Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlackCab (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 2 September 2010 (→Please help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Name-jumper re-creating wp:band spam

I'd like to offer my congratulations in advance to any admin who has the skills and patience follow this. It's a tough one.

accounts: RuskiiSun, SunHawken, BlackImperial, LIL LEGGITTE, maybe Inka 888, and one or more unknown account names

articles: Young Jonii, Lil Leggitte, perhaps other deleted or existing ones too

images: Lil_Leggitte.jpg

commons categories: Young Jonii

This one comprises one of the most convoluted edit histories I've ever seen, all over the course of a few days. Or maybe it's just so difficult for me to follow because it involves multiple accounts, and deleted user pages, deleted or blanked talk pages, and deleted mainspace pages that I can't really see in full. Well, then:

I'll begin by disclosing that the only involvement I've had so far with this user, apart from notifying him of this ANI post, was to ask admins to hold on re his request to be made a "Confirmed" user. I haven't interacted with him in any other way at all: no reverts, no common articles edited, no talk-page exchanges. But to move on to the substance of the matter...

This shows that a user initially operating under an account name unknown to me wanted really badly to create a page about a new, non-notable 18 year-old rapper going by the name "Young Jonii", recreating the page 5 or 6 times after it was speedily deleted. I suspect the subject himself created the article; Young Jonii is a pseudonym/stagename of Trent Williams. Things get complicated from here, because the user subsequently created a new account or accounts, and also used the official "simple renaming" process multiple (?) times on old ones, and had the pages for old ones deleted, and/or just blanked them himself. This has all happened within a few days, so it's hard to follow, not being privy to deleted pages.

I can't tell for sure who initially created the "Young Jonii" page. But I noticed before pages for SunHawken (talk · contribs) were deleted and redirected ( see contributions currently visible here ) that the SunHawken user account was created and almost immediately became involved with the "Young Jonii" article. The account was created after that article had been speedily deleted its first two times. SunHawken's first edit was to thank one of the admins who'd deleted "Young Jonii" for deleting some page, presumably "Young Jonii". I can't quite make out the sequence that follows; presumably the page had been recreated a third (?) time by some unknown account, because shortly thereafter SunHawken

• requested page protection for "Young Jonii",

• responded to a speedy notice – the third (?) for the article – that someone had placed on SunHawken's talk page

• evidently (see SunHawken's talk page) recreated both "Young Jonii" ...

• and also recreated an article about another 18 year-old rapper from "Young Jonii's" hometown, viz. "Lil Leggitte"

From a spam-coi report: 06:11:33, Fri Aug 27, 2010 - user:LIL LEGGITTE - user talk (contribs) on page Lil Leggitte (diff - undo) -> (overlap) Username overlaps with pagename: 'lil leggitte'-'lil leggitte' = 100% (100/100) - - Note there's also a currently-existing user named LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs) who appears to be involved somehow as well. )

• After the "Young Jonii" article had been speedily deleted a fifth time from mainspace – see multiple warnings on SunHawken's talk page – SunHawken recreated it under his talk page and also under his user page, and later – using a different account? – created a redirect from mainspace to his userspace version of the "Young Jonii" article. This was speedily deleted, too.

• At one point, SunHawken was blocked for 24 hours by user:Kuru for reasons I'm not fully aware of, although I imagine they have to do with the constant recreation of the "Young Jonii" article and perhaps the "Lil Leggitte" one as well.

( At some point he might have requested deletion of "Young Jonii" himself; the history is too garbled for me to understand fully. )

• User SunHawken also requested a whole bunch of privileges: AWB, Reviewer, Autopatrolled, a bot authorization, and in a subsequent incarnation, a request for "Confirmed" status.

• He also created a Commons category for Young Jonii, placed a help request for "Young Jonii" at WP:BLPN, and generally careened around without much evident care for what he was doing. SunHawken appears to be using Twinkle.

• Based on this diff user SunHawken also appears to have been involved in the creation of a now-deleted article about LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs), presumably a friend of his; also 18 years old, who also lives in Montgomery, Alabama, as is the case with Trent Williams, aka "Young Jonii".

• At some point in the process this person created user ID, "RuskiiSun" and used it to work for a while on the "Young Jonii" article. After a day or two he used the "simple renaming" process to have that account renamed to BlackImperial (talk · contribs).

• He added Trent Williams, the RL name of his non-notable "Young Jonii", to the List of people with surname Williams in a garbled edit that needs to be reverted. As user RuskiiSun, he had previously created an article named Trent Williams (entertainer), it would appear.

• At the top of this page I listed Inka 888 (talk · contribs) as a possible sock or alternate account for this user. That's based on this diff] in which the user signs himself as Sunhawken at 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Note that this signature points to SunHawken in its main part, but to Inka 888's talk page in its superscript. Also, Inka 888 counsels a blocked user to create a sock, possibly not understanding the implications. But like user SunHawken's history of prematurely requesting additional privileges, user Inka 888, a non-admin, closed an RfA, was concerned about page protections, and asked about becoming an admin. I'm unsure about the possibility that Inka 888 might be an alternate account or sock for the other user accounts listed in this post, at top. I certainly admit I could be incorrect, and will apologize to Inka 888 if my perception of the facts has misled me.

• BlackImperial (aka RuskiiSun and SunHawken) has now created a move request on a userspace talk page that User:BlackImperial/Young_Jonii be moved to mainspace. The subject is still non-notable, and this seventh attempt to get the article into mainspace won't work, either. This guy's determined – I'll give him that – but he's really creating chaos, and consuming quite a lot of attention from other editors and admins, to no good purpose at all.

At this point I think SunHawken, BlackImperial, LIL LEGGITTE need to be blocked, and perhaps User:Inka 888 too if investigtion determines that they're the same. Maybe a topic ban on music or performer-related articles? I think it'd also be a good idea to salt the article "Young Jonii" since it's now on it's seventh attempt at re-creation in a week or so, the subject is unequivocally not notable, and the user who keeps re-creating it doesn't appear willing to give up. This whole mess does need further investigaton, though, since there are probably lots of reverts and perhaps other measures and accounts that also will need attentnon. I'd take it further, but my head is kind of spinning from all this, and I can't see deleted pages, either, to try to make sense of the history.

No SPI initiated, btw. I've never done one, and don't know whether it's necessary in this case. Sorry if I've made any mistakes in trying to document this mess – that's entirely possible, and sorry for the long post here, too. Thanks all,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page salted. Sunhawken is likely a duck sock of BlackImperial. RuskiiSun was a valid rename, so not really a sock at this point. Inka 888's sig "mishap" basically gave that part away. The only thing that confuses me is Inka's poor writing in comparison with BlackImperial's style--possibly faked, though. Page salted. SPI seems reasonable at this point. —fetch·comms 12:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Inka 888 is  Unlikely to be the same editor as the others, but may well be someone who knows them personally. — Coren  13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for salting, Fetch, and for taking the time to wade through the above. Coren: understood, thanks very much for wading through it as well, and for your helpful information. Will line-through and formally withdraw suggestion of Inka 888 as a possible sock of the others, but will keep eyes on, just out of curiosity. Fetch, you might like to look at BlackImperial's reply to the ani notification I left on his talk page. No time to pursue this further just now, but will try to follow up with what might still need to be done later. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Still don't know who created the "Young Jonii" article in the first place, i.e. who created the first instance which was speedily deleted, at 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC). Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm not seeing how any of the so-far-named accounts could have done it, based on their contribution histories. Will be offline for a while, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunhawken first created the Young Jonii article. —fetch·comms 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File a SPI. Blatant socking, conflict of interest: and an incredible lack of notability (one demo doesn't cut it). According to this unacceptable reference (none of the references are acceptable) to the very poorly-written User:BlackImperial/Young Jonii article, the "team" mentioned is "Team Leggitte". This article is not fit for this encyclopedia for many reasons. Seriously. Doc9871 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've undertaken all the cleanup steps that I can re this mess, but there are still a couple of issues need admin attention before we can close this:

• BlackImperial writes below, "Sunhawken Account i had it deleted so i stopped it, the account... Why? I had "bad" negative warnings under this account i was new.
• The SunHawken account was not "deleted" insofar as I can tell; it appears to me to still be an active login. ( see below.)
• The edit history and the talk page history from the SunHawken account has not been merged into the edit history of the new BlackImperial account.

But I'm confused: Is it really okay for a user to just create a new account to expunge "bad negative warnings" and blocks that they don't want in their history? That's what's happened here: The user started with the SunHawken account, and took some heat and a block when he re-created his two band-spam pages, one page six times in a row, despite multiple warnings to stop. He then created the RuskiiSun account, used that for a day or so, and then took RuskiiSun through the "simple rename" process to get his current name of "BlackImperial". Then (I think) he got an admin to delete the SunHawken user page. Next he created this redirect from SunHawken to BlackImperial. The upshot of this process, then, unless I'm missing something, is the SunHawken account/login still exists, and the edit and talk-page history for the SunHawken account didn't get merged to the current BlackImperial account. Can someone double-check my facts here, and can an admin please take whatever corrective action is needed, e.g. to delete SunHawken and merge the history if that's the appropriate course? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking SunHawken as it should not be used if it is indeed abandoned. (Accounts cannot be deleted.) No, it was not the best idea to just make a new account, but nothing we can do now. Merging the edits isn't possible at this point; just have to be left alone. —fetch·comms 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Fetchcomms. Thanks very much for all the work you've put into this. I appreciate it. I think that ties up all the loose ends, then. Will mark as resolved. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Accused

Yes, we the team could say I'm smart :). False statements: I'm not LIL LEGGITTE, and Inka 888. Lil Leggitte i gave up on that project, used under Sunhawken Account i had it deleted so i stopped it, the account... Why? I had "bad" negative warnings under this account i was new. Note: Under Sunhawken (talk · contribs) this account created the article 5 times the fourth it was ACCEPTED but then the next day deleted.

• LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs) thats not me, that user had his own accords.

• Ruskiisun (talk · contribs) I had the name changed which was advised while working on my project.. but the move was requested and it was done by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) To remove my "bad" new user alerts.

BlackImperial is my new account I creased to use all other to accounts. In this account i used all Misplaced Pages guidelines by requests and not by doing anything big with out consents of other Wikipedians. I quickly learned to ropes.

Quote from OhioStandard "but you've learned many of the skills needed to contribute productively to the biggest and most comprehensive encylopedia the world has ever known. That's pretty cool in itself, and I bet when you look around you won't find a lot of your friends can say the same." I'm kind of muti-talented/unique people tell me. :) So, please allow it to remain in my Userspace till the time comes! A admin (forget his name) said that now my only issue with the article was that i had no "good" references. convoluted indeed... (BlackImperial (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

You should disclose all names of accounts you have used on your current account's userpage. Young Jonii is not yet notable right now; I would expect to wait several months at the very least before he is notable. Please don't create new accounts without disclosing them on your userpage, or people will get confused like this instance. —fetch·comms 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How do i go about disclosing them??? Fetchcomms, sorry about this whole mess i was not aware about the size/scope of this.(aka. Being investigated by federal B.I) I really tried my best on this article in a weeks time ,but seeing I'm new i can of put myself apart from the the other "newbies". Side Note: Thanks for the response #2note : Young Jonii is Unequivocal :). (BlackImperial (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

The FBI is not investigating anything. You disclose an account by, uh, writing it out on your userpage and basically saying you have used it before, you have stopped now, why, etc. —fetch·comms 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done ; I have done very much so as you have asked in the manner and account. BlackImperial (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. I doubt anyone here saw the humor in the FBI remark, though. The fact is that your persistent refusal to attend to the warnings you received from multiple editors and admins has cost other volunteers here many hours of time to deal with the consequences and clean up the result. We'd all rather be writing good articles, after all. Please don't repeat the performance: I'm glad you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but you can't use it as a means to further your own music career or personal interests. And since you're still quite new here, please take the advice and warnings you receive from others seriously. If you feel you have some reason to doubt that another editor's advice is legitimate, you can always ask for a second opinion at the help desk.

Beyond that, please slow down enough to carefully read the instructions on the page you're using at any given time, and never create another account outside of the very few legitimate reasons for doing so. If you ever find yourself considering creating a new account, check with the help desk first, to see whether your reason is an allowed one before going ahead. Following these suggestions will save you, and the rest of us here, a lot of time and trouble... Oh; one last thing: You said you'd worked on "Lil Leggitte". Do you also have the password – don't give it out here, I'm just asking if you have it – for the LIL LEGGITTE account/login? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunhawken was never a part of BlackImperial. I'm Not Lil Leggitte.. I worked on the article not the account name. BlackImperial was Ruskiisun, Ruskiisun and sunhawken are to different accounts, which was "used" by the "team" which mean there was only ever two accounts in total. BlackImperial (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC) p.s sunhawken account is dead but still a active logon. 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good enough. I see Fetchcomms has blocked the SunHawken account, and I think that was the last loose end that needed attention, so I'm going to mark this thread as "resolved". Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

99.225.136.84 continues to edit war after returning from block

99.225.136.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA who has returned to much of the same inappropriate behavior since being blocked on 26 Aug. A previous ANI was not completed, because he was blocked while the report was being written. To give him credit, his edit-summaries and comments are less combative. His edits since returning from the block consist of:

• Reintroducing an improper synthesis (two reverts). Credit again that he's not edit-warred over the tagging of this information, as he has done previously with other information.
• Continuing to remove sourced information (two reverts), most of which has been discussed previously on the article talk page
• Restored the claim of it being unaccredited (one revert), despite this was the focus of him being blocked previously, we have sources to the contrary, and we have multiple lengthy discussions on the matter on the article talk page (almost everything since Talk:University_Canada_West#Accreditation).
• He's made a few comments on the article talk page and one to his talk . While he's communicating, he's ignoring the past discussions and the sources that contradict his viewpoint.

All five edits to article space that he's made since returning from being blocked are reverts of information he was edit-warring over before being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like he's moving in the right direction, even if not as fast as we would like. Suggest he find or be assigned a mentor who can help. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparent socks

• 99.225.136.139 (talk · contribs)
• 99.225.138.205 (talk · contribs)
• 99.225.160.205 (talk · contribs)

--Ronz (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His subsequent editing since notification of this report is much improved. Hopefully, this will be the last. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The reverts are too frequent, the discussion too light. I'm taking this to AN3. Maybe we should protect the page? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AN3 discussion here --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User: AllahLovesYou

User:AllahLovesYou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, User:AllahLovesYou is continuously vandalizing all the information related to Islam in Pakistan, Religion in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Shia Islam and Shia Islam in Pakistan. He has been repeatedly removing crucial cited information all this articles according to his perspectives on an account of a lame excuse of cleaning up several articles relating to religions in Pakistan, He has some serious issues regarding Shia Muslims being mentioned 10%-30% and argues that Shias only make up 10-20% of the Muslim population in Pakistan. With out reaching a wide consensus on the respective talk page of the articles he goes on reverting my edits completely over here, here while he is vandalizing pages related to Shia Islam or regarding their demographic issues. Including repeated removal of this neutral third-party source claiming Shia Muslims of being nearly 30% in Pakistan. Not only that, AllahLovesYou is being disrespectful towards me and Misplaced Pages policies by ignoring my warnings on his talk page. He has been using multiple citations in an article to point to two different formats of the exact same reference a work which is misleading. I find AllahLovesYou as an extreme vandal, a sectarian oriented user and an editor inciting religious hate by trying to impose his point of view on bases of bogus editing over here while disregarding others. Anyway, he disagrees with the above source and claims that this is an unreliable news article and that Shia are only 10%-20% and not 30%. This reflects his childish mentality. I have repeatedly told him that Misplaced Pages is all about giving readers a wider perspectives by showing them both sides of a coin, while he prefers it to be only and only what he thinks is right. I'll appreciate if you take an action against him and users like him. And instead of realizing his mistake he reported me to the un-block admin, for the very reason that i have been hindering him from being successful on his evil intentions. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Content disputes are not the same thing as vandalism. AllahLovesYou appears to be engaging in talk page discussion, does not seem to be edit warring or violating 3RR. I see no warnings on this user's talk page. I see you have accused him of blackmailing you in your ANI notice, and that he has reported you to the admin who blocked you previously. One solution is to request full protection of the articles in dispute on WP:RFPP so that nobody can edit them while you work out what the articles should contain. Be aware that if you make such a request, the version you want will likely not be the one that ends up getting protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not using the discussion talk page, over here. Before editing Shia Islam in Pakistan i reached a consensus with User:Humaliwalay and User:Houn. While User:AllahLovesYou is not.SyedMANaqvi (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But he is explaining his reasoning in the edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have violated WP:3RR, which makes you eligible for being blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to voilate the 3RR 24-hour rule, guess i didn't realize it, hopefully will follow it in future. My apologies. SyedMANaqvi (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I didn't slap a warning on your talk page. In any case, be aware that it's unlikely any administrator will block an editor over a content dispute when there isn't really any disruption going on. Disputes are stressful, but unless there's edit warring going on that violates 3RR, there's no disruption taking place. There are several dispute resolution avenues that you can pursue. The simplest, if the dispute is between only two editors, is Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, but a third opinion should be requested only if discussion has reached an impasse. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe he reported me here when in fact he is the one falsifying all those articles that he mentioned at the top with links that don't even work. I mean just take a good look at his recent edits regarding these articles, he completely removes the top most trusted academic sources such as Pew Research Center, Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford University, CIA World Factbook, U.S. State Department, and others. His behaviour is very disruptive and he has a long history for getting blocked but continues to edit-war and not only that but removes properly sourced content from articles that doesn't suit him. There is not a single source that states Shias in Pakistan being 30%. I already explained that the news article which User:SyedNaqvi90 keeps using in every article is an error made by the editor of that news article and under no circumstances can that be used in Misplaced Pages to claim Shias being 30%. I explained this to SayedNaqvi90 on his talk page as well on on mines but he didn't reply anything to that.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The multiple reverts SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs) performed on Islam-related articles this week clearly show he is in violation of the editing restrictions placed on him as a condition of the suspension of his previous block. As such, I have restored his one month block. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a number of regular complaints about Syed on my talkpage ... as recently as yesterday. Funny, I told one of them to bring it to ANI ... and voila, the other person brought it here instead :-) The process does work (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this the point where Bugs says something about Plaxico? --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nope, nope, we don't talk about Plaxico anymore. We talk about stuff like boomerangs and petards these days. -- Atama頭 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My kids are so right, I am sooo behind the times with my verbage :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the problems with the user who brought this issue to our attention (now blocked), I think there may be a problem with AllahLovesYou as well. See e.g. this AfD which the two comments so far (by regulars who have nothing to do with Pakistan or Islam) describe as "the most inappropriate AfD nomination I have seen" and "spectacularly bad". AllahLovesYou may be polite and appearing to play within the rules, but there's also a bit of the appearance of pov-pushing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Admins, I've noticed that the noticeboard is under common attack from IP's who's edits are disruptive and are required to be redacted. Well why not just put the noticeboard under semi-protection to save anyone the trouble of doing the task of removing it from the history. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because sometimes IPs make legitimate posts here. Although, I wonder about patrolled edits here. here's enough watchlists to ensure they are approved in seconds if the edit is legit.--Scott Mac 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just sometimes, often. It's a small price to pay. LiteralKa (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a good idea but I thought PCP had finished it's trial? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don;t think there would be any consensus to extend it out of article space. Its purpose is to prevent readers from chancing on vandalized articles before we can remove them, so I don't see how its relevant here. The sort of people who watch this board are not unaccustomed to dealing adequately with vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Systematic and Arbitrary Edit Reversion by Crispincowan

I recently by Crispincowan for being original research and notified him of such. I recommended that if Crispin still felt his information was appropriate for inclusion that he should discuss it on the article's Talk page. Since then Crispin has arbitrarily reverted edits that I've made. Examples- , , , , . I would appreciate it if someone would speak with him regarding this behavior, or advise as to how I should proceed. Thank you very much for your time. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinged Cowan at his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt assistance! Doniago (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I examined Doniago's history of edits, and it seems to be comprised mostly of arbitrarily removing interesting information from other people's articles. Go look at them and see if you think Doniago is actually contributing, or just randomly damaging articles. In most cases, I found the pre-Doniago version to be more useful. The revisions I made were not *arbitrary*, I only reverted them where i could actually prove his changes were wrong, rather than just *think* they are wrong.

Most specifically, I tried to contribute a particularly interesting similarity between a Futurama episode (Godfellas) and a short story that I read long ago (Gift of a Useless Man). I cited the story, both internally (it has its own Misplaced Pages page) and externally (an Amazon review of the book). One can read the plot summary of Godfellas and Gift and *see* that they are similar. Yet Doniago keeps reverting it. Just exactly what does it take to contribute a pertinent fact here? Crispincowan (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources. Original research and synthesis of multiple sources is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages. If you can find a previously published source which makes the comparison you're making, then it can be used, so long as it meets or reliable sources criteria. But your own research is not workable in Misplaced Pages. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Boggle. Really?! Applied strictly, that would seem to eliminate nearly every line of every article in the wikipeida, because every sentence that is not a citation is someone's synthesis, and there are piles and piles of long passages that only have occasional citations. So where do you draw the line? For example, lets take today's featured article as a representative sample of an article that is supposedly of good quality, Fountain of Time. The third paragraph says "Time has undergone several restorations, due to the deterioration and decline caused by natural and urban elements. During the late 1990s and the first few years of the 21st century it underwent repairs that corrected many of the problems caused by these earlier restorations. Although extensive renovation of the sculpture was completed as recently as 2005, the supporters of Time continue to seek resources for additional lighting, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has nominated it for further funding." and the only supporting evidence for this claim is a link to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Seems like "synthesis" to me.

Note: I am not, in any way, criticizing the Fountain of Time article. Rather, I am questioning the standard being applied to my contribution of being "original research" as being grossly out of proportion. Crispincowan (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really, and we apply common sense rather than applying rules strictly. Comparative analysis of two separate works which is not derived from a secondary source is textbook WP:SYN. Looking at the five diffs Doniago provided:

1. This is fairly innocuous, but it's still technically personal analysis of the scene. Misplaced Pages has a general problem with how to cover plot sections like this, however, and I wouldn't have contested that particular bit of prose.
2. This is more of the same, though "by gunmakers of the same name" is original research. The film tells us nothing except that the guns have "sword" and "dagger" written on the sides. I wouldn't imagine it'd be difficult to find a secondary source which makes that leap of logic and to reference it, though.
3. This, unreferenced, is personal opinion. Again, it's innocuous, but it doesn't really add anything to the article either.
4. This is pure WP:POPCRUFT and is of only the most trivial value. As a matter of cleanup I'd have removed it without a second thought. Pop culture references should only be included where it can be established that the reference impacted popular perception of the subject.
5. And finally, this is too poorly referenced (a vague handwave at what is almost certainly a user-generated comment on a website somewhere) to count as anything except personal analysis. Without a reliable source to back it up, the reader has no way of trusting that Misplaced Pages is telling the truth here.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, Crispincowan, please note that the paragraph you quote from is part of the lead of the article which is a summary of a later part of the article, Fountain_of_Time#Restoration. That section contains numerous footnotes. Although I didn't personally chase them down, it appears that all the factual statements in the passage you quote are amply sourced.

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are clear. If you want the article to say that two works of fiction are similar, you need a source that says that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of facts

This wiki page has been edited repeatedly by a specific user: http://en.wikipedia.org/Marshall_Sylver

The page has factual data that has been referenced properly and the individual editing obviously has a grudge.

Is there anything that can be done to stop this from happening again? If you look at the history, it appears as though the editor keeps signing up to create new accounts and has issues with Mr. Sylver.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.36.233 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, very little of it has been referenced correctly. I reverted your edit, but I also trimmed out some of the negative claims that were left because I didn't think they were sourced as well as they could be either. You might want to check in at the biographies of living persons noticeboard for further assistance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at this myself, but this is largely a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page. I warned the user that (s)he is in danger of breaking the 3RR (as this clearly wasn't unambiguous vandalism), but the material does need better referencing and a general cleanup to be constructive to the article. GiftigerWunsch 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just notified the user performing the reverts (User:Abbruscato) of this discussion. GiftigerWunsch 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's most amusing about the OP is that he has used several proxy servers and puppet accounts to try to turn the page into a breathless advertisement for the article subject, a character with an extremely shady history. One suspects the last thing Marshall Sylver wants is potential clients seeing an accurate Misplaced Pages article about him.

Admins -- now that a few helpful editors have weighed in on the article, I suspect the above user will keep trying to whitewash the article, Wiki policies be damned. I'll follow up here if I notice that happening. --Abbruscato (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism

I am being accused repeatedly by admin John Carter of putting the words "I hate you" (John Carter's words in quotes) on article talk pages. The accusation is patently false. He has already taken this to the talk pages of three admins, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and most recently Cirt. The relevant diffs are as follows:

diff Jayjg's talk page diff my reply

diff SlimVirgin's talk page diff my reply

diff Cirt's talk page

John Carter has yet to provide a shred of evidence via diffs to back up his allegations, and I can't produce negative evidence to prove I didn't do something. It should be simple enough for the tech wizards that run the servers to check the IPs and prove it wasn't me (or anyone). Being called vile names is one thing, but this is way over the top. I am asking for a formal apology and some kind of injunctive relief to prevent this from happening again. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought to my attention at my user talk page by both parties involved, however I have not yet had a chance to evaluate the substance of the matter. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss to explain how the material seems to have been edit from Ovadyah's history. I specifically remember that I removed the comments, and that he restored them with an edit summary to the effect of "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," although now there seems to be no record of that edit. It occurs to me, somehow, that those edits may have been deleted or removed from the record, if such is possible. However, currently on Jayjg's page, Ovadyah has made a comment which at least in passing seems to acknowledge the comment was made by him. Beyond that, I can offer no fuller explanation as to how the edits involved seem to have been deleted from his edit history. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

John Carter, I'd suggest that if these edits can't be quickly found then you apologise and drop it (he has no recent deleted edits, I don't know about revision deletions). Incivility and personal attacks should be dealt with immediately at their talk page, WQA, or ANI with evidence provided, not left to be used as ammunition. He made no acknowledgement of having made such a comment, what he actually said was "Jay, I have nothing to say about the "I hate you" stuff, except that I thought I had seen it all on Misplaced Pages, but you learn something new every day". Generally your interactions with Ovadyah seem pretty aggressive, it'd be best to tone it down and focus on content. Fences&Windows 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was John Carter that deleted the talk page content (twice) and I restored it. The relevant diffs are as follows:

diff deletion of article talk page content

diff I restored and struck out my own remarks

diff deletion of article talk page content

diff I restored it

Now that I have provided the specific diffs, it should not take much research to prove the lie that any such content was ever added to the article. Ovadyah (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment is from Ovadyah, who seems to have been busy creating a page of history to attack me with over the past day or so. He seems to be implying that I am in some way referrring to those comments, and that is itself mistaken. Those were not the edits to which I referred. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I can find no suppressed or oversighted edits with the summary you allude to. Perhaps it was on some other page and you're simply mistaken as to where the exchange took place? — Coren  23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"seems to have been busy creating a page of history to attack me with over the past day or so". Do you mean User talk:Ovadyah/Archive 2#User Conduct RfC? If they intend to file an RfC, that's not an attack page. If you make efforts to de-escalate this dispute, I doubt they'll see a need to pursue an RfC. Fences&Windows 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been organizing these diffs to provide evidence to back up my claims in an upcoming user conduct RfC. I'm waiting for the second person who is filing the RfC to get back on Wiki. We all have busy professional lives (most of us). Ovadyah (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the page I meant, and it does seem to have been primarily added to recently. In response to Coren, it may well have been elsewhere. I reviewed Ovadyah's apparent history for all spaces, and find the edit summary no longer can be found. That is all I know. I have no doubt that this request regarding me was brought on by my recent insistent requests on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites that we actually adhere to WP:SS and the material on Gospel of the Ebionites be primarily removed to that article. Beyond that, no, I did not try to keep a history of Ovadyah's behavior, and I resent his continuing to indulge in the passive-agressive comments such as the one above. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If an admin can do this to you and just walk away with a smile on their face, what's the point of bringing violations to AN/I? I would like to hear what the three admins involved in the incident have to say, but at the end of the day, if no tangible evidence of vandalism on my part can be found, I am still insisting on an apology, and at least a talk page warning to discourage future episodes. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You will receive an apology when you yourself offer apologies for your own regular insults, here and elsewhere, something you have to date refused to do. Your regular failure to abide by WP:TPG and other conduct is no better. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@John Carter. If you check here and look down at the bottom of the diff, you will find the phrase No, John Carter. You may strike out my remarks but you cannot delete them. Here, I'll do it for you. which is sufficiently close to what you said on GWH's page that you remembered, for me to wonder if it is what you remembered. Ovadyah said he was "sick of your behavior" - are you sure you're not remembering this as 'I hate you".

I have to ask all parties - why are we arguing over something that happened on the 29th May? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I saw that one earlier myself, and that was not the diff to which I was referring. The reason I believe it is being started now, unfortunately, is that I indicated to Cirt, who has dealt with individuals pushing religious views into wikiepdia before, that I was going to do my best to ensure that this article actually come close to reflecting what the academic world believes, and, apparently, that was the last straw to Ovadyah. I however will do my best to ensure that the completely disproportionate, unbalanced article which exists today will be improved, even over his objections. I would welcome any and all individuals who see this thread to mark Talk:Ebionites and Ebionites to assist in this effort. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I brought it up at AN/I because John Carter continues to bring this false allegation against me to the talk pages of other admins as recently as yesterday. It has to stop. Please make it so. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, it has stopped. There are enough other failures to indulge in even remotely acceptable behavior on your part, including regular violations of basic WP:TPG, to create problems. If you yourself were to engage in acceptable behavior more often, this would never have happened. It is in your power to ensure that it does stop, and always has been. Unfortunately, you appear to insist on engaging in the same sort of behavior which caused this instance to arise in the first place, which is I believe apparent from anyone who looked at your own recent behavior. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Being castigated like this is not an apology. I am still waiting for John Carter to admit that he falsely accused me of wrongdoing and to say he is sorry. I would also appreciate it if a warning can be placed on John Carter's talk page to discourage further incidents so that I don't have to go through this again. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop demanding apologies. John Carter seems willing to let you be. I suggest you disengage from the conflict, Ovadyah. There is no reason for either one of you to concern themselves with the other. We have plenty of editors to watch out for any further troublemaking. Jehochman 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pushing the point because he is continuing to say on the talk pages of other admins that I did it and somehow managed to hide the evidence. diff diff This is a basic question of fairness. The apology is less important than the acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Ovadyah (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is remarkably poor behavior for an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure you have all the facts in hand before damning somebody, please. We want the disruption to end. There is no need to assign blame at this stage, and if the parties are both willing to drop stale matters, no further time should be spent on this. Jehochman 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see a pattern of problem behaviour by John Carter. I'll AGF that he believes that he saw what he says he saw. We're adults: as adults we know that life is not always fair, and that we will not always receive the apologies we want...continually insisting on them will never make it happen, and merely detracts from my belief that we're adults (the UK word "whinging" comes to mind). Everyone drop it, and if something recurs, let us know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll make one final point for the record and then it's time to move on. Things just don't vanish without a trace on Misplaced Pages. Talk page content can't be removed from the record without admin tools, and I don't have them. Even then, deletion logs would be created which any tech-savvy admin or IT pro can find. I doubt that John Carter has the technical knowledge to erase the record, and I don't have the permissions. I'm willing to leave it there as long as the baseless accusations stop permanently. Ovadyah (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseless accusations will stop. It should be noted, however, that if you continue to indulge in such problematic behavior, then you can reasonably expect to receive similar treatment. I mention once again that this whole discussion by Ovadyah was started within hours of my contacting Cirt, telling him that I would copy the encyclopedic sources I have already checked word for word, and asked for his input in helping ensure that the article finally reach reasonable academic quality. It is extremely hard to believe that Ovadyah, who left Cirt a message regarding this conversation, clearly indicating that he was aware of it, may not have been prompted in this matter by those statements, and perhaps, as I personally think, engaged in a last effort to ensure that such improvement to the article not take place. And I very much request that some of those who see this discussion add the Ebionites article to their watchlists. It is an important article to broader religion, as the Christology of the Ebionites is what is according to RS what influenced Mohammed's beliefs, and I believe having additional editors to it who do not have their own axes to grind will help improve it considerably. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Although this thread is practically resolved, I'd like to add one last comment because I've been involved in this dispute in a small way. I hope all of us can agree that John Carter is an established editor who has done praiseworthy work in the past. Further, this article is a controversial one -- which is the case with many subjects where the verifiable facts are few & the speculations -- both expert & fringe -- are many. On the other hand, while the accusations John has made about Ovadyah may perhaps be true, in my experience in the matter I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing by Ovadyah here. I suspect this has become one of those conflicts where John has simply become inadvertently obsessed with the conflict & now needs to walk away from this article -- both for his own benefit & the project's -- to simply trust that another set of eyes will catch any possible problems in this article. To repeat the cliche, there are 6,936,627 in the English Misplaced Pages, around half of which are stubs; no need to obsess over just one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to check the remarkable number of completely nonresponsive "comments" which clearly violate WP:TPG on the talk page. I have produced no evidence, because the accusations were against me, not him. If misconduct on his part continues, however, have no doubt evidence will be presented by me. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you directing that comment to me? If so, your response is orthogonal to my point: just let this go & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I see there was an Ovadyah edit saying something like "I'm sick of your behavior" which John Carter might have misremembered as "I hate you". Enough late-night editing can get anyone confused like that. Ovadyah's editing is less than ideal, but John Carter should probably let other editors/admins notice and handle any Ovadyah-related issues for a while. 67.122.209.135 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Proofreader here block avoidance

Proofreader here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is a duck sock of Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Mukesh111/Archive The same reverts to Playback artist (after the now request 10 non-edits to become autoconfirmed to edit "page protected" article. Active Banana ( 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock blocked, Playback singer full-protected two days. –MuZemike 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

19th century New Zealand history

A number of articles, including Musket Wars, New Zealand land wars, Parihaka and Invasion of the Waikato, have been extensively edited by an anon with a dynamic IP. The edits are mostly unsourced, are frequently POV, and invariably require copyediting due to punctuation idiosyncrasies. Where sources are given, they are not in any accepted Misplaced Pages style, and are rarely if ever available online. One source used, when checked, proved to be a children's book.

Despite these problems, I believe the edits are in good faith. I am aware that a user who fails to edit to the high standards that I prefer still may have the best of intentions. The IP has been warned a number of times about NPOV and sourcing, but it is difficult to tell whether they receive the warnings because their IP changes. They have been active on Misplaced Pages since at least July 2009.

A previous discussion about them is on my talk page, at User talk:Gadfium#Pōtatau Te Wherowhero. I attempted to notify the anon about the discussion at User talk:222.153.154.45, but they probably didn't see the message.

I don't have the time, or interest in some of the subjects, to follow this IP around, copyedit their work, and read the sources to establish the accuracy of their content. For many of these articles, it appears that others don't have this time either. I welcome suggestions on how to handle the matter.-gadfium 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Having had similar issues elsewhere the only way to stop persistent unconstructive edits by a dynamic IP is to semi-protect the relevant articles. That may at least encourage them to create a user profile so as to enable proper discussion with them. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the IP edits seem to be made in good faith. From what I've seen, they seem to have strong feelings about some of the topics, and it would be good if that energy could be directed into more productive contributions. Semiprotection is a good idea, seems worth a try at least. --Avenue (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection will prevent them from editing, rather than improving the quality of their edits. I suspect they will simply move to different articles; eg the recent addition of material relating to the Musket Wars to Auckland, so the number of articles which need to be protected may grow rapidly. An alternative is to revert all low-quality edits, as is already happening to some extent.-gadfium 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Thumperward assuming bad faith

And that is not all, but he's insulting me on my talk page and implying I'm some sort of drama monger for absolutely no reason. See here . I can barely recall this Sven70 incident from several days ago, but all I did was create a previously nonexistent category that contained an IP sock (tagged by someone else in 2009), and when Sven70 was blocked as the result of an AN/I discussion, , I tagged the account as blocked. I also found out that he had previously socked abusively, with that sock being blocked as a result. I also tagged that sock. Thumperward has gone and undone this . For the life of me, I cannot figure out WHY this person is so angry that he would undo my tags and then insult me on my talk page. And this from an administrator no less. There is NO POLICY-BASED REASON that anyone can't tag socks or suspected socks, or puppeteers, or create categories, so that "explanation" is invalid. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have this reviewed. This and this were unacceptable IMO, given that Sven had prominently featured a link to his former account on his userspace prior to his block; Kindzmarauli's gadflying here is wholly unproductive, and should be undone again before it invites any further aggravation. Indeed, I have no idea why Kindzmarauli involved himself here at all, which led to my suggestion on his talk that he get his jollies somewhere other than Wikipolitics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not getting any "jollies", nor am I "gadflying", and your repeated claims to this effect are insulting, offensive, and a violation of WP:AGF. A better question would be "why is this otherwise unimportant indefinitely blocked puppetmaster and sock different from the others who are blocked, tagged and left?" Why are you so determined that the socks be untagged and the userpage of the indefinitely blocked account be restored as if the account is not blocked, as if it has not socked abusively, etc.? And why are you so concerned about "agitating" a puppetmaster that was blocked per a long discussion at AN/I? I am happy to see you're willing to answer for your questionable behavior and judgement. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please tone it down a bit. This is essentially an argument over whether or not to "tag" a sock account as connected to a master or whether or not the account is simply an alternate. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where "drama monger" came from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) May I suggest a third opinion. There is a difference of opinion on whether to tag an account as a sock account or master and the legitimate place to discuss that is on each others talk page or to seek some sort of dispute resolution. Since there is no persistent incivility, and since Thumperward is neither using admin tools, nor claiming admin privilege, there is nothing to sort out on this noticeboard. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As another un-involved, this whole things sure does all seem to boil down to a major overreaction by Kindzmarauli to what might amount to a mildly bitey post on their talk page... And as for Sven, if I recall correctly he was not blocked for sockpuppetry, so it hardly seems appropriate to tag those as sockpuppets, does it? In any case, as RegentsPark stated, this is hardly a dispute worthy of AN/I.   Thorncrag  04:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I also agree that this isn't for AN/I. Thumperward is an admin because the community made him one: overwhelmingly so. So that's how he "became an admin". However, I don't totally disagree with the tagging issue (whether Sven70 was technically blocked for sockpuppetry or not doesn't make it wrong for any editor to tag suspected puppeteers and socks). The tag could/should have been added to the top of the page instead of deleting the page's content, as was done. Thumperward's reaction was not out of line, especially as Sven70 is not a banned user. Wrong? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are absolutely right; although, I was unclear that my point was the the community was aware of Sven's other accounts and had basically decided not to take action on that specific issue given the extraordinary unusualness of the whole matter, and for that reason, we wouldn't want to give the impression to posterity that that was the main reason he was blocked... Just my two cents.  :-)   Thorncrag  06:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a decent compromise? Any editor who feels it is error: please revert and discuss... Doc9871 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I switched the order of the tags at Sven's page. Now the question is: are Sven70's socks confirmed or suspected? I see no SPI for Sven70, but maybe I'm missing it. Which category seems more incorrect? It seems one or the other should go at this time... Doc9871 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The "sock" in question, 219.69.68.109 (talk · contribs), edited five times while Sven wasn't blocked, and self-identified as Sven; a more charitable suggestion was that Sven simply didn't realise he was logged out. 史凡 (talk · contribs) is a slightly different matter because it was technically used for block evasion, but given that Sven never edited concurrently from it and his main account and self-identified it as an alt account on his userspace it's a bit excessive to go all-out in tagging it as a sock. The ANI discussion regarding Sven's proposed ban was characterised by a great deal of rubbernecking from editors who apparently made their minds up about the editor after the briefest glance at his contributions, and this is much the same. Branding him as a sockpuppeteer is simply adding insult to injury and I'd rather that it were de-tagged altogether, the better to not unnecessarily piss off an editor who has already suffered quite enough aggravation. As noted above, he isn't banned, and that means that we should still be aiming to get him rehabilitated and productively contributing again. In short, the status quo prior to Kindzmarauli's actions was fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sven70 may have not been blocked for during 219.69.68.109's edits; but I just don't believe he "forgot" to log in: unless, (as I've said at the AN/I discussion) he "plumb forgot" to log in between 25 December 2008 and 6 March 2010 (a lapse in editing which neatly coincides with the edits of both accused accounts, with no overlap). These accounts need to remain tagged: but are they confirmed or suspected to be socks of Sven70? He avoided the community ban (which I supported) by the "skin of his teeth", (and yes, even if he admitted socks after the fact, these are technically socks with no legitimate reason to have even existed). My only (very, very slight) criticism/advice to you, Thumperward, concerning why this thread was started is, "A doctor should never get too attached to his patients." Theorizing on editors "rubbernecking" the AN/I thread is not terribly helpful, IMO. Sven70 deserves his dignity, but it's going to take a lot to let him back here. And Kindzmarauli's extremely vague (and quite seemingly unfounded) accusations of administrator misconduct against Thumperward need to be backed by solid diffs, and a solution needs to proposed for this thread's resolution and closure... Doc9871 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sven's use of IPs doesn't actually fall foul of WP:ILLEGIT either, with the exception of block evasion. He made clear that it was him, referenced his account (along with his surname and age in one post), didn't use them to give a false impression of consensus or to imply support for anything. Let's have a look at (what is hopefully) Sven's complete editing history:

1. 3 October 2008 → 25 December 2008 as Sven70. Blocked 25 December 2008 by Seicer.
2. 11 January 2009 → 13 January 2009 as 219.69.85.251. Referenced his account history in posts. Blocked 13 January 2009 by Seicer.
3. 13 January 2009 as 219.69.68.109. Referenced his account history in posts. Blocked 13 January 2009 by Seicer.
4. 28 January 2009 → 22 January 2010 as 史凡. Referenced the Sven70 account in his first user talk post. Blocked 22 January 2010 by Tedder.
5. 26 March 2010 → 25 August 2010 as Sven70, following that account's unblock on 22 February 2010 by Xavexgoem. Blocked again 25 August 2010 by Wgfinley.

So you've got a sequence of accounts, never used in parallel, including two IPs used briefly between the initial block of Sven70 and the creation of 史凡. While this is technically "sockpuppetry" in the broadest definition of multiple account use, it's not actually socking as we generally understand it. Rather, it's simply part and parcel of why Sven was eventually blocked: an inability to follow or respect process, including the unblocking process, in favour of forum-shopping. That is certainly not in dispute, but it aids nobody to go fishing for other misdemeanors and making them out to be separate offences. That the period of IP editing is confined to a three-day stretch over a year ago which explicitly referenced his account does not suggest to me that it is particularly important; if needed, a note of the IPs used could be tacked onto Sven's old alt notice.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Thumperward was wrong to blindly revert me and attack me, plain and simple. There is no policy stating that creating categories and tagging accounts is limited to administrators. Therefore, I have done nothing wrong. Thumperward knows damn well I didn't violate any policies and so is trying to bully me. I will not stand for it. If I've violated a policy by tagging or creating categories, then block me and be done with it. Editors at Misplaced Pages have the privilege of editing almost anywhere (indeed, they are invited to) and I don't need special permission from the various supporters and friends of people blocked indefinitely (multiple times, including the other account). Thumperward's comments on my talk page about Wikipolitics are demeaning and insulting, and claims about me attacking this blocked user are patently false and a violation of WP:AGF, not to mention he's provided no diffs or other evidence for his claims. First, he claims I'm deliberately attacking Sven70, then he claims above I'm simply a rubbernecking passerby. Which one is it, Chris? Whichever one happens to suit your personal needs? If you think Sven70 was blocked because of politics and not because of policy violations, maybe you should unblock him or else begin an unblock discussion at AN instead of trying to hide his history of abuse with different accounts and IPs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I agree with Doc's revision. This is not about tagging accounts, but about the behavior of someone attempting to bully me into not editing certain pages and making a number of unbacked accusations against me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder if you people allow me to suggest a course of action. Looks like this is more an issue of civility (or violation of it) than a technical issue. I think the best way to constructively conclude it is to abandon the recounting of what has happened and to concentrate on discussing what to do now. In return, Thumperward should promise to strive to be more civil in the future; in my humble opinion, his civil communication and social skills definitely require improvements in order to reach the standard level that is expected of a Misplaced Pages administrator and one who should be a model of good behavior for us Wikipedians. Fleet Command (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to see someone here at least understands what I am talking about. A concur with your suggestion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing culminating in personal abuse

I would like to request an indefinite block on User:Wakey82 who has also operated on the site using IP addresses 178.107.197.202, 178.106.112.110 and 178.104.196.193. This person's approach is to disrupt articles about several towns and villages in the north of England by introducing dubious information that conflicts with the widely accepted policy of describing locations in geographical terms. His inputs have been challenged and reverted by at least three established editors over the last month or so and he has been advised several times on various talk pages about site guidelines.

He has now resorted to personal abuse in this talk page item. Clearly he he is here to make a WP:POINT and will not accept WP:CONSENSUS. I propose an indefinite block and the placing of protection for at least a month on all the articles he has disrupted. ----Jack | 04:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jump right to an indef block?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an indefinite block is too soon. The user name has 32 edits (as of now) and half of which are talk page. It seems they used those IPs, all edited similar articles as well. The user should have a temporary block if it continues and they don't learn the rules.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User Magodaric

Can someone please have a look at the edits by user Magodaric (talk · contribs)? This user has moved his user page and user talk page to an article Mavuso News. I tried to move the talk page back, but I don't think that this succeeded. I can't notify the user of this, since his user talk page is pointing elsewhere. By the way, this user seems to be here to advertise some news paper. TIA - DVdm (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The talk page for Magodaric (talk · contribs) was in the correct place. I just deleted the rest as G6, A7 and G8. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I removed the redirects on both pages. Could you perhaps leave some kind of appropriate message on the talk page? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah the talk page was in the wrong place. I moved it over and left them a message. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor note on Betacommand

Betacommand is being a bit overenthusiastic on deletion again.. Most of his edits delete something, and have the simple title of "cleanup". No admin action is needed yet, but please watch his contributions. The general style of his edits is to take something that's a visible problem and "clean it up" so that it's invisible, without fixing the underlying problem. --John Nagle (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this version does not really look proper, and is indeed unreferenced, moreover, reverted to the 'unclean' version without cleaning up the problems that there were, and it was re-undone in the next edit. Unreferenced info can go anyway, and the rest of the links he removed do not really show any context. Proper cleanup, I think. Did you take this up with Betacommand first (I mean, I know you left him a remark about this discussion, but did you discuss the edit and your concerns with him)? If not, I would suggest closing this thread as overenthousiastic Betacommand reporting, no need for drama when there is no drama. --Dirk Beetstra 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

John, stop wikistalking me. If you actually take a look at my contributions my primary focus is removing deleted images from articles, and other minor cleanup. this is a good example of what I do during cleanup. I add nonbreaking spaces where needed, I add titles to bare refs, and name and combine refs that are used multiple times (I also changed the names of named refs that are not the same). My primary focus like I stated before is removing deleting missing images. Also what ever happened to common courtesy? The only messages that I have received in regard to any of my recent edits was a generic {{uw-delete1}} and {{ANI-notice}}, no polite request for explanation, no attempt at discussion, but rather coming directly here. John has shown that he is stalking my edits by doing similar actions multiple times and I am getting sick of it. I have a talk page for a reason, please use it. ΔT 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those edits improved the encyclopedia. Why are you so eager to stalk Beta? This is exactly the harassment that escalates into drama. -- ۩ Mask 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no admin action is required here. Every edit I checked looks fine. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand, do you use a self-modified version of AWB to make your edits? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

no, but Ive been thinking about requesting access. ΔT 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked because adding reference names called "autogenerated3" and "autogenerated4" looks very AWB-like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If AWB sets generic reference names it uses ReferenceA, ReferenceB. I believe WP:Reflinks uses autogenerated1 etc. Rjwilmsi 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Inuit18

I recently blocked Inuit18 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for violation of his/her voluntary 1RR restriction. The editor is asking for a review of the block. There's a lot of history there but since this is an indefinite block, additional eyes on this is not a bad idea. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The user's voluntary restriction? Surely the user has the right to change their mind about restricting themselves to one revert? GiftigerWunsch 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm having trouble seeing where more than 1 revert was done in a 24 hour period. Could you provide the diffs, Toddst1? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The two reverts are a bit cloudy since they're not simple reverts: (basically removing Hazaras) which was repeated later but not within 24 hours. As for changing his/her mind on the voluntary restriction, that would imply that the previous block (indef) would be restored. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) You mean this was a "you can be unblocked if you agree to a 1RR restriction" scenario, then? GiftigerWunsch 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins was pretty clear that that was the condition of the unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Thanks, Toddst1...I was looking at two others that were separated by a bit more time. Given this editor's history, the block does seem justified by the letter. I can't help but feel, though, that an indef block for a single breach of 1RR since May 20 might be a bit much. You'd know the situation better than I, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I'm not familiar with the user or his unblock conditions, that's why I asked. Voluntary seemed to suggest that it was a restriction the user had applied to themselves willingly. GiftigerWunsch 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like reversion to me; maybe be vandalism reverts on one of them, but as the editor is under 1RR it's borderline. Maybe reduce the block to 48 hours with a stern warning to take care? --Errant 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Went to his talk page and couldn't help but notice the message right above the block notice where it seems that someone has serious WP:OWN issues. I don't have time to pursue that at the moment though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And like an idiot I completely missed the fact that the "message right above it" was from June. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reduce to 24 to 48 hours. This is borderline, the editor can easily be reblocked, no harm to the Wiki is in sight, he hasn't even tweeted his rage at Misplaced Pages as far as I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User: 81.213.182.194

Persistent spamming of a web site in the Cable tray article, such as this and for the last couple of weeks. Very nearly the only article this IP edits. No dialog. ANI notice left. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you reported it to WP:AIV? Looks recent enough activity/SPA so should get a block (or article protection) --Errant 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been very few warnings issued to this user, though I notice you did explain the problem to the IP yesterday. I'd suggest issuing a level 4 warning if it continues, and then reporting it to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch 13:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually people notice the "rv spam" edit comment and move on; this IP is more persistent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• cabletray.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I've added the domain to XLinkBot .. next edit warrants a block, I would say (hence, I left a {{spam4im}}). --Dirk Beetstra 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Paxcoder

Do I really have to take this kind of continuous abuse? User:Paxcoder seems to harbor a nasty grudge against me, the root cause of which I cannot fathom. His behavior constitutes one of the most insufferable displays I've yet seen. The fellow acts like he's "king of the hill" in an excessively abusive manner, and tries to push people around.

• I just met the guy. After being asked to show that the template is used in this way, out of the clear blue sky the user calls me a vandal and responds "I'd point you to something, but I'm afraid you'd vandalize it tbqh" .
• I asked him to point me to something, he again responded with abuse "You should be banned from editing this article! Do your own research, vandal!" . After I asked him to "please stop insulting me", he responded quickly with "I stand by my words to you." . I posted on his talk trying to defuse the situation. He simply responded with "You are a troll, "Direktor"!"
• The user then proceeded to edit-war on my talkpage to (re-)introduce a malicious post of his , despite being warned and informed of WP:OWNTALK twice by N419BH and once more by Off2riorob
• And finally, I'd like you fellas to review this unbelievable post, talk about WP:NPA. The above are just the "highlights", and this post will give you a good idea what I'm talking about: "I will say this one last time", "I'll give you the taste of your own medicine", "Be certain that I will make sure that you get banned (something I should've perhaps done a long time ago)!", etc, etc. My personal favorite is probably "I see you - and people like you as a threat to Misplaced Pages! (copy paste this to the admin board, I'm sure you want to)"". I decided to take his advice.

--DIREKTOR 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Paxcoder about making personal attacks against you (or against anyone else, for that matter). You two should probably take this content dispute to WP:3O or WP:DR before it gets even more out of hand, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC warning and WP:EW issued. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note: I did not engage in edit-warring (Paxcoder's edit was reverted only once). --DIREKTOR 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Twice: Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think DIREKTOR meant that he only reverted it once, Toddst1. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically I did revert twice, but I figured what's the point and reverted myself almost immediately the second time . Frankly, though, I cannot see why Paxcoder's edit should stay on. All the POV aside, its a new edit, it was opposed and reverted more than once, plus its disputed on the talkpage, WP:BRD. Just another example of "edit-war your way to having your way". --DIREKTOR 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by 24.189.168.173

• 24.189.168.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user is continually disrupting the project. I have attempted contact with this user on a number of occasions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), however they seem to either ignore my pleas or actively ramp up disruption.

They are primarily a single-purpose account, vandalizing and edit warring on articles related to the New York City Subway.

They were blocked (block log) on August 21 (24 hours) for Edit warring, however they resumed disruption very soon after the block expired. This report contains diffs from today backwards only to that block.

They indicated they were 13 years old with this edit, so this most likely is a maturity problem.

Please block, I'm at my wits end with trying to reason with this user. They clearly want to disrupt and not learn how Misplaced Pages works.

Problems include:

Repeatedly inserting unsourced mis-information;

• Changing New Lots to East New York
  • Here on New Lots Avenue (IRT New Lots Line)
• Changing G service to (full line)

Edit warring;

• Inserting all local stops vs. all stops (fundamentally changes the meaning)
  • V service
  • 1 service
  • R service

Inserting editorial comments in articles;

• 3 (New York City Subway service)
  • Threat on 3 (New York City Subway service)
  • Stop editing New Lots, Brooklyn on 3 (New York City Subway service),
• Letter to the MTA on BMT Fourth Avenue Line

Personal attacks towards other users;

• You dummasses on Talk:BMT Broadway Line
• Threats to "whoever is editing" on Talk:3 (New York City Subway service)
• Talk:N (New York City Subway service)
  • Who the hell are you?
  • Don't be so damn rude

The personal attacks were so ruthless that they drove away another editor. They blanked their talk page, and signed off.

Thanks, Acps110 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this rant here should be grounds enough for a nice, long block. Holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • After a final warning and this, I blocked them for three days. —DoRD (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much! Acps110 17:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Policy :WP: NOTCENSORED

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not appropriate venue

This is being trotted out all the time in discussions over whether content is appropriate or necessary to a article (particularly video/ photos). I can understand it being cited if a single editor acts unilaterally (against a consensus), but when it is simply cited as a reason for inclusion or a argument against removal is the policy not being abused? IMO it is, sometimes due to misunderstanding of the policy, but more often than not as a deliberate attempt to stop consensus forming on the removal of certain content. Why should it be raised in a discussion over content at all? Is a consensus among editors to remove something always censorship. The policy is grossly open to abuse in it's current formulation and something needs to be done (and soon) to prevent this DMSBel (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be done? I don't see the problem. It's wikipedia policy that we don't censor articles; why should this be invalid for use in debates? It's policy. GiftigerWunsch 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clearly this and this simply indicate that you disagree with the policy; AN/I is not the way to attempt to change policy. GiftigerWunsch 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to leave this open for a little while longer, and ask DMSBel if they have any diffs to illustrate what they are saying in regards to being used in discussions on content removal. As to the censorship policy change apparently being the reason, I concur with Giftiger, and if this is the case, AN/I is the wrong venue. I just think that it should be clarified before being marked as resolved. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  With regards to its use in discussion; wikipedia policy can (and should) of course be used to make an argument in a discussion. Arguments are meant to be policy-based, and suggesting that it's "misusing" policy to refer to it in a discussion is simply incorrect. GiftigerWunsch 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are moving away from the particular abuse mentioned of WP:NOT CENSORED, to the use in discussion of Wiki Policy in general. The reason for stating that this policy itself should not be cited willy-nilly as a reason for inclusion of material or a argument against its removal is that inclusion or removal are matters for editorial discussion. When there is an agreement or while discussion is ongoing censorship is not an issue.DMSBel (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there is not a specific incident, then this is the wrong venue. Looking at your talk page, it looks like there might be (re cum shot), but on the other hand - and this is based on a 5 second reading of the situation - NOTCENSORED is a perfectly valid reasoning to combat, well, CENSORED. Your statement that it "is not a subject for inclusion in an encyclopedia" is apparently not backed up by consensus, and consensus is another one of those fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, like notcensored. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No. discussion of removal with valid reasoning/argumentation/discussion about its appropriatenes (as per WP:NOT CENSORED) is not the same as censoring so citing NOT CENSORED is not a valid counter argument, it is Bad-faith. See ejaculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There were two issues being thrown about: "is X appropriate to be seen, vs being offensive and should be removed or hidden in some way" and "is there encyclopedic value or does it contribute to content understanding". Many of your arguments boil down to the first, no matter how often you keep saying "no no, it's really about how encyclopedic it is". The talk-page is full of discussions about the encyclopedic value of the content, and there is some strong and rational support for it, and not a stronger consensus to remove. No matter how many times you say the same reasons for removing it and propose the same alternatives and why you don't think it is appropriate, that's not the consensus at this time (and ANI isn't the place to try to alter that sort of consensus or to drum up support from other editors either). WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NOTCENSORED is just one of the reasons that is given to not-remove it, it just appears to be one that fits well with the pattern of reasoning you keep giving to remove it. No matter how many times you say NOTCENSORED is being used to stifle discussion, you're wrong about that: there was a discussion on the educational merits of this sort of image, in which you yourself participated IIRC. I don't see anything admin-actionable here. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on DMSBel's remarks above, Giftiger's marking this as resolved is correct, and this is a policy matter, not an incident. This is not the correct venue. I'm also marking the discussion as closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Further to above (policy abuse)

There is a specific incident: ejaculation. I will forgo discussion of changing policy here. But I want to know why when the policy states that: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. you are saying my arguments are in some way inferior because they boil down to whether the content is appropriate - that is what is to be focused on in the discussion. All there is in favor of keeping the video (from User:Cyclopia) is that it illustrates the article (that is not a reason - every discussion of content goes beyond that) - is that what you call "strong rational support". There is another argument (occasionally given) - some women might not have seen an ejaculation. That is hardly any stronger. Is it the job of wikipedia to illustrate everything people might not have seen - lets be sensible. DMSBel (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the job of wikipedia to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the topic; if the content contributes to the understanding of the readers, that is a good argument for its inclusion. GiftigerWunsch 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No admin action is required - as this is the Admin noticeboard I recommend dropping it here. A discussion of policy needs to take place on the article or policy pages --Errant 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP concern

Careful: young readers avert your eyes.

I would like someone else to look at Lori Douglas. An IP keeps inserting salacious details into an already troubled biography (see Hans Adler's comments at Lori Douglas--I sought community input, and I further paraphrased the statement based on Hans's justified copyvio concern). They have finally relented on inserting details that seem to come from their own imagination ... details not verified by the source, though the IP editor seems to have (had) access to, ahem, the primary materials. But their latest installment came with a ridiculous edit summary, even an ironic one, since their previous details were clearly not verified by the source to which they pointed again and again. Besides, they added a hearty "fuck you" on their talk page, right below my final warning to them for vandalism: here, and they haven't even kissed me yet.

I don't know my own R-status exactly, though I do know that they went well past 3R yesterday. Moreover, there are issues here of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and even the current amount of detail is, in my opinion, excessive--we are not a newspaper, and the lady hasn't been convicted in a trial or anything. But I'm tired of this, and should probably leave it alone (which is why I haven't reported them for vandalism; I may be wrong in calling this vandalism)--so here you have it. Enjoy, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: Apart from the very unfortunate hobby of the lady and her husband, there is a former convicted criminal in the story who is being discussed in detail in at least one news story but for some reason never found his way in the article, while, as Drmies noted, certain insider information did. Reading between the line, this appears to be a blackmail story. I can't help wondering if the Misplaced Pages side of things is also a COI story. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and violating the three-revert rule. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Douglas. Jehochman 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:White Rabbit

Can someone please have a look at Talk:White Rabbit#Requested move (August 2010) and put it out of it's misery? It's been bumped back to the top of the list at WP:RM, but there is a clear concensus agains the move. I was going to be bold and do it myself, but since there appears to be some disruption and sockpuppetry at work I'd rather leave it to an admin. PC78 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look & given that a strong consensus was resolved only a month ago and that the only dissenter is the nom (who was the nom last time) I closed as Where there is no contentious debate among participants per WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure. An admin is welcome to review my closure and revert if they feel it is needed --Errant 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with you as you closed it, you're quite correct, marked as resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How ridiculous do AfD !votes have to be before they're removed?

For example User:63.3.1.1, presumably a meat or sock of another user, has argued that a number of articles are notable because they have reliable sources. Unfortunately, some of them (like at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source), don't have any sources at all, whilst others are sourced to blogs and fan pages. I don't think this is actually an ANI thing, but given that such non-!votes have actually been given credence at recent AfDs (and there appear to be more and more of them), it might be an idea to strike anything so ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmph, just noticed that the account is already tagged as a sock, and another editor has already struck some of their comments. Would be useful if someone uninvolved could strike the rest of the AfD !votes, then - I've already !voted so I can't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The tag is from 2007, but the IP is just coming off a 1 year block, so... –xeno 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A previous SPI suggested that the IP was one used by a well-known editor who used RTV but didn't vanish, and is currently indef-blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've notified the IP of this thread. David Biddulph (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that there are sources now (added by myself), does that make this discussion moot? Though, I suppose a discussion on the overall problem of IPs (and users) doing this in general would be a valid topic of discussion. Silverseren 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, yes and no, I'm more concerned that the IP is a sock of a certain indefblocked user; it certainly sounds like them. Users familiar with AfD will know who I'm talking about. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A little off topic. But I've just learned of another of those computer-generated WP mirrors -- a series of books always subtitled "Websters quotations, facts and phrases." Silver wanted to use one of these books as source. Read here Philip M. Parker for an outline of the problem. Others have long known of this problem, and in august there was a request to create an automated process to remove these "cites." If that's technically possible, i hope that's made a priority. The website is filled with the "author's" (actually, a computer programmers) garbage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I didn't notice it was a WP mirror at the time. I'm generally able to spot those. Silverseren 21:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• There is a difference between "ridiculous" and "incorrect". I think removing a vote requires worse than this. The thing to do with a bad argument is to reply to it, as was done at the AfD in question. BTW, I'd endorse a process to remove the "Websters" cites, & perhaps we could also write an edit filter. They'll continue to fool people who haven't encountered them before for a very long time. DGG ( talk )
• There's almost never any reason to remove a vote. If its a sock or an SPA, you can make a note that the vote was done by a sock account or IP or SPA, but just make the note and move on. There's nothing that could be said which would influence the decision of the closing admin in the wrong direction; the more rediculous the vote the less the admin will use it to figure into his decision. And if it is properly tagged as "from a sock" or "from an SPA", then admins can take that into account too. --Jayron32 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a vote would need to be actively disruptive to be removable, and simply being stupid and wrong is not the same as being disruptive. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:M here 4 ever duck sock of User:Dr.Mukesh111

M here 4 ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is a duck sock of

Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Mukesh111/Archive The same reverts to Zeba (after the now request 10 non-edits to become autoconfirmed to edit "page protected" article. Active Banana ( 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

TruthSeekerT4C

• TruthSeekerT4C (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 86.184.115.201 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This user is tendentiously inserting conspiracy theories into 2009 influenza pandemic, citing sources like PrisonPlanet and InfoWars. We need an uninvolved party to review and potentially block this user. Jehochman 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that recent edits by 86.184.115.201 (talk) likely also belong to this user. They have already resulted in swine influenza being protected, which is a suboptimal outcome since it's a highly viewed article and people presumably might want to update it. MastCell  20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Move that the article swine influenza be unprotected. We don't let WP:SPA type accounts lock up a high profile article for a week because of tendentious edits. This is not a good faith content dispute. Jehochman 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing. Let's not unprotect until reviewed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, I already downgraded the article to semiprotection. The history consists of one user (the IP/TruthSeekerT4C) edit-warring to insert patently unencyclopedic material, and being reverted by numerous other editors. This is a case where a block of the editor in question would have been more appropriate than protection, but in any case, there is clearly no multilateral edit war which would require full protection. I'm happy to garner some additional thoughts on the matter, though. MastCell  21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• More trouble, need urgent attention. The editor is now repeatedly inserting material that fails reference verification. They need to stop and discuss, or else be blocked. Jehochman 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here are some pretty WP:SOAPy posts. Looking at all this together, it seems to be disruptive editing. Jehochman 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say WP:DUCK on the IP and the account. –MuZemike 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. I am not sure they are editing concurrently. An IP user is allowed to register an account. My concern is that this editor might be a reincarnation of somebody else. Does the pattern fit any of the usual suspects? Somebody with an anti-vaccine agenda. Jehochman 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An anti-vaccinationist using Misplaced Pages to promote their agenda? Gee, that narrows it down... :P MastCell  21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GWH has indefed the account. Jehochman 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The posts on Bishonen's talk page (and other user talk pages) were shining examples of why WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP exist. This user is here with a glaring agenda and editing with a single purpose, to promote it, without regard to undue weight, neutral point of view, etc. I have indeff'ed the main account and blocked the IP for a week.

It's possible that they will come around once shown the policies and asked to do so, which I did in the block message. Assuming some good faith... If they acknowledge the issue and agree to abide by Misplaced Pages community values and policies going forwards, in a convincing manner, any administrator may unblock them without asking me first, though I would appreciate a heads-up so that I can keep an eye on them afterwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not an admin, I'm probably showing my ignorance, but wasn't that a rather strange protection, anyway? Did Rodhullandemu really revert then protect? I thought that wasn't supposed to be done-- please whack me if I'm wrong, but it seems protection wasn't needed, but to revert then protect ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We have WP:WRONGVERSION but it's not strictly enforced where the edits were seen to be vandalism or disruptive.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the education! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody could write an essay, WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE. As a general matter, it is best not to revert-protect. That's the sort of sequence people look for, and it may be uncomfortable to have to explain it a year or two from now when the details are no longer fresh in mind. It is better to protect the wrong version, then let somebody make an editprotected request on the talk page explaining what's wrong and why it should be fixed. If the last edit is true vandalism, then just revert and block, rather than revert and protect. Jehochman 03:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1rr restriction Appeal

Hi, I am under 1rr restriction almost 3 months now: the reason for this was that my initial account was blocked for ever cause with a total of 2 edits it was considered potential troublemaker in Balkan topics .I was not aware about the rules and I created a new account: this time a constructive one, I created new article and always stayed out of trouble. I was soon blocked for sockpuppetry, but thanks to Shirik I made a compromise.I was unblocked and stayed under a 1rr restictrion (June 10). \I hope this is the time to appeal this restriction, User_talk: Shirik#Appeal with Shirik's approval. CrazyMartini (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator involved in previously blocking this user/socks, I support lifting the 1RR. The user has proven that s/he can edit and interact constructively and without strife. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this could have been handled on the involved admins' talk pages. I've gone ahead and recorded lifting of this sanction here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible threat to create sockpuppets and vote stack

Edit warring/BLP/POV Pushing and Vandalism Concerns at Jewish Internet Defense Force

User blocked incorrectly

A IP user (72.177.53.86) was making changes (e.g. this and this) to articles that appeared to be vandalism but upon re-examination were actually good edits. I and others reverted their edits and warned them without realizing. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this but can somebody remove their block? Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, the blocking admin just took care of it. –CWenger (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is User:71.244.112.164 a logged-out bot?

71.244.112.164 (talk · contribs) seems to be a logged-out bot. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

it's HBC Archive Indexerbot (talk · contribs) Not sure if we should block the ip for the time being? NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Left a comment on the bot talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Lamcph6 making constant disruptive edits to the Los Angeles and its related articles.

Lamcph6 (talk · contribs) has been making multiple disruptive edits to the Los Angeles article and Los Angeles-related ones. Since July, 2009, he has deleted any mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim or its history from the Los Angeles article.

And he has insisted in inserting un-sourced factually inaccurate content. Particularly bizarre is his constantly reverted removal of the description "urbanized" to San Fernando Valley article and his claim that it's not urbanized while admitting in his edit summary that he lived in an urbanized San Fernando Valley community.

This user has been warned about his disrupted edits four times by four different users. . In fact, these warnings are the only comments on his talk page since he started editing in April, 2008.

We're getting really tired of correcting this user's disruptive edits. --Oakshade (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by Degmarshall (talk · contribs) and 4Beauties (talk · contribs)

While on my usual new pages patrol a month back, I discovered an article, David E.G. Marshall, that might not have met WP guidelines. The article was made by Degmarshall (talk · contribs), making this apparently a clear autobiography. My speedy deletion, and then a PROD, was contested by 4Beauties (talk · contribs) who has been extensively editing the article in the previous user's place.

However, after looking through both users' contributions, I discovered something very fishy is going on.

• Degmarshall has existed on Misplaced Pages since 2006. His edits have been nearly entirely focused on either the article about him or his band, Staggered Crossing.
• With exception to a few edits to Canadian English, 4Beauties' edit history has been devoted to either Staggered Crossing or David E.G. Marshall.
• 4Beauties had his first edit in late July, where he created a userspace draft. Here's what the page looked like: .
• Less than two weeks later, Degmarshall created the autobiography. Here's what that initial page looked like: (Notice how the userspace draft created by 4Beauties is nearly identical to this page.)
• Degmarshall and 4Beauties have never edited at the same time. Notice Degmarshall's edit on July 2nd, and 4Beauties' first edit less than a two hours later. Most of 4Beauties' edits occured on August 4th, with exception to one which occurred today. Likewise, note how Degmarshall didn't edit from August 2 until the 12th. He also hasn't edited since the 26th of August. But 4Beauties has, as I said earlier.

Perhaps this is all a list of coincidences, but nonetheless, something fishy is going on. I don't want to open a case at WP:SPI right away as I want some feedback from other editors, as well as a reply from the editors themselves (or himself, as the case may be.) In any case, User:Degmarshall has been engaging in clear violations of WP:COI for four years, and it concerns me that no one else picked up on this until me a month ago. elektrikSHOOS 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear case of socking, yeah. I'll go let the users know about this thread, and let them know that if they are the same person, they should only be using one account to edit with unless they have a legitimate reason to do otherwise. Hersfold 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you've already informed them. Hersfold 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see some pretty clear quacking here, though I'll give the editor in question some time to reply before doing anything as yet. Seraphimblade 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If these articles are not notable, deleting them may be the best option. That would remove any incentive for COI editing, inviting close colleagues to edit, or similar violations of WP policy. Jehochman 04:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an existing Afd discussion for David E.G. Marshall which you can find here. Commenting would be lovely. elektrikSHOOS 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to WWMX

Theaveng (talk · contribs) has begun an edit war on WWMX by adding schedules of DJs, names of non-notable past DJs and information about stations in other markets that share the station's name. I have removed this information several times, once when the user was using User:64.53.75.62 to add the information, and again now under WP:NOT#DIR, along with WP:N and WP:V, but the user continues to readd. I issued this "only warning" and left it at that, the user readded still. Theaveng has a history of edit warring and blocks for such behavior. I believe it is time for another block for the same behavior or just an outright indef block as no amount of talking by many admins has helped to calm this user down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. Though the user claims not to know what "ANI" is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, what has happened here is you have taken up a bilateral arguement with this user over this issue. From what I can see, no other person besides you and him are involved. Whether or not your interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines is the correct one is irrelevent, dispute resolution does not proceed: Step one: Revert, Step two: get into arguement, Step three: demand block. You may be 100% right here (or not, I make no assertion to that end), however if you are, then you should enlist other editors to comment in even, neutral, and friendly tones on the issue. Ask for outside opinion, resolve the dispute, make the article right. There's still LOTS of things to do before we jump for the banhammer. --Jayron32 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I didn't add the list of DJs, programs, and schedules. The list has existed for on that page (which can be confirmed by reviewing the history) and was added by who is not me. It was NeutralHomer who, without any kind of discussion on the Talk Page, deleted them which I view as vandalism. I simply think he should have consulted with others first prior to doing it. That is why the Talk Page exists. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR, an already exsisting rule, allows me to remove this information. Also, WP:N and WP:V allows me to remove the other information. Both of those are benchmark rules. This is another example of your OWNership of an article. Need I bring up your other OWN problems? Probably not. The information isn't sourced, it is in violation of three rules and isn't notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. And as for me, all I'm trying to do is improve the articles on wikipedia (and protect them from the numerous vandals that roam through this place). I do not mean any offense to anyone - I'm just trying to make sure useful info (like program schedules) do not get erased. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, for the record, I happened across this note while filing a report of my own--Homer and I have a little history here, but we see eye to eye. Content-wise and policy-wise, he is spot on: the information added (or reinstated, whatever the case may be) is not in agreement with our guidelines, since it's basically unverified BLP information combined with directory listings (program listings are not part of Misplaced Pages's mission). I won't speak out on banning or not, but the information was rightly removed (and I just did it again), and judging from the editor's talk page Homer made a pretty good effort to explain. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; as I said, I can concede the point that Homer is 100% correct with regard to the Misplaced Pages guidelines on the issue, but it is irrelevent whether that is actually true. However, Homer is short-circuiting the WP:DR process by jumping right to the block demands. The user in question has even stated above that they wish to discuss the matter on the talk page; so lets have that discussion. There's no need to block anyone right now. --Jayron32 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now that we have TWO editors in agreement, I will stop. I thought it was considered vandalism to remove several paragraphs of information, but I suppose I was wrong. WIKI's rules are confusing to me (many because there are so many of them). ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, this discussion should move to the article talk page ... but for reference, WP:WPRS, which has an interest in these types of articles, specifically states in its guidelines "Include a detailed history of the station. In addition, when applicable, include a complete call sign history. (For stations in the United States, the FCC database can help provide call sign history for as far back as about 1980.) Per WP:NOTDIR, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions, or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jayron has a point, jumping for the banhammer was a bit much, I will retract that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll say. It's been almost a year since I last logged-in to wikipedia, and for good reason. I grew tired of the "cliqueness" of this site where people feel their contributions are unwelcome (and stupid). ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't say it was a year, more like 1 month and about a week. Not counting tonight, your last edit was 19:38 on 26 July 2010. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bring it up again after striking it....but an agreement has been broken by Theaveng. Per a January 5, 2010 unblock by admin User:EdJohnston, Theaveng agreed to not violate 1RR for one year. He is at 3RR at the moment on WWMX. We could, since the situation has subsided, let it pass, which I will recommend, but a strong warning would also be recommended. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, lets not block anybody for anything. Lets mosie on over to the talk page of the article in question, and have a rational discussion over there like grownups. Howsabout that? Anyone up for a nice, pleasant discussion rather than a block? --Jayron32 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I last logged in 5 weeks ago? I honestly don't remember that. How do I go back and look it up? ---- Theaveng (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Theaveng. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can probably tell I don't know much about wikipedia's intricacies. I used to contribute a lot (2008) but now it's rare because of other real-world distractions. ---- Theaveng (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jayron: was just bringing it to your attention. @Theaveng: Check your contribs, top of the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a metal sock block?

Anyone with a mop, please walk by Assuck (pardon my French), where you will find, in the history, a disruptive and now indefinitely blocked editor, User:Assuckfan. In that same time frame you see edits made by a staunch defender of the wiki, User:Blackmetalbaz. Then, as you go up toward the more recent edits, you see--hey! that's odd! Blackmetalbaz has changed his mind and is now introducing the material he previously deleted. Well, it's not Blackmetalbaz--it's User:Blackmetlabaz, who is AssuckFan and has copied Baz's user page, and even went as far as to cleverly manipulate his edit summary. But the fun is over. I ask for an immediate ban/block/exile. I'll notify him in a minute. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though the initially blocked user was User:AssuckFan (capital F). We aim to please... --Jayron32 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We're going to need more eyes here, or else maybe just temporary protection. I just indeffed User:Acct.1.of.100. LadyofShalott 05:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. --Jayron32 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Hi admins I have been working in my native language wiki project. And recently I started an account on English Misplaced Pages. I got a message in my talk page from another user about a socket puppet issue. Is he an administrator? But I don't have any connections with some blocked accounts he specified. What should I do? why he is suspecting me? please help. --  Logical Thinker  05:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who placed that notice is not an admin. You don't need to do anything, as no report has been filed at WP:SPI. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That helped me. He was wrong then. Most users in my country are using the same government run DSL ISP(BSNL Broadband). It allocates dynamic IP addresses for all users in a region. He may have misunderstood my connection with a JW user's talk page and the similarity in geographical location to be a sock puppet of recently blocked user. Thank you --  Logical Thinker  07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not file a formal CheckUser request at this stage because there is insufficient evidence at this stage. However it is unusual that three people from Kerala have all started editing JW-related articles in quick succession (though the latest has thus far only provided 'encouragement' to other pro-JW editors at their Talk pages, which would be fine in itself without the religious rhetoric). It is statistically improbable that third account is unrelated (either sockpuppet or meatpuppet) to the other two that were confirmed as socking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In India there is over 30,000 witnesses and about more than half are concentrated in Kerala. No wonder if another user edits JW articles from the same location. But in this case it made you doubtful as the date I joined and other socks blocked was nearby. I coped with all interface here easily because I have experience in another local wiki project. The first two users are already proved to be the same. So all chances can be only two persons. Anyway Meat or sock puppet are Issues that should be considered seriously. --  Logical Thinker  08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The other recent editor(s) (who claimed to know each other and since confirmed as socks) from Kerala also claimed to be involved in the Malayalam Misplaced Pages, and of being tech-savvy ("Because I am not a fool,I know how Internet IP works.-:)", implying convenient awareness of the ambiguity). They also commented about not wanting to communicate with an "Ex-JW" as did Logicalthinker33 in his 'warning' to User:Naturalpsychology. This suggests meat puppetry if not sock. In any case, it seems unusual that just after 'two' (sock or meat puppet) JW editors from Kerala were blocked for sockpuppetting, that another JW from Karala would provide 'encouragement' (actually religious rhetoric) for other JW editors as their very first edits. That is not the action of an entirely uninvolved editor who just started editing a specific language wiki project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro that the sudden appearance of another user from Kerala, following the blocking of three sockpuppet accounts from that region in quick succession, is highly suspicious. The number of editors at the JW pages has remained relatively stable for some time and it is unusual, to say the least, that so many edits have suddenly come from that part of the world. User:Logicalthinker33 seems remarkably confident as a novice user and has been very quick to hand out barnstars to other JW editors, whose editing has been rather low-key lately. The Indian individual who has used the sequence of usernames in a deceptive manner on the JW pages has so far been consistently dishonest and evasive and shown no embarrassment about blatantly lying, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if ... if ... Logical Thinker is the same individual, he continues to deny it. I'll watch developments with interest. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:White Rabbit

The disruptive user at Talk: White Rabbit is at it again. I have non-admin closed the requested move poll as vandalism, since all the (multiple) "votes" are from 75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs), who appears to disagree with her/himself. Looking at the IP's talk page, I see many vandalism and disruption notices.

76.66.194.106 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Examining the edit history of this user, I find s/he did the same thing at Talk:STE, voicing both sides (support/oppose) arguing with him/herself, and multiple votes. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When logic and proportion have fallen "sloppy dead"? Whoosh!!! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since WP:DE includes "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article" I asked my friend, the Red Queen for assistance:

And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"

Remember what the dormouse said: Keep your head!"

Now, where's me hookah? TFOWR 09:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Two new users: content dispute, edit warring, minor incivility, and obvious sock-puppetry

Since this incident involves edit warring as well as civility problems and sock-puppetry, I figure this is the best place to post it. Two users are having a dispute at Yumeiro Patissiere. Both appear to be fairly new and one of them has asked for my help. I pointed them here. As they seem to be unwilling to ask for help by an administrator, I'm doing it for them. But as to what happened: Mari tennouji (talk · contribs) made several edits to the article, most of which were soon reverted by the editor who asked me for help (Reeniereindeer (talk · contribs)). Following that, an assortment of accounts made edits similar to those of Mari tennouji and with very similar edit summaries. Unwilling to engage in an edit war, Reeniereindeer attempted to communicate with the editor(s), but their replies were less constructive than Reeniereindeer had hoped for. Doing a check for sock-puppetry (users: Hellooooookiki, Phoenix218, Rikeruchan, Oiishicakie, Loveyumepati, Reneechan2, Lovepooh) as well as full-protection of Yumeiro Patissiere, preferably after a revert to the last revision before the conflict, should go a long way towards solving this problem. Thanks, Goodraise 09:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards