Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive267

User:SkoopPop

I was just over on Wikinews and apparently there was a JB196 sockpuppet trying to take credit for finding the Chris Benoit edit. The account name was User:SkoopPop, and I found the same username has registered here on Wikipedia, so we may want to block this account as a sleeper account of JB196's. — Moe ε 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please link appropriate diffs from Wikinews. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one diff [1] and the URL he provides gives the name Jonathan Barber, also known as JB196. — Moe ε 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy and two sleepers blocked. Good eyes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Moe ε 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy

I strongly suspect User:Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy. Plumbing is a new account who answered a RFC under cats [[2]]. Others think Plumbing is a sock, too. See [[3]]. Shouldn't we block Plumbing for 24 hours as a warning? Plumbing did help with constructive comments for several RFC so this should be taken into consideration.

I don't want a huge fight with DreamGuy so I am not asking for his blocking and this account will self destruct (not edit) in 5 seconds (to prevent stalking by DreamGuy).Mikkke2 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser rather than here? And lay out your reasons there for thinking it's a sock of DreamGuy specifically? That's the procedure. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps a nice 24 hour bad-faith block (or sock check) on Mikkke2 who 'doesn't want a huge fight' but takes time to make a non-accusation of stalking. Peace.Lsi john 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin: From his edit history (and the post here), Mikkke2 is clearly a trolling sock account. Someone may want to look into it deeper, but it's probably an untracable proxy. Peace.Lsi john 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somewhat of a (modest cough) expert on DreamGuy's alternate accounts, I have to say that I see no evidence whatsoever that plumbing (talk · contribs) is the same user. --Elonka 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of good relations, I withdraw my comments about DreamGuy and Plumbing. I think there is a link but don't want to pursue it. If you are so anxious to defend DreamGuy, then you should also defend Plumbing against this wikistalking editor which Plumbing wrote about (Plumbing isn't stalking him but User:Tvoz is...see [[4]]Mikkke2 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please block me

Please block me for 1 year AND please say "blocked upon user's request". I am an alternate account of an established user. I am worried about suspicious behavior of DreamGuy, an administrator, and didn't want my regular account blocked. DreamGuy has shown he is partially an honorable man by not doing so and let some debate go on. I am finished.

The blocking admin should have had no contact with any articles that I've written and should use the reason "blocked upon user's request". If these conditions are not met, I do not wish to be blocked.Mikkke2 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy is not an admin. Also, please do not make multiple threads on this issue. If you have further comments, please add them at #Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help or #POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy above. --Elonka 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct in deletion debates

I have just discovered that User:Evilclown93 has speedily deleted Category:Fictional affluent characters. There is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and another at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This category and its predecessors have now been deleted without consensus three times. The admins involved are not showing respect for the will of the community, but are doing what they want because they have the technical ability to do so. Please could someone advise me of the appropriate action to take to get higher authoritities to investigate and resolve this matter. Thank you. OrchWyn 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

XFD is not a vote. If an administrator feels that something really should be deleted, even with 100% consensus to keep, he can IAR and delete it. Will ^(talk) 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And then he should not be surprised to find it undeleted later. --MichaelLinnear 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if every other administrator feels that it should be kept? Is there no appeal? Is the power of an administrator completely unlimited? Would you like it if an administrator did this to something that you wanted kept? OrchWyn 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But they would have to have a damn good reason if it was 100% to keep. The deletion message for this category was "housekeeping". It could just be a genuine mistake. Until Evilclown responds we won't know. Grandmasterka 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the comment that "it is not a vote", no one is saying it is. If you look through the debates, the keepers have put forward many more arguments, and most of them have not even received the courtesy of a response. You really can't say that the deleters won the intellectual debate. All that happened was that one of them who had the power to delete went ahead and did so. OrchWyn 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your previous remarks condemning an admin for egregious misconduct by going against consensus at the very least comes across as saying it's a vote. Doczilla 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment: There were five comments to speedy delete in the CfD. I recall seeing this category in CAT:CSD earlier today; I presume that's where Evilclown found it as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also many advocates of retention. And the only grounds for speedy deletion are previous deletions which were performed without consensus, and the latest of which is now up for review. If one accepts that this was a legitimate speedy deletion, then what's to stop any admin deleting any category regardless of the will of the community, and then speedy deleting it every time it reappears regardless of due process and the will of the community? If you agree that the speedy was not correct, please use your powers to restore it asap because right now the current non-existence of this category is distorting a discussion in which many users have participated in good faith, by creating what should be a false impression that the powers that be have already made their decision. OrchWyn 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; I've replied on your Talk page. I don't feel comfortable reverting Evilclown's decision to delete without hearing what he has to say first. Besides, isn't it on DRV? Nitpick: I don't consider myself to have admin powers, but admin rights. :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time, it would be appropriate to close the discussion on Category:Fictional affluent characters at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and wait for the deletion review on Category:Fictional wealthy characters at Wikipedia:Deletion review to reach a conclusion. Instead of recreating the category under a different name, the interested editors should have gone to WP:DRV if they wanted to dispute the administrator's decision.

Also, although the Category:Fictional affluent characters page itself does not exist, it currently exists as red links in many articles. When the WP:DRV reaches a conclusion, I recommend either deleting the red linked categories or changing all of the red links to correspond to the "wealthy characters" category name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Submilli. This is an end-run around DRV. Have some patience. >Radiant< 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's on DRV, why is it here? If one such action is begun, see it through to the end before taking a different route. Starting two at the same time makes it appear that somebody is just determined to get their own way one way or another. Doczilla 05:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - please help!

This individual individual destroyed my harmless anti-genocide denial userbox and messed up my profile page code, so now even if I revert to previous version, nothing is lined up properly - nothing works. He completely destroyed the work in which I invested hours of my time. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak . Please help! Are there any objective administrators around? Please help. Bosniak 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Template:User Against Srebrenica Genocide Denial. If you feel it is necessary, go to WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just userfy the userbox and you'll be fine. --Hemlock Martinis 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userfying is the wrong answer. This type of content is not welcome here. Remember that using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. Vassyana 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bam Bam Slim Fast and Lee's Summit

I noticed a lot of attempts by multiple users to create articles about this Seattle based radio announcer yesterday, using various different versions of his name, all of which were speedy deleted. e.g. Bam Bam AKA Slim Fast (which has now been protected) Slimfast BamBam etc Also many additions of his name to the Lee's Summit, Missouri article as a notable resident. Finally, the explanation came from one user that Mr. Bam Bam had said on air that he should be included in WP and his upbringing in Lee's Summit noted. [5]. Another article involved is Church of lazlo. I write this to ask for some extra eyes and help, as it seems likely that this might be a recurring theme once he gets back on the air today. Thanks.--Slp1 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected.-Wafulz 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wafulz! --Slp1 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to vandalize the redirect from Jews to Jew[6][7]. After reverting to the last non-vandalized version of the redirect, he threatened to block me, accusing me of vandalism[8][9][10]. Requesting intervention. Perspicacite 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Have reported this user to WP:AIV. Continues to remove 77,000+ words from an article. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have some sort of anti-Semitic agenda. The only difference between the page he is reverting to and the July 2 version of "Jew" is that the "Jews" page is under Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Perspicacite 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am actually insulted! Wow! No, I don't read the page, don't care what's in it. 77,000+ words down to 17, I revert it. The content of the page, I leave that up to someone else. I ask, though, you take retract the "anti-Semitic" comment, because it is rude, uncalled for, and not anywhere close to what I am doing. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, but it should be noted that you should not be copy and pasting the text from Jew into Jews as is occurring. If you want to move the article, the correct venue for discussion is at Talk:Jew. Will (aka Wimt) 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in the subject what-so-ever. I see it on the "Recent Changes" page, clicked on it, revert, Warn2'd the user, and went on from there. Seen it was reverted again, Warn3'd and well, you get the idea. I have no real interest in the article, I leave that up to someone else. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this a content dispute? He deliberately put the article into Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. He then proceeded to harass me for reverting his vandalism. I would think his edits merit a 24-hr block at least. Perspicacite 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it seems to me to be an innocent mistake. He is reverting to the copy and paste move from Jew seemingly introduced by an IP here which happened to contain that category. I see no evidence that he is deliberately introducing that category. It is true Jews should stay as a redirect (unless Jew is moved there properly and with consensus) but I see no grounds for a block. Will (aka Wimt) 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN...I do not read the articles, when I see a article that has been reduced from 77,000+ words to 17, I instantly revert it. The content of the article, especially something like Judaism, for which I do not understand and don't claim to even understand in the least, I leave up to someone who does. I am not going to catch a category at the bottom of a page. If I did, I would have certainly removed it, but again, that is not my department. Actually, reverting vandalism isn't either, I just do it to help out.

So, again...I was not vandalising, I was reverting what I thought was vandalism. I have no agenda and I am not and have not vandalised. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently has a long history of incivility[11][12], referring to the "bastards" (no doubt the Jews) behind 9/11.[13][14]. Perspicacite 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt his past edits involving Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks and Cat:Victims of 9/11 are coincidental. Righttttt. Perspicacite 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary on the September 11 page was about people who were Islamic, for one, who took down the Twin Towers. But, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said that on my edit summary.

But it had NOTHING to do with Jewish people, actually had nothing to do with Islamic people. Just 19 "bastards".

Now, you need to stop this personal attack you are going on, because you can be blocked for that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, you seem to be entirely lacking in any kind of good faith assumption here. Neutralhomer has said that he just saw what appeared to be a blanking of content and reverting it. Trying to insinuate from this and his previous areas of contribution that he is antisemitic is not acceptable. Please stop this now. The issue in question is resolved, let's all get on doing some productive. Will (aka Wimt) 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Neutralhomer, I would appreciate it if in the future you look at the articles before you edit them. Perspicacite 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite seems to be at fault here.--trey 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer needs to read what he's reverting. Corvus cornix 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Never revert unless you're sure you're reverting to the correct version. --Masamage ♫ 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

I´m in an argument with two or three users -don´t know exactly, cause the one mentioned above might have two usernames. It´s about IMO unverified or poorly veryfied information regarding the an allegend post world war 2 terrorist/insurgent movenent in Germany. Instead of some hard facts I get called a nazi sympathizer and THAT crosses a line. Look under warnings on this discussion page: Talk:Werwolf Markus Becker02 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• The diff is here. "Nazi sympathizer" indeed crosses a line, despite the context or maybe because of it. That's a blockable offense. I can't block, but I shall warn. Shalom ^Hello 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Both is ok with me.Markus Becker02 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom placed Gazimestan speech on probation

I have reverted this article Gazimestan speech with the comment that's in the tag "The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator". There seem to be two issues, the emperors-clothes web-site is deemed non-RS in all circumstances, and there has been serious POV entries made to this article. I don't know what the next step would be if it's reverted again. PalestineRemembered 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Nikola Smolenski. I posted this two days ago - it's disappointing that the edit war has been allowed to continue without intervention, in blatant contravention of article probation. Unfortunately I can't act myself because I wrote the original version of the article which other editors are now fighting over. I'd appreciate it if another administrator could review this and act. -- ChrisO 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a bit, though I'd like another admin to pop over there and make sure I'm not too involved to have done so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In indirect relation to the above, I've also made a minor modification to Wikipedia:Copyright to make a sentence clearer, give the Wayback Machine its official name (i.e. Internet Archive) and link to an external source explaining its status (see diff). It doesn't affect the existing policy, merely the wording. The edit is being disputed by a user involved in the above-mentioned edit war. It would be helpful if another admin could check the diff and advise on whether it's a reasonable clarification. -- ChrisO 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World editwar

Snjv has been making several edits to the New Seven Wonders of the World, insisting that the company is a "for-profit" institution. This user references the company's terms and conditions as somehow proving that the company is not a non-profit. I think that perhaps this is a very literal reading of the words "non-profit", and saw no mention of anything relevant on the page the user linked. This article, on the other hand, by the MSN Travel network, explicitly mentions that the company is non-profit (" . . . says the nonprofit organization conducting the balloting"). Two messages on the user's talk page went without a response. I am in danger of breaking the ever-fearsome 3RR on this, and would like assistance if possible. Please communicate with me via my Talk page. Sorry to trouble you guys! --Action Jackson IV 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, so you should follow the steps of dispute resolution. And of course, don't violate the 3RR. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, I'll just work on step two for the next few months :) --Action Jackson IV 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

unrepentant personal attack by User:01001 on User:Pete.Hurd

In response to this request to cease personal attacks, I get this response. I feel this scurrillous allusion to racism is intended to cast aspersions upon my professional character. I request it be deleted from the article history along with this AN/I section. I also request an admin weighs 01001's long history of disruption in and consider a block, other forms of communication are proving unsuccessful. Pete.Hurd 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Done - as for the second case, at least two eyes are already on the problem. Cheers, WilyD 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde sock

I strongly suspect User:FormerlyPanairjdde is a sockpuppet of banned user Panairjdde. Could you please deal with it? --Angelo 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Username hard-blocked. Grandmasterka 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:200.223.252.243 trolling only account

I made two legitimate edits, one removing the entire listing of Pope John Paul II's titles...as per the talk page discussion; the second was removing a bit or non-trivia from the Eric Cantona article. This IP address then reverted both without so much as a valid reason. I re-reverted, stating again my valid reasons. This same IP user again changed it back. I looked at the edit history at it appears to me, that it's probably a registered user hiding behind their IP address. Or it's a new user who is simply trolling about reverting my edits. Batman2005 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral party's input... I disagree with Batman2005's conclusion that the IP's edit revert is pure trolling, at least as applied to the Pope John Paul II article. I am not a fan of IP editors in general, but in this case I agree with the IP's edit, which was to revert the deletion of a relevant portion of the Pope article. Batman claims that the issue was addressed and somehow resolved in his favor in the discussion page. That is not the case. I don't want to get overly involved in this issue, but I am troubled by Batman's overreaction to someone disagreeing with his edit, and his own history leads me to believe that he has overreacted before in other edit conflicts. I don't know who the IP editor is, but I felt I needed to offer a defense, in case it is a new user that doesn't know much about these conflicts. I am also uncomfortable with Batman's decision to take the issue here, instead of communicating with the IP on the IP user's talk page (which if I checked correctly, he didn't do). --Anietor 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I never claimed that the issue was resolved, I simply pointed to the talk page disscussion. Which you ignored and reverted...shame on you. I don't give a damn if you're uncomfortable with my decision to bring the discussion here. It was quite obvious, as you pointed out, that the user is only a trolling account, going around and reverting my edits...notice you ignored the fact that they reverted my edits to the Eric Cantona page. If you have problems with where I chose to take my grievances, that's just too bad. You can either deal with it or get over it, cause i'll take my grievances to whatever forum I feel appropriate. Batman2005 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that User:Anietor is the IP address. Batman2005 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Batman, please calm down a bit? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. Batman2005 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned user

Would someone block a Leah01 sock?[15] User:66.216.231.232 Leah01's page says retired, but I think the sock puppet notice should go on his/her page as long as he/she remains active in sock-puppetry. His/her socks tend to start out light-weight, but they're "give-em-an-inch-they'll-spit-on-you-and-call-you-names" type socks, so it's better to simply block and revert. User:Leah01, and his/her blocks.[16] MrDarcy usually handled these, but he has retired. He had way too much patience with this user, allowing him/her to simply agree to stop using all the socks, then indefinately blocking once they started resurfacing and using anons. MrDarcy tended to have great patience with everyone, even this user who attacked him and abused his patience beyond belief, so I'm sorry he's gone. KP Botany 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

John Scalzi; On- and off-wiki war

Recently, the science fiction author John Scalzi, who edits as Scalzi (talk · contribs) (and apparently the IP 67.76.243.31 (talk · contribs), reported the death on Wikipedia of Fred Saberhagen based on a report he personally received from Harlan Ellison. The information was repeatedly removed as uncited at first, which led to some off-wiki angst at Scalzi's website (see also some of the other threads on the blog homepage). There has been a lot of argument back and forth, and even vandalism to the John Scalzi page reporting his death. Not sure if any admin action needs to be taken right now, but the issue is far from dead and personal attacks are flying. Probably worth monitoring given the notability of people involved, this brouhaha has already drawn the attention of Fark. Videmus Omnia 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to me User:Hexrei could stand a block for making personal attacks (falsely reporting the death of a fellow Wikipedian and then cursing at him). Other than that I don't see anything the community can't take care of. -N 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Aminz (talk · contribs)

For those not aware, the Islam article has been a war zone recently and there has been edit-warring left and right (although things have calmed down recently). The issue at this moment, however, comes down to a recent one-week block applied against Aminz (talk · contribs) for violating the three-revert rule. I don't want to go into the details about this – it has played out in multiple locations (mostly User talk:Aminz#Unblock request, but also User talk:Tariqabjotu#Interesting pattern, User talk:Blnguyen#Bias against Arrow, User talk:Blnguyen#Aminz, and WP:AN3#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:page_protected.2C_week.29) – but ultimately I believe Aminz's block is excessive. Yes, he has been blocked before, but his latest block was almost six months ago. Yes, he has been edit-warring, but some have suggested that two of his reverts ought to be considered consecutive (thus making only three reverts). Recently, blocks for revert-warring on that article have only been applied when four reverts in twenty-four hours, no fewer (although I'm not really a fan of this principle). That would make Aminz's block imbalanced in comparison. However, even if we were not going to accept the two reverts as consecutive, the block is still excessive. Any comments? -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is really one of those 'just for edit warring' blocks (aka "not technically 3RR"), it should at least be dished out to the other warriors in that dispute. Unless his edits have simply been absurd and inherently disruptive, it seems inappropriate to block only him, as it takes two to edit war. The length seems a tad severe (what purpose does it serve) for a controversial block, so at least reduce it. The Behnam 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not. His reverts were not consecutive, and the argument to treat them as such should be disgarded because of his extremely disruptive behavior on main page day and since. I encourage everyone to read the discussions tariqabjotu linked and also User_talk:Proabivouac#Completely_unproductive, which he didn't link. Arrow740 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I said it was controversial because it generated controversy. I don't yet have an opinion on the consecutiveness of the reverts or not. As you were the member of the dispute against reducing the block I expect you to treat the block as completely appropriate, but don't say it wasn't controversial. Perhaps another way of putting it is that it wasn't a "strong" block with a legitimate basis that is clear to pretty much everyone involved. Unless a consensus among the disputants has been reached that the block itself was appropriate, it should be considered controversial and the block should at least be reduced until a consensus is reached, as there is no point in risking severity. Consider: if it turns out that the block was indeed inappropriate, then there was no rightness in issuing the block to begin with, and as such the editor was blocked unfairly. Since the appropriateness of the block remains in question by the non-blocked disputants, the block should be at least reduced until the issue clears up to prevent further possible damages. However I may take a look to make my own opinion on the actual events leading up to the block. The Behnam 05:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the "if." Sorry for not being clear. Arrow740 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris dejoseph

The Chris dejoseph article was tagged by User:Hu for speedy deletion as an attack article. I removed the speedy tag and put on an unsourced tag as it was not clear to me that the article was an attack article.

User:Hu questioned my decision. We have had a short exchange about this [17], [18] and [19]. I have to say that this case is ambiguous enough that I thought it might be good to get a third opinion from an experienced admin as to whether I made the right call or not.

--Richard 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I decided to speedy the article as {{db-bio}}. --Richard 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Chrisg21090 (talk · contribs) - help requested

Please see User talk:Chacor#Sorry! Need help! and User_talk:Chrisg21090#False_license_tagging.2Fimage_source. This user has uploaded a whole bunch of images as PD-self (including two NASA images, which was what drew my attention to this user). After some discussion, he claims that the rest of the images have indeed been taken by him.

I'd ask any admin with the time to a) check his story, see if there's anything that is weird with his claims that I might have missed; b) check the images to see if they match his story; and c) check to see if these images are elsewhere on the web.

As everyone knows, we're getting stricter with imagevios. I've already assumed good faith all the way through, and this user is willing to let an admin double-check everything. Thanks in advance to whichever admin takes on this. – Chacor 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the others carefully. If any other is clearly not by this user, assume they're all not by him. Od Mishehu 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to go through it all? I personally have no time to do so. – Chacor 11:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything clearly wrong about the images still tagged as self-created. --Carnildo 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bot's going around and tagging some as having no source, Carnildo... – Chacor 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My previously deleted post during my 24 hr. block

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Sarvagnya. Plz. refer Telugu script and others

This sock-puppetry case was confirmed earlier by an administrator investigating it.

Please refer to Telugu script and other Telugu or Marathi related articles, for possible cases of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry against the above user, for circumventing WP rules like 3RR, multiple voting etc.

Plz. also see the page for reports, for checking User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete this thread as nonsense. But I wont. You are the one who has violated 3RR on that article and going against consensus of multiple editors. I have even reported you and you should be blocked soon. Until then, carry on with your nonsense.

ps - can any admin please take action here Sarvagnya 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete this thread without reason. This is unrelated to your 3RR complaint against me.People have had enough of the notorious "editor gang," plaguing painstakingly-done projects on Telugu, Marathi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and umpteen number of other articles. I think it is high time that the "gang" and others of its ilk be exposed, for greater good, come what may. I know that I haven't wronged and have challenged the gang's hegemony. If the latter is a mistake I'm ready to accept any possible action, including a permanent block.

No sensible admin would blindly do whatever you say, without going into the merits & demerits and understanding the problem fully. It is beyond doubt that some users, have greatly undermined WP's purpose, by imposing their fanatical ideas upon countless number of helpless users and wasted countless precious man-hours with petty politics/ideas.

Mind your language and note that you have no business to use uncivil language against me. Despite all the animosity (which I'm sure there is) I haven't ever used a word in your fashion. I strongly suggest that you read WP:CIVIL.--Altruism^{To talk} 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock User:Matrix17 since he has been misthreated

Resolved

 – smelly sock sent to 48-hour laundry. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock user matrix17 since he has been misthreated by users>yamla and steel on english wikipedia. its obvious that they have blocked him not in good faith and for the best of wikipedia but because they dont like him. and since user steel uses word like bad ass and stuff like that to describe matrix17 i think its quite obvious that something is very wrong.matrix17 has contributed with alot on wikipedia he was the one who started the articel for example on riyo mori winner of miss universe and he has done man good articles on swedish celebrities and sutch. i think its something smelling about this blocking and i would rather see him ge tunblocked then being blocked for 6 months which is way to far. i also saw tha tone admin sayed that matrix17 should apply for adoption here on wikipedia, but how can he do tha twhen hes talk page has bene blocked (which is obviously steels work so he cant communicate with other here) i would like to now how that admin thinked. anyway my standpoint is unblock matrix17. hope not to get censored just because this is my opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi there little sock. -N 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • i guess its easy to blame a sockpuppet for a opinion. when you all know its wrong and just wants to get ridd of someone who has a different opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • user yamla sayed that she blocked matrix17 because he had created a nn bios on Ebba von Sydow which was proven not to be a nn bios. and afterwards she didnt even apologize to the user or unblock the user. how can matrix17 have done anything wrong when it wasnt a nn bios and thats why yamla blocked him. then anothe ruser first unblocked him and then user steel blocked him again, thats not nice at all in my book anyway.--86.90.169.62 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• I know this says resolved... but I just noticed a new editor asking around about Matrix17 and adoption. He claims to be Matrix17's friend, though he seems to have a strong interest in editing the exact same articles Matrix17 did. I hear quacking, but I'd like another admin to review.--Isotope23 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Usernamedit (talk · contribs) is a sock and ought to be blocked, preferably by someone uninvolved. – Steel 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini yet again

User:GiorgioOrsini repeatedly destroys absolutely necessary corrections to grammar and formatting; deletes legitimate warnings and comments on his talk page; falsely accuses people of vandalism when they correct grammar, formatting and NPOV; and has insulted other editors on talk pages and in edit notes. He was recently temporarily blocked for confirmed sock puppetry, but obviously that wasn't enough since he keeps blatantly violating both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. See his edit history for more details, especially in relation to the Neo-Nazism and Ustaše articles.Spylab 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, check all 'contributions' of Spylab on Neo-Nazism - complete removal of the text related to the Thompson's concert in Zagreb [20], removal references and strictly referenced text, mutilation of the originally contributed text under pretext of grammar correction and formatting. Also, Spylab comments (warnings) on my talk page are offensive and not civil. See the Neo-Nazism talk page, too.--Giorgio Orsini 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike Giorgio Orsini, edit histories do not lie. He has total disregard for Wikipedia and English language rules, and should not be allowed to continue to destroy necessary corrections to grammar, formatting and neutrality.Spylab 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here are two recent examples of vandalism by Giorgio Orsini: deleting an absolutely necessary "copy edit needed" tag and destroying the correct structure of a lead section. These are typical of his long history of counterproductive edits. There is no point in leaving warnings on his talk page because he deletes all of those (example). This has gone on long enough. I've seen other editors be banned for far less.Spylab 13:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Giorgio (if/when the inevitable unblock request is turned down, we can consider it a community ban). To a casual observer this may seem harsh, but I am convinced, from looking through talk pages as far back as December, that in any given dispute this user is 100% of the problem. – Steel 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an unblock request

Resolved

Per the blocking policy, I'm looking for a consensus of sysops to unblock Ned Scott. The 12-hour block relates to obscenity in a DRV "Cut the bullshit matthew" followed by removing warnings with edit summaries of "fuck off" [21] [22] The block was clearly appropriate, but the contrite dialog at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Blocked (with an editor Ned Scott has previously been in conflict with) including "I will resume reading and considering other people's comments, and not swearing at them" leads me to say that the block no longer serves any preventative purpose and should be lifted. What do other sysops think?--Chaser - T 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• 12 hours is like, tomorrow. He can wait till then. -N 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And the user has been blocked several times before, according to his block log. I'm inclined to let him wait it out. Exploding Boy 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous blocks were for 3rr and an early block for spamming.--Chaser - T 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I too would be opposed to an early unblock. (disclaimer: I have had disputes with Ned Scott before) In my experience, Ned is usually extremely contrite during the block, but then simply goes back to old behavior when the block is lifted. On June 24 when he was blocked for 3RR, I offered to support an unblock if he would avoid editing the Juice Plus article and just participate at the talkpage.[23] At 04:27 Ned agreed, saying he was done with that article completely. So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to that article and edit-warring again,[24] making another 4 reverts in 26 hours. Then June 26, he was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR at a completely unrelated location, the WP:BLP page. Now he's blocked again, for incivility. I actually think a 12-hour block is very lenient considering recent history. I would be opposed to lifting the current block -- Ned needs to take some time off from Wikipedia, calm down and realize that there's a problem. --Elonka 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think blocks normally calm people down, his behavior in the past and the behavior that lead to the block is clearly inappropriate. If a block does not prevent the behavior in the future then a longer block or other action is needed, and I agree with Elonka that a 12 hour block is very lenient. I say let it stand just as we would for anyone else who was uncivil. DarthGriz98 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. Elonka's example has changed my opinion as well.--Chaser - T 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked. There is a heated dispute here and both sides should calm down, but it's long been demonstrated that blocking people to calm them down doesn't actually help. Wikipedia is not your mother, and it's not helpful to send people to their room for swearing. If people have serious issues with Scott's behavior, I'd suggest opening an RFC. >Radiant< 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The specifics of this particular case notwithstanding, I'll offer the general comment that while a block may or may not help an editor cool down, it often serves the twin purposes of

• discouraging the behaviour in the future (even if they don't contritely acknowledge their errors, they want to stay unblocked); and perhaps most important
• allowing other editors – the ones who are able to interact civilly – to work in peace.

Whether or not a block is appropriate for a single participate in what appears to be a multi-editor argument is obviously strongly situation-dependent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of very short blocking for incivility and releasing blocks early after an apology. I note in passing that ArbCom has generally abandoned civility parole, and in cases where it has been recently proposed, the maximum block length is one hour. If "cool down" blocks are to have any value at all (and I know this is debateable in some quarters) they should be lifted once the blockee has indeed cooled down. Thatcher131 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain it is a sockpuppet

A user that has the single purpose of whitewashing the lead of an article I watch, Monicheewan (talk · contribs), is obviously not a new user. I am not entirely familiar with the disruptive India-related users so I'd like some opinions. I suspect Hkelkar (talk · contribs) because I had the unfortunate experience of fighting with his sockpuppet Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs). This account is warring for the same notions Rump's did and also has a similar style of edit summary. I suspect that he is Hkelkar's sock but I'd like some more familiar opinions.

In any case the user is wasting my time. He claimed I was committing OR, I pointed out how this was wrong, so he now states that the source, BBC News, is a "sensationalist tabloid". I don't think I should tolerate this kind of disruptive crap from a user who very much seems like a SPA sockpuppet of a banned user. Any ideas on how to resolve this problem? The Behnam 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Similar edits, so its probably a sock. ~ Wikihermit 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree things look fishy. I can't say if that's a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, but it's certainly a sockpuppet of someone. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alsace

That stork picture attracts a lot of vandals. Could you semi-protect the page ? Thanks, RCS 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. You'll usually get a quicker response if you go through WP:RFPP in future. Neil ╦ 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

My main page was vandalized in a personal attack by GreekElite shown here: [25]. Please help me. --Asams10 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just roll with it; he doesn't look like he's on a vandalizing spree or something -- it looks more like a joke. Poor taste, yes, but I would just let it go. Keep ANI posted if it happens again. --Haemo 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't have said anything but he's got a history of doing it to others. I'd call it abuse, not a joke.--Asams10 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming edit war

There is an edit war at Factory farming. Will someone please lock the page down? WAS 4.250 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained edits, Removal of Maintenance Tag

Over the past week, a User, lpcrocks has been constantly removing maintenance tags from the Linkin Park articles, most notably The Document. I've asked the user to please stop, or at least state some rationale towards the edits, but it has been in vain. I'm not exactly sure what if there is a penalty for such an offense, but it sure does not seem very civil, especially since the user is ignoring me. I have given the user three warnings, and one final warning, with links to Wikipedia's policies. See the user's contribution list. Thanks for your time. --►ShadowJester07  13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a tag removal warning. However, it might be useful to give a note about WP:3RR if there isn't one already. The user does, however, seem to think that he/she has improved the article and is removing the tags (although I cannot explain the {{fact}} removals), but (likely) the same person did try and add a source [26] even though it's not the greatest way of doing it in the world. Perhaps a little nudge in the direction of WP:ES? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll try that. Thanks for the help :) --►ShadowJester07  14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized Users

• declanthebullbull has been vandalized, can this be deleted?

• Dereck poliink was set up as an argumentative hoax

Krummy2 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Serial copyvio check help needed

It would seem that Paul venter (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least two copyvios, Dorothy Gurney from [27] and Vibration-powered generator from [28]. I have warned him about this and waiting for a reply. However, past experience leads me to suspect these 2 incidents could just be the tip of the iceberg, so I'm requesting help in looking through his contribs for further copy and paste jobs. --W.marsh 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes, here's part of his reply: "You obviously don't write many articles. One starts with a source and then modifies it drastically". [29] Cleanup on aisle six please. --W.marsh 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours, and will make it indefinite if he does not stop. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for handling that side of it... it does seem like he feels he has a right to start with a copyvio and just make tweaks here and there and add more content, which hopefully isn't also a copyvio. I looked through his new articles in his last 500 edits and most are clean at a glance. But some started out as copyvios, and were mostly rewritten... others he seems to start with a source and change some words, e.g. Icadyptes salasi [30] from [31], which has some similar phrasing but not outright copy and pasting that I can find. Very difficult cleanup job here... but as far as I can tell a lot of the content he adds is actually not a copyvio, at least not as detectable with the search engine test. --W.marsh 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

I saw an article by the Boston Globe, and went to the wikipedia article on Thompson. I noticed it was removed by Eseymour.[32] The article? A discussion about a memoir writen by Thompson in which he admits giving information to the White House during an investigation. Included is a statement from the Thompson campaign, which does not deny it.

I reinserted it, and ask for clarification from Eseymour. This user then starts throwing out claims. He asserts someone made a section to make Thompson appear negatively. That another mentioned the birth of his son to make him appear bad. That discussion about his fundraising is NPOV. So I expand that one of the sections since it is short (Eseymour removed much of it). Eseymour removes it. Then an anon adds something, Eseymour removes it.

I went through Eseymour's history and he has been spending much time downplaying criticism, reverting edits, and adding in material conducive to Thompson's platform.

My first ever edit on that article was by reverting Eseymour's removal.

Opinions on the page welcome. C56C 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I'm trying to figure out why CJC47's only edit in two weeks is to wholesale revert me and let Eseymour's edits stand. That user didn't give any reason, but signed on for the first time in weeks within minutes of the edit conflict. C56C 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

first - I have never edited that page, I have no interest in editing that page. While this is a content issue, just a cursory glance at the talkpage is setting off all sorts of WP:OWN bells with me. The claim in question is from his own bio and talks about how he leaked information to the white house during Watergate. The reason for removing it is that it gives undue weight to an incident in the past. Well I'm not an American but that seems to a fair significant thing for someone to do in the context of one of the major American political scandals of the last century. I would suggest that anyone who knows a bit more about American history than me head over and has a look but as I say, I'm getting a WP:OWN vibe. --Fredrick day 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think others need to start watching that page. C56C 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth also hitting up the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you haven't already. — Scientizzle 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Now Eseymour is removing the quotes from Thompson and claiming that quoting the word "MOLE" with a QUOTE is a "copyright violation."[33]

An Imposter

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Tango 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! -- No Guru 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure? I'm not seeing anything in the block log. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, neither do I... Wikipedia went down for a few minutes just after I did it. I thought my block had gone through, it would appear I was wrong. Sorry. It appears the imposter has created a new account too: User:NooGura. I'm about to go to bed, so if someone else could look into this and take appropriate action, it would be great, thanks! --Tango 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked NooGura but when I try to block User:NoGura it tells me they're already blocked - even though there's nothing in the block log... Waggers 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked & reblocked this user (indefinitely) so there is now a record. However, Tango will you post a note on NoGura's page explaining why he is blocked? It's only fair to let this person know he's blocked, & if he requests an unblocking it will help any Admin in reviewing the case. -- llywrch 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I put the standard "indefinitely blocked as an imposter" template on his user page, but it was removed (probably because the block log said he wasn't blocked) - I'll put it back. --Tango 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, redux

I happen not to be a banned troll, so I'll restart this discussion.

Both SqueakBox and DPeterson continue to redirect the articles Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. A quick glance at this talk page shows that a vote on the proposal was failing 3-6 before it was closed and declared "no consensus." The "being bold" defense clearly does not hold water when the idea has already been discussed extensively, with the majority of users disapproving. The merge is a dead issue; the proposal clearly failed. Please take appropriate action.

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What action would you have an admin take? Corvus cornix 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate for the situation. Since they keep reverting the pages to redirect even after a long discussion resulted in no consensus on the idea, I would consider their changes to be vandalism. But I'll let an admin decide what action is necessary. Mike D78 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently begun watching the relevant pages. There are clear problems here, with just as clear solutions. The main Pedophilia article has become bloated with activism information, most of it pro-, that simply duplicates information from the Pro-pedophilia activism page and completely takes over the article. What needs to happen is both Pro-pedophilia activism and Anti-pedophilia activism need to be moved/redirected to Pedophilia activism, and the duplicated material deleted/merged from the main article.

I've submitted a move request at Requested moves, but if revert warring and edit warring is happening, the relevant pages may need protecting and those engaging in the behaviour may need blocking. Exploding Boy 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning people - Mike D78 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sockpuppet of the pedophilia-obsessed Kirbytime (talk · contribs), as was Flamgirlant (talk · contribs), who was the originator of the above thread. - Merzbow 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The time has clearly come to be bold. Exploding Boy 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is how we got here and Mike is much more likely a sock of Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) an out and out pedophile activist, SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Get an admin to run a usercheck on me if you suspect I'm a sock; otherwise, quit accusing me of this nonsense in every discussion I post in.

Being bold is most certainly not how we got here. Constantly blanking and redirecting an article without consensus is not bold; it's defiant and disruptive.

Mike D78 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty pointless as you you would just start again. Being bold is exactly how we got here, whether you like it or not. Please, after a few days here you dont have the experience to lecture users who have been here years and your "it's defiant and disruptive" is a personal attack. Please desist. I anyway suspect you are just using policy to try to justify your pro pedophile beliefs, for which we have WP:IAR, SqueakBox 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But Exploding Boy is not anybody's sock, and rightfully sees that something's not right. Editing warring just isn't the way to solve disputes. Pro-pedophile activism has now been locked, and the material is duplicated on both pages. Exploding Boy has proposed a merger between pro- and anti-, again, and I'm getting dizzy with deja vu. There has to be a better way than this. ETA: looks like he's got things into some kind of form to carry on the conversation without reduplications everywhere. -Jmh123 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of "Kirbytime" or any other user; in fact, a look at my contributions will show that I've been editing since before his last account was blocked. I don't appreciate you making these unfounded accusations against me, and furthermore, simply the fact that a banned user originally brought up this issue does not mean that the issue is not relevant. Mike D78 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who locked that article; it wasn't me. I've proposed that the Pro-pedophile activism article be renamed Pedophilia activism, and that all activism related to the subject be included in that article, unless there's a good reason for separate articles (ie: there is a lot of information, too much for one article covering both sides, which is unlikely based on the current state of all related articles, and the fact that the anti-pedophilia activism information currently available comprises about 2 paragraphs). Exploding Boy 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Expecting pro- and anti- paedophilia activists to cooperate on a single article is "a bit" optimistic. Dan Beale 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They will by necessity be separate sections, so ne'er the twain shall meet. Exploding Boy 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Mike D78 is probably another sock of Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again Matt, stop making these unsubstantiated accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.

Mike D78 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the Pro-pedophile activism article is safe for the moment from edit warring, its counterpart is not as lucky. Could the article on Anti-pedophile activism also be protected, at least until the ongoing discussion reaches some kind of consensus? Assistance of an admin would be really appreciated. What is happening is that information is getting deleted from the free-standing article on the topic and a redirect is getting placed on the page to the general Pedophilia article, yet the latter contains no information on the Anti-pedophile movement. The only reference to any kind of pedophile activism is within the section entitled "Pedophilia-related activism" that has a link to "Pedophilia activism," which redirects to the Pro-pedophile activism article. As can be seen, not only is a pointless redirect/link loop created, but information relating to the subject of Anti-pedophile activism is getting completely deleted from Wikipedia. Please help! Homologeo 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Safe? SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. All three are now protected but the protections expire on the same day, so admins should keep an eye on the situation for obvious reasons. Exploding Boy 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

We are all making inputs in Wikipedia with good faith and clean intentions. I have made similar edits in the past in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family etc., and my edits were reverted without giving proper reasons. When I cited references they were branded fake. When I gave page numbers they were termed 'unreliable'. When I reproduced large chunks of material on talk pages they were ignored. When I tried to protest collusion of certain group of persons I was threatened with blocking. When I complained to some administrators they expressed their helplessness, busy schedules and inability to understand the topic. So, who will come to the rescue of well-meaning people? Please see the talk pages of the earlier mentioned articles. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case too.Kumarrao 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience sake, the Talk pages in question are Talk:Telugu language, Talk:Telugu script, Talk:Brahmic family and many more

• Please see Sarvagnya's Contributions and those of similar users, and decide for yourself. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw Sarvagnya's Contributions. What is there to decide? What do you mean by "similar users"?

Unless you provide the supporting diffs, i'm afraid, it is not going to help the case. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong in giving the link of a user's contributions. Nothing confidential about it. I'm sorry I can't elaborate any further for obvious reasons. Most of the concerned will understand. Don't try to bait. --Altruism^{To talk} 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Elaborate. You are here to get us to do something, not the other way around. If you're going to be so lofty with your request, we're going to toss it aside. —Kurykh 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Somebody plz. tell me where my previous (immediately) complaint is?

I have just been unblocked after a 24 hr. block, thanks to User:Blnguyen. I didn't mean, not to elaborate on the main issue (the diffs) here. I am requesting for checking if there is indeed Sock-puppetry involving,

My complaint

• Sarvagnya (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nrupatunga (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gnanapiti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• KNM (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dineshkannambadi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letters: E, C and D

Also, plz. see my formal complaint, in the page for sock puppetry reports against User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fernandobouregard is Jimbo?

Resolved

So is this user actually Jimbo Wales (I doubt it) or is it blatant impersonation? His user page is a copy of Jimbo's user page, his talk page is an out of date copy of the Jimbo Wales article talk page.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was some really quick action by Deskana. Case closed.--Atlan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not resolved after all, as Deskana's blanking of the page was reverted by User:Orangemike.[34] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, looks like we're re-set now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help

I am being wikistalked and they are being incivil to me. This is against wiki policy [[35]]. I made a very neutral comment on the talk page of Senator Barack Obama here [[36]]. User:Tvoz, who POV pushes at the Barack Obama article (as he as edited 239 in this article, far more than any other article he has edited), began wikistalking me.

I created a very obscure article about the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Immediately, Tvoz begins contentious editing there. That article is so obscure that this is not a chance event. Later, I edited about the very, very obscure Johann Schobert, who is NOT the famous composer Schubert. Guess what, Tvoz follows me there and causes trouble.

Tvoz is all violating AGF by calling me a sock because of my 2nd very neutral Barack Obama talk page edit. [[37]]

For wikistalking, incivility (calling people socks just cuz you don't agree and want to push POV, and not AGF, Tvoz should be blocked for 24 hours. Help! Feddhicks 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks is an obvious sock puppet of Dereks1x. · jersyko talk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that an uninvolved admin would indef block this latest sock of a community banned user. Please also see recent abusive edits [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] to my Talk page by an unknown-to-me IP address, whose timing seems curious, considering the above. A 31-hour block is in effect for the IP address, which seems rather light to me, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz accuses User:Plumbing of being a Feddhicks sock and therefore a Dereks1x sock. This is wrong. Plumbing is a sock of cat POV pusher DreamGuy [[43]]. According to Tvoz's logic, DreamGuy=Dereks1x, which is a false accusation. Given that Tvoz's 2nd most favorite article to edit is Cat Stevens, I suspect that Tvoz=DreamGuy=Plumbing (as all 3 edit controversial stuff about cats or cat stevens).

For more information, see my AN/I report about Plumbing and DreamGuy below. Mikkke2 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This speaks for itself, I think. Tvoz |talk 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't, then Mikkke2's total of 10 edits to Wikipedia do. · jersyko talk 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I have been in previous conflicts with DreamGuy and/or his alternate accounts). However, I see no link between DreamGuy (talk · contribs), Plumbing (talk · contribs), and Tvoz (talk · contribs). Their writing styles and edit summary usage are completely different. The Plumbing account definitely has very few edits and may be a sockpuppet, but I see no evidence that it's a sock of DreamGuy's - it just seems to be an account that is popping through multiple RfCs and doing what is requested, offering comments. --Elonka 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this situation before, but I indef blocked Mikkke2 as a single purpose account with the sole intent to harass another user by making accusations against him or her on multiple talk pages. A clear case of Wikistalking and no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, so... 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about DreamGuy - seems to have been dragged in here to deflect attention from the original point, which is that I believe Feddhicks, Plumbing, Mikkke2 and likely others are more socks of banned user Dereks1x, likely using proxies. Feddhicks is engaged in disruptive editing at Barack Obama and making false accusations here. Tvoz |talk 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

POV warriors who delete large portions of text

What remedies are available for blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text which does not meet their own POV? I have seen a small group of editors go around and delete huge portions of referenced text that they personally don't agree with. They cite policy for these deletions, but their policy reasons dont stand up to any scrutinty. It simply is a way to delete large portions of referenced text. What remedies are available, other than RfC and Arbcom? I have no problem accepting other peoples view points but destructive uncompromising deletions of large portions of text are terrible. One editor in particular, has been an editor for over a year and a half, and never actually adds anything to wikipedia, his only purpose is to actively get articles he doesnt like AfD'ed.

Any suggestions? 216.60.70.152 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that you be less vague ? this is a board for people to bring specific incidents to the attention of administrators - what specific problem do you have? --Fredrick day 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not name usernames or name particular pages right now. I am just wondering if there is anyway to stop this behavior. Would another policy page be a better place to ask? 216.60.70.152 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is -- you revert it, and refer them to the talk page. --Haemo 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion Haemo. Wow, if it could be that easy. :) I am talking about deletions that go on for months, even years. A third party moderator didnt work. RfC? Can a person have a RfC for several users at one time? Does wikipedia have any policy on this to stop this abuse? 216.60.70.152 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you have some serious content disputes then, not simple POV warring. There's a difference between removing text, and having a content dispute, though the line can be blurred. To answer your question, yes you can have an RFC for a set of users -- just remember to notify them all, and provide evidence. --Haemo 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a content dispute. Most articles or referenced sections that paint the United States in a bad light are removed. Thank you for your response. 216.60.70.152 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is about State terrorism. It was filled with all sorts of original research which had all sorts of links to sources that didn't actually discuss State terrorism. It has been cleaned out several times, and it will remain clean. If the IP editor wants to put stuff back in, he needs to find sources that actually refer to State terrorism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The cleaning has only just commenced. This article is one of the worst POV violations I have come across. Not to mention the other policy violations including WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, it needs a lot more work to come close to being neutral.--MONGO 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO your personal bias is well known and legendary. I would have no problem if these editors actually contributed text to the articles, but they don't. 69.153.81.182 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this posting, you have a total of 12 edits including the 2 to this noticeboard. Do you really think you should have a problem with other editors contributions, additions or deletions? As for MONGO's personal bias, it is very legendary. He is biased towards reliable sources and Wikipedia policy as well as bringing article to FA status. As someone with only 5000 edits and a relative newbie to MONGO, I defer to his wisdom when he thinks deleting material will make it a better article on it's way to FA status. If these State Terrorism articles wish to be Featured Articles, listening to MONGO is the smart way to go as I think he is in the top 3 FA article contributors. --Tbeatty 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sue W. Kelly

Resolved

This is very strange. Zy4477380 (talk · contribs) and Super6066 (talk · contribs) are obvious SPAs, reverting the article to a promo piece style, which have been their only edits. I reverted. Recently, Lewis2007 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article, removing relevant information such as the fact that Kelly was chair of the page committee. He's done this three times and his only edits have been to add a POV-pushing link to several articles of congressional Democrats. Are these the same person using sockpuppets? Is there any known banned user who edits in this style? hbdragon88 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is insufficient data to link Lewis to either of the two previous accounts, who both edited in January. Keep in mind that Mrs. Kelly is a prominent politician. However, Lewis2007's pattern of adding spamlinks is problematic. He hasn't done that in two weeks, so I think you can wait and see. Shalom ^Hello 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG just indef-blocked him. Thanks Guy. hbdragon88 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay32183

Jay32183 (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked twice for incivility toward users who disagreed with him on the interpretation of policy [44]. Now he is arguing with Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination) and, while he's avoided the colourful language of the earlier incidents, his attitude has been highly combative ("It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong"). He's threatened Tyrenius with a block for continuing to advance an opinion that he believes is against policy and insists is in bad faith. I've tried to ask him to stop, but to no avail. Perhaps someone uninvolved in the debate would have better luck. —Celithemis 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the debate, unfamiliar with Jay32183, I found his attitude to be sharply uncivil - especially to Tyrenius, I agree with the all of the above. Modernist 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking threat.[45] Failure to AGF.[46] A word of advice from someone uninvolved might help to steer him in the right direction. Tyrenius 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit to assuming good faith. Jay32183 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Asha

and the other suspects / people being questioned. It seems premature to categorise them as British Islamist terrorists. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that they are nationals of countries other than the UK, and (AFAIAW) not charged yet, then, yes, it does seem premature. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I've reverted on Asha. Will look at doing some of the others if I'm not beaten to it. David Underdown 12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All removed, I've generally removed category:British muslims and similar as well as none are British nationals, I left it on one as he was born in the UK, although largely brought up in Iraq. David Underdown 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAW ???? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As Far As I Am aWare. Whoops... ;~) LessHeard vanU 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and defamation of me by user HattoriNanzo

I would like to complain for the nasty behaviour of user HattoriHanzo, who runs defamation campaign of me publishing false accusations. He accuses me that I have complained to the noticeboard that he has inserted citations, which I never done. Moreover, HattoriHanzo behaves uncivil and continues to do so systematically. He thinks that I have conspired with some guy named Evula. His false accusations:

• 1. diff 1,
  2. diff 2,
  3. diff 3.

His personal attack to me, stating my writings are "truly idiotic".

I have brought personal attacks to the board, but HattroiHanzo doesn't stop his uncivilties. Vlad fedorov 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You conspired with EVula (talk · contribs)? This seems highly unlikely. I am concerned that Hanzo removes huge chunks of referenced text, however. I believe you both should take a cup of tea and discuss your grievances thoroughly. Mother Russia will not collapse in the meantime. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NOte: I linked EVula's username, for readers' quick reference. —Crazytales [[(!!!)]] 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE. Now Biophys also joined HattroiNanzo in his disruptive editing by removing large chunks of text he claims to be poorly sourced, but these sources coming not only from Arutunyan, but also general Troshev and Guardian newspaper. Vlad fedorov 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IP address 220.225.140.74

- Ip address has blanked article in the mainspace for no reason. Want to report this as vandalism. Article: South Central Railway I reverted article to the last unblanked version. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You may do so at WP:AIV. Unfortunately, yhis particular edit was 3 days ago, so it's a bit late to report. Also, please note that users should usually only be reported after having received a final warning. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex mond and Armenia-related articles

The indefinitely blocked Alex mond (talk · contribs) has been creating new accounts to edit Armenian hypothesis against consensus (e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50]). He's also canvassed other users to perform controversial edits ([51], [52]). Alex mond only showed up a few months ago, but I'm wondering if there's a longer history here that I don't know about, perhaps a previously banned user or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a brief chat with Dmcdevit on this: he mentioned that Alex mond's edits are apparently the spitting image of User:Ararat arev, who is banned. Checkuser was inconclusive, but apparently Arev was the very devil to checkuser cleanly, and the edit pattern is very similar. Moreschi ^Talk 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first raised the issue on this noticeboard, I was accused of inability to distinguish a good-faith editor from a troll. If the community reacted to my early report of trolling as sternly as it was expected to, I believe we would not have come to this level of disruption. The same applies to Digwuren, Bonaparte, and other trolls mentioned above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have a brand new noticeboard to deal with exactly the type of crap Mond was pushing! Isn't that nice? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug

Yug is continuing to POV push on Stroke order, which came up here at ANI in the past at some point (which is how I found it), but I'm not sure how to find old topics here. He is refactoring discussions and changing the context of people's comments (as here) and went back into an old thread to insert a link to an archive here. Yug has his view of what the article should be (which specifically uses OR and adds how-tos, which are both clearly prohibited by policy) and after stepping out of the discussion because it wasn't going his way, he's now trying to refactor the talk to be more sympathetic to his position, despite two uninvolved editors' comments about an appropriate place for his work on Wikibooks. MSJapan 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, part three

SqueakBox and DPeterson are at it again, constantly blanking the Anti-pedophile activism article and redirecting it to the pedophilia article, even though a discussion on this idea resulted in no consensus for this action. As mentioned above, they previously engaged in this kind of edit-warring concerning the pro-pedophile activism article, but now, since all info related to activism has been removed for the pedophilia article, these reverts make even less sense. As Homologeo mentioned above, their actions are essentially completely removing info related to anti-pedophile activism from Wikipedia. Would an admin please step in and protect the Anti-pedophile activism article, and perhaps consider action against SqueakBox and DPeterson, as this is the second revert war they have started based on their redirects without consensus? Mike D78 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus not to move and why have you reposted given no admin action was needed was the decisioon before and nothing has changed. The material is at pedophile which is locked and you keep duplicating it. You edit war and then accuse others of edit warring, and being bold (which is what my initial action was) is not reason to receive admin action, SqueakBox 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I don't know how many times I can explain this to you, but you need consensus BEFORE blanking and redirecting an article. My reverts were simply restoring the previous version of the article before your disruptive edits, which eliminated information.

Clearly if you keep doing this, admin action is needed to protect this article, just as it was needed to protect the other articles. Mike D78 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you have the experience to lecture me on how wikipedia works, admins arent here to support your pro pedophile activism, and once all the socks and SPAs were removed the consensus was not to keep these pedophile promoting articles as they were, SqueakBox 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have used and edited Wikipedia a few times before registering under this name, Squeak, and besides, it requires little experience to realize that, when a discussion on a redirect reaches no consensus, you don't unilaterally go and redirect that article on your own. There were plenty of established users who rejected the redirect.

As long as you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with your disruptive edits as promoting "pro pedophile activism," we are going to make little progress. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. These articles are not the place for some crusade against others, but are the place for objective documentation of information.

Mike D78 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Many people diosagree with me and I dont accuse them of being pro pedophile activists but these articles are plagued with pro pedophile socks (the users having been banned) and you fit the profile, SqueakBox 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, Homologeo, and Exploding Boy disagreed with your reverting without consensus, as well, and Jmh123 actually voted for the merge. The difference is, they realize that blanking and redirecting without consensus is not the way to go and is clearly agaisnt protocol. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the ends justify the means and that any disruptive edit necessary is permissible in order to achieve your goals.

An admin already checked to see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and as I told you, I was not. Further accusations that I am a sockpuppet can only be percieved as continued personal attacks against me.

Mike D78 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They got the wrong guy, you are no kirby sock you are a VoB sock and as such deserve no sympathy whatsoever, SqueakBox 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply not true; get an admin to run another checkuser if you don't believe me. I am sorry you seem to have such a problem with this Voice of Britain fellow, but I'm not him. Mike D78 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is the third report in a week? —Kurykh 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to ask Squeak why this is the second edit war he has insisted on starting in a week? Mike D78 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am asking you. If I wanted to ask him I would have done so. —Kurykh 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. It has been reported three times because the first time, no admin did anything about it, and the last two times were in reference to separate disruptive edit wars at seperate articles, although related to the same users. Mike D78 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its all one dispute, SqueakBox 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you apparently didn't get the message last time, after an admin had to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts without consensus. You have no grounds to blank and redirect a page without agreement, bottom line. Mike D78 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, content dispute. Go back to the talk page and hammer it out, guys. —Kurykh 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by BBOzzy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BBOzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalizing Criticism of Mormonism with blatantly anti-Mormon edits. BBOzzy2 is now adding POV tags to Mormonism related articles.[53][54][55] shotwell 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Grandmasterka 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Furry fandom

Resolved

Somebody please protect Furry fandom? Apparently the trolls participants at ebaumsworld have discovered it and are hitting it with multiple anon vandalisms per minute. Already requested at WP:RFPP, but this needs to get protected fast. Corvus cornix 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fursuit

Resolved

They're now hitting Fursuit. Corvus cornix 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• And now they're not. What's up next? WilyD 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm amused that 3 of us semi'd it at once. — Scientizzle 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I was almost in on that party myself, but I stopped to check the other article first and you guys got it while I was gone. X) --Masamage ♫ 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Resolved

 – Page protected; could try WP:RFPP next time.

Past 100 edits to the article has almost been a constant and relentless revert war. Please interfere. -- Cat ^chi? 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected by User:Tariqabjotu.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quack! Quack!

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ldingley. We have a ban-evading sockpuppet on the loose, and I'd rather speed up the response time by mentioning it here. Shalom ^Hello 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NokhchiBorz was already blocked on June 22nd for this reason. Shell ^babelfish 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gardenersville

Gardenersville (talk · contribs) is flirting on the edge of racist comments, although I would say has not quite crossed over the line yet. However, when he/she didn't get their way on the Aryan race article, they decided to create a POV fork at Aryan People, which I redirected to Aryan race when I first saw it, not being aware of the edit history. Only when I discovered that he/she had already deleted one warning about edit warring from their Talk page, did I discover what's going on. I've issued a 3RR warning. Could anyone else chime in? Corvus cornix 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have decided to try to work things out since I mentioned 3RR. Corvus cornix 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Final Fantasy

Resolved

 – Being dealt with elsewhere. --Masamage ♫ 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an incident at the talk page for WP:FF. This issue is on the photos. A Man In Black and Kariteh started tagging images Renmiri uploaded in a blatant effort to silence dissent by going after someone's contributions, according to Renmiri herself.

There is a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Renmiri has uploaded, in her most recent entry, a photo named Image:Amib.jpg as a result of the two editors tagging the images. This is just a reminder. Greg Jones II 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with administrative action? It sounds like it's already being resolved somewhere else. --Hemlock Martinis 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A Man In Black is an administrator and I find his conduct on the incident appalling to say the least. I am hoping this request for mediation will make him pause and reflect on his role and his responsibilities as admin, and make him cease using this kind of methods. Renmiri 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this issue is being resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Mediation Cabel. If this is the case, I apologize for my comment above. Greg Jones II 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...It's speculated that I hate you for nt being able to read...Urrgh. Who wrote this?) ...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and months, with this editor having been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In his defense, at least one of those "it's speculated" was due to consistent reintroduction of speculation and fanfiction for which a comment had been made and placed directly next to where the edit was made, and a few others were do to consistent vandalism that had both been commented against and was clearly "assinine" in spirit. While WP:CIV should obviously be followed, is apostrophe to be punished for getting annoyed at users who continue to graffiti and vandalize articles, whose edits consist of nothing that can be construed as anything but pure vandalism?KrytenKoro 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User name and account that requires immediate deletion -- please see my last contribution

Resolved

 – Carson 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. KP Botany 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

The editor Orangemarlin:

• sent me frivolous warnings about alleged vandalism [56] [57],
• repeatedly insulted and slandered me
  • "… Mr. panty and penis obsessed …" [58]
  • "… Mr. Panty obsessed …" [59]
  • "I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises." [60]
  • "… audacious ****wit …" [61]
• was extremely aggressive and provocative
• tried to remove an active unfavorable discussion from his talk page and then called me a vandal when I reverted it
• falsely accused me of being a vandal, even though it was explained to him by a neutral third party that it's wrong

The case can best be seen by the discussion in my talk page. The only policy I've broken is WP:EQ, which itself was after being provoked, but he's flagrantly violated WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS. What had caused all this was simply following the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE, and trusting the WP:BOLD guideline, since there was a calling need for a big talk page to be archived, and WP:BITE, since I'm new to editing. All this was stated clearly and several times in the pertinent talk page. The same actions, but done by a different editor, have not caused anyone to call him a vandal.

Having been treated so unjustly has caused me pain, and I believe I've been in the right the entire time, so I'm calling for any disciplinary action against User:Orangemarlin, just so he would maybe understand that he was wrong. –Fatalis 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after Fatalis filed this report, User:Sasquatch left a warning on User talk:Orangemarlin threatening a block if the harassment continues. Since then OM has made 3 edits, none of which have directly made the situation worse AFAICS. I am familiar with OM (I've done an editor review on him), and he tends to have an aggressive personality, but here he took it too far. It's hard for me to interpret Fatalis's attempt at archiving as anything other than an honest mistake (I'm not just assuming good faith, I really believe that's the case). It certainly does not warrant name-calling relating to body parts. OM's record is such that it's hard to justify a block if he stops cold - but that's a big "if" at this point. Shalom ^Hello 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to make the peace here. I'm ignoring his follow up commentary. There is a larger story here, and typical of these ANI's they do not look beyond surface complaints. But I'm done with this issue, and ready to move on. Orangemarlin 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the "name-calling" Orangemarlin did ("Mr. panty and penis obsessed …") was in response to Fatalis calling OM a dick and telling him not to get his panties in a wad. Clearly, there was incivility from both sides, and it is strange that one user (in this case, User:ConfuciusOrnis) was blocked, while Fatalis never even received a proper civility warning. It's also strange that the discussion would be about blocking Orangemarlin without even a mention here of Fatalis' incivility. Weird. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The idiom "panties in a bunch/knot/wad" is not something that you'd use in a polite society, but it came after a completely gratuitous vandalism warning, and its meaning fit there perfectly. Calling him a dick was after he'd insulted me more (namely, calling me "Mr. Panty obsessed" and a vandal again), and was meant as an invitation to stop being one, because he was both wrong and seriously uncivil. I don't think you can find any instance of him assuming good faith there, or even listening to other editors, or showing any repentance. His attempt to "make peace" came right after an another spurious accusation of vandalism and tag-teaming me with his friend, and I did not decline it anyway. –Fatalis 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Firsfron, this is a very odd situation. Perhaps it is indeed typical of a certain haste and superficiality of our "ANI culture", as Orangemarlin proposes above. Oddest of all is Sasquatch's uncalled-for block threat here. Fatalis seems determined to prolong the conflict until everybody apologizes to him (for ... uh, not sure). See this thread, with Orangemarlin's offer to move on and Fatalis insistence on "justice." Or see Fatalis' call for "repentance" just above here, with the hilarious and petulant misstatement "I did not decline [his attempt to make peace] anyway". Fatalis needs especially to stop reverting Orangemarlin's changes to his own talkpage, which he is free to make. See for instance this revert and this, note especially the edit summaries. Stop trying to police his talkpage right now, please, Fatalis. Incidentally, isn't it time you stopped sheltering under WP:BITE? You've been editing here since April 2005.[62] Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

The account is old, but I've edited very little until now, and his attempt to make peace came after I said I'll go to ANI, and sounded more like "I'll let you go", when it was he who had kept escalating it, and who had started it in the first place. I agree that the reverts you pointed out were false, but I can't stop doing it "right now", because I'm not doing it now at all, and it's still not what you'd call vandalism, because the discussions were active, and more comments were made after I restored them.

I think it's telling of your own bias that you don't see anything that I could want an apology for, or that Orangemarlin could be warned for. I agree that the hostilities were not one-sided, but I did not initiate them, and I asked him to stop them very early. At one point he said that my apologies were worthless, because I kept on vandalizing the article's talk page, which was still as wrong as the first accusation of vandalism. He also had assumed without asking anything, or caring to look at my edit history, that I'm a "POV warrior" from the beginning. In the end, if someone very unjustly attacks me, and I don't behave as a saint, it doesn't mean that I've waved away any rights to complain. –Fatalis 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Or to attack me for "bias"? I see. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, that must be one of his rights too.

Fatalis, if you cannot present the whole story, just drop it. You seem to forget that there were Draconian changes you made that were the catalyst for all of this. Was OM angry, yes but I think it was a "righteous anger" -- he responded to your actions (which were indefensible by the way). Apparently, neither you nor Banno can see that archiving still-activediscussion threads is wrong (especially given that your denfence of the archiving was that you don't have broadband and the page was loading too slowly). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I say that that I don't have broadband? It is you who is seriously misrepresenting the case, and it is Orangemarlin's "righteous anger" that can not be supported by any policy, and my editing that did not violate anything. The mistake I made was using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE that caused the history be archived too. I have recognized that it was wrong several times. About your active threads, both after I had archived the page, and after Banno restored the history from the archive, it was clearly suggested that the active threads should be copied back. What was copied back instead was almost the entire archive, making the page still much too heavy. You have not shown to understand the situation, both by claiming that having a > 200 KiB talk page is not wrong, and by accusing Banno of losing content, which is false. –Fatalis 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on reality. I never said here that anything was lost, I said that active threads were archived -- there is a large difference. Do not read what you want into I write. And yes, you are still missing the damned point: size is not an excuse to archive active threads. I do not know how to make this point any clearer. Also, common procedure for archiving is not to archive things less than a month old (more-or-less).

And I accused Banno of precisely what I just explained, and of acting in a manner that exceeded his authority. None of this is rocket science. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because you were dismissing any fault on Orangemarlin's side by saying that there's nothing to apologize to me for, you were calling the warning to Orangemarlin undeserved (and used the loaded term "threat"), giving too much weight to misconduct on my side after the stress had been risen significantly, and accusing me of dishonestly by pretending to be a newbie (which my edit history can prove to be false), and implying that your analysis is supposed to be not hasty or superficial. I was just standing my ground against injustice, and still am. –Fatalis 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Fatalis, that's not my "bias", those are merely my interpretations of events. Bias implies that I have some hidden or personal reason for interpreting the actions as I do. What would that be? Please specify these suspicions of bias. Have you and I ever interacted before? Would I have any reason to want to ambush you? Do you think I'm passionately in love with Orangemarlin? (I'm not, I'm passionately in love with El C.) Anything like that? Or what is this bias of mine? Please don't attack the integrity of users merely because they don't agree with you. I noticed that when somebody did agree with you, you described them above as a "neutral third party".[63] That's what I am here. A neutral third party. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

You are right, that was not the right word choice. What I really meant that you were mistaken in your analysis and conclusions. English isn't my first language, and I'm still under stress. –Fatalis 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's another accusation of dishonesty: you called OM an "audacious fuckwit", not the other way around. See here &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's false, it was clearly directed at the trolling Octoplus (I think everybody agreed that he was), Orangmarlin does not appear even near that comment, and I recognize it was very uncivil, and have refrained from using such phrases since. It was Orangemarlin who called me that later, because you had copied it in my talk page. –Fatalis 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we trust you after you have to lied to us? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have I lied about? Besides, it's verifiable. See for yourself. –Fatalis 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Lies or not, civil or not, the editor who filed this ridiculous incident report, has been incredibly disruptive to any possible progress on talk:creation science. His actions amount effectively to tearing up the talk page of a contentious article without bothering to seek consensus. Further, any assumption of good faith that may have been his due, has been undermined by his self-righteous and unrepentant attitude. ornis 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have done nothing but create mess yourself, and then spread FUD about an administrator who actually restored the history, and second, this is irrelevant to the complaint, and false, because my mistake was simply using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis, your mistake was in archiving quite a few active discussions, and responding with "don't get your panties in a wad"-type incivility when people understandably were upset at the resulting mess. And then calling for disciplinary action here against Orangemarlin for being "treated so unjustly" and "caus[ing you] pain". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfair summary. After I archived the big talk page (280 KiB; the mistake was in moving the page history with it), Orangemarlin attacked me [64] and issued a false warning about "vandalism". I repeated what I had said in the summary, and suggested that the active discussions should be moved back in. [65] I then told him to not get so agitated, that I was just following the WP:ARCHIVE guideline. Perhaps it was impolite (it could also be taken as humorous), but he met it with pointless insults, and showed that he does not understand the situation, and kept calling me a vandal. I was reasonably upset, and told him to stop being a dick. I was met with more pointless vitriol. Two other editors told him that he was wrong about tagging me as a vandal, and he just dismissed them, and also called me a "POV warrior", showing that he had just made that assumption, without bothering to see my edit history. After that he has not yet acknowledged that I'm not a vandal, and is still making aggressive comments. Also, all this muddle is because after the history was restored by User:Banno, a certain editor moved back in not just the active discussions, as was the idea, but almost the entire archive, ranging from 380 KiB to about 200, with many threads long dead. –Fatalis 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm having trouble understanding this, but why didn't you follow the WP:ARCHIVE guideline?... dave souza, talk 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've reached the end of my English skills. I did follow it, but just the wrong part. –Fatalis 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you skipped the bit at the start that says "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page....The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure." and went straight to "Move procedure" but ignored point 4: "Copy discussions that are still active back to the original talk page." and the paragraph after that about moving the page history "makes it difficult to search for past edits"? Your writing is very clear and your language skills are to be complimented, but perhaps it would be best to be offering apologies for your misunderstanding rather than demanding apologies from other editors. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) add cut and paste bit .. dave souza, talk 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I have never denied that it was a mistake, but if you disregard that I moved the history, everything else was more or less correct. I moved the page to the archive, added the archive tag, moved the top part back to the old page, added the history info-box, and then commented that the active discussions should be moved back. The immediate vandalism warning was undeserved, and OM's insults much less. I've outlined the order of events above, and you can see that Orangemarlin overreacted and did not try to AFG or be civil at any point. Now he's saying that it's "totally unfair". [66]

Anyway, to people reading this, I apologize for what an enormous waste of time it has accidentally turned out to be for everyone involved because of my newbie editing, but I'm not going to take the blame for things I didn't do, or apologize for not letting someone step all over me, or agree to the FUD Orangemarlin's gang is now spreading. –Fatalis 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FUD? What is that? What gang? Why the hell can't you just admit that you were wrong? And hiding behind this newbie and English isn't my first language crap has got to stop. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you keeping any track of the false things you've said since the beginning? You can research the meaning of "FUD" by yourself. Who is the gang is obvious, seeing how you cover each other. Also, I had never archived a page before, and made very little edits before the end of June, and you can clearly see that I'm giving point-by-point answers to all comments, so your accusation is, once again, false, because I don't hide behind anything. Moreover, let me point out that I've never denied that I made a mistake, I've admitted it even in the comment you're responding to, and also apologized for how this turned out, although it wasn't my intention or sole fault. –Fatalis 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your apology is appreciated, the qualifications which make it seem grudging are less welcome, and getting into an argument about FUD is the last thing we need. All parties need to learn that "a soft answer turneth away wrath". .... dave souza, talk 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Well, it's certainly unfortunate that all this kerfuffle has arisen when a newbie with only eight months of solid editing experience tries to be helpful, and completely misreads the clear instructions at WP:ARCHIVE on a particularly sensitive talk page, then when Fatalis raises the issue here in, it must be said, a remarkably well constructed complaint, editors acting in good faith get a block in the rush to calm the situation down. I'd hope we can all learn from this, and do our best to undo all the collateral damage. . .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned that such a minor screw-up has lead to such a mess and all kinds of attacks and unwillingness to move on. I personally wrote over and over asking for fatalis to just let this drop and move on. So he made a mistake, so what. Just apologize, admit you made a mistake and forget it. Somehow he just wanted to continue to throw insults around and get more and more defensive.--Filll 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fill, I've admitted it many times, including at the very beginning, and it was Orangemarlin who said that my apologies can't be accepted, because I reverted an edit by ornis where he added 380 KiB to the page, and I think an another edit that again restored the entire archive. Now he's using an alleged vandalizing of his talk page as an excuse. I'm not a vandal, and I won't pander to people falsely accusing me and insulting me. Also, please recall what you were telling me before you started demanding to "let it drop". You were chastising me, repeatedly stating that you're "suspicious" about my motives, and not following either the spirit of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, and I had asked you to stop. It was actually after I said that I've had enough, and I'd complain formally, that you had this change of heart. –Fatalis 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you still don't get it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Just because I have not compiled a full-blown writeup, detailing blow-by-blow the events leading up to this, and castigating assorted parties for what still seem like highly suspicious actions, do not think I am asleep or naive. Don't push it, ok? We all know what the record looks like and some parties certainly should not want it dissected and analyzed critically. Just a word to the wise.--Filll 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please, go ahead. Instead of making more vacuous claims, prove that my actions are "highly suspicious". –Fatalis 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected

Both parties should cut down on the incivility or else both of them will be blocked. That sound fair enough? This is already getting out of hand as it is. If you guys can't learn to play together you can play somewhere else. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit strong don't you think? What both parties are we talking about here? Fatalis and ... who? Me? OM? Bish? (Oh, go ahead, block her, that should be interesting). Ornis? Firstfon? The world? As an admin, your job is to try to disarm a situation (like Dave did above), not to issue threats. Your closing comment was uncalled for and very unprofessional. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean me, I've pretty much stayed out of this by not communicating directly with Fatalis. If you're threatening me, then I'm wondering about your level of civility, especially your tone. Orangemarlin 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that if you've indeed withdrawn, you escape from that "or" statement and are safe from this particular warning. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please tell me that means this foolishness is over with, and we can get back to editing the article now. ornis 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Postscript

Based on the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor and a thorough review of contributions, I have blocked Octoplus (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of the community-banned user Raspor (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Octoplus' comments on this thread have been moved to his talk page, so it may not be clear why I'm bothering to note the above. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue on Western Caucasus and Vladimir Putin quotes

I constantly get reverted (see history) by some user with such explanations: the article was initiated and written entirely by me, thank you, and now (s)he is trolling me on my talk, (and again: [67]) and several articles I have recently touched ([68], [69]). Is it normal in Wikipedia? Colchicum 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was in response to your "rv. consult sources." I don't need to consult sources, because I'm not a stray ignoramus you take me for. I instantly started a discussion on talk, but you failed to respond. Your forum shopping on this page is a bad token as well. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is how I failed to respond, right? Colchicum 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the former Soviet Union-related topics can end up being rather controversial. However, looking at the diff, I'm not sure what benefits there are to introducing Russian text into an English article are unless it is an important term (like on Russia itself). While the comments are definitely WP:OWN ("unsolicited", "my", etc.) and a tad uncivil, perhaps dispute resolution might be best. Try seeking that first, then come back here if it fails. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing really controversial in nature reserves. It is not only about Russian text (which consisted of official name of the reserve in Russian and two Russian-language references where no comprehensive English-language substitutes are available). Some English text was also reverted (info about the yew and box grove, location of the site etc). Colchicum 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider Colchium's repeated attempts to remove my plea to stop revert-warring over the trivial issue with the edit summary "WP:TROLL" grossly incivil[70] [71]. I also resent his attempts to cast himself as a newbie who has never interacted with me in the past. Calling me above "she/he" is particularly pathetic. I'm sure he knows my name after so many discussions he's been involved with me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You, sir/madam, are a hypocrite: [72], [73], [74]. Digwuren 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know you personally and have no idea of whether you are male or female. Yes, I have interacted with you, but I am surprised that you consider yourself so memorable. As to the edit summary, I merely followed your habit: [75], [76], [77], [78].Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact. Your failure to distinguish a troll from Ghirla (and malicious trolling from a good-natured advice) is a gauge of your involvement with Wikipedia. I still expect your apologies for the rude outburst quoted above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd person? Wow. Commentarii de bello Gallico. Just wow. Colchicum 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing it. Put up or shut up, as the gentlemen say. Digwuren 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [79]. There you can easily see how much of the text is in English.Colchicum 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [80]. There you can see that the debacle started with your attempt to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being moved to Wikiquote. There is no need to take offense that your pet page has been transwikied; it's a normal practice in such cases. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The debacle couldn't start there. You didn't touch Vladimir Putin quotes before I came across Western Caucasus.Colchicum 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, conspiracy theories. Ok, I have received an answer to my question here. It is normal in Wikipedia. Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow your lead in petty bickering. On the other hand, I request the community opinion on Colchicum's heroic attempts to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being transwikied to Wikiquote. The talk page is particularly informative. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith here. Often editors will make comments which come across as extremely rude when first addressing users they aren't familiar with. That last edit summary is totally uncalled-for, but the rest of those comments appear benign to me. So yeah, you shouldn't simply be getting reverted, but the correct thing to do is to ask for an explanation rather than getting straight into an edit war about it. Chris Cunningham 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's enough to scroll up to see the warning that "as a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting" or "Before posting a grievance on a user, it is advised that you take it up with them before you bring it to this message board". I'm afraid Colchicum decided to waive requirements in this particular case not so much for lack of courtesy (although this is also an issue), as for making haste to use the page for forum shopping against his opponent in a content dispute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it seems telling that Ghirlandajo prefers not to address the issues raised on Talk:Western_Caucasus, where I tried to resolve the content dispute.Colchicum 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not try to resolve anything. You made three sterile reverts and went to this page, where I have spent an hour replying to your pointless accusations. I don't have four hands to indulge you both on this page and elsewhere across Wikipedia. So far you have not made a single attempt to modify your original edit. I don't see your point in polluting this page with such petty grievances. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I only made two reverts of unreasonable deletion of text. Frankly, I don't consider my original edit (here is it) bad enough to require a prompt revision. Colchicum 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding content to Wikipedia is a petty grievance. Ok. I see. Colchicum 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you aspire to continue discussion with me, you should bring apologies for your personal attacks quote above. Until then I will not stoop to engaging you on this page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said earlier, I'd prefer never to communicate with you, but you disagreed. Colchicum 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Man, you have serious issues with civility and wikiowning. Face it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Its not normal on Wikipedia, it is just normal modus operandi for Ghirla. All opposition are trolls, national extremists etc. and all their edits and comments are vandalism, incivility or POV. And somehow I do not see that changing.(Yes, I know Ive just set myself up again to be called something "nice"... Life is fun and truth is rude.)--Alexia Death 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Alexia in this fully. Ghirla's views in this are extremely two-faced, he likes to accuse others of nationalism and cabalism - and then made this edit little while ago. Ghirla sees nothing wrong with abusive edit summaries, threats, personal attacks, accusations, inserting false or very badly sourced information to articles - as long as he is doing all that. Those, who do not agree with him, are, of course trolls, and, since he owns Wikipedia (note: sarcasm alert), they need to be banned. DLX 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sad to say that Ghirlandajo is slowly but surely reverting to his old habits. Here is a recent example, where he threatens to start editing articles in a certain area as a form of single person self-generated backlash (as silly as this sounds, I cannot describe it any other way). Balcer 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second, and stalking a user with whom he disagrees on other pages (ex. [81], [82]) is not a nice behavior - particulary as Xx236's edits to the Fire of Moscow (article Balcer's diffs brings) where nothing but helpful and civil ([83], [84]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, your appearance is the best illustration of the "nationalists of all countries, unite!" motto. I hope that Piotrus and Lysy will be here in a minute... Have fun, --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the definition of nationalism is "devotion to one's nation and its interests over those of all other nations", achieving unity between nationalists from different nations would run into inherent difficulties, don't you think? In light of this, please reconsider your theory that all your opponents form a cabal of nationalists. Balcer 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't impute anything of the sort to me. I'm glad you were able to perceive the irony behind the motto, but today you will frequently find some improbable alliances of Armenians and Indians, Poles and Estonians in Wikipedia - all for the common good, apparently. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This list of enemies, real or perceived, actually reminds me of the good old Soviet anecdote about the five enemies of Soviet agriculture (namely spring, summer, autumn, winter and Western imperialism). This naive yet hearted story seems to have some parallels in our day. E.J. 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact,” “Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists” (Ghirlandajo) - the more I read stuff connected with users with such vocabulary (cf. [85], [86]), the more inconvenient I feel here. The more I learn of certain displeasing personalities here, the more I doubt in the future of Wikipedia. The "dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" (Larry Sanger) seems to be an irreversible development. E.J. 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to assume a philosophical posture here. Nobody would have doubted that all your Tartu company will join in and second each other in a thread where my name was mentioned. This has been performed by you a dozen times since you simultaneously registered your accounts back in May. So what's the purpose of these latest antics? Do you think that Alexia Death seconding Digwuren who is seconded by Martingk and Staberinde, then endorsed by DLX and Three Lowi, and add Erik Jesse to that ilk, with the "Teutonic Balt" Big Haz who is always ready to chime in, is such a priceless show that you need to repeat it on a weekly basis? Seriously, I challenge anyone to disprove my opinion that Digwuren is a nationalist-motivated troll, but please not here. The page is too long without these pointless rants. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this clear display of everything that I was saying. I rest my case. BTW, I stumbled on this thread quite incidentally.--Alexia Death 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TO Ghirlandajo: The page evidently wasn't too long to swallow the recent paranoiac commentaries of the type already experienced on the RFC page, which has vanished in the meantime. (I mean this rant about ‘Tartu kids in the classroom’). I am obliged to affirm once more: I am not acquainted with any of these users you mentioned. This thesis was misapprehension, which has already resulted in disinformation. E.J. 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As did every other Estonian editor currently active in Wikipedia, apparently. It is remarkable how promptly you "stumble on" anti-Ghirla rants one after another, again and again. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats remarkable about seeing a thread on a VERY prominent page that I personally watch? Colchicums post came up top and I clicked the link to see what was he reporting. Simple interest. These accusations are getting VERY old. Oh, and no-one removed your comment... I checked the history.--Alexia Death 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ghirla here. Note that the users he mentioned above, have a month-long history of ganging up on other prolific users whose edits they do not agree with. Petri Krohn is a prime example, and he definitely is not a Russian nationalist. With one exception (User:3 Löwi), all these accounts have been created very recently. Within hours of their appearance on Wikipedia they were AfD'ing articles and holding discussions in which hardly household English words like WP:UNDUE and WP:COI were daily occurrences. The check users did not prove or disprove that all these are different users, it only established that because of the way Tartu University servers are set up (and we cannot exclude the possibility that one of them is behind that - have a look at User:Digwuren's conributions to the check user debate), it is virtually impossible to establish who is a sockpuppet of whom. Surprise, surprise, the only non-Tartu exception was found to have at least a meatpuppet. ([87]) Since they prefer attacking editors who are also prolific in other areas of Wikipedia, and with their RfC's and threats of RfC's are diverting those users from those other articles as well, therefore holding up the further development of Wikipedia, I would venture to say that most of their existence on Wikipedia hitherto has been disruptive. To User:Colchicum: "with friends like that, who needs enemies?" --Pan Gerwazy 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to support Pan Gerwazy and Ghirla here. Any dispute involving one of editors named Korps! Estonia by Petri, even if absolutely unrelated to content about Estonia, immediately attracts other members of the group. It looks to me as if they have some kind of informal agreement to support one another (since allegations of sock- and meatpuppeting have not been proved, I wouldn't behave like they often do and throw unfounded accusations around). In ideal world I would assume that any of them popping up in content dispute outside of their usual pattern of interest should be counted as strike (as in "three strikes and you are out"), but this world is not ideal. RJ CG 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindented)Somehow you forgot to mention that I (as DLX) have been on WP since Feb 2005 - and that most of us actually aren't in Tartu University. And no meatpuppetry has been shown, because, well, there hasn't been any - do come up with a proof or apologize now. As for "ganging up on other prolific users whose edits they do not agree with"... Gee, I guess having many edits means you don't have to follow rules and can insert false information to articles, like Ghirla has been known to do ([88], [89]). Talk about edicountitis... Sander Säde 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[90]--Pan Gerwazy 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Sander Säde 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no... CheckUser shows what IP addresses you've edited from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

_{Edit conflict}No, I mean - even the initiator of that checkuser admitted that he was wrong, [91], as did Petri Krohn ([92]). Sander Säde 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And that with large dynamic IP address pool for the same service customers tells you in some cases without time frame just that two people share an ISP. Not a crime in itself... This kind of likelys happen when people pass the jugement without understanding of the underlying infrastructure. --Alexia Death 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai uses admin power in content disputes against User:Tones benefit

It seems that User:Mikkalai is using his admin powers in content disputes he is involved in. Take a look at the contrib list of User:Tones benefit here, and also at his block log. You will see that Mikka blocked him once for 3RR, but then, after several days, he blocked him a second time in the middle of a content dispute he was involved in. He claimed that the block was for edit warring. Still, I took a look at the concerned edits and they are not exceptional on wikipedia (not the kind of edit that requires blocking without 3RR). It seems to me that Mikka pushes his national (Russian) POV using admin rights. Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The user had already violated 3RR two times (report). That was before any contact of his with Mikkalai afaik. Alæxis_¿question? 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he was blocked for it by Mikka. But the second time (on July 3rd) the guy did not infringe on 3RR. He did nothing special. Dpotop 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mikka classified the user page of User:Tones benefit as suspected sock of User:Bonaparte. The proof he presented] is the edit list. However, I can't find where sockpuppetry is... I mean, I can't prove the guy is not Bonaparte, but there's no proof he is Bonaparte. And, given the notoriety of User:Bonaparte, even suspecting someone of this is a serious offence. Aren't there some rules against arbitrary tagging? Especially by admins... Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya mean? It has been found that the user is probably Bonnie (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bonaparte#Tones_benefit_and_Bonaparte). The template says exactly the same thing - that he's a suspected sock. Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Bonny all right. I recall he has started some page about [[Moldova and the European Union], and now I see Tones benefit editing it. There's really much in common. Dpotop's complaint has no merit. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? The result of the checkuser was "Possible", which basically means nothing. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte was banned from WP for having run a sock farm, with great skill and care I should say. His only mistake proved his ruin. Given his background, I would not expect him to have trouble in cheating the checkusers. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Then accuse all the new editors you don't like of being Bonaparte socks. Of course, throwing doubt on everybody makes random application of the rules possible. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have to notice that the "Russian brotherhood" is manifesting itself again, just like during this previous case right here on WP:ANI. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and allegations of cabalism are not welcome. You should specify who you consider to be ethnically "Russian" among the people mentioned in this thread. I don't know any. Furthermore, your attempts to denounce your opponent Mikkalai without bothering to inform him on his talk page are basically incivil. Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists will rule Wikipedia only if they follow my old advice - "Nationalists of all countries, unite!" - which they do, by and by. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the incident I cited above, you are in no position of lecturing me about nationalism being bad. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't try to change the subject. What we are talking about here is Mikka using admin powers in a content dispute, which is forbidden. Just like 3RR and sockpuppeteering. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonny or not, that guy has no place here. He is a vandal. He should be banned for being a vandal. We tried to reason with him, but to no avail. I'm with Mikka on this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute or not, as a banned user, Bonaparte and any of his sockpuppet are not only blockable on sight: they have to be blocked. This whole discussion is pointless and a waste of time. If you want to attack Mikalai, you'll need a better excuse than this. Circeus 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed the whole point: There is no proof whatsoever that Tones benefit is a sock of Bonaparte (as of July 5th 2007). Dpotop 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also no proof that you are Bonny's sock, and so?.. Man, your persistent attempts to revive this pointless thread seem to reveal some sort of militant agenda. We all know that you don't like Mikkalai, but this page is not going to help it. Please move the crusade elsewhere. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am blocking nobody. Your buddy Mikka is, in order to push his POV. So, who's the militant here? Dpotop 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-involved admin who hasn't followed the Bonaparte saga, I can say that in general, a "possible" sockpuppet check essentially means that the checkuser can't be 100% sure, but it's a pretty good bet. If Tones benefit also had a similar editing pattern (I can't affirm this, but other users attest to this), then it's pretty much a certainty. Due to the way IP addresses work, as well as the existence of various proxy services, much of the time checkusers alone cannot prove that two users are the same. Ral315 » 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I thought checkuser is checking IP adresses and says "Confirm" if there's a match, and "Not confirmed" if not. What is this "Possible"? Dpotop 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As a victim of a mistaken checkuser match, I object to such an assessment, and exhort everybody to take checkuser "possible" with a reasonably-sized grain of salt. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Digwuren 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel-based IP-hopping vandal

Hi. There's a problem with an anonymous editor who is vandalising the same set of articles (e.g. Nelly Furtado discography, Justin Timberlake discography), as well as others, from a variety of IPs that originate from Israel. Each time I block one IP the editor returns from another - so far I've blocked 217.132.153.45 (talk · contribs), 85.250.19.86 (talk · contribs), 217.132.224.111 (talk · contribs), 89.138.36.25 (talk · contribs) and 89.138.135.165 (talk · contribs) for a month each, but I'm hesitant to block for longer than that to avoid collateral damage, and it's not really solving the problem because the editor either has a dynamic IP or is editing from different computers. Is there a way of dealing with situations such as this - should the network service provider be contacted, for example? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to just semi-protect the articles? ShadowHalo 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the editor has vandalised some articles just once — e.g. Geri Halliwell — so if the main set of articles being vandalised was protected, the vandal would probably just move onto others... and it's mostly really sneaky vandalism that RC patrollers probably wouldn't notice. I've just had to block another — 217.132.1.97 (talk · contribs) — so perhaps an abuse report should be filed. Extraordinary Machine 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Request review of speedy delete

I have just speedied Serb cutter as an attack article. As the attack was aimed at a nationality and a rather infamous former paramilitary group instead a person, I request review of the action. (The references cited in the article did not support any of the allegations in the article.) -- Donald Albury 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not have speedied this article. Since at least one of the references (one was a dead link for me) at least supports the existence of something referred to as a "serb cutter". I would have gutted it to be just a description of the object with a reference supporting the description, and removed the sensationalist language about slaughtering Serbs and so on. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) I dunno, it doesn't look like a straightforward attack page. I mean, there could be purposes other than just disparagement I guess. The only credible source seems to be the transcripts of testimony, but it does (at a glance) seem to verify the article. I probably wouldn't have speedy deleted it, personally. That doesn't mean it didn't need to go... if anyone really disagrees with the deletion it should go to WP:DRV I guess. --W.marsh 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All that the transcripts verify is that weapons with the name Srbosjek ("Serb cutter") on them were found in searches in the 1990s, which has nothing to do with all the claims about what happened during WW II. There is nothing in any of the supposed references about the Ustase, or about the German company Solingen, or about killing competitions in the Jasenovac concentration camp, one of which was supposedly won by Ante Pavelić. Again, the only thing supported by the references is that testimony was offered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that weapons inscribed with Srbosjek were found in searches in the 1990s, and that is not enough to base even a stub on. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, this is a complex argument that is well beyond the intended scope of CSD, which was never intended to extend to an analysis of the referencing quality. I'm just saying that this didn't meet CSD policy. However you seem to know what you're talking about and at a glance your argument seem sounds, so I'll assume for now that you got the right result and avoided a potentially messy AFD. I'm not challenging the deletion... hopefully the distinction is clear. --W.marsh 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with W.marsh...not really a G10, but the result is beneficial so it's all good. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (User:Ferdinandhartzenberg) of blocked User:JBAK

Blocked User:JBAK had created another sockpuppet after his last, User:Treurnicht, was blocked. The new account User:Ferdinandhartzenberg is named a right wing former political leader, Ferdinand Hartzenberg, (itself a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy) who was the successor of Andries Treurnicht after which his preceding sockpuppet was named. The user has been blocked several times for vandalism/racist comments. List of previous sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JBAK. Deon Steyn 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Review

I blocked Sosomk for a month for a for a 3RR violation on Georgia (country). The user has an extensive history of disruption on that article and was blocked by Dmcdevit for two weeks for disruption there as recently as May. Given the circumstances I felt that the block length should be escalated. I'd appreciate additional comments and further review in case this was wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, looking at his block log. Quite clearly an unrepentant disruptive revert-warrior. Hopefully this block will serve as a warning that we do not tolerate such behaviour. Moreschi ^Talk 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor

Could someone have a look into the developments re Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bernard J. Taylor? Suspected combination of COI, spamming and sockpuppetry.

One user, Siebahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - website manager for Bernard J. Taylor - was involved in linkspamming for BJT's site, personal attacks and block evasion.

This user stopped editing, but now a new one Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared with exactly the same topic interest, and is producing further promotional articles - e.g. Nosferatu The Vampire (musical), Pride and Prejudice (musical), Much Ado (musical). Gordonofcartoon 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DIDman out of control on today's AfD log

Newly registered user DIDman (talk · contribs) has decided to AfD Chris_Costner-Sizemore and is now spamming the AfD with !votes. Could someone with the block hammer please block this guy. This is very disruptive (not to mention quite disturbing...). MartinDK 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Not altogether happy about the state of the article, but that was just weird trolling. Moreschi ^Talk 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UpDown

We wish to report UpDown for following us around Wikipedia. Following is aggressive, intimidatory and highly distressing to those being followed. It is a form of cyber-stalking. He has confessed to it. What happened is that my husband is Tovojolo. We have separate accounts. As far as we know, Wikipedia has no rules against husbands and wives having separate accounts. UpDown reported us at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tovojolo, if you read the page carefully, you will see that we vigourously deny the charge and you will also see that UpDown has confessed to following us. We hope Wikipedia will take full action against him. -- Caprisa 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC). -- Tovojolo 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As ANI does not seem to be done with this on-going conflict, see also

• June 19, 2007 3RR UpDown – article protected; UpDown stated as viloating 3RR.
• July 3, 2007 SSP – Tovojolo blocked; Sock indef. blocked
• July 6, 2007 ANI – UpDown – Matter handled at Tovojolo's July 3, 2007 SSP
• July 11, 2007 ANI - A very particular debate at WP:SSP involving a presumably husband and wife - Matter handled at Tovojolo's July 3, 2007 SSP
• August 25, 2007 ANI Geraldine Newman – Material not in violation of copyright

- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly, the sockpuppet thing is a seperate matter, so I won't comment on it here. Secondly, I have not "stalked" Caprisa/Tovojolo (same person) merely looked at their edits, to remove the inaccuries and anti MofS they often insert (ie removing "United States" from infobox (to suggest that say California is a country) while adding "United Kingdom" when England/Scotland is quite enough; they also always copy and paste from IMDb, a major breach of copyright as well as being an unreliable source). I also had to look closely at their edits, when I started to relise that they were sockpuppets. In addition, I would ask admins to look at the fact they have always taken things personally, insulting me etc, when I have never felt the need to do this. --UpDown 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is not unusual for users with similar edit histories to be suspected of being sockpuppets if they both participate in anything resembling a vote, so don't take it too personally. Of course there is no rule against husbands and wives having separate accounts if htey are acting as seaparate users. However, if your husband or wife only edits to support you, then they are treated in the same way a sockpuppet would be. We can't tell the difference, and it may as well be the same thing. JPD (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot III

User:MiszaBot III did a very strange change to User:Betacommandbot talk page. Took out newer messages and left a couple of old ones.--Busy Stubber 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The one it missed had a non-standard timestamp, so the bot couldn't figure out when it was changed. So it's not that strange when you know how archivebots operate. --ais523 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:142.176.46.3

I'd like to ask for some assistance, so the IP I contribute from doesn't at some point become indef blocked or any such thing. User:142.176.46.3 is a shared IP, belonging to a medium-sized office building. A good number of the employees are college-age males, who like nothing more than to make immature, vandalism edits. I know for a fact that when the current 1 week block expires, nothing will change, and they will just go back to vandalizing Wikipedia. I'd prefer that the IP doesn't get blocked, myself, as I am trying my hardest to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I was told by Bishonen that I should take this to here, in hopes that someone who was better about IP addresses could look into the IP, and perhaps find it feasible to give a longer block. Would that be at all possible? Dan 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Sosomk (talk · contribs)

User:Sosomk was discriminated and blocked illegally, after he was provoked to enter in a edit war. I want to draw the attention on this, because I was also last days the victim of a tricky system. How does it work? This article, Georgia(country), is the battleground between Georgian and Russian editors. The Russian editors try to impose their point of view, and all the time revert to their version. If you revert them, you get blocked by the Russian admin who's very active there only to block people and revert but never to discuss on talk page. The russian editors are: User:Alaexis and User:Mikkalai (who is also admin). This is a true conflict of interests since he's involved and he blocks the others. By continuing to intimidate the others, and block your opponents this will go nowhere. We need your attention on the paper and your help. Please unblock Sosomk, because he's the innocent victim of this tricky tactic of them.--Tones benefit 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• One remark: Russian may have their soldiers and troups in reality in Georgia, but this is Wikipedia, and their influence in the article should reflect this situation. (one advice: Russian editors must not behave like occupying forces on the wikipedia paper Georgia(country)), like they do in real life with their soldiers in Georgia.

To save anyone doing the maths again, Sosomk made the following reverts to Georgia (country)

08.50 5/7

09.30 5/7

10.28 5/7

08.08 6/7

08.45 6/7

I make that 5 reverts within 24 hours. Sosomk compounded the offence by calling another editor a vandal in his edit summary during the revert war and failed to attempt to resolve the problem on the talk page during the revert war (his last edit to the talk page was 08.08 on 2/7). So much for tricky tactics... I changed the title of the section to be more Neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would see it globaly, not the last 2 days you would see I'm right.--Tones benefit 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Globally he has had how many blocks for disruption and 3RR? Whatever the provocation he needs to learn to edit within the rules here and that includes not disrupting articles with multiple revert wars. What will it take for him to learn this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Tones benefit is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user:Bonaparte who is using his favorite tactics of vocal siding with editors in politically hot areas he has no any knowledge and assisting them in their revert wars to gain friends in wikipedia in his fight against "abusive Russian editors" `'Miikka 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

More User:Danny Daniel sockpuppets to block: User:PiePogg

Resolved

Blocked

User:PiePogg fits the pattern of previous Danny Daniel sockpuppets. The username is in CamelCase. The account created several hoaxes. Two of them were hoaxes that were originally created by other Danny Daniel sockpuppets, which are indef blocked(Monk (Cartoon Network series) and Space Ham). See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for more info. Pants^(T) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles deleted, sock smashed. SirFozzie 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamming, POV-pushing and edit warring

Resolved

Freedomjustice1919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spammed several articles with a link to white power websites, has repeatedly tried to turn at least one article (Creativity Movement) into a soap box, and has broken the 3RR rule.Spylab 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The history of Creativity Movement shows five recent reverts by this user. 3RR threshold is 4 reverts, ergo he should be blocked. Also note that he vandalized Wikipedia talk:Consensus immediately after this report was posted (diff). Shalom ^Hello 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked (mostly for civility). If problems persist, ask again. Cheers, WilyD 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus seems to be attacking the German people. Does this not go against official policy? Kingjeff 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs to demonstrate this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his user page. The link I provided goes right to the thing I'm talking about. Kingjeff 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would...

...It be acceptable for users to go through CAT:UWT and replace all of the Image:Stop hand.png with Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg as even Template:Bv has been changed, the only ones I can see at first glance which havent been updated or Template:Test5, would people agree that its time for all of us to "take a step forward" and update these? ALl the best. Qst 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This would probably be a good thing to bring up at WikiProject user warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good gods, why? This is busy work. The stop hand is decoration, nothing more. Move forward with the new image and leave the old ones lie, unless there's some previously undiscovered copyright violation... -- nae'blis 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't, so just leave it alone. Nae'blis's suggestion is the best one to take. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving user page & user talk page to another name that doesn't have an account.

Resolved

 – Page moved back. Will ^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs) has moved her user page and her user talk page to User:A. Shakespeare which doesn't have an account assigned to it diff. The problem I have is that the usual user page links in the navigation column (such as user contributions) don't show up on the new page. I couldn't find a guideline/policy on this, so since I'm not sure if I'm dead wrong in thinking this isn't okay, I haven't yet informed the user of this post.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't someone tell her why it was moved back? I would myself, but like I said, I have no idea where under policy/guidelines this falls. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread "Odd behavior from Sarah Goldberg" below, where the behavior of the user is discussed more fully. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

User:Darkcurrent continuing bad behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked for 61 hours.

I reported Darkcurrent's earlier behavior a few days back and left a relatively polite message on his talk page: [93]. Basically, he edits pages and leaves insulting edit summaries making liberal use of slurs, swear words, and all-caps. Several days after I left my previous message, Darkcurrent thought it would be fun to leave the following message on my talk page: [94]. If you don't care to look, because it's mostly nonsense anyway, he calls me a "grammar nazi" (sic), a "gay fuck", and invites me to "suck (his) balls". This is subsequent to insulting . . . well, either me or User:Breed3011, it's hard to tell. on his talk page with similar language. This guy is a repeat offender, and if it were up to me, he'd be gone. He contributes little of value, has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, not just against me but against, you know, everybody. I would appreciate it if an admin could take some action. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Just as I clicked on the "block" button, I got an error message noting that User:WilyD had already blocked Darkcurrent for 61 hours. Sounds about right, though I had selected "1 week", so I guess he got off easier. As the prior blocks have had little effect on his behavior, I'm not optimistic, but perhaps he'll turn things around. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned to him something like "Shape up or face increasingly long blocks" - I'm always hopeful editors can reform ... but I won't hold my breath. Any more problems, just report him again. Cheers, WilyD 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For a supposed "tenured professor of theology", this editor doesn't show a lot of edumacationistic poise...and seems a touch overzealous regarding the ethnicities of Richmond Secondary School students. Seriously, though, this editor should get a permanent block if, after this one wears off, any further incivility occurs. The contributions list is a series of profanity, personal attacks & rabid POV-pushing. — Scientizzle 20:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "tenured professor of theology" claim is either a bad joke or a horrible irony. Of course, once people get tenure and can't easily be fired, they sometimes turn a bit immature or "overzealous"... wouldn't you? MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my goal! Er... — Scientizzle 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

various Sufism related articles

Ahmed Rida Khan, Naqshbandi, Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi, and Hisham Kabbani have been repeatedly hit by an IP-hopping POV vandal with the curious edit summary of "docg". A previous report of mine dated 21 June 2007 attracted little interest but some speculation as to what "docg" meant. Unfortunately Sufism is very little understood in the west and I have no idea how to begin cleaning up and properly sourcing these articles (nor would I like to spend my time educating myself on Sufism when I prefer to spend my time on image licensing issues). Any suggestions? -N 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just add these articles to your watch list and revert on sight. You may also consider just reporting a new IP to WP:AIV every time... Other than that, a range block would be rather massive and we tend only to use them for massive bot attacks and the such. Sorry, not much else I can think of here. Sasquatch t|c 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock puppet of repeatedly-banned individual

Resolved

User:66.130.22.16 is an obvious sock puppet of a POV-pushing, confirmed sock puppet-using, personal attack-making, repeatedly-banned (I think permanently) neo-Nazi from Montreal, User:Laderov. Spylab 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would've been quicker if you used AIV. And please, no need to insult the vandals. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd behavior from Sarah Goldberg

Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some strange additions to his/her userpage. This edit appears to violate this guideline about sharing accounts. I have a feeling it isn't true based on the fact that the rest of the userpage goes on to refer to the past history of that account. But I thought someone might want to take a look. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are several contradictions on that user's page. One being a gender contradiction. Another being the claim of born in Florida but coming from Germany.
  

However, I'm more concerned about this user's sudden appearance and very passionate support for a recently blocked user. Perhaps I have missed a prior history between them. If so, then my concerns may be unfounded. Some of the comments and SCREAMING traits are remarkably similar between the two editors. Peace.Lsi john 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Excluding dissociative identity disorder, one presumes the most likely explanation to be a compromised account ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a supposed "explanation" on the page now, but the fact remains that the material is inflammatory and bordering on the nonsensical. not only that, but the username is supposedly that of a real person, and not the person with the account. Probably should be blocked or username changed for unintentional impersonation after said inflammatory material is removed. MSJapan 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a choice of {{vandalblock}}, {{sockblock}}, {{usernameblock}} or {{speedy}} the userpage. Or do nothing. Consensus, please. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse indefblocking this account as a shared account which violates the username policy, and advice everyone to create their own accounts. I've taken the liberty to protect Tecmobowl's talk page. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did it go from being his mother's account to being his brother's account? IrishGuy ^talk 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I was just about to ask that. Apparently it was a "typo". Lets just block the account and get it over with. Michaelas¹⁰ 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note the images on the userpage were tagged for deletion and then reuploaded. Might be a good way to track said user if s/he (whichever) pops up again. MSJapan 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, note personally identifiable information given by a minor (email and photo), as well as multiple personal pictures (NOT free web host). MSJapan 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this adds up at all. He/She is now requesting a name change to "A. Shakespeare" claiming I took this account from my brother, who named it after his girlfriend. I'm want it named for the first letter of my first name and my last name. The problem is this earlier edit makes it clear the user was named "Sarah Goldberg" and the picture he/she continues to upload is a girl names "Adriana Shakespeare". So...yeah...none of these new claims make any sense. IrishGuy ^talk 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to apply a username hardblock, and she can argue the point at WP:UNBLOCK if she wishes. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, plus it looks like they were using their userpage like a Myspace profile. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C.

someone with the ip address 81.156.137.157 is constantly vandalising the article over the past couple of days could an admin please lock the topic to edits by newly registered and anonymous users please. AfTaDaRkCrU 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests such as thee should go to WP:RFPP. I went and protected it though. Wizardman 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki890 (talk · contribs)

The user in question has a history of ignoring style guidelines (not just the arbitrary WP:USRD, but common English language and Wikipedia-wide guidelines as well) despite being warned multiple times on his talk page. It seems that he has now resorted to copying text from the site Highways of Washington State to write articles. Washington State Route 123 has been tagged as {{copyvio}}; I am currently going through his other recent contributions to see if others need to be tagged. -- NORTH ^talk 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Update re campaign against a productive contributor

Re the campaign against a productive contributor reported here , what has happened since then is the creation of cancer bacteria, with WP:RS, and the refusal by domineering editors of cancer to link to cancer bacteria. Toward that end, they revert my edits. --Una Smith 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a content dispute still, given the information above. Please hack it out on the relevant talk pages. —Kurykh 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a case for Dispute resolution. As was the previous AN/I post on the same topic. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Komodo lover

Jet Animals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals adding that there was a mammoth in the game. User:Chocolate Rhino added the same info (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (2nd)). The user edits User:DietLimeCola's talk page, which looks suspicially looks similar to Chocolate Rhino's edit. Pants^(T) 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Equerer a sockpuppet, making reverts at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship

Equerer, registered today, seems to have an in-depth knoweledge of Wikipedia as evidenced by his talk page reply to me. The account is clearly a sock, and has also violated 3RR at the above page. Hence, should I be at AIV, Suspected sock puppets, 3RR violations, or here? I have my suspicions on who they may be a sock of, but I won't cast stones without evidence. Nonetheless this looks very much a disruptive WP:POINT. Pedro |  Chat  15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest check user first perhaps, then with that evidence to suspected sock puppets. Wildthing61476 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which I was tempted with, but the very first line at Checkuser is (to paraphrase)- obvious sockpuppets - block. And this is obvious puppetry. Unless we consider that we wish to possibly look at a preventative block of the puppet master too. ?

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You're all edit warring for one, without any attempt to get consensus. Equerer is clearly a sock of someone, but that doesn't change the fact that adding in "Bureaucrats need 9 out of 10 approvals to be promoted" without any sort of explanation to where that consensus is found is ridiculous.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know 90% is the magic number. My point is that it's not on the article's talk page...in fact the only single edit there was from 2006 by Picaroon. Neither of you were using the talk page. You need to show the new editor WHERE the consensus is that 90% is promotion, not edit war him into the ground. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In my defense SwatJester, I was just suggesting a remedy for the situation. Wildthing61476 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously except you Wildthing...I should have made that clear.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you use the talk page, then? Instead of pageprotecting us into the ground ;) Anyway, I think 'new editor' is probably not the best word here. Haukur 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine...new editor in quotes. With an eye roll and a wink. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I agree with Haukur and Pedro, almost all new users don't discover RFA so fast, and especially RFB, looks like a single-purpose account created to stur up trouble and a checkuser is in place. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester - why not actually bother to look at the logs before your gross and sweeping generalisation. I only came across this on RC Patrol. Your you should all be ashamed of yourselves comment is offensive. Please strike it. I care not one jot for the argument at this time. I care that a sock is being used on a contentious edit, hence my report. Pedro |  Chat  19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted him multiple times without assuming good faith.[95][96][97] You brought it to the wrong board, as you mention yourself in the first post.[98] You accuse him of being a sockpuppet (which he likely is) and intimate that you know who, but don't post any evidence to back yourself up.[99] And you edit warred.[100] Before I got protected the page, you, Equerer, and Haukurth made a combined total of ....12 or 13 reverts depending on how you count it.[101] 3RR does not entitle you to revert war....and you even counted your reverts to avoid hitting 4, in the edit summary.[102] You should have gone to WP:RFPP, or brought it up here in the first place instead of edit warring and WP:BITEing the newbie (who you accuse of being a sock without any proof). Even if he is a sock, which again, he likely is, there are other ways to deal with it. That's why you and Equerer should be ashamed of yourself....him for trolling, and you for allowing yourself to be trolled like that. Honestly...how much time would it have taken to point him at something that says "Crats need 90% support to be promoted"? There was NO usage of the talk page [103], not even one single edit since 2006. That's incredibly bad form. Yes, Equerer was considerably more wrong than you by breaking 3RR and arguably being a sock, but that does not excuse your editing either.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could view it this way. I see it at RC Patrol. I see a seasoned editor reverting edits by a brand new account that is clearly a sock by the nature of the page edited. That rules out WP:BITE straight away - no newbies here AGF or otherwise. 3RR does not apply to vandalism as you know, but I followed Haukurth's admirable lead on not pushing a 4th revert none the less. And do you honestly believe that a sock would use the talk page? I don't think so. And of course I'm not going to state who the puppet master may be - as I clearly stated I have a suspicion, but that is not a reason to then post it at ANI. And as for bringing it to the wrong board, I came and asked as it fitted multiple boards. If you are taking the attitude that asking where to go to with an issue clearly requiring an admin and ANI is not the place what the heck is it for??. The fact you protected the page is evidence alone that by bringing it here I did the right thing. I'm just trying to help out and admins swaying in with remarks like yours, when the very same admin acknowledges that it is very likely we are dealing with a sock and protects accordingly, hardly encourages other editors to ask questions or help out, IMHO. Anyway, it's over, so let's just move on. Pedro |  Chat  10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped ISA image, again

Template talk:Access icon#Commons debate now closed

An admin, known on commons and here as User:White Cat has closed a commons debate about the International Symbol of Access (and those of you familiar with White Cat (aka Cool Cat), you can come to your own conclusion about how sound his judgement is). For those of you that remember the debates, it was clearly rejected that the ISA image could be used outside of WP:NONFREE on en.Wiki. Resolving the issue on Commons is unrelated to us here, but I am posting here so that we can restrict the icon's usage on en.wiki until this error is corrected on Commons. It has already been applied to Template:Access icon, where I've placed an editprotected notice to remove it. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion pertained to the idea of using a non-free symbol in templates. If this version of the symbol is free (as has been determined), there is no problem. Whether this determination is correct or incorrect is a separate issue (and I don't know the answer). —David Levy 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Commons wonks are more authoritative than we are on what counts as PD. If they think the symbol is in the PD (and I tend to agree, through sheer overuse and image simplicity the image is just not capable of being under copyright protection) then we don't have any need to "restrict our use" of it. -N 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Except the Commons admin that did this was User:White Cat. I'm sorry, but it's fair to say that a great deal of us do not trust his judgement or knowledge of copyright law. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the color does not make a copyrighted image a free image. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that it does, Ned. —David Levy 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that there was widespread support to use the ISA, "free" or not, until User:ed g2s ruled that it violated Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By what logic does it violate the Resolution? It says that individual projects can decide for themselves what types of non-free content they want to use. In this case, there is a clear consensus in favor of allowing this image. — Omegatron 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Commons affect all projects, so if we cannot host it on the Commons, then some projects cannot use the symbol at all (because they have local uploads disabled, like the Spanish or Swedish Wikipedia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, you are very much incorrect. The foundation policy clearly states (emphases mine): "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, ..." "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."

EDPs are very much limited, and can only be used when the image is specific to the article in question. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another ... but one thing that is probably worth pointing out is that if English Wikipedia comes to a different conclusion regarding the copyright status of that image than Commons does, we do have the ability to add it to the bad image list or block it by locally uploading an image with the same name (admins can do this). --BigΔT 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I still need to figure out what the Commons feels about it, but there are a lot of those images we need to sort out. Anyways, I posted at the Commons of a Japanese based website that these images can be used in publications, not nothing to the sort the Commons needs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Smac2020

Smac2020 (talk · contribs) has been adding what I believe to be inappropriate links to several articles including Suncor Energy and Talisman Energy. He is using the rationale, "The external links here are benefial to the general public as they are normally not available at zero cost." I believe these links violate WP:EL; one link provides no information which could not be incorporated into the article and the other link does not even mention the company described in the article. This user has previously been warned about external links. Now, I am an administrator and could revert and block this user but I am not absolutely sure these links are inappropriate. Could someone else give a look? --Yamla 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't think it would be appropriate to block the user at this time, just an indication to the user that the links are not appropriate and that if he continues to add them, he would be blocked. --Yamla 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

After a very quick look, those links look more like promoting Andrew Johns than provide useful information that cannot be incorporated in the article. That's my first impression, anyway.--Atlan (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla's assessment in labeling the external links as spam. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://spam.andrewjohns.ca and RaymondJames. Slambo (Speak) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that this URL be added to the spam blacklist. --Yamla 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned user

While I appreciate how much fun it is to cherry pick cases, this is a sock puppet that needs to be banned. The puppetmaster admitted to the sock puppetry and shows up every few months to make a series of crappy edits that usually User:Acalamari reverts. However, the sock puppet still need banned. The WP:Sock puppet page appears to be for discussing whether or not someone is a puppet master--if this is the wrong place would someone please tell me the correct place, because spending a year in Wiki-instructions without results is not particularly useful. This is a sock puppet of User:Leah01 and I would like the sock puppet blocked now, so the edits can be reverted--Leah01 has wasted a lot of editor time with shitty edits to the Daniel Rodriguez article that Acalamari and JeffPW have to spend hours cleaning up. It would be much nicer to get the socks routinely blocked as soon as the crop up so the crap can be swept out. A lot of editors worked long and hard on the Daniel Rodriguez article while being viciously attacked by Leah01 and his/her sock puppets--MrDarcy and JeffPW have left, it would be nice to get this sock blocked. Thank you. And again, it seems that the WP:Sock puppet board is for something else--if this isn't the right place, please just tell me what is. It's impossible to figure out with so many boards so dense with instructions.

[104] User:66.216.231.232

In the meantime I'll just undo all their edits. KP Botany 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UNTRUTH

Sorry but this previous entry above frm KP Botany, is again one admin (who many, who have tried to assist in the creation of this article in pure and good faith) feel should be up for review. You can go to talk page of Daniel Rodriguez where you will not find ONE incident of anything even nearly vicious or attaching, from those who origianlly brought this article to fruition. Admitidly we most all began, knowing not a thing about the correct way to work here, however on a worthly journey and determined to get a page started that rightly deserved it. The original creators of this, including myself, and family members have had it with just a few here at Wikipedia. Though we have some highly educated folks who could have much to contribute here, it's been a time to sour us from ever trying to do any worthwhile, professinal additions, as we have done many! Please don't just take the word on this project's history from one with a personal grudge. Fact is that Bob and Jeff had worked harmoniously togther for a long time, and even David Shankfield, photo graher giving us the thumbs up to continue to be a part of Wikipedia.. despite Botany's continual removal and insulting remarks of so much of what was done..a true and sorry CLEAR case one person with a personal grudge that overrides his care about the bigger picture here - Wikipedia! This is far more Damaging to the long term repuation of Wikipedia than it is to any of us, unfairly targeted and no longer using our valuable time here, but sometimes you have to try to right a wrong, on principle. I hope you'l do the right thing for all involved. We simply ask please to take the time to not simply ingore the facts, hopefully more newbies will be spared this awful treatment in the future. I bid you goodby. I SHALL NOT RETURN! 66.216.231.232 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange reaction to AFD closure, assistance needed

Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II (talk · contribs), who is likely a single-purpose account, has reacted weirdly to my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generational secret with incivil edit summaries and postings on her user page, my user talk page, and on hers, accusing me of racism and hate. She left a strange comment on the AFD nominator's user talk, as well. She should probably be blocked as a SPA that has served its single purpose, but I probably shouldn't do it. --Coredesat 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Creepy. Anyway, can SPAs really be blocked for that reason? Carson 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like her activity has been dropping off; if she lets go, we should let her go and avoid anything that would provoke her. If she keeps going... eh. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New Molag Bal sockpuppet??

I noticed User:Kalebrigns while RC patrolling, and on his userpage he claims to be a self-confessed sockpuppet of Molag Bal. He's claiming to have apologised for his vandalism and says he wants to come back.

Should I take this to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to see if it is Molag Bal, or not??

I'm not too familiar with the Molag Bal situation, but I noticed it on his userpage and thought it was unusual to see a user tagging themselves as a sockpuppet. --SunStar Net ^talk 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it matters. As far as I can remember Molag Bal was notorious for creating good guy accounts and then trolling them and the rest of us with bad guy accounts. Not to be trusted. Moreschi ^Talk 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD R2

Although this is not an XfD discussion, could the discussion consensus of WT:CSD#CSD R2 be determined by an admin, because there are some opposing people, and I don't want to do it on my own since I'm not an admin. I've already put it on there once, and another user has reverted. Thanks, Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you started about this over at WT:CSD seems to be civil, proper, and in the right forum. Still, two editors have opposed your plan who seem to have experience at WP:RFD. One of them asserts that 'there is a giant list of [cross-namespace redirects] that mostly have consensus to be kept'. The other points our that RFD is not overworked, and could easily deal with the small number of cross-namespace redirects that your plan would allow to be speedied.

Consider finding examples and diffs that would help answer these arguments. Both sides need to supply more data. If there were 'many long discussions' about this at RfD and elsewhere, someone needs to find the pointers. There is no consensus yet, in my opinion. EdJohnston 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

ResolvedThe RFA is closed

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AquaStreak. AquaStreak only has 77 edits and created a sockpuppet to !vote support, Thegreenblob. Check the logs. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Denial of vandalism

User:Jaasmeimer Zoosteraatz, who has vandalized two pages (see diffs [105] and [106]), is persistently denying that he/she has vandalized these pages, even though he/she is a registered user and therefore cannot use the shared IP defense. See my talk page and the user's talk page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Left a note. He hasn't made any mainspace edits since though, so we'll wait and see. Wizardman 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that this user should be blocked for disruption, because he/she is very persistent in denying that he/she is a vandal. Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, he shows no desire to contribute to the encyclopedia. Wizardman 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You got to the block page about two seconds before me. Good call; it's just a typical troll. Antandrus (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, threats, etc.

I hope I'm posting about this in the right place, please let me know if not.

I'm not really a fan of Internet drama in general, but this user's conduct toward me is making me more and more uneasy. He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet with no real evidence (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), and has also accused me of being a pedophile. Recently, he has belittled me, called me a "wanker", a "pervert", a troll, a dick, and seemed to threaten legal action against me.

The guy seems to feel that I am out to get him, but I honestly have nothing against him and have tried to remain as civil as possible when talking with him and defending myself. Juding by his many contributions to Wikipedia, he seems to be a good editor who is simply letting his temper get the best of him regarding a certain topic. In addition to attacking me, he has also blanked and redirected pages without proper consensus, as has been reported on this Incident board.

Again, I have nothing personal against him, and I will only be around Wikipedia sporadically during the next few days, anyway. This report on this incident board may anger him further, but I don't know what else to do. His conduct regarding me is clearly against the rules and is starting to really trouble me, in addition to proving disruptive in general. Could someone please try to calm him down?

Thank you. -Mike D78 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any comments regarding this? Mike D78 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's something going on there with the sockpuppet accusations that is not being mentioned here. That said, SqueakBox is clearly out of line in repeatedly calling Mike D78 a wanker and threatening to call the police, whatever the hell that's supposed to do. I'm not going to touch this but someone more familiar with the history here should take a serious look at this.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike has now reported me in 4 different threads on this page in 3 days, the first 3 were labelled admin action not needed. Given the history of blocked users harrassing and trolling me on pedophile related articles in the past and Mike now doing it here I agree that some further investigation might be useful. Why is he so persistentluyy harrassing me if he doesnt hold a grudge from multiple previous blockings. I maybe went too far last night but Mike's campaign of harrassment againt me on this page needs to stop! 4 times and he still didnt get the message after 3 times. This is not acceptable as I didnt do anything wrong, as admin have already pointed out 3 times, SqueakBox 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The crux of your disagreement seems to be that you believe he's a sockpuppet of a long-since blocked user involved with pedophilia articles. Why not just request a check-user, and find out for sure? One way or another, it will end this spat. --Haemo 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If I believed that it would end things I would do so but what Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) does is gets banned on a new account and then disappear to resurface again, he has done it on a number of occasions after he got banned through check user (eg Nandaba Naota (talk · contribs), Revolt against the modern world (talk · contribs) and Kartikabalaji (talk · contribs) all confiirmed by arbcom) and I am getting tired of it so I dont think that is a real solution, I'd rather know where the user is and have his edits watched, SqueakBox 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I did not report you 4 times; the first time was someone else reporting your disruptive reverts. And I am not harrassing you; revert wars based on blanking without consensus and personal attacks and threats are certainly worthy of reporting. I'm not 100% familiar with the way things are supposed to be reported on Wikipedia yet, so excuse me if I reported these things at the wrong place, but your actions were against the rules every time, so fess up. And besides, admin action was taken each time; the articles you were reverting were locked and you were warned by others for your attacks and threats against me.

I have told you, I am not a sock. To be blunt, either get someone to run a checkuser on me or shut up about it, I'm really getting sick of this. If anyone's being harrassed, it's me.

Mike D78 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

IP legal threat at J.D. Salinger

No idea what I'm supposed to do with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a wikimedia foundation person deputized to handle exactly this kind of thing? Post a reply at the notice that says something like: we have a procedure to handle this kind of issue. Please send an email to ____ at the wikimedia foundation with contact information to verify your identity. It is our policy not to respond to unverifiable legal threats in the articles and talk pages. alteripse 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently J.D. Salinger aka 205.166.218.35 (talk · contribs) is interested in John Leguizamo andThe Who Tour 2006-2007. I am sure his biographers will be intrigued. Abecedare 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I would have expected Mr. Salinger to have better spelling as well...and not be in the employ of State Farm Insurance. — Scientizzle 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I was about to comment about. Sounds more like someones trying to have fun at our expense than a genuine legal threat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

At least he was more polite than Harlan Ellison was. (No, I don't think it was Salinger. But I betcha the Ellison is genuine) Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you'd think an 88-year-old man would have better things to do.--Ispy1981 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, should the comment be reverted as vandalism, left there, or addressed so future editors won't ask the same question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with revert and give the anon a vandal warn. Some (other) editors may be fooled. And ask to see some ID. Also, find out how long it took to write Catcher in the Rye. :P--Ispy1981 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove, IMO. I went to do it but Chaser already did. Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed and left a message on the IP's talk. The gist of Wikipedia:No legal threats is that we don't allow real ones (without blocking the editor so they can pursue real legal action) because they handicap our free editing process. Fake legal threats left hovering about can have the same effect, but this was probably just nonsense, so it's just as well to remove it.--Chaser - T 03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all ... but did we find out how long it took to write Catcher in the Rye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the real J. D. Salinger wanted to complain about how he was covered, the official procedure for contacting the Foundation is explained at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). EdJohnston 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation's effort to squash public discussion of its legal obligations does not relieve a person from making a good faith effort to advise others involved of potential legal action. The only method the foundation provides for contacting anonymous editors who might become respondants to a legal action and subject to identification by court-ordered discovery is within the online pages the foundation provides. The official procedure for warning potential respondants to a legal action is not established anywhere in Wikipedia, or in Wikimedia Foundation publications; the official procedure for interacting with parties who might cause one an ongoing liability is established in court rules and case law of various jurisdictions. SandyGeorgia's strange claim that anonymous authors' attempts to prohibit discussion of legal obligations of authors was contrived "so they (complainants) can pursue real legal action" contradicts principles of civil law. A person is obligated to try to defend their interests in real life before they can seek relief in court. Telling a complainant not to warn a property owner that a crack in their sidewalk has repeatedly tripped people does not assist the complainant in pursuing legal action except that it helps the complainant's case because the complainant's efforts to resolve the matter out of court were thwarted by the liable party. H8 Buster 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your response does not seem to be applicable to this particular case (a seemingly bogus legal threat) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It also attributes some statements to me never made by me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd. According to their user contributions, H8 Buster has only made two edits, both to this page. Bizarre for a "newb" to know so much about the Foundation.--Ispy1981 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalking, Edit Warring and Harassment

User:Abe Froman and I have been having a back and forth on Sandinista National Liberation Front for several months, with little progress. The article has been fairly stable, as far as our issues go, until Froman decides its time to start the edit war again: [107]. He has been arguing minutia over details in sources, claiming that they do not support statements, when they clearly do, arguing that an Oxford academic (clearly a WP:RS) is not reliable, because his information cannot be verified. He has been soliciting other editors to join in on me in the FSLN article [108], and has now harrassed me on my btalk page, intervened in another article he has never edited, making personal attacks, soliciting editors to war with me there as well!

This is not the first time he has behaved like this and I am getting quite sick of it. On the article he followed me to, he added no less that 53 Fact tags in one edit! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Torturous Devastating Cudgel I'm going to be blunt and say that a lot of what you are referencing makes you look unreasonable without research on the part of your audience. Usually responses are pretty forthcoming on this board, and your post has been here over 24 hours with no reply. I theorize because anyone who looked at it didn't go beyond your links/diffs, came to the conclusion that you were complaining about nothing, and deferred telling you so as to avoid saying anything negative about you. Please remember; what is obvious to you isn't necessarily so obvious to everyone else.

What made me think you may be right about being bullied isn't so much the 53 fact tags you mention on this diff as the removal of sourced information in the same edit as well as his reliance on what's available at Google books to verify content.

He/she removed cited material from Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness - A Soviet Spymaster, and others because Torturous Devastating Cudgel did not reference a page number, yet placed {{fact}} tags on info that had no references. Personally I prefer not to reference materials which are not accessible online; for just this reason (I don't have any of the books in question to verify myself). However a missing page number isn't a good reason to outright remove information without at least asking that it be provided, especially when one plans to be so "thorough" in requesting other cited material. Anynobody 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Mok

User:Timothy Mok may have been vandalistically tagging good pages as {{db-vandalism}}; See [109] (an edit of User talk:Timothy Mok), and his edits [110], [111], [112]. Anthony Appleyard 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tags - but am running out of time to do more. Agathoclea 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• And this edit [113]. Anthony Appleyard 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely until a good explanation is given. Grandmasterka 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• And this edit [114]. Anthony Appleyard 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is from Singapore and born in 1997. So he's very young. Be careful and patient Don't bite him. --Kaypoh 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• At 11:05 on 22 June 2007 User:Timothy Mok moved User talk:Timothy Mok to User talk:Betsy Koh. Should I histmerge it back into User talk:Timothy Mok? Anthony Appleyard 08:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Everything's all fixed—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  And I protected the page against moving. Agathoclea 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive page moves by User:Koavf

Resolved

 – User blocked and page moves completed.

User:Koavf, in the past 3 days, decided that he was going to be very WP:BOLD and move hundreds of pages because they didn't comply with "naming conventions", yet in many cases, his moves have just left a big mess and many have to be reverted back. He moved all the pages with NFL in the title to pages with "National Football League" because it is the full name, despite it going against common practice. The NFL Drafts are referred to as such, not as the National Football League Draft. Similarly the NBA Finals - pretty much he moved every page that had an abbreviation in it. Looking at his move log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Koavf&page=), he has moved a couple thousand pages since June 30. And looking through the AN archives, he has done this sort of this in the past, prior to his recent reinstatment by ARBCOM. Pepsidrinka 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs) blocked for one week due to disruption, recurrence of previous behaviour. Significant work will be needed to undo any incorrect moves made.[115] Vassyana 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm undoing any of the moves I find involving collegiate athletic trademarks, because that's one point where he's clearly wrong, no processwonkery about it. I'm not sure what the best approach is for dealing with the rest of the backlog. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just undercut my argument supporting Pepsidrinka's complaints, heh. From WP:HOCKEY we have a list of moves we couldn't revert back ourselves at Talk:1968-69 Western Canada Hockey League season. I'm sure there are more, but it will take some time to find them all. Resolute 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield

This is a bit difficult: the whole thing is essentially just speculation; nobody has any real information but the bare minimum and even the name is speculation. The thing is basically just turning into one big, messy edit war.

Suggestions? HalfShadow 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the page useful, going to it after I saw the trailer on the web. There has been press coverage, thus WP:RS is satisfied, so I don't see the problem. THF 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm posting here. Apparently there's just enough to satisfy requirements, but everything else sofar has been everything from unreliable to just plain guesses. I was just wondering what, if any, actions should be taken. HalfShadow 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove any&all content not supported with reliable sources and wait for more information to emerge. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:209.247.22.164/User:SFTVLGUY2

209.247.22.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP has been undoing my edits in bad faith. Suspect IP of User:SFTVLGUY2. IP has been previously warned. —  MusicMaker 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

MusicMaker is correct. It is clearly User:SFTVLGUY2. -- Ssilvers 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How come I've received no response at all? I raised this at WP:AIV, telling me that it was a valid issue, but I should raise it here. If you check the contribs of the IP, you'd see that he went through and systematically reversed everything I did for about a day. He seems to have some vendetta against Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. I think that some action should be taken. —  MusicMaker 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton

Urgent help needed at Billy Blyton, Baron Blyton. User:Lawsonrob insists on changing the article title to William Reid Blyton, giving no reason. He has ignored the clear MofS guidelines (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2) regarding peers. He has also moved in 5 times since 0015 this morning, which I believe is a breach of 3RR. On another page, David Clark, Baron Clark of Windermere, he keeps trying to remove the "of Windermere", which is part of Clark's legal title. Please help quickly as he is not listening to anyone, and is very disruptive. --UpDown 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I might recommend a request for comment. There seems to be issues with his editing behaviour going back almost to his arrival.--Crossmr 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde

Resolved

Banned user Panairjdde presented himself here with his latest sock, Similaun, could you please consider blocking him? Thanks. --Angelo 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon (Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Blackdragon6 and Image:Bone Thugs.jpg

Resolved

This user, who was just blocked two days ago for 48 hours for uploading this file for the umpteenth time, has just uploaded it again. Someone please block him and delete this image: this is becoming ridiculous: [116]. The Evil Spartan 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I would be happy to have this block lifted if the editor undertakes not to upload said image. LessHeard vanU 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SIMONMAXIMOUNDS image copyright violations

Resolved

SIMONMAXIMOUNDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, for the past three weeks, uploaded copyrighted images of Maxi Mounds. SIMONMAXIMOUNDS was blocked on 4 July and told that if the image violations continued, the account would be blocked idefinately. I saw that there was a dispute on the license of Image:MAXIMOUNDS.jpg (which was uploaded on 6 July, after this warning), so I e-mailed the e-mail address given on the subject's web page. She replied; she says that the license is incorrect. SIMONMAXIMOUNDS has a history of image copyright violations, and if remains unblocked, will continue to upload images that violate policy. WODUP 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely. Appears incapable of understanding copyright law and only interested in one topic, unlikely to contribute usefully. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see any new blocks in the block log. WODUP 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - now you should. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_6#Template:Infobox_Towns_and_Cities_in_Guinea

User:Wikid77 has suggested that I am "Psychotic"...and should "seek psychiatric help" and that I should stop editing for several weeks because I have TfD'ed infoboxes in favor of a standard. I think it was uncalled for. —MJCdetroit 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, have you spoken with him about it? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative. —MJCdetroit 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the post. It was entirely out of line - he purposefully used a wikilink to psychotic on 4 different occasions. It's not like he didn't know better. I've plopped an {{npa3}} tag on his page. The Evil Spartan 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User TJ Spyke

User:TJ Spyke Wont quit trying to start a edit war on WWE One Night Stand. Keeps reverting and calling me names. I have tried to tell him he has to provide sources for information but he refuses to listen.BlueShrek 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? This new user (registere in late June) was the one who started the reverting, called me a vandal, and won't listen or take a look at the guidleline I pointed him too. He keeps removing who is on the promo poster by calling it OR (even though the poster is right there in the article). The source is the promo poster right in the article. People can also check Bobby Lashley's article to see a picture of him. TJ Spyke 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, an extremely WP:LAME edit war, with both sides assuming bad faith and falsely claiming vandalism. In any case, TJ is reported to AN/3RR for 3RR violation. The Evil Spartan 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said Lashley wasnt in the picture. TJ keeps trying to say its two guys instead of one. The fact that Im kinda new to Wiki doesnt mean Im gonna let someone push me around when I know Im right. You can check our discussion pages and the ONS history and youll see he is in the wrong. Thank you for youre time.BlueShrek 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? I have given BlueShrek proof of what he wanted. TJ Spyke 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Running through the Diffs (for the 6th and 7th of July) they both violated 3RR, if TJ is blocked then BlueShrek needs to be blocked as well. I think that both should apologise, as neither being blocked would be helpful. Darrenhusted 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:4.240.237.191

This anon appears to be placing a large number of spam links on various WP articles. I placed a warning on his talk page at 20:42 on July 7, 2007.--Filll 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The report is 100% correct, but it looks like the spammer went offline about five hours ago. I see no need to block him at this point in time. Shalom ^Hello 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request longer block on 205.251.30.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Per finding of fact 16) and enforcement 1) of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO. Specifically, vandalising my about page with a very offensive cutpaste of ED's article on me. Will ^(talk) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a page deleted quickly (userspace)

Resolved

Can someone delete User talk:L for me? I want to move my old User talk/Archive pages, but as long as that exists I can't. Shouldn't take but 20 seconds, thanks --L^augh! 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the redirect? —Kurykh 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Given no immediate response, I assume it was a yes and have deleted the redirect. —Kurykh 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In future, tag your page with {{db-userreq}}. Strangely, I did this twice to some of my pages and they got deleted very soon after. Sebi _[talk] 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --L^augh! 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

69.142.43.130 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption. Just64helpin 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't done enough to merit a third block. His edits from 7 July to Godzilla: Unleashed were reverted with an edit summary of "I'm sick of this IP's silly edits, someone report him," but if you actually look at the diffs, there is no obvious vandalism. I hope you all can figure this out on the talk page. (Sigh.) Shalom ^Hello 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Avazina and Hornbeck, Louisiana

Resolved

 – A few other editors are now watching the article and participating in the content dispute. Let's keep this on the article's Talk page where it belongs. --ElKevbo 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Avazina has been repeatedly been removing a referenced demographic statement from Hornbeck, Louisiana (here, here, and here). The user states the reason for the removal is that he knows it to be wrong. I have attempted to explain WP:VERIFY, but the user continues to remove the statement and disregard my messages. VerruckteDan 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other Panairjdde socks

William Reid Blyton and AvoidOpen are strongly suspected to be sockpuppets of community-banned user Panairjdde. If possible, I would suggest you admins also to watch at User talk:Dppowell/PPP, the place where suspected Panairjdde socks are first notified; that page is also a well-known target of Panairjdde. --Angelo 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User: Tiamut

USer:Tiamut is trying to turn a generic article about the military tactic of a random checkpoint into a soapbox to rile against the cations of the US in Iraq and the actions of Israel. There has been a long discussion on the article's Talk page explaining why her edits are inappropriate. Several editors (myslef included) have opposed her changes. Despite this detailed expalnation of why her material is being deleted, she repeatedly describes my actions as vandalism. WP:VADALISM clearly states "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." This uncivil behavior which also violates WP:AGF has been going on for quite awhile now. Isarig 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Isarig wasting everyone's time by filing a bogus complaint against me. There is in fact a content dispute underway and it is his actions that warrant investigation since he insists on deleting sourced material from the Flying checkpoint article. The material in question constitutes 2/3 of the article text and is all duly sourced and attributed. After trying to get the article moved or deleted from its inception and failing, Isarig has resorted to vandalism, claiming that his actions enjoy consensus when they are in fact supported only by one other editor. In fact, his next to last deletion was reverted by an editor in good standing from the counter-vandalism unit, since it deleted over 4,000 bytes. When it looks like vandalism, and sounds like vandalism, it's usually vandalism. Tiamat 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"When it looks like vandalism, and sounds like vandalism, it's usually vandalism." Our policy is not to think that way in content disputes. If he thinks his version of the article is better for the encyclopedia, for whatever reason, then it's not vandalism. Accusations of vandalism, however justified you feel they are, disrupt the process of dispute resolution.

This is a content dispute, so you guys need to work it out on the talk page. If you can't work it out there, go the WP:3O, or file a content RfC, or both. Post messages on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Get more input. Don't come to AN/I calling your opponent a vandal. You have to do dispute resolution, for real.

If someone's impolite to you, be exceptionally polite to them, and let them rise to the occasion. The more eyes watching them, the more they'll feel the pressure to match your courtesy in kind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a content dispute, which you are falsely describing as vandalism. You are compounding this by making false statements (I have never tried to get the article deleted, nor have I claimed my position enjoys consensus) - Cease it. Isarig 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed just a content dispute, then it is incorrect to post your complaint here. I am not the one bringing this matter to the attention of the community. You are. You are the one claiming that communicating my belief to you that your editing at Flying checkpoint amounts to vandalism constitutes incivility. I do not know why you would raise this issue here, particularly when your editing record there will not stand up under examination. Further, you tried to move and rename the article after deleting most of it, so my description of your actions, italicized above, while brief, is quite accurate. Tiamat 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My complaint here is not about the content dispute, but about the fact that you have more than thrice now labeled me a vandal, when in fact no vandalism has occurred. You cannot go around slinging mud at editors you have a content dispute with. Isarig 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In particular, it doesn't move the dispute towards resolution, so it's a bad idea. Just leave the "v-word" out of your toolbox (except for the blatant "LOL!" type stuff) and you'll be happier and more successful at Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't use the word lightly and would rather not. But Isarig has repeatedly deleted 2/3 of an article's text (more than 4,000 bytes of sourced material). I have repeatedly asked him to cease and desist, expressing my view that persistent repetition of such an action amounts to vandalism. An uninvolved editor from the counter-vandalism unit reverted one such edit by Isarig as vandalism and urged him to get a third opinion before continuing to delete the material in question. I am not mudslinging. I'm just stating the facts. Tiamat 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, your best solution is to focus on the content and get more eyes looking at the article. If the content should be in the article, that will be clear to a consensus of Wikipedians, and that will be that. Deciding that you're just going to label it vandalism isn't an effective strategy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Effectiveness and the quality of the article is the main concern. Please have a look at it yourself. Tiamat 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That administrator has already apologized on my Talk page for his hasty action, after being misled by you. You have now been told by an administrator that your use of the term is wrong and disruptive. It's time to stop it. Isarig 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't "misled" by me Isarig. I didn't appeal for him to intervene. His anti-vandalism tools picked up your deletion of over 4,000 bytes of material and he cited your edit summary as potentially disruptive or offensive [117] as two rationales behind his intervention. Please don't mislead others. Tiamat 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick info

Flying checkpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Isarig's version
Tiamut's version

Isarig may have explained their rationale before, but it wasn't obvious on cursory overview of the talk page.

To me this looks like bold editing on Isarig's part and correcting an error on that of Tiamat.

Isarig, consider explaining your reasons for removing the text again. I know writing the same thing over and over is boring, but our arguments can get "lost in the rhetoric". (An example is this post, the commentary and rhetoric of the argument can blur people's perception of what it is you really want.)
In general, removal of sourced information is frowned upon unless a good reason can be given. You may not have been doing it intentionally, but this can be very frustrating to those who aren't clear on why you're removing something.

Tiamat, vandalism is intentionally defacing an article, in other words the intent is to do wrong. Being bold is editing with the best of intentions, but sometimes making a mistake that could look like vandalism. When you call an editor who's intent is to help, a vandal, you're actually making a sort of double personal attack; By being unnecessarily harsh with criticism AND accusing the other person of intentionally setting out to do wrong. Anynobody 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Anynobody. My editing history with Isarig stretches back some time now and I have been frustrated by a pattern of what I view to be overzealous deletion by him of my additions. I will refrain from using the word "vandalism" however, since the consensus seems to be that it should be used in very narrow and particular circumstances. I appreciate your attempts at bridging the divide. Tiamat 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)