Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.111.192.233 (talk) at 04:18, 21 November 2010 (→WP:FAIL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Ckatz and Destinero

    Resolved. Editing restriction enacted for Destinero (talk · contribs). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask to check behaviour of Ckatzchatspy who repeatedly disrupts Wikipedia article American College of Pediatricians by removing facts documented by highly reliable expert source simply since he don't like those facts and threats me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#November_2010 --Destinero (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never had problems with Ckatz before that I recall, but this does seem odd and inappropriate on Ckatz' part. I don't understand the reasoning behind this removal at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At first sight, Destinero and Ckatz appear to be edit warring at American College of Pediatricians. Ckatz may consider that his actions are justified by his admin role, since he is taking out a passage that deplores the ACP in Wikipedia's voice, and which uses a reference linked to a primary source, a brief that was filed in a court case, though some of the participating organizations might have published their views elsewhere. Some of the language Ckatz was removing was "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions.." This is being stated in Wikipedia's voice as a matter of fact about the American College of Pediatricians. At a minimum, the language needs fixing for neutrality, and a legal brief should probably not be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UNDUE policy specifically requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
    WP:GEVAL policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."
    Please, explain and clarify what exactly should be fixed for neutrality in current version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397345997&oldid=397268492 I consider it fully in compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Destinero (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Destinero needs to stop the edit warring and justify the changes they want to make. They appear to be inserting analysis not supported by the supplied source. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Amici curiae (National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers - West Virginia Chapter, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence) are national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children. "Amici sumbit this brief to (a) inform the Court of the extensive body of social science research demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples develop just as well, and are as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples; (b) show the Court that this research has been embranced by every authoritative professional organization devoted to the health and welfare of children." (page 1) "Every authoritative child welfare and child health organization of which amici are aware recognizes, and an overhelming body of scholarly research demonstrates, that children fare just as well in families with same-sex parents as in families with heterosexual parents." (page 10) "Every leading professinal child health and child welfare organization recognizes that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted childre. The policy statements issued by these organizations reflect their professional experiences and their expert reviews of the research related to the effects of parenting by gay men and lesbians on childhood development. The statements are striking in their unanimous rejection of the assumption that optimal development requires heterosexual parents. Indeed, amici are unaware of any authoritative child welfare or medical organization that gas taken a contrary view of the research and policy implications." (page 12) "A group of approximately 60 of AAP´s more than 60,00 members opposed APP´s adoption of this policy and in dissent, formed the "American College of Pediatricians" ("ACP") in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents in keeping with the ACP´s position that "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation." Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP´s charter members, has described the ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group´s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of childre." "This small faction´s views are out of step with the research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities." (page 15) http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf
    Thus, to put it simply, there can not be absolutely any doubts I contributed solely the facts supported by the most credible expert sources in the field describe the views of ACP "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship" as fundamental Wikipedia policies reqires. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither one has posted anything to the talk page. Destinero, there's no question in my mind that the lead should include something along the lines of what you are adding -- but you're going to have to work it out on the talk page, and what you have been adding can't be framed in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment While it is certainly premature to do so, I'm not surprised to see that Destinero has brought this matter here. Frankly, I think it is probably best that there is a chance for more eyes to look at the situation. I'll state categorically that this is not a "POV" or disruptive move on my part; a simple check of the article's edit history will show that I've no real interest in the topic. My concerns here - and with several other articles that touch on the same subject matter - lies in Destinero's approach to editing on Wikipedia. I have had to intercede on numerous occasions with regard to his habits, which often as not involve adding POV, non-neutral material to articles that reflect his personal pers\pective on the matter. The worst instances of this have involved incidents where he has dropped boiler-plate text into a series of articles, and where he has misused sources as references for a message he wants to get across. Please note this excerpt from the text [he has repeatedly posted to the article], which demonstrates the nature of the problem:

    "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children."

    Destinero likes to insert loaded terminology into articles; in this case, "out of step" and "small faction" are used to dismiss the organization in question. My apologies if my edit summaries were lacking in this case, but after a long period of dealing with the same problems one can sometimes get frustrated. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have; again, I would really appreciate it if more people could review Destinero's edit history with regard to these types of edits. --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop acusing me of liking loaded terminology when I showed here that I contributed solely the facts presented by the national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children including the largest social work association in the world to the Court, all of which can be everytime checked by everybody. I am expecting your apology since you not able to support by reliable sources how views of ACP are not out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children (see LGBT parenting article for details on decades of conclusive and widely-accepted research on the issue) and you are not able to explain how ACP founded in 2002 by 60 charter members are not small faction in comparison with American Academy of Pediatrics with 60,000 members and all other mainstream expert bodies in the field including National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), American Psychological Association (150,000 members), American Psychiatric Association (40,000 members) etc. --Destinero (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Destinero, since this entire discussion ought to be taking place at the article talk page and you still haven't started any discussion there, I doubt you'll get the apology you are seeking. Again, you can probably add something along the lines of what you are after, but go away and do it the right way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably because this is indeed a user conduct issue: In my experience, (a) edit-warring to insert a patently inappropriate POV (sourced to a brief in a lawsuit!) into an article, and (b) wall-of-text-ranting about it on noticeboards are the classical symptoms of a soon-to-be-indef-blocked user. Destinero, if you keep this up, that will be you.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I improved that by referencing the actual AAP position statement. Destinero and I had a discussion about this before: I think that citing one page position statements is preferable to dozen-of-pages briefs/affidavits. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The language was from the brief, bottom of p. 15. Something like that usually needs to be attributed. Again we had the issue of copy-pasted statements without quotes... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Sandstein's analysis here. Destinero's behavior does not look like civil discourse aimed at arriving at a consensus version of an article. It looks like trying, by any means necessary, to force through a particular viewpoint into an article, including stretching the use of sources of marginal appropriateness, coming to ANI rather than the article talk page to contest the edits of others, and most importantly, insisting that others (and not himself) have the burden to justify the removal of his additions. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the conservative approach must be taken with contentious material. Challenged material is to be left out, and it is the burden of the person wishing to add it to prove, via reliable sources and reasoned discussion with others, that it belongs it. When someone behaves in the opposite manner, it is a red flag that they aren't interested in playing by the rules. The issue of copyright violations and plagiarism is also MUCHO serious, and needs to be addressed as well. --Jayron32 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to ask that there is an examination of Destinero's recent edits, which - despite concerns raised here and on his talk page - are a direct continuation of his regular behaviour. Not only has he apparently ignored concerns raised over the American College article, he has also made significant undiscussed changes to LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage that have raised concerns over copyright violations and the use of weasel words. --Ckatzchatspy 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comment on new developments in the ACP article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed that from the ACP article, clearly very pointed. I think Destinero has a particular and deep POV on these topics; there is no reason to stop them from editing, but they need to understand why their edits are problematic and often pointed. I think we made movement on this on ther LGBT parenting article. I also have concerns with the consistent use of "not needed" as an edit summary for quite substantive edits. This should be discouraged and instead Destinero should try to use much more explanatory edit summaries to clear up their reasoning --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am satisfied with the current versions of LGBT parenting and ACP article. What a difference to the Ckatz POV version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397489091&oldid=397268492, isn't it? Yes, I care much about these topics, but please, that does not mean I want to push some POV agenda. I understand copyvio and other concerns mentioned and take them seriously and I really appreciate the movement and feedback. The reason why I wrote not needed in edit summary were motivated to reduce duplicate material and focus on the essence of documented facts and adress copyvio and weasel word concerns. For example, I see no reason why include rather esseistic and defendable writing than document clearly current scientific research-based knowledge and expert consensus to let readers to make up their own opinions on the topic. Is it clearer, now? --Destinero (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some context around that diff.
    Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want to make it very clear for the record that, Destinero's errant claims of my "POV" version to the contrary, I have no personal involvement in the page as an editor. My involvement in this matter is solely and completely based on responding as an admin to what appears to me to be yet another case of Destinero's problematic editing style, as I have had to do elsewhere in the past. --Ckatzchatspy 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting, a case that I mediated. (I am no longer mediating any case involving Destinero). I thought that I had successfully explained to Destinero that his interpretation of WP:UNDUE was an extremely odd one (to say the least), and one not shared by the rest of the Wikipedia community. He seems to believe that if a claim is attributed to a source written by a respected expert on the topic, it can then be written in Wikipedia's voice. I assumed good faith with Destinero by suggesting this was a linguistic issue. However, I believe, since this issue has recurred, Destinero is attempting to game Wikipedia policy to his advantage, and has created disputes where none exist with some very experienced Wikipedians who are trying to write articles in an NPOV manner. He replies with walls of "lawyering" text when editors attempt to explain to him his strange, self-exculpatory view of WP:UNDUE.
    • Therefore, I suggest that he be subject to a "softban" from inserting text in "Wikipedia's voice" on subjects relating to LGBT parenting and parenting in general, of which this is another example. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I hereby propose the following softban. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting.
    • Ban enacted. Editors are free to dispute this limited-behaviour topic ban if they desire. I would have liked comment on this; however, Destinero's record of disruptive editing in these topic areas should not be entertained any longer, since it is wasting editors' and administrators' time. A cost-benefit decision must, therefore, be made. The ban will be noted in the appropriate venues. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How long it will take? It is possible to ask for the end of the softban in a month or year or so? --Destinero (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. What I recommend is that, say, in a month or so, you post a message here on AN/I asking for the ban to be reviewed (or leave a message on my talk page to ask me to post it, if you prefer). If you have managed to edit the articles in question without violating the ban, this means you will have had good practice in editing the articles in a collaborative and neutral way. It will also, therefore, have given you a cooling off period to better understand how WP:UNDUE and WP:RS is meant to work. I do understand that you have a very specific interpretation of the policy, Destinero, but your unusual interpretation of it is generally considered on Wikipedia to be a form of gaming the system as a way of countermanding the WP:NPOV policy -- indeed, there is an example on the WP:GAME page, example 6, that fits your behaviours very accurately. I think I've been as lenient as possible in enacting this and tried to keep it to what appeared to have de facto consensus from those editors who have dealt with you: this isn't a ban from you editing these articles; it is, in fact, not much of a ban at all, merely requiring that you adhere to the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policy. However, other editors/administrators and I have worked very hard to explain to you why your interpretation of the policy is at odds with the rest of the community, and it is wasting our time to keep dealing with what is in essence a synthetic dispute through pedantic use of a Wikipedia policy for a particular end. So, in summary: keep editing the articles within the terms of the ban, and this can be reviewed in a month to see how you've been doing. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad Base Systems, Inc. IP range blocked

    Resolved
     – IP rangeblocked, relevant material added to the spam blacklist. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP range belonging to the internal network of Ad-Base Systems Inc., a call centre service and communications provider, for a period of 1 week. The CIDR range is 72.251.44.0/24. Roving anonymous editors in this range have persistently reinserted a telephone number in the External links section of Reverse 911 tendentiously, ten times since November 17th; see the article history. This appears to be either 1) an attempt to divert interested readers from a competitor's emergency telephone communications product to their own; or 2) self-promotion, if Ad-Base Systems is a contractor for EADS North America, the provider of the product. This range has also inserted similar telephone numbers in the Call 911 article, in a similarly-repeated way. IPs in the range have been blocked previously for varying durations by other administrators. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. We don't need that level of disruption at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just perm it? You know the IPs range is from an ad company. HalfShadow 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because IP ranges change from time to time, and someone may start editing properly from that range someday. --Jayron32 05:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the insertion of the phone number something that can be handled via the spam blacklist? Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The spam blacklist only handles external link additions. I've seen phone numbers occasionally pop up in #wikipedia-en-spam, so I've asked Beetstra whether XLinkBot can revert such additions. MER-C 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's that bot that automatically reverts additions of certain strings of text? I always forget the name of it but that would probably work well in this case. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a rule to the linkwatcher so they now 'see' telephone numbers formatted like this, and have added this telephone number as a rule to XLinkBot. I am careful with this automated catching of telephone numbers, there are too many numbers which look like telephone numbers. Those with access to the revertlists can use the functionality also for telephone numbers, but please take care. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I saw LiWa3 report a number in the same format as the telephone number added here (######-####; the reported number was actually not a telephone number, showing that this number-catching does make mistakes!). Adding the telephone number added by the IPs reported in this thread by anons/new users should trigger the revert of XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins

    Original poster:

    Admins:

    1. A group of administrators is threatening me with blocks. One has abused his administrative privileges by using administrative clout when the discussion got argumentative. In a discussion in which he was a participant I was warned for being tendentious[1], after [2] I had withdrawn from the discussion about a specific point. Later I took opinions on the concerned page then wrote that I had withdrawn from the article page, [3] After my withdrawl a final block warning for being tendentious was issued.[4]
    2. When I was warned for canvassing [5]- for writing to those whose views on the subject were known to me as favourable, inviting them to participate in a discussion, I was not aware that it was breaking the rules, and when it was brought to my notice I immediately stopped doing so.[6], to make amends I wrote to those editors whose views were known to me as unfavourable to make up for the earlier canvassing.[7] [8] After this I was issued a final warning for canvassing.[9]
    3. Earlier I was blocked without warning for 15 days.[10] After the warning expired I wrote on the blocking administrators' page asking hin to justify his action.[11] A month has passed but I have not received a reply.[12] Now this block is used against me to create some kind of criminal record.[13]
    4. An editor learns by the mistakes he makes. Some I corrected myself. I did not repeat mistakes. I have made ammends to the mistakes I have made. I appeal for action against the following administrators.

    The concerned administrators are user:YellowMonkey the administrator who made the first block without warning and without justification, user:RegentsPark who has mis-used his administrative privileges when the discussion got argumentative and user:SpacemanSpiff issuing a final block warning without reason. I do not know what comes first the chicken or the egg, so first I am issuing this ANI and then posting notice on the concerned administrator's pages. If I am breaking rules I will apologise and even face the necessary penalty, but if I am not then the three administrator's should be reined in. They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone's welcome to take a look at the contribution history and the sequence of events. I don't think I need to say anymore, my warning was quite explicit and there should be no confusion on that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contribution record is here as evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After I it was brought to my notice that I was votestacking (out of ignorance), my thanked user:SpacemanSpiff, for his notice. The wikirules are How to respond to inappropriate canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Immediately on receipt of the notice, I stopped without arguments. Please see contributin history. Why then the block threat? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier I was wrongly accused of Forumshopping by user:RegentsPark, unprofessional behaviour unbecomming of an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A two week block for trolling as a first offense with a user who has run up several thousand edits without trouble seems ... stern.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was strange in that, there was no warning at all and Yellowman User:YellowMonkey never once posted to the blockees talkpage or left him a template or anything at all. A few days after the block he did appear to have emailed twice to the blockee but the user didn't see them for some time. Discussion of emails is here. No comment of the general editing of Yogesh but there is a fair bit of disruption in the wake of them. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean User:YellowMonkey, the former arbitrator and functionary, or somebody else? Jehochman Talk 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The email was posted after the block was enforced, not before. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, User:YellowMonkey, corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3-tier diff and link series
    Yogesh Khandke, please avoid lengthening the thread. Please wait for the administrators you have accused of impropriety to respond. If would be helpful if you added some diffs to your above statements so the observers could know which specific warnings or comments you object to. The comments of Wehwalt and Off2riorob while possibly correct may be premature. We don't know if all the facts are on the table yet, so let's be patient until everybody involved has a chance to comment. The user is currently not blocked, so there is no urgency. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC), 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To say it is stern is hardly prejudging the outcome. Either way, we do need an explanation from YellowMonkey.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but let's not start the party without him. For the record, the OP has notified all the admins in his complaint. I reserve comment until YM has had a chance to share his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be waiting a while, given that YellowMonkey has yet to explain the controversial unblock (without consultation with the blocking admin) of Dr. Blofeld which occurred last night and about which several editors asked for an explanation on YellowMonkey's talk page. However, not everyone lives on wiki, we can afford to be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are asking for an explanation for a block that occurred a month ago. That's a lifetime in wikitime and responding to this request may not be easy. Generally, and this is addressed to YK, it is better to bring up the matter when events are fresh. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean during the two weeks when he was blocked without a block template telling him how to appeal it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean during the one month that has passed since his block expired. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YM has served long as an admin and in other positions. I am not aware that YM suffers from lapses of memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither am I. I am also not aware what speculation about his lapses of memory has to do with this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Then there should be no trouble about an explanation of the block, though it took place a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed seeing my comment above (or perhaps you forgot) ([14]). Since the events happened more than a month ago, he may not remember the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking at cross purposes; my point was that YM is likely to remember and be able to explain to us--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure 'cross purposes' describes it accurately but this ain't going no where. So ok. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I should make a comment here. YK was soap boxing and engaging in tendentious editing here. I warned him about that. He showed up on my page with complaints about abusing admin privilege (here) and I explained that warnings are not an admin function. He didn't get that and continued to post on my page I (gently) let him know that he was now being tendentious on my talk page as well. He started an open move request at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga and then went and started an RfC on the same topic (here). So I directed his attention to the policy on forum shopping here. He is clearly being tendentious on the talk pages of British Empire Talk:British Empire and on the move request Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. My suggestion is that he heeds my well meant advice that he realize that it is better to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later (given here). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user does appear to be rather tendentious - see previous ANI thread: [15]. He has been accused of trolling which I think is rather unfair, he is just a far-out Hindu nationalist.
    This [16] was the state of Talk:British Empire before he was blocked. He does not appear to have received any warning. See also [17].
    Any recent warnings of this user would seem appropriate given the user's editing style; what doesn't appear to have been appropriate is blocking him for two weeks with not a word of warning or even notifying him on his Talk, which was basically dead prior to his block. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpacemanSpiff is known to me to be an over-zealous administrator, warning and banning editors without giving in-depth consideration to the matter. He repeatedly violates the basic foundational pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility and refuses to AGF.

    I have borne the brunt of his administrative actions when I was still a newbie here when he removed well-sourced content and contradicted himself in the edit summary. That showed that SpacemanSpiff either doesn't read edits/study the matter in its entirety before making use of his administrative privileges or lacks competence. This is a pattern, not just 1 or 2 incidents. He is doing damage to Wikipedia by refusing to AGF and by scaring away constructive contributors. I have asked him to step down as an admin in the past and urge him to do so again. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:RegentsPark has indulged in hounding me See his edits on a issue proposed by me, that is his first edit on the Ganges page in many thousands edits, and he has opposed my proposal.[18], such actions do not behove an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that just in a cursory check of the most recent contributions from RegentsPark I found edits to Burmese and Indian topics, it is not at all unlikely that they would also be monitoring the Ganges article. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check his contribution history, I did to as far back as September 2008, no contribution to Ganges.[19] [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

    Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting ridiculous (and potentially disruptive). I'm willing to respond to reasonable requests, but this is mere delusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that exhaustive list. That doesn't however invalidate what I said: RegentsPark has edited on many different India-related articles. It is not unlikely that Ganges would be on their watchlist. I have lots of things on my watchlist that I've never edited, that are even outside the topic areas that I've edited. However, please feel free to keep digging and assuming bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to add that we are all humans and all have our failings, so administrators should also assume good faith, instead of calling names and terms like disruptive. If you can give user:RegentsPark who is an administrator the benefit of the doubt, even though he needs to be judged by a higher standard, why do you not understand the hurt of a common editor and how he feels threatened with blocks for flimsy reasons, and accusing him of digging as if he is some grave digger? Please be fair and bi-partisan.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    user:RegentsPark asks why I delayed in reporting user:YellowMonkey to ANI, that is because I wanted to avoid official action, but my previous block was brought up as some criminal record which forced my hand.[42] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I do not need the 'benefit of the doubt'. The move notification is posted on WT:IN as well as WT:AT. I would have to try very hard to miss it. You need to get a handle on yourself and think about changing the way you're approaching editing here. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No unsolicited personal comments or advice and stick to the issue at hand, (1)Administrators' haste in (mis?)using administrative privileges, and browbeating editors using them. (2)user:RegentsPark's sudden interest in Ganges, and editing against a proposal submitted by an editor to whom he had issued a block warning. (3)Why is user:RegentsPark speaking on behalf of user:YellowMonkey, he should keep out of any discussion but himself, he is not a third party here and such actions consists of hounding! (4)Action to be taken against such administrators. It is 12.32 am local time, I need to call it a day. Good night. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While I disagree with Yogesh on the move proposal he's making right now, I do agree something smells rotten about these three administrators actions. We've got truly and repeatedly warned disruptive users that pass through here who we can't get blocked for 15 minutes and they had a 2 week block with little to no warning? Yeah. I don't think so. YM's diffs seem clear, as do spaceman's. However I'd like to see some clear diffs on where Regentparks misused his power during a heated discussion. I see one linked warning, but that's hardly sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but I can't see a problem with SacemanSpiff's warning [43] - it appears justified, as the editor does appear to have been editing tendentiously. Part of the problem seems to be that the editor is finding it difficult to distinguish between a warning and an administrative action, in spite of attempts by RegentsPark to explain: neither SpacemanSpiff nor RegentsPark have misused the administrative privileges, as claimed. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about YellowMonkey's block, but concerning recent activity, Yogesh's editing on the Ganges move request has been disruptive and tendentious. It was bad enough when he rebuked an editor for voicing an opinion, but when I saw he started going after editors on their own talk pages (here and here) I understood and supported SpacemanSpiff's warning. --JaGatalk 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, I have no idea as to what the underlying dispute is about but none of those three diffs you link to is in anyway problematic. Rebuking somebody for "voicing an opinion" - usually called "disagreeing with someone" - sometimes happens in the real world. The other two diffs are same thing; evidence that a disagreement exists nothing more. Calling it "going after editors", which implies an attack of some sort is itself a form of personal attack since it violates the part of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks can be Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, check out the discussion and decide for yourself about Yogesh's behavior. I thought he was coming on a bit strong... --JaGatalk 05:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they tried to use their administrative powers or not, things have a greater weight when said by admins. That's a fact of life on Wikipedia and why people often bring things here. When random editor X warns someone that they might be blocked for action Y, the response, if they're not an admin, is many times not what we'd hope for. On the other hand if an admin repeats the warning it's taken with far greater importance. A final block warning after someone has disengaged seems inappropriate. More so when it comes from an admin.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, but in this case the warning from SpacemanSpiff was more general - it mentioned the canvasing, which had stopped, but the other issues raised in the warning - especially badgering oppose votes - were (and are) ongoing. If it was just about the canvasing then I'd agree, but it was about a general pattern of tendentious editing, which seems a justified issue to raise. However, whether or not it should have been worded is a final warning is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say this because I've a lot of respect for YM, but the block in question appears to be shaky and is pushed into the "bad block" realm by the lack of notification, which is mandated by policy and this is not the first time I have found YM to be unresponsive when faced with questions about his admin actions, though it is the first time the action I've questioned has been a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment on content: it is not at all clear to me that Yogesh was "soapboxing and being disruptive" at Talk:British_Empire#Sepoy. It seems to me there is a very legitimate question of terminology at the bottom of this dispute that Wikipedia should be neutral about -- the British speak of "the sepoy mutiny", while Indian sources speak of "the First War of Indian Independence". [44] It is quite possible to find a neutral term, such as "1857 revolt", and I see no reason to stuff British terms – in the article's editorial voice, rather than marked as British usage – down Indian editors' throats with warnings for "disruption", when we are writing about Indian history. On the positive side, none of the three admins has contributed content to the article, or has a significant talk page history at the article. I'm over to the article talk page ... --JN466 05:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S: See India's First War of Independence, and note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857 in mainspace. --JN466 06:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yogesh Khandke is a patient and mature editor who shows respect for WP policies. If he inadvertently violates a rule unknown to him, he is quick to make amends when pointed out. His only 'problem' is the cultural gap that exists from being an Indian editor editing from India in an English Wikipedia dominated by Anglophone people. He needs to know when to persist, when to back off and needs to learn the general etiquette of the Western world. According to userboxes, SpacemanSpiff is an Indian editor who has migrated to California. RegentsPark is in New York. It is ironical that these editors, instead of helping Yogesh bridge the cultural gap, are going after him. Perhaps it's just being callous or perhaps it's the acting white phenomenon or something similar to the zeal of the new convert. Whatever it is, it is damaging Wikipedia by scaring away assertive, persistent and constructive contributors. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting in a note that being an editor from India does not mean you are alien to Western etiquette. Personally, I can't find enough of a 'culture gap' to warrant any of my edits being put away due to naivety. I have had first contact with User:RegentsPark over two years ago, and he is anything but callous or whitewashed. - Amog | Talk • contribs 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please it is not about black or white. The three administrators have displayed inadequate understanding of their jobs, and have acted unprofessionally in my case. I request adequate action be taken against them. Please refer to the diffs above. Sorry for interrupting the conversation. Please base comments on the evidence submitted by me in the form of diffs above, and not experience elsewhere or at someother time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • About your point #2, you were warned not just for canvassing, but for badgering users (non-supporters included) on their talk pages. This edit cannot be seen as a way to "to make up for the earlier canvassing" as you have stated. While I do not fully agree with the way your ban was handled, I am not comfortable with the way you have handled this issue as well. This is certainly not proof that an edit like this constitutes hounding. Also, your continued insistence that the issuing of warnings are an abuse of administrative power come off as unnecessarily naive for an editor with your edit count. I am not an administrator, but have issued over a thousand warnings in my editing history. - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think at this stage, we are waiting to hear from admin YellowMonkey, who has not yet responded, to explain administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't we propose something for the AN/I community to support or oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC/U maybe? Or should we keep it relatively informal and just look for a consensus on the propriety or otherwise of specific actions of YM that have been questioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The most obvious proposal I would make is to see how much support we have for having SpacemanSpiff step down as an administrator since his actions seem to me like they are driving away potentially constructive contributors and this is impacting the quality of articles under the India project. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stick to YellowMonkey, and let Zuggernaut start his own thread. I would agree with the informal aspect, and possibly the start of such a determination will prompt YellowMonkey to engage in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've started a new subsection with what I think is a neutral statement of facts and policy. Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way

    Somebody explain WP:FORUMSHOPPING to Yogesh; he started 3 subsections, went to Wikipedia talk:Article titles (unsuccessfully), and now wants to take it to talk at WP:COMMONNAME. The strategy to disperse this mission over many different pages in the hopes that somewhere the mission's accomplished isn't very helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried. But YK is much better at writing lots of words then reading them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub-sections were started for the very reason you have started a sub-section has been introduced here, the length made editing tedious. Wikipedia talk:Article titles is the discussion page for WP:COMMONNAME. so that is the only other thread, there I began the discussion there with information that a move proposal was on[45], WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about hiding different threads, I on the other hand opened the thread with information of the other thread. I have even offered to close the thread on talk:Ganges[46], so that it is easier for editors, does that still make me a forumshopper, which is in my opinion about hiding and deceit which I did not resort to. I need to call it a day it is 1.54 am local time here. Good night.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Forum shopping is not about 'hiding and deceit'. It is about raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages. Initiating a move request on an article talk page and then raising the issue on a WP space page when you aren't getting the answer you want is forum shopping.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RegentsPark, that is unfair. Yogesh Khandke has done two things:
    1. He has proposed to move Ganges to Ganga, in line with an overwhelming preference in Indian English for Ganga. This preference is present on Indian government websites and in the English-language Indian media.
    2. He has asked that Wikipedia:Article titles should not give "Ganges" as its key example of when not to follow local English usage in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles. You can hardly blame him for that -- if the article is moved, the guideline has to be changed too, and indeed editors could argue that until the guideline is changed, the move would be -- naturally -- against the guideline. --JN466 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    {ec}} I am sorry, WP:COMMONNAME redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles. You are talking about one page. --JN466 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not a particularly big deal because it is not an egregious example and, given that he's trying to undo it, I think he gets it (but, apparently, he would rather not admit it). But, raising an RfC ([47])on a topic while a move request proposed by you is ongoing, and when you perceive that the request is not getting enough traction (User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ganga), is forum shopping. It is better to wait till the move request is closed and then raise a more general question on the AT talk page (rather than raising the same question). --RegentsPark (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my bad, I didn't see that it's the same page. Yogesh, the subsection was started because I raised a related issue, not the same issue.
    That being said, I nonetheless do see a problem with the way you approach this; your stance/opinion is very clear by now. What I've seen is your re-hashing the same argument over-and-over again, as if nobody had heard you, jumping into almost every other vote. This is not a spoken conversation; what you've written is on record, everybody can read it, re-typing it is thus a waste of time, and, quite frankly, annoying. We've heard you. It just so happens that others disagree with you. You should just step away now, let others say whatever they want to say, and then come back next week or so; unless you have something new to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    YellowMonkey's block of Yogesh Khandke

    FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language and YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections. were the two most recent ANI threads I could find on YM. There have also been numerous notes on his talk page from admins (including me) and concerned non-admins regarding his protections. He has a tendency to semi articles for 6 months where most admins would go with a few days but that's an issue with his protections, not an individual block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad block An admin is part of a community, and must follow community expectations. One of those expectations is informing the subject of administrative action the reason for the action, and in the case of a block, how to see review by another admin. YellowMonkey just left Yogesh hanging on the phone. To say nothing of the fact that the length of block was wildly excessive. Look, play social networking games if you like, but that name over there is a real person who needs to be treated with respect. It looks like YellowMonkey let down the side.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but this page is not for dispute resolution. If there are lingering concerns about YellowMonkey's tool usage, WP:RFC/U is the correct venue to discuss them. Two of you (preferably editors uninvolved in the original conflict) should discuss your concerns with YM at User talk:YellowMonkey. If you don't get satisfactory answers, you can then start an RFC. This thread has done the most that it can reasonably be expected to do: it has alerted the community to potentially valid concerns, and provided the aggrieved editor with several outside views, and brought in several uninvolved editors who can take any needed follow up steps, such as RFC. I suggest we close this lengthy thread now because ANI is not a substitute for proper dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On a procedural note, we don't have a clear consensus that this was a bad block (which would be a step in the right direction) and I for one am reluctant to drag someone who has done as much for this project as YM has to RfC/U without exploring alternatives first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I agree with you. Since YellowMonkey hasn't responded here, why don't you take up the issue with them directly, as should any other uninvolved editors who are concerned about the block. Perhaps some discussion on his talk page will result in a clarification of why the block was needed, or a recognition that the block was incorrect and assurance that such errors will be avoided going forward. Only if those outcomes fail, then you can go to RFC if you are still concerned. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempts to use Wikipedia as a collaboration on Yu-Gi-Oh!

    This user created the "article" Yugioh Deck as an attempt to establish a collaboration site for fans of Yu-Gi-Oh! ([48]). I prodded it ([49]), which he removed ([50]), then I tagged it for A3 ([51]), which he also removed once ([52]) before adding a {{hangon}} tag ([53]). He then asked me a question on my talk page ([54]); I responded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for collaboration on any subject not related to building the encyclopedia, and I even pointed him to Comparison of wiki farms and WP:OUTLET ([55]). He still has not gotten the message, and created the similarly-named Yugioh Decks (since deleted) in an attempt to evade the deletion tag. I request that this user be blocked for disruption/abuse of editing privileges, and Yugioh Deck and any other article he created related to this subject be deleted immediately. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the one who CSDed the Yugioh Decks article, and first saw KardGame on the Yugioh talk page advertising the article.--intelatitalk 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see his (or her) plea for help --intelatitalk 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like probably a very, very young user who really does just want to chat about his favourite card game and likely wouldn't have the patience to set up a new wiki all on their own (nor should they, as there's already a Wikia for it). Their contributions are in good faith, just misplaced. They should instead be incouraged to find a Yu-Gi-Oh forum where they can talk about their deck all they want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They had a section on their Talk page encouraging others to discuss the cards, and I removed it, explaining that that was not the purpose of Wikipedia. They removed my comments and restored the section. So they know that they're not supposed to be doing that. I do agree that they same like a very young person. Corvus cornixtalk 07:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosnian War Introduction

    There is a discussion on the Talk:Bosnian War on how to improve the introduction on the Bosnian War article. Myself and other users are experiencing frustration with a certain user by the name of Alan.Ford.Jn which I think has a clear POV and a irrational behavior and even though lengthy discussions and tries to rationalize with him, he continues to revert and disrupt even though he clearly has no consensus nor support. It would be useful if an admin could perhaps help to clear things up. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure your response to Alan.Ford.Jn's first post is particularly AGF-y but then again I'm sure you have a lot more experience with these editors (this editor?) than I do. If you still think this is a sock the place to report that is WP:SPI. Otherwise, this is a content dispute and you're gonna have to hash it out on the talk page. You might include a general overview of the race relations perspective since as I recall ethnicity was one of the triggers of that conflict. N419BH 23:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuisance #2

    Checkuser finds accounts to be unrelated. behavioral discussion should continue above. N419BH 04:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone just block this guy as well. He's User:Historičar's Unbelievably Obvious Sock No.324. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved this here since it's a duplicate. No comment on the editor in question. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This was checkusered and found Red X Unrelated to Historicar ( [56] ). If there's strong behavioral evidence it can be presented, but the CU opinion carries a lot of weight... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasoning seems a bit tenuous; the primary account (and the socks) is interested in the language, the other account seems interested in the war. Other than them both being Bosnian based, there seems to be no real overlap. HalfShadow 04:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I have to respond to Georgewilliamherbert and HalfShadow. I have actually submitted a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alan.Ford.Jn) on behavioral grounds. I got the sense of CU not being totally reliable with most of the accounts going "stale", although I'm not to familiar with the CU system. And HalfShadow did you actually look at Historicars sock puppet accounts? Like for example Kruško Mortale, SanjakMan and Rochass? Dealing a lot if not the majority of the time with the war and the articles surrounding and related to the war. It just sounds like a very peculiar thing to say. --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP anon going around changing "Burma" to "Myanmar" despite being told not to

    Resolved
     – Sock? block rinse repeat. Policy on naming within Wikipedia clarified. Nothing further to do here. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Issue: Myanmar v. Burma

    We have this anon, 112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), going around changing all mentions of "Burma" to "Myanmar", claiming "Wikipedia is not a sockpuppet for human rights activists". This is a perennial issue, for which there is no consensus to use "Myanmar" over "Burma", i.e. the status quo should be used.

    A quick check of the contributions history shows some POV pushing and interesting vandalism, including changing the image of UN HQ in New York to one of the Nazi Parliament in 1939.

    He's been told, both in edit summaries and at User talk:Jimbo Wales (which he's clearly reading often), that he has no consensus for the changes, but he's still doing them. He's also at three reverts on Burma, so I'm about to warn him against 3RR, but we could do with some admin eyes on this. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, that was fast, blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) before I even posted this here. Either way, just an FYI. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually considering a longer block as the IP reminded me of banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs). The IP geolocates to the Philippines specifically the Manila area which is one of 23prootie's location. The IP was edit warring and 23prootie is an edit warrior. I have further suspicions because 23prootie has the same stance on the naming convention for Burma/Myanmar. For those who may not be aware, there is a discussion at Commons. The reason I didn't block this IP longer was that it geolocated to Manila (23prootie uses many open proxies to try and conceal their location), the IP didn't seem like an open proxy and is in a different location (Greater San Francisco) from the IP that I have concluded they were editing extensively after several sockpuppets. It is common for Filipinos though to obtain tourist visas to the U.S. and it could be he/she returned to the Philippines. If anybody sees this as an IP sock, please feel free to block longer. Elockid (Talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For my own and other interested editor's information, why does Wikipedia continue to use Burma when the country's official name is Myanmar? Can someone link to the appropriate discussion? N419BH 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The change was done by the current de-facto military government. A wide range of groups and individuals (and not a few countries) didn't accept the change as valid or legitimate (and many don't consider the current military government legitimate).
    Which is correct depends on quite a number of geopolitical factors which have no single right answer.
    Wikipedia isn't here to declare one side right. There's widespread disagreement; asserting one is correct is not our place. We have to have some name for articles, but forcing a single uniform standard for them would be taking sides in the dispute. Our default under these sorts of circumstances is to cross-link and assert that the first name used in a given context is appropriate for that context, and not change them.
    This is somewhat frustrating and confusing; but it's equally frustrating and confusing to everyone, and it's not judgemental as to who's right in the real world. It maintains Wikipedia's neutrality.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumed it had something to do with the Junta, hence Suu Ki still referring to the nation as Burma. Thank you for the clarification. Marking thread resolved. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally we try to match the usage of major news organizations such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and BBC; but this is a case where these organizations don't agree with each other. The New York Times uses Myanmar, but the Washington Post and BBC, to the best of my knowledge, use Burma. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen in the Burma articles, Myanmar is more like the "real" name of the country, and Burma was what the Brits called it. And the locals call the Ganges River the Ganga, and the city of Bombay is really Mumbai. But the English names of many geographic entities are different from what they call themselves. For example, there's no reason we couldn't call Germany by its real name, Deutschland, but we don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I've seen is that both names are inexact representations of the underlying Burmese; the British were careless (as often, see Hobson-Jobson), and the military authorities respelled to suggest a glorious meaning unsupported by etymology. But the assertion that Burma is more recognizable in English, is, for once, supported by sources - BBC articles, of which this is one - which say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Myanmar-Shave just doesn't have the same ring, somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FAIL

    Resolved
     – User directed to WP:VPM N419BH 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I honestly am not sure where to go with this. It's probably not here, but hopefuly someone can quickly point me in the right direction. Recently, I was commenting on an AFD that was so blatantly unencyclodepic that I chose, in humor, to write WP:FAIL as my reason for deletion. I was surprised that WP:FAIL was actually an active link that directed me to two essays that seemed to be at odds were with each other. One seemed to indicate that failure, in general, was an inherint part of Wikipedia, and it was OK to learn from your mistakes. The other essay was about how Wikipedia, as a concept, has failed. This doesn't seem right. I don't want to delete, or even disagree with either essay...I just think that to very unrelated views shouldn't link to the same "short cut." Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more appropriate to WP:VPM. The admins have nothing they can do about this issue, so it should probably be moved to the Village Pump. --Jayron32 03:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken your suggestion thanks. Hopefully resolved, at least for this thread :) The Eskimo (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a disambig page for a year now - fail does have multiple meanings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also WP:EPICFAIL, with yet a different meaning ;-) 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Spartan

    Hi I realize people probably don't know about this case since it was kind of a quick decision, but I was told to come here. My account (User:Spartan) had some trolls on it earlier in the year and by the next time I logged in it was "indefinitely" blocked. The admin in this case was Ryan_Postlewaite, who I am told is trusted, which is good. I sent an e-mail and multiple inquiries to him and several other admins but they seem to have stopped editing during the summer. I talked to another and she sent me here. I'm going to edit regardless it's just a matter of having my editing privleges back on my old account, which is not compromised. Is there anything that can be done? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just as an add-on, I'd just like to say that all I want to do is resurrect the dead account. I created several new pages on the account in the past and I want to get back to doing that. Thanks...96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried emailing WP:ARBCOM? They usually handle requests of this nature, specifically the ban appeals subcommittee. --Jayron32 06:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try that, thanks. 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently I denied Spartan's unblock request based on a previous ANI thread. Hopefully his ArbCom request is more successful for him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RevDel needed

    There has been a serious personal attack here, that needs to be RevDeled. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 09:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel'd. Semi'd. IP blocked. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're in the mood, you might want to take care of this one also, from another sock of that same user, most likely: [57] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And this one:[58] All of these IP's show as emanating from Spain, in the city of Cordoba. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice it was in the same range. I wonder what the fuss is about? It's was protected 5 days ago as well.It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 10:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and could somebody tell him to come and discuss this here (I can't, since you semi'd the page; I am not autoconfirmed yet)? It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 10:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's the editor himself who should have brought this here if he was concerned about it. I wouldn't be. I'd post junk like that on my talk page under "Memorable quotes from the Great Unwashed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP

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

    This user keeps deleting part of the Fallout (video game) article. The user seems to have a rotating IP, so this is just their latest IP. The user initially cited WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason, but since then, the user has not tried justifying their edits; not on the talk page, not in further edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much point blocking as it's clearly a rotating IP. This is a content dispute, but as all the other parties to the disagreement seem to be using the talk page while this rotating-IP editor carries on edit warring, I've semi-protected the article for a week. ~ mazca talk 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing on IRC by Padrecamara

    Padrecamara has recently attempted to obtain "keep" votes in an AfD for an article they have written via IRC as shown here.

    Looks to me like the editor was promptly rebuked and backtracked on IRC. I'm sure that the attempt will be brought up at the AfD, if it hasn't been already. I don't see anything to be done here, suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Participation at IRC & Wikipedia, should never mix. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of irc is canvassing, subverting processes, organizing campaigns etc... All of the people there are guilty of whatever this person is guilty of.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I'm no fan of IRC. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading that log it appears to be someone with poor familiarity with Wikipedia policies. He mostly asked questions about sourcing, notability, etc., rather than request votes. Having said that, the advice given was way worse than what he could have gotten on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of rollback

    Resolved
     – rollback removed

    Candyo32 (talk · contribs) misused rollback and I left a message (examples on his/her talkpage). When I explained why rollback doesn't apply and how to manually revert I was told it was made because his/her TWINKLE was broken and to bring this here if I "think it's such a big deal" and that he/she would "leave stupid edits on pages" from now on. Rollback is for disruption, not a convenient way to undo edits if we don't know how else to do it nor a replacement for another tool. Hekerui (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vasser24 - pointy editing

    Vasser24 (talk · contribs) is an inexperienced editor who created the article Oikophobia. When I and other editors began to edit the article (and made substantial changes, including removing a lot of original research and use of blogs), he became very upset -- see his talk page and the article's talk page. This involved not a few personal attacks, which although unpleasant I can certainly shrug off, questions about what articles the editors involved have written, denials that any of his edits contained original research (although they clearly did and he seems to understand that now), etc. The article's been protected by another Administrator due to edit warring. But what's happened in the last hour or so is that he has decided because his edits were removed, he's going to " use this for deletion of many, many articles at Wikipedia." [59]. He's removed virtually all the text from Participatory democracy [60] and much of the text from Xenophobia.[61]. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm merely applying the same standards you apply to Oikophobia. I quote you Doug Weller: "Using [Russell Means as an example without relying on a source linking him with oikophobia is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role."
    You also informed me: "If you want to use Means in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS) that uses the term [oikophobia] in discussing Means." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    He's continuing to remove the lead from Participatory democracy, despite being warned and reverted twice (he's blanked most of the article 3 times now. On the talk page he's copied my text from Talk:Oikophobia (not quoting me, just using it as though he wrote it but clearly pointy). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him a gentle warning and undone some pointy deletions. Vasser24, there is a difference between using a source that is talking about involvement in democracy in an article on Participatory Democracy, and claiming that someone in their biography is describing the phenomenon of Oikophobia when they are talking about feelings or experiences. Find a source that says "in X, Means describes the manifestation of Oikophobia" or some similar form of wording. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for 12hrs to prevent further disruptive editing, and advised that he return to discussing his original beef.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LemonMonday

    Request for enforcement of WP:GS/BI restriction

    Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and LemonMonday has been very active at WT:BISE. Despite this discussion regarding an article Westward Ho! at BISE, which resulted in me changing the article to use "United Kingdom" as the largest referenced area as per the references provided by numerous parties at BISE, LemonMonday immediately reverted the edit, and violated the terms of the topic's probation by reinserting "British Isles" without a reference. Subsequently, User:GoodDay reverted the change, only for LemonMonday to immediately revert again. Given that Cailil is now being dragged into mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/Admin Cailil: Definition of Civility, I thought it best to bring this latest disruption here for wider community involvement.

    LemonMonday/MidnightBlueMan sock

    A recent sock case from August 2010 resulted in technically unlikely. Comments from the Clerks and patrolling admins stated

    • behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing (PeterSymonds (16:44, 27 August 2010)
    • Technically Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren 18:22, 27 August 2010

    The case was eventually marked as closed with the following reasons - I'm marking this for close. LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now. TNXMan 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Well, LM is back. I also agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Can someone please block as per WP:DUCK. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • HK you were asked to let this sockpuppetry issue go (see my talk-page). The CU evidence was proven 'unlikely'. I agree that LM's edit pattern is a match for MBM but the CU was closed with a negative result.
      You are in content disputes with LM. He is edit-warring and has been warned. If you don't both start de-escalating soon you will both be be blocked for disruption--Cailil talk 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cailil, for the record you stated I would leave this alone and It's to AGF on that matter regarding the Sockpuppetry case. And I responded by saying that I though it best if the case was reexamined. You did not ask me to "let it go" or "drop it". If LM is a sock of MBM, this should be recorded and he should be blocked, and the clerks (and you) agree that the behavioural evidence is strong/overwhelming.
    I find it bizarre that you say I'm in a content dispute with LM. I'm not. I've deliberately not engaged with him on the advice of another admin (TFOWR) on earlier issues. I've reported incidents and behaviour.
    I find it equally bizarre that you threaten me with a block for disruption if I don't de-escalate. Genuinely, this is unfair. --HighKing (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are in a dispute with LM at Westward Ho! - he reverted your position only a day and a bit ago[62][63] - correct?
    Asking you to AGF is the same asking to let it go--Cailil talk 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am not in dispute with LM. Yes he did revert my edits, but the issue is that he did so in breach of BISE sanctions and WP policies. I reported it as such, and I've not engaged with him. And asking me to AGF is not the same as asking me to let it go. I still AGF, but I also believe it is worthwhile to ask for a review on whether he is a sock since the behavioural evidence is overwhelming. The SPI was closed because LM had disappeared. Since he has returned, it's reasonable to re-examine the SPI is it not? --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon it's best to clear up any doubts about LemonMonday's status. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been cleared up! And I object in the strongest possible terms that this keeps being brought up. The intention is clear; to keep bringing it up until eventually someone is found who says "oh yes, DUCK applies, let's block him". LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI won't do any harm. The innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so how about an SPI on everyone involved in the BI debate, and at regular intervals, just to be sure. In fact, I'm sure someone could automate the whole thing so that all editors are constantly investigated for socking by a bot. LemonMonday Talk 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody wants to open an SPI on me? then fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about not making pointy remarks LM. WP is no a battlefield. I have already warned HK to stop and to AGF. The matter is now here before the community and all involved will be dealt with--Cailil talk 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, please don't think I'm being uncivil, but at times you would test the resolve of a saint! What would you think about a criminal trial where the defendant was found not guilty, but the prosecution didn't like it so they brought another identical case; not guilty again. Not to be beaten they brought an identical case up yet again, and again and again and again, hoping that eventually they'd get a jury who came in with guilty. Well that's what we have here. I know this is not a trial situation, but I hope you see the analogy. (and Cailil, I just read your remarks but I post this anyway. I'll say no more on the matter). LemonMonday Talk 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident that should the SPI result in your being prooven not a sock? it'll be the last one posted for quite a long time. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not part of the justice system, nor is it subject to the Bill of Rights. It's a privately-owned website, and if they want to run an SPI against someone every day and twice on Sunday, they can do that if they want. And the innocent should have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not LemonMonday is a sock (and a "provable" one through CU evidence) is almost unimportant, IMO, when one considers that he virtually defines what a single-purpose account is. From his very first edit[64] up until his mysterious, nearly year-long absence[65] only to "jump right back in"[66], this account seems concerned with only one narrow issue here at WP. There are barely 300 edits from LemonMonday. Why a topic ban "broadly construed" has not been implemented, when the battleground tactics and subsequent disruption are all that exist for this account, is odd. Get him out of the BISE Wars by topic banning him from it, IMHO. He is campaigning for his cause disruptively as a SPA, and should just move on and edit in other areas. At least one other area. If possible. Doc talk 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass Vandalism by ip 208.64.63.176 on Boxer Rebellion article

    208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage.

    In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape

    Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately"

    208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting." 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, [67] [68] [69] say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations.Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted all of his edits, I request an admin deliver a warning to this ip address for his vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given them a 4im warning, since deliberately misrepresenting sources to back a preferred viewpoint is disruption in the extreme, imo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation again

    Impersonator blocked.
    Resolved
     – No action needed. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am tired of his bad comments to others. Why are admin protecting him. Soon someone will wake up, and Giacomo will get the long block that should have been long age. Take heed. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavellB5 (talk • contribs) [reply]

    Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, the comments of angry-sounding users are easier to take if you can see the potential for humor. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. An impostor. Did I oversleep? Is it April 1 already? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey guys...

    Resolved
     – This is a WP:VP/T issue. Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Really appreciate the recurring topbar ad that's impossible to turn off.

    Classy.

    What's next; pop-ups? HalfShadow 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Great idea! More money!
    But seriously: My Preferences > Gadgets > check "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". — Edokter • Talk • 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I x'ed it away once and it hasn't reappeared. Do you auto-clean your cookies and cache and whatnot when you exit your browser perhaps? Tarc (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The x didn't work for me either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It did work for me. I should point out that I'm using the "classic" view instead of the "vectorized" view or whatever it's called. The other day I was going to several different language versions of wikipedia, and it was funny to see Jimbo's mug at the top of each one, in the respective language. I hadn't known how multi-lingual he is! And I X'd out of each of those, and it didn't come back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The other banners did go away when x'ed. It is just this latest black one which HalfShadow has screened that it didn't work on. The preferences advice worked though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should now be fixed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of inviting trouble... that black banner hasn't even appeared for me that I can recall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It only appears in some locations, AFAIK. The IRC channel #wikimedia-fundraising has quick answers :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    St Jimbo, Founder of the Wikipedia 80.135.16.249 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yow, I never saw those banners. I've been blackholing the spy beacons that Wikipedia started sending a few months ago and I guess that knocked out the banners as well. Sheesh. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Will be dealt with via legal channels. Any further problems, speak to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry.

    An IP 24.187.152.112 has made a legal threat at this talk page. I don't know much more about it but someone needs to look into this as there appears to be legal actions taking place against someone and there is now a threat to drag Wikipedia into it. freshacconci talktalk 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    'splode with prejudice; he';s been hammering away at athe article since early October. Seems to be here for his own purposes. HalfShadow 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefblocked until he withdraws the threat or it's completed. He should contact Wikipedia through OTRS for a helpful reply, or our legal agent listed at WP:CONTACT for an official legal response. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that User:83d40m, who is apparently the "other team" in this matter, has made a comment that at least skirts the edge of the same policy; see [70]. Probably both sides need to be firmly encouraged not to bring their outside dispute here. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. Leave it to us at OTRS, most of the claims seem without merit. If there are any other problems anyone spots, please let me know :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you -- already decided that leaving it to admins now was the best course of action and have been hanging around waiting for the cavalry to show up! - - - - 83d40m (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heitor C. Jorge (again)

    A while ago, I reported offenses by the user said Heitor C. Jorge on my talk page. He returned to do so. And this time, intended to offend other user too. He said "it's impossible to talk to people like you.". And he also called me and another user of trolls. The offenses can be seen here and here. It is not the first time he does that, and he was warned not to return the insult other users. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this is really something that needs administrator attention... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tedickey

    Tedickey has posted outing claims about me. (WP:OUTING: [1]) He has voluntarily identified himself and is apparently quite widely known on WP as Thomas E. Dickey a software maintainer. I am anonymous, I have never posted identifying information and I do not wish to be identified. My problems with Tedickey started with a disagreement over an AfD. I have tried consistently to walk away only to find him wikihounding me. (WP:HOUND: [2], [3]) I need help from an admin, please. Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    hmm (I wasn't notified). However, the information connecting this "anonymous" editor with the given website shows up easily in a google search. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jameswhatson

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson&action=edit&redlink=1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson

    Could someone mash this little peckerhead, please? HalfShadow 00:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    they are all blocked I think. What other mashing do you want? Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Because the little yonk keeps returning. Right after my talk page SP drops, there he is again. I don't suppose there's a rangeblock you can use that might help? HalfShadow 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=397995513"