christina Ricci multiple times over the past few weeks. No edit summary is ever given, and the vandal has been asked several times to explain. Some AIVs result in a block; others don't because it's the only vandalism from that IP on that day. Here are the diffs for the vandalism:

[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].

These are the IP addresses:

• 66.82.9.88 (talk · contribs)
• 66.82.9.109 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.18 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.21 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.36 (talk · contribs)

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for 2 days while a range block or other option is considered. I didn't see much ip activity other than the above range and a couple of independent vandals, but would be unwilling to protect it for longer without consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we get consensus the usual way: Discuss on Talk:Christina Ricci? Or should I go to WP:RPP? Ward3001 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, you do it the way that you believe is most effective! I think opening a discussion at the article talkpage is fine, which may conclude that going and requesting protection at WP:RPP is best. I would also wait and see if some tech minded editor could comment here on whether a range block might be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Prem Rawat area really needs an uninvolved administrator to step in. See here and here. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those threads looked archived to me. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the actual area needs someone new to step in. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is correct. I apologize for not being more clear. The area of dispute is fairly narrow, so it would not be particularly difficult to monitor. These are long-term ongoing issues that show no sign of abatement, even after the completion of an ArbCom case and despite an ongoing mediation effort. I agree with Rlevse's closing, but some firm and consistent enforcement is really needed to bring that area under control. Vassyana (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was "validating" a new addition to Antalya external reference, a presumable .com site, most likely spam, but no big deal. May have been a "mere" coincidence but my computer crashed. It has firewall, etc. the whole nine yards. Reported it to Microsoft of course.

This user who is probably an ordinary spammer (no big deal if that turns out to be true) - we will handle him per normal channels. BUT he needs to be kicked off until the question can be resolved. This will not impact him nor Wikipedia in any major way given his history of editing. BTW, because I crashed, I will not be doing the investigation! :) I hope some admin will. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: The link in question is the official travel guide of Antalya, and worked fine on my machine [Windows Vista/Firefox 2.0.0.14], probably just a coincidence. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:48, May 26, 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me as well. Time for a Mac? Kevin (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that removing warnings and such from your talk page is allowed, but is removing SSP notices allowed? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Month old. :P Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the answer is "yes". --Akhilleus (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked immediately, severe personal attack and vandalism. See [35] and [36] and [37]. Kilmer-san (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia and as of yesterday, I have only posted here once before. I recently attempted to post some information on the Sally Hemings page. I have a history degree and I have studied this subject extensively. However, as soon as I would post it, it would disappear. As I am new, I did not realize that a disruptive editor (Ward3001) was deleting my posts as soon as I posted it. Not knowing this, I continued to repost thinking it was my computer. I also didn’t realize that there was a message center. Once I happened upon the message center I saw a barrage of messages from Ward3001 accusing me of edit warring, which until recently I did not know the meaning of.

Ward3001’s first contact accused me of copyright violation, which was unfounded. Quotations are not copyright violations as long as one indicates who the quote is from. Again, I did not know how to respond to him. I attempted to click on his page and send an email but he does not receive email.

• Comment: Administrator Will Beback first reverted the copyvio here and cautioned Msmariah1 here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Once I figured out the use of “history” I went back to my original post and made a reference to what I believed were his motives were for disruptive editing. Then on top of copyright violations, he sent me additional messages and he added “POV pushing, edit warring, and personal attacks,” much of which is news to me.

• Comment: Personal attack in edit summary here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted quotations from reputable sources founded in the historic and scientific community. What kind of encyclopedia is this if you can’t list quotes? In fact, I have seen quotes listed on Wikipedia many times.

Also, it appears that another editor, Ave Caesar, felt the need to get involved. Ave Caesar warned Ward3001 not to violate WP:3RR. I don’t even know what this means. But if another editor has to get involved to tell WARD3001 not to violate the editing rules, then that does not speak well for Ward3001 as an editor. Thanks.--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Msmariah, please note that I gave you a more formal warning for 3RR. I warned both sides in this situation. WP:3RR means that you are allowed only to make 3 revisions, in whole or in part, to any one article during a 24hour period. Ward's edits did not necessarily violate 3RR, in my mind, however since he was reverting what seemed to be copyright violations. My warning/note on 3RR to Ward was more informal for that reason. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that's not what you seemed to indicate when you and he corresponded on your talk page. --Msmariah1 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmariah1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you might try engaging in discussion on the article's talk page. Go back to the Sally Hemming article and click the discussion tab to the right of the article tag and place your comments about the article at the bottom of that page. Discussing edits on an article's talk page is much better than edit warring.--Ave Caesar (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I didn't even know what that word meant until today. I'm reporting a disruptive editor, which I'm entitled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.237.25 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for information purposes for whatever administrators might read any of this, currently there is a checkuser request to verify if banned user User:Tweety21 might be editing as Msmariah1. Ward3001 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed sock of Tweety21. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is my first and only wiki account. Now this really is harassment. Stop stalking me. Go ahead and check; I have no idea who this tweety person is.--Msmariah1 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001 you are an absolute lunatic! Now that's a personal attack that you can claim. I AM NOT tweety-whoever. I have a dynamic ip address. My IP address changes randomly every day or so. I have no idea who this tweety person is or whoever else you're accusing me of. I feel sorry for the next person who just happens to have that ip address you blocked! I have no idea who you people are trying to link me to.

If you want to ban me then fine but don’t lump me in with someone I have no clue about! I am reporting this to the FCC and the Attorney General's Office!

Good riddance fascist! ~msmariah1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.236.83 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above should remove any further doubts. She did this before, too :/ - Alison ^❤ 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So I'm going to get reported to the FCC and the Attorney General? Oh noez! (lolcat, someone?) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Gulmammad keeps using rollback to revert content and not vandalism. Furthermore, he is using it on Armenia Azerbaijan article for which there have been 2 arbcom decisions where users must discuss there reverts in talk. He neither discusses things in talk or provides any edit summaries as rollback doesn't do this. See subsections below.

Rollback abuse[edit]

01:50, 20 May 2008
11:12, 20 May 2008
18:18, 21 May 2008
19:56, 23 May 2008
18:21, 24 May 2008

Evidence that I tried to discuss Gulmammad's use of rollback with him[edit]

User_talk:Gulmammad#Use_of_Rollback

After you left a message in my talk page I didn't use the rollback. --Gulmammad (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Arbcom decisions[edit]

WP:ARBAA, WP:ARBAA2

I am not being involved in any of these (even I haven't heard of it!), so please don't try to push me into any of these. I am an editor whose aim is to improve wikipedia by making contributions in any area. You can check it by investigating my edits here. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other reverts contrary to WP:ARBAA2[edit]

18:18, 24 May 2008

Please revoke user:Gulmammad access to rollback and please place him under supervision as per WP:ARBAA2. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me, whether an IP made the edit or not. I have temporarily removed his rollback rights with no prejudiced for them to be given back. Tiptoety ^talk 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call Tip Toe. _{1 != 2} 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I also recommend he be placed under supervised editing and revert limitations for the manner in which he performs his reverts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this to be planned personal attack to me. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad[edit]

To revert the last vandalism, 18:21, 24 May 2008, I used undo. Please be accurate Pocopocopocopoco!

Here are explanations for my actions those I've done using the rollback tool:

1. 01:50, 20 May 2008: Andranikpasha, who is already in supervised editing and revert limitations, removed well sourced information from the article.
2. 11:12, 20 May 2008: An IP address 212.73.95.1 repeated the action!
3. 18:18, 21 May 2008: An IP address 91.103.28.248 repeated almost the same action!
4. 19:56, 23 May 2008: An IP address 83.217.229.146 repeated again the same action!
5. 18:21, 24 May 2008: Pocopocopocopoco removed from Azerbaijan related article template {{azerbaijan-stub}} giving an edit summery "may be controversial to have a flag with a crescent on an article about christian monastery" which I didn't use the rollback but undo.--Gulmammad (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but those edits the IP's were making do not appear to be vandalism but instead good faith additions and as such you should not use rollback to revert those changes, but instead something that allows you to use a edit summary. Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC

As it is written in the instructions on how to identify vandalisms, the edits were done by unknown users, IP's (with having already warnings in their talk pages for vandalizing and making unconstructive edits), which often appear to be unconstructive or vandalism. That is why I didn't have to deal with their edits as often editors do in similar situations. I already stated in my talk page that I had placed back most of edits those have been made by 91.103.28.248 after I got message by Pocopocopocopoco. That was the only fair use of the rollback tool which I did after dealing with many unknown IP's with many kinds of warnings in their talk pages.--Gulmammad (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Gulmammad called my good faith removal of the azerbaijan stub vandalism yet I provided what I believe is very good justification for it's removal in the edit summary. He used undo and provided no justfication for the revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To date no consensus has been established regarding using rollback for more than vandalism edits. Take that for what you will. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to place Gulmammad on supervised editing, nor do I see any relevant link to any of the arbcom cases you (Pocopocopocopoco) have listed above. Tiptoety ^talk 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, there's a bunch of IP addresses reverting the articles in support of User:Andranikpasha, who is placed on revert parole by the administrators in accordance with the arbcom ruling. This is not a first incident of this kind, previously there was another bunch of anonymous IPs doing the same: [38] I think it is time to semiprotect the articles in question, then the use of rollback will not be an issue. Whoever stands behind the anon IPs would have to use his registered account if it's done. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And also, removal of {{azerbaijan-stub}} template from an Azerbaijan related article by Pocopocopocopoco [39] is highly questionable and disruptive and deserves attention of admins. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I gave a rationale as to why a flag with a crescent and star might not be appropriate for an article on a christian church/monastery, especially an Armenian one. It has also be discussed in talk here. Furthermore, you have no evidence that those IPs have anything to do with user:Andranikpasha. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Tiptoety, according to the arbcom cases WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBAA, any editor which edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan in an aggressive manner can be put on revert parole and supervised editing. user:Gulmammad's edit qualify as such because he would make repeated reverts without leaving an edit summary and he would edit war with those IP addresses. Note that other editors have received blocks for even less on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. For example if you scroll down this subsection, it says that user:Meowy was "blocked for 24 hours for failing to discuss a (in itself, questionable) reversion". user:Gulmammad on the other hand has made 6-7 questionable reversions and has abused the rollback tool in the process. At the very least he should be put on supervised editing and revert parole. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy was on parole and limited to 1 rv per week, as he has quite a history of POV editing, Gulmammad is not. Your reasons for removing a stub template are no good, and you should stop doing that. And the IPs should stop edit warring, if they are not related to any registered users, they need to register an account and stop hopping from one IP to another to revert the articles to the version preferred by Andranikpasha. Grandmaster (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I suggested supervised editing instead of a block. Also, I don't need your approval or permission to make edits. The edit I made was discussed in talk previously and I provided a good rationale in the edit summary so it was a perfectly reasonable edit. Also, if you have a problem with IPs making edits to wikipedia, you should take it up at WP:PUMP. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:William Ortiz has been repeatedly adding unencyclopaedic material to Nigeria. After I reverted this edit by User:William Ortiz, the user undid my edit with the edit summary "(Undid revision 215063894 by Mr. Carbunkle (talk) per WP:SOURCE)" and left a message on my talk page that similarly accuses me of being indef blocked User:Mr. Carbunkle. I am not. A brand new user, Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) has now started making the same change to Nigeria that started this whole episode. Can someone take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretmaybe's revert may very well have been due to an edit conflict. William Ortiz' editing however is strange indeed. --Ankimai (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Pretmaybe as an obvious sock of William Ortiz. The fact that this account was created in 2007 but only started editing two minutes after one of the edits in question shows that not only are the two linked, but that User:Pretmaybe appears to be a sleeper account. And as we all know, where there's one sleeper account, there's more--I'm going to file a request at WP:RFCU. --jonny-mt 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonny! I note that Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) was welcomed shortly after creation by AR Argon (talk · contribs), who seemed to be very welcoming that day (check contribs for 27 August 2007). AR Argon was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Connell66. Just sayin'... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was adding relevant sourced material to Nigeria that I spent hours researching the sources of. Animai decided they like to destroy my hard work. Later I accidentally made a mistake when I thougt I was fixing a spelling error and it prompted Delicious carbuncle to wikistalk me ever since. Delicious carbuncle has never been before to Nigeria and then just suddenly he went around there following me and editing warring. Then he mysteriously comes here and files a big report. Wikistalking! This part never addressed that these were good edits I did. I'd also like to see the results of that checkuser as I very much down that Petmaybe even lives near me and even if they do then you likely just got lucky. That user also didn't go and do any adding things in and it looked like they got caught in an edit conflict doing multiple edits. I have tried talking to Akimai that user doesn't like to respond and I'll just wait and wait, but they are very fast to revert. Carbunkle also mysteriously put up some stuff I made for deletion. Stalk stalk stalk! Plus he is complaining about me asking if he was Mr Carbunkle but he created the name see logs [40]? He did make that user! William Ortiz (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than fixing that "spelling error" where you changed Chanel No 5 to Channel No 5, I don't think I've worked on any of the same articles as you, with the exception of Nigeria. If I see something like that I usually take a look at the editor's contributions. I would have reverted some of your other changes, but other editors got there first. Your diff shows that I registered User:Mr Carbuncle as a doppelganger account after you asked me about it, not User:Mr. Carbunkle, but I suspect you know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Ortiz --William Ortiz (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to confess that I'm surprised. The repetition of edits, the timing, the sudden burst of activity, everything pointed to User:Pretmaybe being your sock. But you can't argue with technical data, and so I offer my sincere apologies. That being said, there are still other issues to deal with above, and I still believe there's something strange about Pretmaybe's edits, so I'd like a little more time to review before I unblock. If any other admin decides to unblock in the meantime, though, I'll trust their judgment and won't consider it wheel-warring. --jonny-mt 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article Nigeria it is unfair that a single person who wants to use an article purely as a promotional piece to make a subject look good and only that are given priority over Wikipedia's policies like WP:RS. And the other one, Delicious carbuncle his edits are purely reverting and I see no content adding, and I also see a lot of following people around. Content adding takes time and work. William Ortiz (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this edit to Alex Jones (radio) be deleted, per NPA and Hereward77 (talk · contribs) be further sanctioned. I can't do it mywelf, as the injured party of the personal attack, and previously having been involved in the edit war. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is not a personal attack, I am stating a fact here. Your friend Mr. Paul Erdos once said of Karl Marx: "I do believe he was a great philosopher." [41] --Hereward77 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One could agree that he's a great philosopher without agreeing he was ever correct. But it would still be a personal attack, even if it were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both editors are coming off a block for mutually 3RR-ing each other, so that should be taken into account. That said, regardless of the veracity of Hereward's edit summary (which is questionable in and of itself), in context it was clearly meant as an ad hominem attack. If Rubin has a problem with the edit summary, I think the admin tools should be used to strike that edit.

• • • It is a historical fact that Erdos was given privileges by the Hungarian communist tyranny. Arthur Rubin's article states that he was a associate of this man, and Mr. Rubin is smearing an ideological enemy of communism. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as further sanctions, the edit warring needs to stop, first and foremost. Might I suggest that both of you find some different articles to edit for a little while? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I added anti-globalism to the knownfor field. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise, as both appear in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem here? If there were a conspiracy theorists Hall of Fame, in Roswell NM, Alex Jones would be greeting visitors at the entrance. We don't need to skirt around the issue. Jones is a conspiracy theorist. All we have to do is examine his output. He is a role model for conspiracy theory. I think he's even put out a set of DVDs on how to be a conspiracy theorist. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Alex Jones never mentions UFO's. Again you are smearing him with lazy innuendo. He is a political activist and an American patriot. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SIGH --Pete (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And I notice you didn't challenge that DVD box set. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your silly remarks prove that you don't have an argument and that you have a political agenda against Mr. Jones. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 4) OK, I won't edit the article until a clear consensus is (re-)established. Perhaps an article RfC is in order, although I believe it had already been done. Still, all four of Hereward77's edits are NPA violations, and need to be removed. (And, although I appreciate Pete's support, the question of correctness of the article is not appropriate here, only on the article talk page and/or RfC.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that all the edits in the past few hours except Pete's be deleted, and both Hereward77 be put on an article ban for the next few days? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept an article ban for the duration of the block, although I may comment on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody do something about this nationalistic SPA account. Without reasons he is deleting great parts of articles ( first and second example) . Similar to that he is deleting statements confirmed by sources ( [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] ).

It is possible to see that I have not writen anything about his Greater Serbia nationalistic changes when he has changed language or nationality in articles from Croatian and Montenegrin to Serbian because this can be called editorial dispute, but blanking parts of articles and deleting statements confirmed by internet sources is clear vandalism .--Rjecina (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with the user? You know, sometimes if you attempt to start a conversation, a common ground can be reached. If you can show that you've tried to work things out and that hasn't worked, you are likely to get better response from admins than if ANI is your first attempt at resolving the problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, idiosyncratic edits in a combination of Spanish and English. Insists on creating nanostubs in both languages as well as nonsense. Might not be a vandal per se, but he's really causing a cleanup problem. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just reported him at AIV. Looks as if he's continuing past his final warning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Case blocked him for 24 hours. Marking this one as resolved. Re-report to AIV if problems start again after block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone plz. direct me to the administrator named "Sasquatch"? My buddy said i should look him up. thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Special:ListUsers —Travis^talk 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See this edit for legal threats made by Wrcousert after a fan website link was removed from Disneyland Park (Anaheim). I removed the link a second time and see that Wrcousert immediately restored it. —Whoville (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Clear as glass personal legal threat. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block as well. Can't be any more simple than that. seicer | talk | contribs 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever sued wikipedia, successfully or not, for blocking them? Shouldn't they be told, "There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia"? (Assuming that's a true statement.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems both incapable of communicating in english and appears they may be using their page to spam something. As the name itself doesn't appear to be against any sort of rule, I felt it more correct to post here rather than at Usernames for administrator attention. HalfShadow 03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, he is definitely spamming. [70] I'll try leaving him a message using the automatic translator. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. He re-spammed it[71]. Let's try a warning... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped by now. May have also used 58.213.209.36 (talk · contribs) at one point. Doubtful they'll come back, but you never know. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If possible would someone mind mailing me what was the contents of User:Rootology/monobook.js? Thanks! rootology (T) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is somebody that for a very long time has been making repeated edits, despite being warned, to pages about Spanish regions. The edits are usually of a type that removes the reference to the region, and just replace them with "Spain", instead, so it's somebody with some sort of nationalist agenda vandalising pages. They usually get reverted, but his technique is to to loads of minor edits, and repeat them over and over and over, and sometimes they get through. Here is an (incomplete) list of some of the IP-addresses he has used, all from Telefonica.

Special:Contributions/88.8.104.231, Special:Contributions/83.33.114.150, Special:Contributions/88.3.17.174, Special:Contributions/88.8.106.89, Special:Contributions/88.3.26.16, Special:Contributions/88.3.17.174, Special:Contributions/88.6.222.3, Special:Contributions/88.8.111.222, Special:Contributions/88.6.209.240

As you can see this has been going on for a long time. He has been warned many times, and must be aware of the warnings as he has made edits with the same IP-addresses even after receiving final warnings, but has so far avoided blocking by switching IP-addresses. --Regebro (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The two 88.6.*.* IP's are shown as being static, and so probably aren't a part of this. 83.33.114.150 can't be included in a range block, if one is placed, because it's too far away (numerically) from the other IPs. Even taking those out, you'd need to separate rangeblocks to take care of all of the 88.3.*.* and 88.8.*.* IPs - 88.8.104.0/21 (affects 2048 IPs) and 88.3.16.0/20 (affects twice as many, 4096 IPs). With as small a scale as we seem to be dealing with, I don't think it's worth it. Each of the IPs can be individually blocked if need be. However, looking at the contributions, some of those listed haven't edited in a long time. Only a couple have edited within the past week. I don't think this requires any action at present. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Calculator for anyone who wants to double-check my numbers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking individual addresses are likely to be ineffective anyway, as it's unusual that he uses the ssame adres for any length of time. I'm also guessing reporting the user to Telefonica is pointless? Anybody have any experience with them? --Regebro (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to request an abuse report if you like, however I'd point out again this doesn't show very severe vandalism. Several of these IP addresses haven't been heard from in weeks, months, or years. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant, as it's evidently the same person. --Regebro (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just hope that, next time this guy appears, we can just get him instantly blocked for repeated vandalism instead of having to issue increased level warnings for someone who is obviously the same guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep my eyes open, but if it has to be within couple of hours, as it seems to be from information I had before, then it's going to be tough. --Regebro (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has now created an account, User:Granadin, and started doing edits that are not obvious intentional POV vandalism. I'm taking this as an indication of good intent, and following the case and are attempting to communicate. --Regebro (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This relates to the thread above, but I wanted it it to be seen more quickly. After a long AFD discussion that established a clear consensus that 619 in Ireland and related articles should be merged into a century article, I have been implementing this merging. And Sarah, of course, is one step behind me, undoing everything I have done. (After leaving a note on the AFD page--since reverted--that the closer's judgment was incorrect.) I can't believe I will have to redo this all a third time (she's already reverted this once a couple days ago). Mangostar (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been done. Mangostar (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked her indefinitely for disruption. If someone wants to set strict conditions for an unblock, I'm fine with it, but this disruption has to cease. See the discussion at the top for the reason why I did this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. I've had no interaction with her that I can remember prior to the last few minutes, but these have been enough for me to believe that this is not an editor for whom productive collaboration is a priority.  Sandstein  23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, and agree with the bit about "conditions for an unblock". I think the question about whether Sarah has learned anything from this incident, posed above (don't remember by whom, too lazy to look), has been answered. - Revolving Bugbear 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. We waste far too much time on editors who are more trouble than they are worth. --Rodhullandemu 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And good riddens. seicer | talk | contribs 23:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. For someone who is clearly so bright, she can act damned stupid sometimes. This isn't looking particularly great for her right at the moment, but rather leave he blocked indefinitely, could we look at unblocking under the conditions described above. Perhaps the idea of strictly enforcing the civility/politics parole with increasing blocks for transgressions, while putting her on 1RR on Ireland related articles? Loathe as I am to get deeply involved in yet another Ireland related incident, I will volunteer (with a small v) to mentor her in adhering to it. Rockpocket 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Since she essentially rejected mentorship by saying she wouldn't take it seriously, it does not seem to be an option. Thus I can't think of any acceptable conditions that don't include a topic ban. Maybe there is another option, but I doubt it. - Revolving Bugbear 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a 1RR would not prevent her from doing what she just did (which is a colossal waste of poor Mangostar's time), so it does not address the problem. - Revolving Bugbear 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

She already expressed opposition to any mentoring, claiming that it is the administrators and other editors who have errored. And seeing these mass reverts and a lack of understanding that the pages were being merged, per comments like this, this and [72], leads me to believe that there is no hope for reform. seicer | talk | contribs 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone as un-receptive as she is, I think a indef block is the best way to go here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Having discussed the situation with Sarah off-wiki, I can't say I'm overly confident that she would be open to working under those conditions at this time. However, a block tends to focus the mind. I just don't want to close the door on Sarah, if there is way that we can keep her without compromising on disruption. Rockpocket 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, if she wants to return to wikipedia, she'll have to put a proper and civil unblock request in that will address the issues of her block. If she does anything less than this, then the block should stand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Her reversion of the merge and monkeying around with the AFD after it closed only reinforce the perception that she is unable to work within acceptable community norms. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but Sarah777 does not appear to accept that sometimes the community as a whole does not agree with her particular worldview, and that such disagreement does not stem from an anti-Irish bias. Horologium (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef block. I spent some time communicating with Sarah777 in March (multiple threads, starting around here[73]), and came away with a sense that she was someone who was an indef waiting to happen.[74] It seems that plenty of good faith attempts have been made to work with her, but at some point we just have to say "enough is enough", block, and move on. --Elonka 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not too encouraging. Sarah must have a serious comprehension issue, given that the purpose of the merge was discussed on several accounts prior to the block with her, and given her complete lack of understanding of the basic policies and guidelines on WP, as indicated in the whole ANI mess. seicer | talk | contribs 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What a damned shame. Sarah appears to be an otherwise productive editor who can’t see through the haze of her own POV. —Travis^talk 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See RFCU for a pending case. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And what purpose, exactly, is that supposed to serve other than alienate her further? Really, isn't a pound of flesh enough for you? Rockpocket 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that she can reform. Presonally, I'd rather not see this editor return, given all of the illustrious comments made, and the serious comprehension issues. Two administrators, besides myself, came to the conclusion that a RFCU would be best in this case. It doesn't harm to file one, and if it comes back with something more than what we already know, then that's great; if not, that's great as well. seicer | talk | contribs 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm under the illusion that when someone who is blocked edits from an IP, then signs their name, a CU is hardly needed to confirm it was them. Rockpocket 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the TOR, and any other possible IP addresses. seicer | talk | contribs 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then may I suggest use one of the many TOR tools available to put your mind at rest, and ask Sarah if she has used any other IP addresses to communicate in the last few hours. Both make more sense then RFCUing someone that have already identified themselves from an IP. Rockpocket 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Rockpocket. For her various and sundry other faults, Sarah does not sockpuppet via TOR, and the RFCU can be closed with a mininum of fuss. SirFozzie (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the two IPs identified in the RFCU and neither come back as tor nodes. Now...back to the subject. First off, Sarah777 does have a point in that dozens of articles are being "merged" without any notice. However - and this is the big however - it appears that the information has indeed been transferred to the appropriate article. Unfortunately, the history has not been. Is there a way that it can be done? Secondly, are there any suggestions on how to work with Sarah777 to get her back on the road to good editing? Risker (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there's any GFDL issue with a merge-and-delete. Some of the text I've seen before, because I wrote it, other parts are definitely the work of Timelinefrog (talk · contribs). Why attribute Sarah777 and not Timelinefrog? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any merge-and-deletes have happened, actaully, only merges (see e.g. 618 in Ireland), so all history is preserved and there are no GFDL problems. Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The block to put a stop to this was a good idea, however I think the indef block may be unnecessary in the long term. As Risker says, there was no afd notice on the pages in question[75], the AFD initiator did specifically frame the deletion discussion around the one article, and the admin AFD closure didnt state that all of these pages were to be part of the closure. It is easy to see how this misunderstanding occurred, but of course it was unfortunate that Sarah777 took it on herself to also muck around with the AFD.

She has said she has gone off to bed; lets wait for her unblock request before proceeding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite means of undefined length, not infinite. Appeals are possible, if the user is sufficiently interested in editing, to want to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of 64.180.66.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Has promised to post BLP violations until blocked. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of copying to WP:AIV where it belongs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any such promise, but I did notice that the activity stopped after you placed a final warning. I'll delete the BLP violations from the talk page for the time being--if they show so much as a hint of engaging in the same behavior again, put a post on WP:AIV linking to this thread. --jonny-mt 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, check that. The protection log for the talk page shows that it is typically left semiprotected to prevent further WP:BLP violations--this only ended after it was upped to full protection for a day in March. Since this seems to have simply been an oversight, I've reinstated the semi-protection. --jonny-mt 07:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The promise to reinsert the offending material until banned was there; you must have overlooked it. The IP has not stopped; note the recent post on my talk page. Thanks for your help though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oop, there's my problem--I was searching for "block" rather than "ban". Seems they've been blocked for 48 hours now. --jonny-mt 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in at WP:AIV, and the admin User:PhilKnight blocked him at 07:58. Posting these kinds of annoyances at AIV will typically get faster action than here, although in this case it was kind of a race to the finish line. The IP address then left this stupid rant [76] and got his talk page protected also. Of course, it expires in 48 hours. But once a vandal has an admin's eye, he's toast if he tries his disruption again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, some advice please. An anonymous IP has an ongoing campaign of vandalism to this (and only this) article. This is the latest example. Where identified, I have blocked the user for increasing lengths of time (currently two weeks with multiple-IPs template). As soon as the block expires, or they obtain a new IP, they're at it again. I have also semi-protected the article on two occasions (currently for a month). Has anyone any further advice on how to handle this, as permanent protection stops other good faith IP edits to the article. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord ([77]). I'd semiprotect it indefinitely, rather than for a fixed period of time, and take it off after a couple of months. By protecting it for a specified timeframe every time, the vandal knows exactly when they can resume vandalising. If any good faith IP editors wish to edit the article (couldn't see much evidence of this in the article history amidst all the vandalism), they can use the talk page to suggest changes in the interim. Neıl 龱 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, go in hard and call the cops. Having someone arrested for vandalising Wikipedia might make other vandals think twice. Actually, I'm not totally joking, because my reading of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 suggests that he/she is committing an offence. And there are enough instances of IP addresses for the boys in blue to reasonably determine who the vandal is.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not committing an offense under the linked wording, because the anon in question is authorized to make the vandalism. (I assume it is known that the ip in question is English, otherwise clearly English law does not apply). Taemyr (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to know the crime rate in Wallington is low enough that they could afford to send the bobbies after an internet vandal. Just semi-protect the article for a long stretch. Even if the date is stated, for maybe a year from now, I doubt the vandals will sit around waiting. In fact, they'll probably be behind bars for some other comparable legal offense, like playing their tellies too loud. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And Taemyr is right, their defence in court would be that wikipedia says "anyone can edit". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Emh, thanks for those replies ... I don't think the 'boys in blue' would be too distracted from their tea - and I thought the vandal was weird! I'll leave it as is until the current protection expires - then reinstate for a long unstated period if it resumes. Kbthompson (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was fairly tongue-in-cheek. I had happened to be thinking about the Computer Misuse Act and its applicability to vandalism on Wikipedia, and then came across your post so just dived in - that's all! Anyway, probably it would not be a good idea if the police were to turn up at the person's home or place of work. It could after all be sloppily written up by our wonderful British tabloids ("Wallington man arrested for mistake in Wikipedia", or something), thus discouraging nervous newbies from contributing. And it could get horribly twisted by the likes of Wikipedia Review.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If he were issuing personal threats, it would be a different story. Sending the coppers to visit someone who makes internet threats is a legitimate use of tax money. Most likely the guy will turn out to be harmless. But every time you read about these mass-killings, everyone is surprised when they find out that "he really meant it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my own 'tongue in cheek' response to that suggestion caused offence. It was certainly not intended, it shows the inadequacy of the media for conveying irony. He (and I assume that) has not issued any personal threats - beyond name calling - just this one obsession with Wallington. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. :) Just be aware that sarcasm begets sarcasm. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choc-Top was created by User:Sgt_Pikachu5, but wasn't completed. The editor of the article then offered a rationale, and the nominator withdrew and replaced the page content with a withdrawal note. I've reverted the AfD page content and removed the AfD notice on the article, but I don't know what to do with the AfD page, so I guess I have to drop this onto a friendly admin's lap. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, ask WhisperToMe to delete it okay? This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear from his edit history and talk page that he intends to use Wikipedia as a place to compile his economy vocabulary definitions. Could someone tell him this is not an appropriate use of this website? JuJube (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's looks like he's already been warned and blocked recently. Noting that the specific problem of making that list on his user page might be OK, we have three serious problems that are probably all blockable. 1. He is creating page after page that are quite immediately eligible for deletion. 2. There appear to be copyright issues with these pages. and 3. He's not responded to any warnings, suggestions, or even his block... he has ZERO talk edits. I'd recommend a week long block in order to stop this disruptive editing and encourage him to check policy/ engage in talk when he returns. If after that it doesn't stop, then an indef would be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • he's been blocked for 55 hours, just report again if he continues. This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.132.108.224 - admins will also be able to see two deleted contributions. This IP's first edit was to insert something like "The day after tomorrow I will make all Jews dead", and it didn't get any better. I initially blocked for 55 hours because quite frankly, I think warnings are unecessary for edits of that gravity. On checking the IP, it is a Hungarian ASSIGNED PA, which I understand to mean at least for the time being a personal broadband addess, and reblocked it for a year. Just looking for a second pair of eyes. --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that warnings are unnecessary and if it were a known static IP, that block length would be appropriate. [78] says "CATV dynamic IP pool" so to me that means it might change, but really, I have no idea how static they are. They might get reassigned every time the cable modem is reset or they might get reassigned every other year. --B (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Its often rather hard to tell with non-US ISPs and cable systems, since all too often they don't really separate the dynamic from the static address ranges. However, if it says "dynamic IP pool" I would be inclined to believe it until categorized otherwise, and reduce the block to a month or so. It can always be lengthened later if needed. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it from RIPE's website, "This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR. It cannot be kept when terminating services provided by the LIR." AFAIK, RIPE covers Hungary. If it's a single user, it will only be reallocated when that user leaves the ISP, when it will be used by some other person. If it's assigned to an institution, we might expect to see similar edits from a block assigned to them. I will reduce to a month and see what happens. --Rodhullandemu 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, it's two users, living in the same house, fully named with addresses and emails to boot!

F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• FYI this IP has been back spouting the same nonsense on the talk page, which I have now protected for the length of the block. --Rodhullandemu 00:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving the block at a month, then see if it starts up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - looks reasonable to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good block. Good protection. I agree that a month should be sufficient, with longer blocks as warranted on return. Warnings are a courtesy and certainly not required with such blatant ill will. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BOLD and IAR inspired me to make this deletion; if anyone thinks this was wrong, feel free to undelete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't make a general practice of this sort of "history hiding" -- has some implications as far as accountability for actions and transparency of discussion and history -- but from time to time a small deviation from general practice may save a lot of drama. I'll assume that was the idea, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion about him.

He was already blocked for trolling once and was advised to stop. Afterwards, he kept up the same behavior as if nothing happened (see edits like [79], [80], [81]). Take a look at his recent contributions and tell me he shouldn't be indef blocked. --Ouzo (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy seems to be from another planet, but most of his activities seem to be on talk pages. I don't get why his initial block was revoked. He should be blocked for a short while and asked to explain himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still ranting about some soap opera he wrote? I can't see where there's any plausible reason to expect he'll magically turn into a useful contributor; he looks irredeemably kooky to me. Looks like Neil unblocked last time but has been making no obvious attempt to babysit him since then. I don't see much point asking him to explain- if he were able to conduct himself rationally we wouldn't be having this conversation. But maybe it wouldn't hurt anything either. I have no objections to either an indefinite block or block with a "what the hell are you doing?" message attached. Just don't spend too much time expecting him to engage in useful discussion, and don't expect him to change. Friday (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that, despite all the discussion here, he was only blocked the one time, and then only for a short while. Give him a week's block. If he doesn't change, give him a month's. If he still doesn't straighten up, then shut him down. This comes close to my "Why are you messing with this guy?" axiom, but the lack of previous blocks implies some initial AGF is in order. I wouldn't hold out much hope either, but maybe he really hasn't yet figured out that wikipedia is not supposed to be used like a blog. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He has been told time and time again to stop talking about his fictional telenovela stuff. If he can't understand that Wikipedia is not for these things, it is his own fault. --Ouzo (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, today is evidently my turn as "stoopid question asker" but here goes: If you look at his talkpage, Will Beback asked him why he was trying to get Primetime unblocked. Has anyone investigated a possible connection between these two? I don't know much about Primetime, other than that he's been banninated, but seeing that on the talkpage just made me curious. Gladys J Cortez 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his edits on users like User:Soap opera obsessed and User:Passions4everfan. --Ouzo (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note I've blocked him for 1 week for now since it seems unlikely anyone would object. Friday (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. And for sockpuppetry questions, there is always WP:RFCU, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may put in my two cents' worth, I took a peek at this guy's contribs and talk page. His style is an awful lot like two long-blocked users, User:Wiki brah and User:SuperDude115. Both of these accounts tried the patience of the community to the breaking point and no good seemed to come from it; I tried to mentor both accounts under my previous username and failed. My suggestion is to shut him down for good if he comes back from the break with more nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've got ourselves another self-confessed vandal [82] in the making. [83]. M0RD00R (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He could be hoping to get the school's IP blocked from editing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence a short block would be a good compromise... maybe until the semester is over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec)I say, just do nothing. We provide info about vandalisms on IP talk pages, so it's not like his school couldn't find out that he was the one vandalizing, if his school actually had a need to edit Wikipedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I spent nearly an hour the other day playing whack-a-mole over this kid's edits. All were either highly POV, copyvios, blatant vandalism or all of the above via his account as well as his IP. He's back with a new sock, User:Pcbyed. I believe a block is justified for disruption and sockpuppetry. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After four days offline, I came back this morning and the first thing I saw was this suicide threat at Suicide. I've blocked the poster, Bullyingsucks2004 (talk · contribs), and filed a checkuser request to try and find out where to report this. Anything else I should do? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to find a CU online to get IP, do a whois and report to local authority. I'd do it myself, but have to leave. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to go on IRC and contact one of these people: Special:ListUsers/CheckUser. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-27 15:33

Er, there is the possibility (call me inhumane) that the account is promotional for a bullying charity? Possible, but unlikely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the suggestions at WP:TOV, I will be more than glad to take point on this. I am current in IRC chatting with a few admins and hopefully a CU. I will gladly report this to the authorities. Bstone (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I mailed our rookie CU when I saw this, hopefully it's just someone wasting our time. That message reads like Canadian English to me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have chatted with Jamed_F in IRC at #wikipedia-en. He is contacting the Foundation for approval to release this information. I pray that this delay won't mean the difference between life and death. Bstone (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Fvasconcellos, I also have the information. Can someone pmail me to followup as I'm just leaving here and will be away for a while? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't imagine that will be a problem, per the user's next edit to their talk page here. As the user is already blocked indef, I'd say our on-wiki actions are exhausted. Is it worthwhile to roust out the authorities in this case? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further posts from this user indicate it's a hoax/vandalism account. I am standing down. Bstone (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As the user talkpage has now also been protected indefinitely, I'm tagging this as resolved. Thanks, though, for the quick response to what had initially appeared to be a credible threat. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary part is, the idiot was still vandalizing via the talk page an hour after he was blocked. Another vandal vanquished.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another sock of Cowboycaleb1, with the usual technique of harrasing me via my talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The new user Cryptid Boy left me a message about a rv I made on the Shriners article, because he wanted to add Yaarab Temple to the list of buildings, despite the fact that a) the building he's talking about has been Fox Theater since 1975,and b) the Yaarab Shriners are currently in a different building. He apparently decided he was going to make an article on the Temple in the same vein, and when I took a look at it, I found this diff, which, while bot-reverted, is wholly inappropriate and not what one would expect from a user with five edits. It indicates that this is a problem or a vandal waiting to happen, and I'd like an admin to look into this. MSJapan (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied Yaarab Temple for A1. I don't think the user has done anything seriously bad yet and I suspect he'll go away again. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a user named User:Cryptid Boy. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual user is CryptidBoy (talk · contribs · logs). —Travis^talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has been constantly adding obscure nobility titles to the project, apparently for years now. Their most recent contributions — Count of Meimun‎ and Barone Francesco Gauci‎ — are all up at AfD for lack of notability. The user has defended themself at this AfD, and has even admitted to owning a webpage on Maltese genealogy, which shows a very likely conflict of interest; the same AfD even included a keep !vote from User:Count Gauci, a likely sockpuppet with no edits outside that AfD. (Note that in the page Selimbria, the sources are from a C.A. Gauci...) For years now it seems that Wikipedians have been asking Tancarville to provide sources, which he's been pretty much refusing to do, simply claiming to be an expert in the field. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any proof of his expertise in the field beyond his own website; no Google Scholar hits, for one. Furthermore, there seem to be issues with incivility and ownership of articles, such as here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the cited diff must have an error of Engrish. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD seems to be handling everything adequately at last. DGG (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Allstarecho#Ronnie Musgrove. 21mellons (talk · contribs) continues adding BLP violating content to the former governor's article at Ronnie Musgrove. The former governor has repeatedly denied any allegations of an affair while married. As such, inclusion of the content is a violation of BLP policy. Unfortunately, 21mellons isn't getting the hint. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he was blocked for making a legal threat, has done nothing but bring negativity and drama to the party; diffs galore here: [84]. This is an editor who has added less than a dozen references to articles in the entire time he's been here, and they were all self-published pro-pedophile websites. He's not here to build an encyclopedia, only to disrupt. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. Many of the sources that Lambton has added (e.g., Dennis Howitt) are not "pro-paedophile," and where pro-paedophile sources have been used, they were appropriately used to describe the fringe beliefs of PPAs. Lambton's mediation of debates and discouragement of edit warring has been invaluable. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of legal threat has been addressed. The characterisation is laughable, despite the fact that an administrator acted upon it - it was a parodic reference to PetraSchelm's own lawyering.

Other accusations such as socking have yet to be proven, and the nonsense around IP editing is clearly false - to anyone who looks beyond the lazily contrived hot air and traces he anatomy of what was a very dangerous and potentially revealing failure to log in a few times, that I dealt with in the safest, most dignified way possible, by disowning accidental IP edits before anyone had publicly linked my IP to my account.

I have remained civil throughout my editing history, even through most of my responses to the malignant, poorly located and ridiculous accusations of PetraSchelm and SqueakBox - two highly disruptive and cruel POV pushers - both prone to implying some quite sickening things about editors they don't like.

So what can I say. All counter - evidence is available in the forums linked to by my contribs and diffs provided on other fora. I am tired of this crap, and request that PetraSchelm is coerced into either ceasing her damaging personal attacks and mischaracterisations, or reporting them to the relevant forums only. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Those commenting may wish to read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_discussion_-_Jovin_Lambton. Black Kite 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to report destructive behavior and a personal attack by user DirkMavs and johnb316. Both are causing edit warring and won't stop and discuss anything either. DirkMavs accused me of being another user in the history section. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Graham_%28pastor%29&action=history Floridapeaches (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to report doublet89, floridapeaches, and romans9:11 for their destructive behavior on the same pages. This is getting out of control over a very silly issue and I would appreciate an admin to check out the Jack Graham page in particular and notice the behavior of the editors. We have made a few strides on the page but some editors are persistent with using out of context quotes and remove verifiable info that they disagree with. Help would be appreciated...thanks!Dirkmavs (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected Jack Graham (pastor). Give me a few minutes... seicer | talk | contribs 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirkmavs (talk · contribs) has been warned of 3RR at 21:46, and I warned Johnb316 (talk · contribs) of the 3RR violation. I also count five reverts by Floridapeaches (talk · contribs), who has also been warned of 3RR. Discuss this at the talk page; edit warring is never acceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping count, but this article is a tempest in a teapot and several editors appear to have strong feelings that are in conflict. I call it a tempest in a teapot since the article doesn't get a lot of traffic compared to, say, Falun Gong or Arab-Israeli conflict. I count 5 people in the list above. I'd like to see 5 fresh faces volunteer to come in and monitor the article. If this keeps up, it may be headed for Arbcom, or, more likely, one or more editors will just get fed up and quit monitoring the article or worse, drop out of Wikipedia altogether in disgust. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up about the massive backlog at WP:AIV. I'd help but I'm not an administrator...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Rolo Lamperouge was semiprotected by admin Daniel Case after over 6 identical unexplained paragraph removals by the Filipino IPs 122.2.187.98, 122.2.179.1, 122.2.188.97 and 122.2.185.14. I reverted these with comments to refer to a discussion on whether the disputed content was proper to the article, which due to a lack of community input was tentatively resolved at keeping the content under observation. No attempts at communication were made by the anons. A total of 4 warnings were issued before I requested admin intervention.

Following semiprotection, the user Kentone performed edits identical to the anons, flagged as "minor" and in one instance appended with comment "removing irrelevant information." I reverted these and submitted 2 warnings to user talk, in the second instance requesting participation in the relevant discussion. Kentone responded by repeating the removal, commenting that "A discussion was already made but you still continue to put irrelevant information" and refusing to further communicate. The current Rolo Lamperouge article is Kentone's most recent edit. I have performed 2 reversions in the past 24 hours, and do not intend to violate 3RR.

This section was previously posted to WP:AIV. I have moved it here on the advisory of TravisTX. Requesting admin intervention or advice on how to deal with the issue?

-- Fallacies (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Kentone for 12 hours for disrupting the encyclopedia. I would comment, however, that the text in question does not appear to be verified. While I make no judgement of the content itself, removal of uncited text is appropriate, and I only blocked on the basis that the removal of the text was marked as minor and that they were performing edits that had earlier resulted in the article being protected from the same edits by ip editors. (I also note, but did not comment, that there had been no involvement in the discussion by this editor, although they referred to it which means they were aware of the situation.) I think you need to find good third party sources for the content in question, or otherwise you may have to admit that it should be removed - in the proper manner, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Kentone's most recent edit with the comment: "Please explain your view in the keep/remove discussion of the disputed content as opposed to outright deleting it. Observe that due to lack of input the prior discussion resulted in a tentative keep." I hope that he will be at least willing to communicate once he returns from his block.

-- Fallacies (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As a result of a previous run-in with this editor, I'm referring this to ANI for action.

Current issue - User_talk:Trident13#Your_edit_to_Danielle_Lloyd_-_.5Bhttp:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DDanielle_Lloyd.26diff.3Dnext.26oldid.3D215228164.5D

Previous issue - User_talk:Trident13#Vicki_Butler-Henderson

Similar pattern, breaches WP guidelines, refuses to accept responsibilty, resorts to personal abuse. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You threaten him with blocking because he added a statement to an article you didn't like and you accuse him of being tendentious? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I chose L3 because of their history. Please stick to the statement rather than attacking me. Does the statement comply with WP guidelines/policies or not given the previous referenced statement evidencing a continuing modelling career ? I see that they are now attacking me for removing the duplicated conversation from my talk page in spite of the notice explaining why. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your choice of a level 3 warning was aggressive. Don't template the regulars it's likely to make things worse not better. I' not attacking you I'm critisizing your choices. If you think his statement wrong then edit it. This is a wiki after all. There is nothing for an admin to do here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally you don't appear to have informed him of this thread. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) and PetraSchelm (talk · contribs) are disrupting my RFCU on the former of them. Besides generating several pages of bickering, they've added 10 other users to my request, including myself and persons they allege to be my sockpuppets. I would move the bickering to the talkpage and ask Petra and Squeak to file their own CheckUser, but when I attempted this, SqueakBox angrily accused me of trolling and covering up evidence. [85][86]

Given one RFCU on SqueakBox was denied because "this is a place to request a check, not debate. Checks need to be succinctly worded with supporting diffs, and debates need to be held elsewhere," I'm worried that this may be an intentional tactic. Administrative assistance in cleaning up Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox would be appreciated. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I loaned my 11-foot pole to a friend. —Travis^talk 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you create an RFCU which includes an account (User:Ztep) that you tried to claim was a SqueakBox sock in a previous RFCU and which was checkusered as  Unrelated, it's hardly a surprise that this happens, is it? Black Kite 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ztep was included to check against User:Blowhardforever, as it's likely that SqueakBox is using his own British proxies for all of these socks. As noted on the RFCU, there's a long history of British SPA's being "mistaken" for Squeak. Ztep was almost certainly SB, as he appeared the first day of a week-long block of SB, edited only articles of interest to SB, disappeared on the last day of that block, and then reappeared a year later to revert after Squeak had exceeded 3RR. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• "All these socks" is a pretty weird comment, too--you're only even accusing him of one. All the confirmed open proxy socks in the RCU are pro-pedophile socks, being checked against Jovin, since his IP socking came out. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think Ztep is in England. RCU never confirmed such a thing. What it did confirm is Ztep was using a dial-up connection and open proxies are not linked to the interent via dial-up. i find your assumption that Ztep was editing from teh UK to be extremely suspicious. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU said that Ztep was in the same country as Lambton. Lambton has said he is in the UK. Ergo, ... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Lambton said this, not to my knowledge he has not. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to mention this - the previous CU clearly says that Ztep is on a dialup in a different country from SqueakBox - i.e. not a proxy. What makes you assume it's in England? - I too find that highly suspicious. And regardless, what's the point of checking Ztep against Blowhardforever - since Ztep and SB are unrelated, all it'd prove is that Ztep and Blowhard are related, not that either is related to SB, wouldn't it? Black Kite 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proxies can be run on dial-up. A checkuser may be useful because it's possible that Squeak slipped up, and even if he didn't, the connection between Ztep and Blowhardforever will be valuable for the pending SSP report. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"it's possible that Squeak slipped up" is such an unbelievable bad faith comment. And why should we have to put up with new RCUs against me every few weeks to satisfy the paranoia of AS that I have "slipped up". Thanks, SqueakBox 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, the eleven foot pole crack made me laugh. Interesting, though, that AS woud complain as soon as MariontheLibrarian and WriteMakesRight were added...or was it that someone pointed out that Jovin never makes a constructive edit ? (unless you count adding less than a dozen self-published pro-pedophile websites as references over the course of several months...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me AS is using this page and RCU to repeat accusations re Ztep word for word that have been disproven already, so IMO its pretty obvious who is doing the disrupting here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if it were a separate RCU that would be fine and if Blowhard were then found to be Ztep he could be blocked as a sock, but not using my RCU page, as it feels to me like an attempt to get to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All these repeated RFCU's on Squeakbox seem a bit mean and unnecessary, to me. Given how keen people are to accuse/get him checked for sockpuppetry, does anyone really think he would be so foolish as to sock at this time? Sticky Parkin 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After four and a half years of editing Wikipedia, nothing would surprise me any more. --Carnildo (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)