Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Wikipedia author.

The ticket number is [Ticket#2007033110014917].

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Wikipedia user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Wikipedia is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

(Empty comment for archiving purposes) Fram 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having still having trouble keeping some comments on the talk page. They keep being removed at WP:ASSIST.(direct link) --CyclePat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you want. There's a dispute about whether or not that stuff should be included, and as you know, this isn't the "Please take my side" noticeboard. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this requires admin intervention. Please note WP:CANVASS before putting it on unrelated places. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should point out that the "comments" CyclePat is complaining about is a move poll that he tried to force on WP:ASSIST. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to me removal of his move poll, CyclePat posted a vandal warning template to my page, and wrote this dleightful comment: "You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[1] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from to the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate how desperate the members of WP:ASSIST and to what extent they are truly willing to do go. A further technique is being used by WP:ASSIST which is called bandwagon, inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience." The conversation and comments regarding AMA and ASSIST (move page/merger), even if it is not a successful conversation as portrayed by some, is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule and on top of that falls within the criteria of vandalism. I suggest the conversation be archived. Again, in short, removing it creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and again, violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Someone who characterises a 100% rejection rate and several strongly worded warnings from various users as "desperate", "propaganda", and "advertising attempts to destroy AMA" clearly doesn't have the project in mind. I believe JzG said he would try to talk some sense in CyclePat - it appears to have had no effect whatsoever. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who removes such beautiful comments, which are so very constructive in helping build and understand EA, clearly (sarcastically) has the project in mind. (Not really!) You may wish to read WP:AGF and to see my comments at Wikipedia talk:editor assistance#Request move archive talk page (if you or someone hasn't already reverted them)... here is the permenant link just in case.(link). FYI: it talks about harassment. --CyclePat 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat, I'm speechless. May I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Assume good faith if you think that EA members are suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience"; additionally why is it bad that we are inviting everyone to participate?...hmm --Iamunknown 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is with the "gathered up and shot" comment? [2] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to complain about that comment. The fact that it's a 'metaphor' doesn't diminish its offensiveness. Anchoress 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of everyone, CyclePat's "metaphor" was

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

This was during another of his attempts to force us to join AMA. To be honest, I can't think of such a post from someone who wasn't eventually indef blocked. Someone may wish to intervene before he starts trying to gather us up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mutiny? So you have, in effect, an editor not just declaring ownership on a page, but on a group of editors? That's just nuts. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat is clearly being very disruptive and very silly. If he keeps on going, he should be blocked for a suitably lengthy period of time. The kid gloves have been put on for this guy far too often and it's gotten us nowhere. Please, stop. You're shooting yourself in the foot and bringing the day of the AMA's next MfD much closer. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that CyclePat's behavior is a perfect example of why AMA is a patently bad idea. It is obvious from the earlier MFD that there is no consensus for the continued running of AMA, and it is obvious from AMA's recent actions that they are quite unwilling to make any changes. They are way overdue for being shut down. >Radiant< 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Radiant, please do not make false statements. The AMA is more than willing to make changes and is currently undergoing a major revision. WP:ASSIST was created by User:Seraphimblade as a way to pick back up the AMA's function if the AMA were to be shut down, but is now populated by a large number of anti-AMA editors. The animosity between the two groups must stop, as well as the animosity against the AMA. Comments like this fall short of WP:CIVIL, and we're all in the same boat. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that view of mine was based on the most vocal AMAs (e.g. Pat) and if that doesn't represent the entire group I'm glad to hear that. Still, the AMA talk page does not exactly have a lot of dialogue on the changes proposed there. >Radiant< 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever my personal feelings about AMA, I would like to point out that they have tried very, very hard to get CyclePat to stop harrassing EA. I respect them for that and do not hold CyclePat's increasing insane actions gainst them. AMA is actually trying to get their ship in order, and while I don't think that will save them, I respect their attempts to reform and current right to exist alongside EA, and they accept EA in return. I think the only bad blood being stirred up at the moment is by CyclePat. But it's nice to know that Steve considers himself in the same boat as EA, maybe CyclePat would like to have him gathered up and shot as well... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The only current source of animosity is Pat...otherwise, I'm totally for live-and-let-live. You must realize, however, that CyclePat is currently the only form of interaction between the groups (other than a few AMA members signing the ASSIST roster). Certainly leaves something to be desired. --Iamunknown 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For em the fact that they let Pat join as an advocate was a sure sign that AMA was doomed. Not that I bear any malice towards Pat, but as you see above his skills lie more in escalating than in resolving disputes. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's moment of irony (OK, it is a few days old... but after seeing this I nearly couldn't believe what I was reading here)...--Isotope23 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still having trouble

Since my comments keep being removed from the WP:ASSIST I guess this is where... I'll need to post them:

The following consist of extract taken from the talk page of WP:ASSIST: I would also like to comment that user:Dev920 has threatened to continue stalking me. (Just kidding, that's not true!: That would be a WP:POINT and a lie... But sometimes people say things that are out of context and only quote part of what you say just so see what your reaction). My reaction is that should be considered a type of harassment, but it probably wouldn't fly... That is why I will reply and say tha "those comments where meant to express that both teams need each other, and if you read further on I also stated I believe AMA members should do an EA case... as much as EA member should help AMA... Mutual help!).(This is all off topic... This entire conflict is all about not building concencus. Perhaps I may have jumped the gun in starting an RM, but the comments and discussion should not be removed. Those comments are helpfull, and will help the AMA understand what may be wrong. If we can just keep those comments there for longer than a 24 hours perhaps we would be able to move on to other constructive elements and improving both associations. Nevertherless MY COMMENT ARE STILL BEING REMOVED... and I consider this Harassment as I shall discuss. --CyclePat 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert vandalism

Even as I try to have proper discussion regarding your past edits... my edits are reverted. User:Dev920 did it again, not even more than 1 hour later. Here is the comments he has vagrantly removed. [THIS editing] is becoming a harassment. Here is part of what I had posted. (minus the archived discussion on RM which was at the end). For fairness I will be posting this at WP:ANI... and I sugest someone starts an RfC because I don't see your way at all. --CyclePat 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as per the discussion on my talk page: : I will not leave in peace until my comments are returned and or archived on this talk page. There is nothing offencive about them and nothing that warrants the removal. My attempts to have a discusssion as suggested by others... to try and "abduct" the WP:ASSIST are NOT RELEVANT to keeping the following conversation. It must be preserved for historical purposes. Removal of the comment bellow is considered a violation of wikipedia's rules on vandalism, "Talk page vandalism". Wikipedia has built a concensus which states:

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

It appears that more than one editor has taken the liberty to remove my comments and other users comments. I'm not going to start naming names, because you know who you are but if need be I can go get each time it has been removed. It has been more than 3 times. As per WP:HAR, it is said that:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Pressently, editor that keep removing my comments have created an unpleasant experience and many editors are trying to encourage me to stop editing. Truly we can corelate with this guideline of Harassment. With a specific exemple included such as "disruption intended to support a cause" it is easy to associate our current situation with the term "harassment."

The cause supported is WP:ASSIST and the method is by removing comments from people that clearly object or voice their opinion against the association. Such an exemple includes the RM discussion which was most recently removed by user:Dev920.[3] By removing this information, we are essentially forced back at "square one." similarly, when user:Kim Bruning kept removing that conversation/survey we where un-able to proceed towards a fair discussion regarding the subject.

Again, as per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempts at a conversation to build WP:CON. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference on the talk page. This is why I will keep placing the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[4] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism. This conversation, should at least remain archived. (It should have also probably followed a fair time. Unfortunatelly that was not the case.) Again, in short, removing the archive bellow creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this was cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance by CyclePat. --Iamunknown 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the details of this dispute, but I can readily gather that CyclePat is being grossly disruptive and incivil, with the claims of vandalism and propaganda being inappropriate, and the Hitler reference being truly over-the-top. If I see much more of this sort of thing I may block this editor indefinitely (meaning not necessarily forever, but until there is evidence of a change of attitude) as being unsuitable for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with NYBrad, to the letter. We can't have this sort of behaviour, ever. Even if no admin blocks him for his disruption, if this continues I will request that CyclePat be banned from WP:ASSIST and all related pages at the community sanctions noticeboard. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Newyorkbrad here. The Godwin's ref is particularly inflammatory. I suggested on CyclePat's talkpage that he disengage here for the time being to let the situation cool down. Apparently he has no intention of doing that. I've been watching the WP:ASSIST/WP:AMA drama for a few days now and it is time for the two projects to separate for a while. A conversation about overlap does need to happen at some point, but the environment that exist right now isn't going to be conducive to anything meaningful happening. All parties seem to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and it would be a shame to see this continue to escalate to the point where someone else needs to step in. I'd suggest everyone take some time to cool off. If specific editors need to be blocked, or page banned to make that happen, I'd say that might be the right thing to do.--Isotope23 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an indef (not forever) block. Apparently my 3 hour "cool down" block didn't take. John Reaves (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough. I'm writing up a request that CyclePat be banned from WP:ASSIST. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!}

Please discuss this community ban at WP:CN. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given in the midst of all this, CyclePat has a delivered another vandalism warning to Moreschi, I move that he be indef blocked immediately. NOTHING is getting through to this guy. His talkpage is ringing off the hook with people telling him to stop and he is still complaining about "vandalism" on his community ban proposal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but in the heat of the moment people do stupid things. Maybe I'm a romantic milksoppy idiot, but I think we should give this limited ban a chance to work. I'm willing to let that "warning" slide. Clemency is a virtue. We can get this guy back on the straight and narrow. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, he sent the warning before he started participating in the WP:CN discussion and before he stated he would leave WP:ASSIST alone. Let's see how that works out first.--Isotope23 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I rather think we need more than just his word to be sure he will really stay away, for good, from ASSIST - which in fact he has not promised. Which is why there is currently consensus for this community sanction. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you choose. I am simply getting very angry that someone is actually trying to help him out of the hot water he's in and he responds by warning them against "vandalism". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one :) Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have but one thing to add to this conversation, and that only because I'm always looking for places to pimp this: avoid the word "vandalism" ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on my talk page, I've been having some problems with trolls from another site that I am affiliated with spamming it with rude comments and warnings for things I did not do. Since the Wiki guidelines state it is NOT prohibited to delete content on your own talk page, I did so, only to have people to keep reversing my deletions. Finally, I got fed up and put a message asking people to stop doing that. This seemed to work up until recently. An admin by the name of Hu12 kept reversing my deletions, giving me warnings about deleting talk page comments and warnings. I informed him about the fake warnings and also provided him with the quote from the guidelines that says my actions are allowed. Another individual also backed me up on this. He left another warning, not even responding to this message. I repeated it, and again he warned me. I asked him to stop, because it was becoming harassment, and he blocked me. I appealed the block, stating that I had done nothing that was against the guidelines. This block was turned down by an admin named auburnpilot, because of all the warnings I had got and because I had been blocked before. Not only is this unfair, since these things had nothing to do with my blockage, but she was also wrong. According to her, I was blocked three times, while, in reality, I was only blocked two. The first time was actually by her, and she did not even bother to post the three warnings until either after or at the same time she blocked me. The second time was after a mistaken warning that was revoked by the person who issued it BEFORE the block and the block was later removed. And most of the warnings were either the fake ones from the trolls or the equally-uncalled for ones from Hu12. Now, to top it off, my page has been locked from editing. I have been treated extremely unfairly by these two admins. The guidelines state specifically that a user can delete their own talk pages. I would like my talk page to be unlocked and for these two admins to be at least talked to for their rude treatment of me.67.163.193.239 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected your talk page since you are unblocked. I don't really understand why the users were so intent on reverting your talk page, there isn't any policy that forbids it. I also don't see why you were so uncivil and persisted on reverting. Seems like it would have been easier to just let it die down and deal with it later. John Reaves (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, my only reasoning was not your previous warnings but your continued behavior. I've blocked this user previously and the same behavior from previous blocks is ongoing. As I said in the decline message, I would have made the block for a longer duration. Oh, and I'm male. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of this individual has been disruptive and ongoing. Today after block expired, has recieved yet another warning [5] for vandalism. Deletion of of good-faith warnings on his talk page to hide the continued abuse seems to be the reason for the deletions. This user also has a history of Modifying other users' comments ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] ) in order to substantially change their meaning, and a history of making personalthreats to editors. The previous warnings have been archived appropriatly here User_talk:67.163.193.239/Archive_1. If the archive is deleted a permanant history of the shear magnitude of abuse is avaliable here I regret not blocking for a longer period due to the continuous disruption.--Hu12 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last I heard, deletion of warnings (be they good-faith or otherwise) from one's own talk page is not against the rules, and does not merit further warnings, blocking the user, or protecting the talk page. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Warning users for blanking templates does nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is to frustrate and confuse the user. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I am trying to make. I have done nothing to deserve this kind of harassment. And that so-called "vandalism warning" was not a warning. A person was informing me that he reverted an edit I made. I have already contacted him about this, since what he reverted was part of an important discussion and am waiting a reply. And as I stated, most of the warnings recieved in the past were ones for things I did not do, given by a troll with a grudge who is NOT a staff member. You need to do your research before you start attacking and blocking someone.67.163.193.239 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this IP considers any warning left by an non-admin (what she calls "staff members") "invalid". Additionally, many of the warnings were appropriate, given concerns over WP:3RR and WP:POINT violations (some ANI history here). Not a dog 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the concept that a user "owns" their talk page also apply to IP pages? I was under the impression that because those talk pages are typically shared by multiple (and often unrelated) users, no one person controls them, so it would be permissible for another editor to restore blanked warnings. In other words, the guidelines at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space do not fully apply. Am I mistaken? If anyone could direct me to previous discussions concerning IP talk pages it would be greatly appreciated. -- Satori Son 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the warnings on my page were left by YOU, Not a Dog, who has been spamming my talk page and following me all over Wikipedia for quite a while now. I've asked you to stop multiple times, but you refused. You were not a staff member, yet you threatened to block me. Also, those warnings were discussed on my talk page and found to be invalid. And yes, I do think the warnings given bu Hu12 were unfair, given that it is not against the rules to delete my own talk page. If you all would stop messing with my talk page after being repeatedly asked not to, I would not have to keep reverting it. And I am the only one in my house who has a computer, so I am the only one with this IP.67.163.193.239 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER should not apply. The net range 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255 is owned Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. This is an anon IP, not a user page. This IP talk pages is the target of obvious vandalism and edit warring. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.--Hu12 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing going on is harassment. I clearly asked you and many others to stop messing with my talk page, but you will not. The warnings you left were uncalled for, as were Hu12's. And now some other admins are reverting my deletions. Will someone please do something? And again, will someone unprotect my page so it can be edited?67.163.193.239 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP talk page is not yours. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia without having a risk of another person vandalizing through the IP address, then I suggest you to create an account. Real96 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page is mine. That is my IP. Why create an account too and let that page also be attacked? I intend to contact wikipedia personally about this harassment, since it is shameful coming from staff. I am sick of the way you guys are treating me. The guidelines say it is my right, so stop going against them and leave me alone!!67.163.193.239 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) This discussion isn't going to resolve is it? I'll make a few points clear:

1) All of us here are volunteers contributing to Wikipedia, so please stop calling us staff.

2) The talk page does not belong too you, but to the community. You do not own it.

3) The ip address in question is either shared, or you've been vandalizing a lot, which justifies the warnings on the talk. If you have a shared ip, I ask you to create an account, to avoid the confusion. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon users are guests to their talk page, it may not belong to them in 5 minutes or a day. Anons should not be blanking their talk pages. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it all to User talk:67.163.193.239/Archive 1 and get over it. John Reaves (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my IP and I do not plan to be moving anytime soon. And if it did belong to multiple people, that would be all the more reason for the spam and wrong warnings to be deleted. Archiving it won't help, since I want that stuff deleted from my talk page. Why should my repuation have to be trashed everytime someone looks at my talk page, especially given all those unfair warnings. I've had quite a few admins block me or insult me because of stuff on that talk page, including the unfair warnings. And while these individuals have all been reported, I'm sick of having to deal with the harassment, especiaily from people who are supposed to be preventing this kind of thing.67.163.193.239 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation have to be trashed? That's a bit harsh. And anyway, if multiple people are using your ip, there's more the reason to keep the warning as a reminder to them. More of a reason to create your own account so you can't be mistaken for someone else. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67, I suggest you get a username, because we have know way of actually knowing that you are going to be on this IP tomorrow. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've been watching this cautiously for a while, and I now feel the need to explain a few things to User:67.163.193.239 that I feel haven't been addressed. People need to be more patient with new users. By the way, User:67.163.193.239, I'm going to refer to you as 'The User' from now on to save my sanity, kay?

First of all, Wikipedia doesn't really have "staff." Administrators are NOT moderators or staff members in any sense of the word. Administrators are users who have been given the ability, by the community, to do certain things that we don't feel safe letting everyone do.

Any Wikipedia member is allowed to warn a user. Administrators are the only users who are ABLE to block, but that does not mean that a regular user can't handle your case up until that point.

Nobody is asking you to change your IP address. We're simply asking you to register an account. If you've got an account, you've got a lot more control over what can happen on your userpage. REGISTERED users have a fair amount of control over their pages, under the policies and guidelines you've been talking about. UNREGISTERED users (i.e. IP addresses) do not have this kind of control, because technically speaking, your IP could be yours today, and tomorrow, it could belong to someone on the other side of your town. I also don't understand why you're so opposed to creating an account. Making an account and logging in would basically give you a clean slate: a clean userpage, a clean record. --Moralis (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To create an account, click this link. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to create an account and have the same thing happen all over again. Even if a regular use can warn, they should not be able to do so falsely nor should they be able to threaten to block you. I've been getting blocked for warnings that were either false or uncalled for. The administrators responsible never even bothered to look into the warnings or simply did not care, otherwise, I never would have gotten blocked in the first place. The issue here is my talk page. I am the only one with this IP. The guidelines do not specify that you have to be registered to delete content on your talk page, so it should not be a problem. This is exactly the reason why I never bothered to edit on Wikipedia before-it is just not worth the harassment the comes with it. For these past few weeks, both admins and regular users have been extremely discourteous towards me. I've recieved lawsuit threats for no reason, been personally attacked, and have certain users who literally stalk me all over Wikipedia, as evidence by the actions of Not a Dog and Pablo. But no one does anything about this.67.163.193.239 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you aren't understanding: if you make an account, this will not happen all over again. None of us will even know that it's still you. But okay, I'll play.

If these users are really following you to Wikipedia from another site, and harassing you, leaving illegitimate warnings, et cetera... how do they have your IP address? And if they have your IP address, wouldn't it be logical to create an account, so that they could no longer see your IP address and therefore no longer harass you? --Moralis (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: just to clarify. We understand that you are the only person who has this IP -now-. However, one of two things is going on: either you have had this IP for a while, and have a bad track record, OR someone else has had this IP before you, and you have inherited their bad track record. --Moralis (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.163: If you're worried about "this happening all over again" if you create an account, that is unlikely to happen. The privacy policy here is very strong, and only a very very few editors have the ability to lookup username's IPs, and only under the strictest of conditions. If you would just create an account, this would all go away. (btw, since this IP's talk page is protected, I'm not sure how else to communicate with her about such issues) Not a dog 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user is continuing to blank the page, post John's archiving of old user warnings. I am not an admin, but I agree with auburnpilot. This user has been given many chances to reform, but has not. I support a 1 week block for disruption. (And, semi-page protection during that block). Real96 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is lame, I agree. However, the editor has been making

WP:3RR violations, personal attacks, etc. Hu12 made the block 24h. Real96 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point its just blatent vandalism, blocked for a week.--Hu12 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like he's back. SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once again, vandalizing other users' comments, and using the new account for Voting and other shows of support in a external link dispute on Talk:Rule of Rose, in which its apparent the individual has a conflic of interest with the site. Oh, of course... blanking the talk page to prove a WP:POINT, and removing legitimate warnings.--Hu12 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume good faith with the comment edit - I'm guessing she wanted to use the [[WP:EL]] link in her own comment, and cut & pasted it from my comment, rather than copy & pasted. Not a dog 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So shouldn't a sock of a blocked user be blocked in turn, and perhaps the length of the original block extended. Or is that not possible because the original block was an IP? Note, it will be hard for me to assume good faith with the person in question on any of their actions. IvoShandor 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of us urged 67.163 to create an account in order to avoid some of the problems she was experiencing, so SirShiek might be the result of that suggestion. If, however, it was created in order to evade the subsequent block of teh IP, then we have a different issue. Perhaps a CheckUser would need to be performed to confirm that. Not a dog 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of an odd situation, and while I support the extension to a one week block of the IP, I do not support a checkuser or block on the registered account. The only reason the account was created was due to our requests and to block as a sock would be a bit ridiculous/hypocritical. You can't give somebody a cookie, then slap them for eating it. - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Let SirShiek (talk · contribs) sink or swim on its own merits. Not a dog 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Doesn't confer a license to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists even when it's true, per WP:SOCK. see [18][19][20][21][22][23]. --Hu12 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its become considerably apparent the conduct of SirShiek (talk · contribs) is sliding down the same slippery slope as the IP. At this point blocking based on th creation of the account would go against the consensus here, as the individual was asked to create an account. However, how this account is being used is quite another thing. Asside from Obviously trolling the project, one such Forbidden use of an account is, as mentioned above, creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. We still need to take in to consideration the history of the individual, which includes disruptive editing to the project as evidenced in the the contribs. This individuals conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. There must be some sort of community sanction against this type of behavior that can be taken?--Hu12 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I think Hu12 is thinking community ban for this user? Real96 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The requests for the IP to create account were before this block, but this user is highly disruptive, as the whole discussion at Rule of the Rose has been. IvoShandor 07:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there were requests here but every request before this block was roundly ignored. IvoShandor 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - they were ignored and actively resisted, if I recall. So far, however, SirShiek (talk · contribs) has not exhibited disruptive behavior (albeit perhaps annoying). Not a dog 13:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Nadine Gordimer (diff). user has been warned and blocked a couple of times before for incivility and personal attacks. Doldrums 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a new series of diatribes ([24][25], etc., I blocked this account for 1 month. This is the 4th block of the account for personal attacks or incivility. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative review

Yakuman has questioned my one-month block of 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have offered to immediately remove the block if the user communicates his intent to avoid stop making uncivil remarks and personal attacks. I invite review of this block. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:COIN:70.23.199.239, a recent, extended discussion of this user. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block appears reasonable. Guettarda 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a long content dispute between both editors, stretching over several months. They frequent racially controversial articles; IP claims there's an ideological dispute, which boiled over into a number of policy violations by a group of people, including the admin. IP specifically alleges WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and especially WP:STALK against Will Beback, whom he says is looking for a chance to implement a permanent ban. (For specifics, ask him; I've only been following this a few weeks.)

Will Beback claims that "the block needs to be long enough to change the behavior." To IP, this is another attempt at intimidation, to which he answers per WP:IAR. Ergo the so-called diatribe must be read in context. In my view: I don't think the punishment fits the crime -- and a month-long ban is overkill. Will Beback was not the admin to handle this, as he inserted himself into a content dispute. Also, I suggested he cut it back and he refused. IMHO, this is a case of WP:BITE that got way, way out of hand. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuman, I've never been in any content dispute with this editor. My only dispute with him was over his insertion of dozens of link to his blogs and other self-promotion. -Will Beback · † · 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this before. You were tagging on-topic print magazine article cites as "blogs" until I showed up. (That's what made me interested in this mess.) When 70 spoke up, you apparently blew him off. Meanwhile, there remains some IP wikistalker (not you), who follows him around, reverting every edit. He showed up today and attacked him. Again, I don't see you doing anything, even though 70 has mentioned it several times. No wonder he's mad. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not content disputes. Whether blogs or print articles all the items I removed were links to online articles written by the editor. It was a simple case of WP:COI which was discussed at length on that noticeboard. Editors there agreed that the more immediate problem was 70.23.199.239's incivility and personal attacks. It would have probably ended there but 70.23.199.239 made this fresh set of extremely uncivil postings across a number of pages. The more correct length of a block should be "long enough to change the behavior or prevent further disruption'". I've offered to shorten the block if the user will commit to abiding by Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While hashing this out goes beyond the scope here, I'll just point out one thing: Look through his posts and look past the rhetorical hyperbole. He mentions some specific disputed items and sources that are not COI, even by your standard. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though all of the edits I dealt with were self-promotional I'll grant you that he also made some that didn't include links to his own material. However what brought him here today were his personal attacks. User:Durova did nothing to deserve the despicable description posted by this editor. These attacks are inappropirate for Wikipedia. The user has been warned about incivility by many editors and has been blocked by four different admins, including myself. The community is losing patience with this user who doesn't seem to show any intention of changing his behavior. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that diff and laughed out loud. I suppose it was intended as an insult but it hits the spot as absurdist humor. Thank you for the defense, Will. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a serious grievance, humourously stated. Also, I can't believe that the community consists of several people, plus sockpuppets, who follow this guy from page to page. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote on the debate at WP:COIN:70.23.199.239: If 70.23 would calm down a little so we could actually talk to him, the editors at the COI noticeboard would have wanted to discuss his repeated addition of links to his own web-published articles. Will Beback supplied 39 examples. Often this editor would reinsert these links after they had been legitimately removed by other editors, sometimes with a scornful edit summary, announcing that he was repairing vandalism! He considers the removal of these links and the ensuing blocks to be part of a conspiracy against him, perhaps triggered off by an editing dispute at the Nadine Gordimer article. He seems unaware that those following up on this are trying to enforce policy and may not even have read the disputed article. EdJohnston 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to enter this debate when on-topic print magazine articles were deleted as "blogs." Many of his edits were perfectly good cites and I vouched for then. Even when 70 posted other cites unrelated to Nicholas Stix, who is not verified as this IP, the same group was reverting them. That's not just enforcing policy.

As far as calming down and such, that's probably covered under NPA, I guess. You shouldn't be blocked for it, but neither should 70. He sees himself backed into a corner, with some justification. Let's lift that block. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through 70.23.*'s comments on his own talk page and the Nadine Gordimer talk page, extensively, and in general I have not seen other people (including myself) engaging in personal attacks or uncivil behavior. I'm sure there are occasional comments that someone could point to from other folks that could be construed as uncivil, but as generously as possible, at least 90% of the personal attacks and uncivil behavior in any engagement that I've seen 70.23.* involved in have come from 70.23.*. Moreover, 70.23.* claims he is being wikistalked, but from my read, the only thing that comes close is the ongoing edit war between 130.* and 70.23.*, which is mutual on both sides and spans multiple pages. I haven't seen "some justification" or any justification for 70.23.*'s behavior, and it makes the editing experience extremely unpleasant for people that 70.23.* disagrees with. People can assess for themselves: I've been assembling relevant links at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history preparatory for future engagements with 70.23.* and mediation on the NG page.--lquilter 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this since it was posted on the COI noticeboard in mid-March. The richly deserved one month block (after previous and equally deserved 31 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour blocks) is not an indefinite block. — Athænara ✉ 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to categorise this, but it seems to be a disruptive edit pattern that amounts to vandalism. Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is voting "Strong Keep" to every single article in WP:AFD - see history - for silly reasons such as "because I would like to learn more about this", "because I recall seeing Cracked frequently in stores growing up", "because cool idea for an article", "to keep things interesting!", "because Robot Chicken is an active show and always ends with that Stupid Monkey thing!" etc. Tearlach 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I would call this disruptive. It appears the editor is opining in good faith. Granted, if I were closing these I don't see most of his arguments having much merit to support the opinions he's rendering, but I also don't see evidence he's doing anything other than puting his two cents in. I'll hit his talkpage and suggest he review some policies, etc and try and frame his reasonings along those lines.--Isotope23 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, there are limits on what goes into Wikipedia (e.g. WP:ISNOT, failure to provide WP:RS) and also ones on what constitutes acceptable evidence for inclusion (such as WP:NOR). If this user's edits are not based within the framework of such policies and guidelines, it's disruptive to the purpose of creating Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to believe in the good faith of the more facetious reasons. Tearlach 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's trying to illustrate a point that he thinks "hard work shouldn't be deleted." He's made about 45 "Strong Keep" !votes in about an hour; there's no way to read an article and all of the arguments for or against it at that rate. I do think it's disruptive. Leebo ^T/C 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; realistically no closer is going to be swayed to keep based on the reasoning there. Another admin may see it differently though.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that there are much more heinous examples than this of "disruptive editing" that we should be focusing our attention on. People are allowed to make meritless arguments. - Crockspot 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've marked all of the AFD discussion contributions by that editor. Several of them were clearly made just for the sake of saying "strong keep" rather than out of any regard for writing an encyclopaedia, such as opining to keep clear hoaxes or unsourced rumours, and some other edits such as this indicate that disruption is the intent here. But this is something that we've dealt with at AFD before. The usual approach is to simply note the editor's actions so that the closing administrator can give xyr rationales an appropriate weight. Closing administrators are not vote-counting robots, and can be relied upon to treat such discussion contributions appropriately, once the pattern is pointed out. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! I thought my reasons were good, but I guess we all have different opinions, and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia and how it's users think every day. Anyway, I just wanted to help out others who spend time making articles that might be able to be improved rather than having their work wasted. Have an excellent evening! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like disruption to me...and anyway, his username is an obvious violation of WP:U. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe he's referring to the fact that it's generally discouraged to use "Wikipedia" in one's username. However, I do see some sort of disruption here. I will leave W,H,F? a message on his talk page summarizing these concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a problem with his username. After extensive discussion, WP:U no longer says not to use "Wikipedia" as a part of your username. The initial concern was that names that used Wikimedia-related terms violated the Foundation's copyright. In any sense, I doubt the rule was intended to ban names that refer to one's participation in/feelings about Wikipedia. If you feel his username is inappropriate, feel free to list him at WP:RFC/NAME. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Having been thoughtfully invited here from the Stoopid Monkey AfD by Uncle G, allow me to comment: I believe this user is acting in good faith in order to keep articles that he feels are valuable. A single instance of 45 similar edits in an hour is hardly indicitative of disruption unless it were clear vandalism; stating an opinion, even what might be a misguided one, in a discussion page doesn't even approach vandalism. And I'm sure if I looked in the AfD archives I could find plenty of examples of editors who have gone around to at least as many AfD pages, in at least as short an amount of time, inserting opinions of "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, fancruft", and they are not similarly chastised. If the arguments are meritless, the closing admin will see that and take it into consideration. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that following a user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions in an attempt to discount them based on the user's edit history (rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof of the individual arguments) is disruptive, being possibly an example of both stalking and biting a newbie, and perhaps even a personal attack. DHowell 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the speed alone, nor is it the opinion. It's the speed combined with the facts that the opinion is the same everywhere, even in the cases of clear hoaxes, and the several edits that pretty much state outright that disruption is the intent. This is nothing new at AFD. It's not as if this is the first person ever to have gone on such a spree. The way that we deal with it, and have dealt with it for several years, now, as described in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, is to simply place a note against the discussion contributions for the benefit of the closing administrators. The only assumption of bad faith here is yours, in assuming that noting the pattern is a personal attack (which it of course isn't) and assuming that tracking a pattern of disruption is stalking (which that isn't, either, per the very page that you linked to above). Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I wish this user would spend more time analyzing these articles and providing clearer rationales for retention, I see nothing disruptive in his actions. The rationales provided are far more informative than many of the usual "Delete - nn" variety, often rattled off at rates far, far higher than the 45 per hour evidenced by the accused. If lack of rationale and time between votes are going to be treated seriously as an issue, and appropriate standards are established to eliminate the problem, there will be far many more delete voters eliminated than speedy keepers. Alansohn 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't the issue, and you should not be turning this into a proxy for a debate about inclusionism and deletionism, which it actually has nothing at all to do with. See the diffs hyperlinked to above and the contributions history, for what the issue actually is. (That you haven't got the opinion given in this case correct strongly indicates that you haven't reviewed the diffs provided or the contributions history. Please look at the actual edits in this case.) Moreover: Discussion contributions such as "NN, D" are also things that should be noted, with editors politely encouraged to provide good rationales in their stead, as a matter of fact; and there was once a case of an editor going on a similar spree to this one with that very rationale. Please read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD and Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what this individual's motivations are. What I do see in having reviewed every single diff before weighing in with my opinion, is that the overwhelming majority of this individual's votes clearly address the articles in question and give specific reasons for retention, even if they do not use thw Wikibuzzwords and cryptic references to policy we'd all prefer to see. While I would also appreciate greater insight into Wikipedia policy, I see that this person is doing a far better job of justifying his votes than the overwhelming majority of AfD participants, pro or con. You have simply not established that this editor is being disruptive. Alansohn 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, he can go do that all he likes, and if he's not making a clear, policy- and source-based argument, whoever closes the AfD can and should ignore it. If he really wants the articles kept, he would certainly do himself a service to make such arguments, but if he wants to spam WP:ILIKEIT across every AfD we got it won't make a bit of difference anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I smell a sock. Will follow up with details soon. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is one of the site's long term vandals (and an excellent example of why it was a baaad idea to deactivate WP:RFI). The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? account is a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles whom I blocked for six weeks on November 8, 2006 for attempted vote fixing at WP:AFD and gross violations of WP:POINT.[26] And of course, the new account started its life while that lengthy block was in place.[27] This editor knew he couldn't get away with massive AFD disruption on the old account anymore (I had warned him he was close to an indef) so he returned with his usual florid courtesy on that account and kept the other one to play around as the new persona who supported absolutely every wretched article regardless of site policies. The prose style is inimitable and piqued my curiosity immediately. Two representative examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations (6 November 2006): Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,[28]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimelo! Records (10 April 2007): *Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers.[29]

I soon confirmed that, among other things, both accounts have edited Parma, Ohio and [30] and List of light gun games.[31] Slightly more complicated is obvious unregistered editing at 164.107.223.217, which resolves to Ohio State University.[32][33] I've indef blocked both registered accounts and put a 12 hour block on the IP - it's kind of hard to do longer if it could have a general effect on one of the largest universities in existence - but this person seems to know that unregistered users seldom carry weight at AFD.

Now for the rant: tracking this type of abuse is exactly the sort of thing that RFI excelled at when it had enough mops to operate. No other board has the focus and followup to replace its function and these problems do not go away; they go underground. These days my own user talk page gets about 60 new threads a week, a substantial percentage of which are personal appeals for assistance from people who know I do investigations, and I also get requests via e-mail. When the community deactivated WP:RFI it was shooting itself in the foot. WP:AN and WP:ANI do not and cannot replace it because they see too much other traffic. The ill effects of neglect in this area just aren't as obvious as an overstuffed WP:CSD backlog, but the consequences are more pernicious. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I agree. I knew I'd seen that before (I was involved in the discussion with Le Grand Roi and basically going through CAT:PROD and removing everything), and it would have been useful to have something like that. I've gotten some similar requests too, and it would be nice to have a central place to track them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work there Durova!--Isotope23 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with this, even if there is sockpuppetry involved. I don't think that any of this user's actions, either now, or then, amounted to "disruption" (which is an element of the "bad hand" sockpuppetry accusation). The November 2006 actions looked like a new user stating a similar opinion (probably misguided, maybe even totally wrong) on several AfD pages, several users biting him (but some giving him constructive criticism), and then he was temporarily blocked for "vote fixing" (I thought AfD wasn't a vote!) because apparently an IP address that was possibly his participated in an AfD that he was in. I also see a number of positive and constructive edits by this user. He is obviously an extreme inclusionist, and I can understand his frustration with the deletion process on Wikipedia, which in some cases does indeed go overboard on the side of deleting articles (it definitely goes overboard on the side of deleting images, but that's whole other discussion). Nevertheless this user was always extremely WP:CIVIL in his comments, and seemed willing to learn the process, though apparently it was taking longer than some people's patience would allow.

That being said, if this user wants to return he can appeal his block. He probably won't, however, and I believe that is Wikipedia's loss. DHowell 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summary at this thread by no means covers all of the deception and inappropriate behavior on the part of this editor, such as his extensive sockpuppet attempts to thwart last fall's investigation or the disruption he's caused to articles that weren't up for AFD. This is a vandal, pure and simple, and one who's been clever enough to dodge scrutiny for several months. If there's a serious movement to unblock him I can post a more comprehensive report. Complex investigations are my specialty. Durova^Charge! 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my first comment, I was more than ready to extend WP:AGF, but I trust Durova's judgement here. There are socks and disruptive editors that I could spot a mile away if they showed up again, just because I've dealt with them extensively in the past and I'm sure Durova can too.--Isotope23 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova's judgement here, but I have to mention that Wikipedian's edits on Parma, Ohio have been constructive, and I've been working with him/her on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough when an editor who's been helpful in one area turns out to have been up to unacceptable behavior elsewhere. That happens sometimes and this individual had carried on this way for months. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been lobbing personal attacks on multiple pages at multiple users. It's really getting out of hand.

• [34] labeling contributions of other users as "stupid"
• [35] calling people with whom he disagrees the "pseudoskeptical side"
• [36] referring to another user's "green cheese pseudoargument" (???)
• [37] calling another user "willfully stupid"

He has also been engaging in general incivility/belligerence/hostility toward other users:

• [38] telling a user "too bad" in response to his question.
• [39] sarcasm
• [40] hostile dismissal of a proffered source
• [41] dismissing an admin's advice by telling him to "dry [his] eyes"
• [42] referring to another user's (rather benign) comment as "racist bullshit"

And so on. This is getting to be an extreme nuisance, and as shown in one of the diffs (not to mention his 8+ blocks), he is unwilling to consider changing his social behavior. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for indef? I'd like to hear from others who have had contact with him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this RfC (particularly the talk page), where he has been involved. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite complaints, he continues such behavior. - LuckyLouie 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking Davkal to WP:RFAR. Some six months ago, I tried to deal with him, and to protect editors and talkpages from his personal attacks and poisoning of the atmosphere. I blocked him for a week once, but I'm ashamed to say that I got out of the kitchen pretty soon. It was so unpleasant to interact with Davkal that I just took his pages off my watchlist. What put the lid on it for me was his unseemly triumph at having successfully driven his opponent Askolnick off the wiki. I didn't feel very supported by the community at that time, but I've noticed on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Recent edits from Davkal and Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Arbitration is the next step that he now seems to have exhausted a lot of people's patience. His one great editing interest is the paranormal, a contentious subject which arouses high feelings on both sides, and for this reason I don't recommend proposing a community ban. It's just too hard to keep conduct questions and content questions separate. People on both sides are apt to let their own opinions on the subject influence their views on conduct, and I think it may be literally impossible to be so rude as to lose all support. Therefore I think Davkal's "social behavior" would be best dealt with by ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Based on the escalation at the Martinphi RfC, it looks like that will probably move on to arbcom. If there's a case there, I think it's inevitable that Davkal would be listed as a party, and likely to receive arbcom sanctions for persistent NPOV violations, incivility/npa, tenditious editing, etc. Anyone with RfA/Arbcom case experience have any recommendations on at what point the RfC situation can be considered to have run its course and arbcom action requested? --Minderbinder 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user-conduct RfC is intended to gauge community feeling about a user's behavior, and, ideally, to help the user mend any areas that have been a problem. If the RfC has produced an adequate sampling of community views on the user's conduct, and there seems to be no forward progress occurring in identifying and changing problem behaviors, then you could present the situation to ArbCom as the next step. It would work best if the issues to be examined and ruled upon by ArbCom are as specific and narrowly defined as possible in the case formulation. In my opinion, the RfC you mention has run its course in terms of productive impact. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide a list of diffs. But it is easier if I just direct you to the current problem page: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Use the find command of your browser to look for "Humus" on the page, and check each occurrence until you find his replies to me or "Bless sins." Start with the section titled "Proposal to rename" and go down the page. It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user "Bless Sins." Here is a link to the last revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada&oldid=121777542 --Timeshifter 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the community to take a look at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada#Proposal to rename and below. Note how 2 problem users: Timeshifter and Bless sins are trying to impose their POV against the results of survey and against scholarly research. Using WP as a soapbox didn't help, so here we see another attempt to intimidate an opponent in content dispute. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point. I don't have a POV. And there was no survey or poll. Trying to follow wikipedia guidelines is not using WP as a soapbox. You have now amply proven my point about your method of personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. And I proposed using both article names in the title in the last section of the talk page before making the incident report here. "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)." So how does that fit into your POV-smearing attempts? --Timeshifter 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls, girls, calm down. Keep it polite. HalfShadow 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is trolling allowed on incident boards? Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section is it? Fail to see why this requires any admin attention. Obviously a dispute. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is both a naming dispute and this incident report here concerning an admin's personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be giving as good as you get there, and this is obviously a content/naming dispute. Please don't clutter the admin board with frivolous complaints. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and others commented on an incident reported here earlier involving you and ChrisO. So there is an obvious conflict of interest in you commenting on this incident report here involving me. Please let other admins do the commenting on this. I have not attacked the character of Humus sapiens. I have commented on the content of his remarks. Whereas Humus sapiens has attacked my character and the character of other editors on that talk page. --Timeshifter 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, pick your fights. Let someone else handle this one, OK? Over-reach is a terrible thing. Hornplease 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the links in Dime go to some random website. Like Fasces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.157.2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated....hagermanbot not working? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the FA article? Which links? - Denny ^(talk) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dime (United States coin) isn't "unrelated" to Fasces. On the dimes issued from 1916 to 1945, with Liberty's head on the obverse (the "heads" side), look at the reverse ("the "tails" side) and you will see the symbolic fasces. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked User:Hotshots2006 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a vandalism spree (blanking user pages, name calling, etc.) He's uploaded a bunch of images ([43]) and tagged them all as "public domain"; I strongly suspect they're copyvios. What does anyone think? Blowtorch them all right away? They're currently listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10 thanks to the diligence of a couple other editors. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotshots2006 hardly sounds like a scrupulous editor; I'd delete the whole lot. -- Hoary 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned as Lucycl0ver (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), which I just blocked (without checkuser, I'm going on the usually reliable duck test for this one). Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, and here I thought I could get in on the ground floor of this exciting opportunity...--Isotope23 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone delete these images as db-vandalism? I'm fairly sure it applies; there's no need to allow our servers to get clogged up with almost certainly non-free pornographic images uploaded by a troll in order to disrupt. WP:SNOW, guys. 64.178.96.168 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got rid of them. I left some images he uploaded last year of places in Goa; those photos didn't look particularly suspicious. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about 99% sure this is just a joke, but for completeness, and because it's funny, I figured I'd add it here. This quote below came to us on the Unblock-en mailing list.

Dear sirs, I am a deposed prince from the West African nation of Niger. I use my wikipedia account to help me find foreigners who may help me get my numerous and millions of funds out of country before the government controlled mob in my country can get me. My wikipedia account was unblocked as spamful. If any of you may unblock and help me, I will transfer 200 thousand of american dollars to your bank account, after the completion of a small, 200 dollar account transfer from you to me to prove the account exists. I thank you rapidly for your attention in this manner, Mr. Wikipedia. -Mgumbe

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it here in case it pops up somewhere on site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on BJAODN; I know that that page is pretty bad, but this is one of those times where a significant amount of people will probably actually find it funny. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, that BJAODN is really getting a lot of crap piled on it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that good stuff like this gets lost in the shuffle too.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward the email to the government-controlled mob. Or should it be the mob-controlled goverment? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mr. Wikipedia the winner of a male beauty contest? x42bn6 Talk 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the creator of the message emailed me privately, and told me it was a test to see if there are spam filters on Unblock-en-l, and that there is no on-wiki scam. It's a good joke though.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know a guy from FreeRepublic who would be happy to reply to this deposed prince, and lead him on the wild goose chase of his life. - Crockspot 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't happen to be down with the 419eater crew would he?--Isotope23 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick! Make me an admin! I need the money. --Otheus 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.51.8.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming user talk pages to get input on a deletion discussion. --NE2 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Iamunknown, for reverting. --NE2 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I added an addendum to your note that RfD is consensual, so asking for opinions from editors of a known background is discouraged. (Well, I kinda said it like that.) --Iamunknown 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of what forms of canvassing are acceptable, see also [[44]] which was a newsletter created and sent out on March 10, 2007 to a long list of about 190 editors including NE2 just as soon as two such articles were put up for deletion, including the dire warning:

Notability of state highways is challenged

By Rschen7754 & Vishwin60 Three AFD nominations this week have become crucial towards the welfare of the over 5400+ U.S. road articles. With the accidental destruction of a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents regarding the notability of state highways, some have decided to challenge the existence of the 5400+ U.S. road articles.

The debates began when County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Minnesota State Highway 127 were nominated for deletion. The precedent of the notability of highway articles was mentioned, but some refused it, challenging the justice of this precedent. Furthermore, some questioned the legitimacy of having all of the state highway articles on Wikipedia.

After Pennsylvania Route 999 was mentioned in a debate, a user nominated it for deletion, possibly to serve as a WP:POINT. At this stage, the same user stated an intention to delete all 5400+ road articles. When California State Route 37 was mentioned, it was nominated for deletion by this same user, ignoring the fact that the article is a good article. This last nomination was quickly closed as a speedy keep.

Currently, the AFDs are showing a consensus to keep. However, dangerous precedents could be set here that could result in drastic catastrophe for the U.S. Roads articles. Your voice is needed to ensure that our highway articles are not deleted and can be maintained for the benefit of all.

Sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)

NE2 is a member of the USRD project and received said newsletter on March 10, 2007, without objecting to the vote canvassing. If people can canvass 190 editors to keep 2 articles they like, then how is it permissible to go to 12 editors talk pages and delete similar vote canvassing or "friendly notice" to those editors known to have an interest in a given type of AFD by someone else with a different view? Edison 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel to revert blatant canvassing on sight whenever you like. --Iamunknown 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include, in your estimation, a newsletter sent to a couple of hundred members of a project urging them to go to an AFD and KEEP a favored article? Seems extreme to delete the content of other people's talk pages as you did to mine and 11 others. Wouldn't it be better to simply avoid such canvassing? Edison 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felt a need to remove this (my) comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[45]. On my talkpage she posted:

"WP:BLP: This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[46][reply]

Not sure why she feels I am not allowed to insult historical figures. KazakhPol 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were out of order because you violated NPOV and created defamation to an article. Note that Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal views of a specific person. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I violated NPOV on the talkpage? I created "defamation"? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's prohibition on making legal threats? Can someone else comment here? KazakhPol 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any legal threat. --Ezeu 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, has anyone made a legal threat? No one has said anyone's going to sue anyone. – Chacor 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any legal threat either. --Aminz 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see this is pointless. The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment. KazakhPol 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to make a legal threat based upon my comment? When I said defamation, it was based upon the basic term not about suing you for anything, in case I misunderstood you. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to block KazakhPol for disruption. When an admin tells you not to violate BLP, just don't do it. El_C 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into merits of this case, I'd just like to point at "when an admin tells you" and laugh loudly. Admins are not police, and trying to give the impression that we are just makes us look ridiculous. Zocky | picture popups 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was interesting. El_C 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, KazakhPol and SV have a kind of history here. Although, it is quite apparent that SV did the right thing by removing the defamatory statement as it might have been taken as inflammatory by other users. Technically, a deceased person cannot be defamed by the means of libel or slander. There is no basis for an immediate block here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, the libel is not against the boy, but against his mother, who is alive and is named in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin removes your edit, telling you you violated BLP, it's best not to restore that edit. Don't you think, Zocky? Or are you suddenly at a loss for words? El_C 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, it doesn't matter if the user who tells you not to violate BLP is an admin or not. Users are expected to follow policy, not to obey admins. Zocky | picture popups 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is sanctioned to enforce policy, what are you talking about? Obviously. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys. Don't want this discussion to be too heated... That comment was asking for trouble EL_C... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What comment would that be? That I am inclined to block for disruption? Because I am. El_C 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "loss for words" part you said to Zocky. If you didn't mean it, disregard it. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to have been the lolz case. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... (Another reason why I will never be a lawyer)... The legal threat is what worries me... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential BLP issue I see here in the boy's mother, is she still alive? The question of whether or not Al-Durrah himself is alive is very seriously covered in this article. (→Netscott) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person did say that "The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment." which either means that she's going to sue me or the other way around... Seeing my idiocy of the law, its very doubtful i'm going to sue... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't she be alive. It makes sense that she is. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Zocky on the 'point and laugh' response to the 'admins are always right' theory being advanced... and making a "BLP violation" out of a comment on the talk page of a presumably dead person takes a bit of a stretch... it would require we assume the kid isn't dead... in which case the comment about his death being faked would paradoxically be accurate. That said... there are other terms which could be used to describe mocking the mother of a slain child (switching back to the assumption he is dead), but I'm afraid all of them violate our civility policy.

Kzrulzuall, let me put it this way. You are deliberately inflaming an emotional and divisive issue. This is extremely disruptive and I would advise you to stop. Add relevant sources to the article. Discuss the merits of various wordings. Do not go about provocatively stating your opinion as fact - it invites argument from those who disagree and can only serve to disrupt and damage our efforts here. BLP violation? Maybe not. Blockable chicanery? You betcha. --CBD 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said admins are always right, but that it's best to be catious, and also theoretically noninfalamtory and unassumtpive, CBD. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realised I've been acting childlishly. I'll refrain from adding those comments. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone who is up in arms at the notion of "obeying an admin" looked at the comment that was removed? Good grief ... it obviously needed to be removed whether the people involved are alive, dead, or cryogenically frozen. --BigDT 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they probably needed to be removed. No, the reason wasn't that an admin said so. Everytime we use that as an argument, we fail to make the real argument that needs to be made. Zocky | picture popups 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored, is the point. Sysops actually have the ability to censur users over blp violations and this even supercedes editorial involvement), that is what was meant. Not everything is a wiki-cabal-etc. political proclamation. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all pages, main, talk, even here, does it not? - Denny ^(talk) 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. (from WP:BLP intro)

So of course the notion that it should be removed because an admin said so is patently absurd. It should be removed because it violates policy. IvoShandor 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I removed it. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I wasn't meaning to direct anything at you, just saying that in general. IvoShandor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick links: Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice as requested by WP:Probation. I am blocking Zeq for 48 hours for openly defying an article ban imposed in accordance with his Arbitration ruling. More details at that page (at the end). --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If he wishes to challenge an article ban, obviously editing the article is not effective as an appeal. And that log keeps growing... El_C 10:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge whatsoever of this dispute (that arbcom case is before I even joined Wikipedia), but arbcom found that you were edit warring in a dispute with Zeq (finding of fact #4). Is it appropriate for you to ban him from an article and block him for violating the same? Shouldn't an uninvolved admin make that determination? (And just to clarify, unless there is something pressing that I am missing, I don't endorse the block nor the ban and believe that you should remove both and allow an uninvolved administrator to deal with both issues.)--BigDT 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that I didn't notice. There's your challenge, then: find an uninvolved admin which has knowledge of the dispute. I, arguably, am one. El_C 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look at the article history [47]. It seems that Zero0000 is in a content dispute with Isarig and Zeq. No effort whatsoever has been made to discuss the issue on the talk page. My suggestion is that (1) the block and article ban both be lifted, but Zeq be cautioned to discuss changes on the talk page rather than revert war, (2) Zero0000 be cautioned not to block or ban people with whom he is in a dispute, and (3) if desired, the article can be protected to facilitate discussion on the talk page. Any thoughts? --BigDT 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq has been here long enough; the quality of edits such as this is too low. El_C 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been here long enough? Are we talking about an article ban+2 day block or are we talking about an indefinite ban from the project? I think we're talking about the former. At any rate, regardless of anything else, no admin can block/ban a user with whom they are in a content dispute. Administrative privileges cannot be used in that fashion. Unless someone wants to make the case that Zero0000 is not an involved admin, the article ban is invalid and thus, so is any block arising from it. Any uninvolved admin is free to ban Zeq from that article if they have a good faith reason to, however, I would suggest that an attempt to resolve the issue should come before such an action. --BigDT 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the former. But I felt we've already passed the point where the latter could be applied months ago. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Zero0000 here, "the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator." Which, I gather, includes Zero0000. Regards, Huldra 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that they intended for that to include someone actively involved in a dispute over the article. You can't ban someone you are currently in a dispute with from the article you are in a dispute over. That's just silly. --BigDT 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While endorsing the block, it really needs to be someone other then Zero. When someone involved in a content dispute lays down the block, its a MeatBall:PowerAnswer that just breeds resentment. El_C, why dont you lay the block on him? -M^ask? 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the block would be enforcing an invalid ban and is thus inappropriate. The user should be immediately unblocked with any administrator free to impose the article ban. HOWEVER, given that no attempt has actually been made to resolve the content dispute, I think an article ban is premature. --BigDT 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it an English course, and if Zeq's continues to introduce & edit war over edits which are consistently of too low a quality, then imposing the arbitration remedies will continue. Sure, hopefuly not by someone cited in the RfAr, so next time, Zero should drop myself a line. For my part, I have long suggested that perhaps he tries the simple Wikipedia for a while. It is unfair of him to expect others to so extensively reconstrct his edits, which he continues to revert. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on the general quality of Zeq's edits (sorry, I'm too lazy to study hundreds of contributions), but there is no policy basis for a block for low-quality editing. If the opposite were the case, most Wikipedians would suffer regular blocks for poor editing. Beit Or 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tendencious pattern of revert warring over low-quality additions, it should not be others' responsibility to reconstruct these. His exhuasting carelessness on that front has long reached the stage of disruptiveness. El_C 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) On what basis would you reblock? Zero's ban is invalid because Zero was in a revert war with Zeq at the time he issued the ban. To allow such a thing is silly. If the ban is invalid, then there is no cause for anyone to block based on that ban. --BigDT 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered that question above and am not inclined to repeat myself. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original ban at 1929 Hebron massacre should have been announced here, logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and posted on Talk:1929 Hebron massacre. While the arbitration case says He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing., good practice would require that the ban at least be reviewed here, or even better requested at WP:AE much like admins should request protection at RFPP when they have edited the article. I suggest that the correct course would be to unblock and then request an article ban at WP:AE. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reviewed. No point in unblocking if he'll just go back to inserting that poorly-written bit. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generally accepted principle that any administrative action, including a ban, must be made only by an uninvolved admin; thus, the original ban was absolutely inappropriate and the subsequent block only compounded the breach of WP:ADMIN. Furthermore, I believe the probation has expired by now. Usually users are placed on probation for one year; at least, this seems to have been the understanding of the original ArbCom ruling when Zeq was banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid: the ban was set to expire on March 5, 2006, one year after the arbitration decision.[48] If the original intent of the arbitrators regarding the length of Zeq's probation is unclear, let's make a request for clarification. Beit Or 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The probation has not expired, nor is there evidence that Zeq's editing practices improved. El_C 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, that in light of objections, neither this block nor the article ban (per AC clarification a few months ago) should not count toward the 5-block-one-year-ban but any additional blocks should count it. Simply, Wikipedia is not therapy. El_C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual procedure is that in such a situation a block must be overturned. A block by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. Beit Or 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can unblock and reblock for the sakes of procedure. El_C 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a block enforcing an existing arbitration ruling (article edit ban) has to be done by an "uninvolved admin". - Crockspot 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better, nonetheless. El_C 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block may or may not be valid; but I think it's extremely poor form for an admin involved in a content dispute to resort to his/her admin tools. The term "any" surely does not mean that the editor in question is an outlaw. --Leifern 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't enforcing an article ban imposed by the arbitration committee. If he were, this wouldn't be an issue. Rather, he was enforcing an article ban that HE HIMSELF imposed during a revert war over that very same article. I'm going to be bold here. I have a meeting coming up right now. It will be over in an hour or an hour and a half or so (so around 22:00-22:30). If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by then, I intend to unblock Zeq. The article ban was imposed by an admin in a content dispute and the block was made enforcing that improper article ban. If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by the time I get out of my meeting, I intend to undo the block as it is patently improper. I consider myself neutral and uninvolved. I have never edited articles in this topic area nor, that I can recall off hand, interacted with Zeq, Zero0000, nor El C. As such, I consider myself uninvolved in the dispute and have seen no justification for the article ban and ensuing block. If any uninvolved admin objects, I will, of course, defer to their judgment. --BigDT 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. El_C 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the block if you want but there should also be an independent review of the article ban, which should be reimposed if it is justified. Then if Zeq violates the article ban imposed by a neutral admin, he gets blocked again. I will do this myself after I get back from an errand. Thatcher131 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, disregard that; don't overturn it. I object. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in for a moment, does the fact that Zeq is alleging that Zero's motives are racially motivated (see this section ("most likley based on discrimination") of the talk page, as well as his revert of my comment on the matter) have any bearing here? Seems like a rather serious accusation to level at someone, esp an admin. Tarc 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To echo the section above, it is a serious accusation, regardless of the accused in an admin or not. But I'm not seeing it. Can you quote? El_C 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I will raise it with Zeq. El_C 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Thatcher131 ignored my objection and unblocked. It looks like a questionable unblock (certainly as much as the preceding block). El_C 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It dosen't look like he read Tarc's comment above, so I'll strike that bit out. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposted from my talk page) :I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree, but it is within your discetion. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tarc's comment, I did see it briefly, but comments are flying all over the place faster than I can keep up. I view the original block as improper as stated above. If, in responding to the block, Zeq made inappropriate comments or allegations that deserve a block for civility or something, then do so. As I said above, this may strike some as overly procedural, but I believe it is the best way to proceed. Thatcher131 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It dosen't look like there's been five blocks, so I would not be blocking for a year as noting on Zeq's talk page. I'll still give him one last chance to respond (so far it dosen't look promising). If there is a block, it will count toward the one year ban, however. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, with all due respect, I don't believe that you should be the one to impose a block of Zeq other than for obvious situations. From your comments on his talk page, you seem to have significant history there. I just got out of my meeting. Had Thatcher131 not already unblocked him, I would have. Please understand that it is important to stay well away from the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you or Zero have an issue with something Zeq does, the best response is to bring the issue here and allow it to be reviewed by a completely uninvolved admin. I am well aware that purely taking an administrative action doesn't make you involved, but even if you in good faith consider yourself uninvolved, it doesn't look that way from the outside. --BigDT 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the AC about this last time and they deemed me uninvolved, administrative history notwithstanding. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an accusation of discrimination —unless retracted— goes beyond mere civility. El_C 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say what if the accusations are true? IF somebody makes an accusation that is then substantiated but was originally had up for making the accusation isn't that allowing the problem through blind cover?--Lucy-marie 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq was invited to substantiate the accusation. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion to offer on the rightness or wrongness of Zeq's edits, but I'm disappointed that the conversation seems to have veered away from an administrator blocking an editor he was in a revert war with (in order, perhaps, to cut down on the number of editors on the page he had to revert). This is precisely what admins are not supposed to do with their powers. Was the block of Zeq justified? Let's say, for argument's sake, it was. It's a simple matter to come to this board and ask if any admins out there agree. If the case is so obvious, the block would be in place within minutes. That Zero failed to do this is extraordinarily troubling. More troubling still is that there are so few admins in his thread troubled by it. IronDuke 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for these comments and observations. I entirely agree that it would have been preferable for someone completely uninvolved, rather than me, to have taken action against Zeq. My feeling about it, right or wrong, is that it is not a "content dispute" as usually defined but rather a serious behavior problem on the part of Zeq. Nor is it, really, just a matter concerning this one article. The fact is, as anyone can verify with a few clicks, that a very large fraction of Zeq's edits are tendentious, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, he has been here a long time and knows perfectly well what is allowed and what isn't. He knows that it is not permitted to insert the claim of one side of a historical dispute into the second sentence of an article without qualification as if it is an accepted fact. He knows it, yet he did it repeatedly. That is how he usually behaves and it has to stop. Concerning this particular article: I just now reconnected to WP to see all this discussion and am confused about who is banned or not or blocked or not, but if other admins are willing to take over the resolution of this problem that would make me happy indeed. Undoing the block and reimposing the article ban, as Thatcher131 suggested (already did?) is fine with me. The only thing that would not be fine is for Zeq's disruption to continue. --Zero^talk 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I banned him for one month. I watch WP:AE and am certainly prepared to reblock if needed, or reimpose the ban if he resumes disruption after the month is up. As I told somone else regarding Ombudsman, with a user already found to be disruptive, you don't have to wait for the situation to become intolerable before requesting an article ban. There are still 1.5 million plus articles he can edit. Thatcher131 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. El C has reimposed the block. I'm sick of dealing with this garbage. We don't block people with whom we are in a dispute. We don't make punative blocks. If that's not a concept we can all agree on, then I'm done here. --BigDT 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BigDT seems to be taking too lightly the fact that I've given Zeq many hours to either retract or substantiate the charges of "discrimintaion." El_C 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? You should not have blocked Zeq because you are in a personal dispute with him/her. If you have an issue that you think merits blocking, bring it here for an uninvolved administrator review and execute. --Iamunknown 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This board seems to be losing from its usefulness in this case, so I'd rather defer to the AC (the block was noted in Rfar log). I am not in a dispute with Zeq, although he wishes to present it that way. He could have even said, 'let me collect the evidence and get back to you in a few days,' but no, he said "that is my answer" and to this BigDT says "this is a joke. He complains about a patently incorrect block and then you block him for it?" as if I blocked him for merely 'complaining' ("excuse," he says) against a block, which although I felt should have stayed in place (for other reasons), I too took issue with. How is that helpful? I also note that the unblocking admin was aware of this situation and left it to my discretion. I don't have much to say beyond this. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, BigDT, and Iamunknown have all accused El C of involvement in the dispute, but have provided no reasoning at all for this strong accusation. Clearly, he was not part of the edit war. If it's about what he has said in this thread, that's not involvement, any more than yours or mine. Please offer some reasoning, as it's not immediately obvious to me at all. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, deserves more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page [49]. Note also the same behavior at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.

At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks and bans are meant to uphold policy, not violate it. Based on this presentation, it is difficult not to conclude that Zero0000 should be desysoped.

What has happened? Zero's ban of Zeq has stuck, and his block has been restored. I have no strong opinion about Zeq's editing, but there is the strong appearance of a double standard. To wit:

Zero2000 1) has edit warred, and 2) abused blocks and admin rollback to prosecute this edit war.

Zeq 1) has edit warred and 2) um...well, that's it.Proabivouac 09:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? Er, that's quite enough. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with what Dmcdevit writes regarding Zeq, and I thank him for both his research and level-headedness. I also concur with him, having examined the full array of evidence he provides, that Zero's conduct as an admin has certainly been problematic. While I'm inclined to give him one last chance (perhaps impose some immediate restrictions), I'll state my bias upfront, having had a positive editing relationship with him for nearly three years, as well as a great admiration for his skills as a ME scholar whom I share many views with. El_C 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of his comment, I must agree with Dmcdevit on Zero. In terms of the procedure, the only way of forcibly desysopping someone is to go to the ArbCom; however, as a community, we can ask Zero to voluntarily surrender his admin privileges in order to spare the trouble of an arbitration. Based on his comments above, I believe that he understands that his actions were not right. Beit Or 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq. I have admitted above that it would have been better to ask someone else to take the action that the ruling permits "any administrator" to take, but that is the limit of what I admit. Throughout this affair I have acted in absolute good faith. Thank you for the suggestion that I fall on my sword without sufficient reason, but I'll pass. --Zero^talk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard the criticism of my behaviour here to be justified. (1) I use Talk pages more than most editors: 37% of my last 200 edits were in talk pages and I'll be happy to have my use of talk pages compared to any other editor. (2) The list of reverts which Dmcdevit gives are not a counterexample. In each case the issue is very simple and my long edit summaries are quite sufficient to explain why I was making the edit. This might not have been the case if Zeq was a newbie or good-faith editor, but he is not. That's the whole point: when edits are being deliberately made in order to disrupt and destroy an article, the obligation to start a long discussion over it is questionable. And I mean long: Take the example of this edit and the following 14 edits (notice how Zeq produced a single web link that contains one sentence on an irrelevant subject, while Doron and I produced academic sources to show how he is mistaken); then started again by Zeq as if nothing had been said at this edit and 10 of the following 12 edits, plus a whole article on the subject written by Doron and I from the latest archaelogical sources. After all this effort, Zeq comes back weeks later with exactly the same claim, still totally ignoring the sources presented. This is what it means to "discuss the issue on the Talk page with Zeq"; I submit that it is well beyond the call of duty. (3) I dispute that this incident is similar to two similar incidents. In those cases the Arbitration Committee had not put the other user on probation and provided a remedy that "any administrator" can use to prevent further disruption. This makes the present case fundamentally different. --Zero^talk 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the position Zero found himself in. He should definitely follow my advise and agree to immediately adhere to the following restriction: no use of sysop tools on Zeq under any circumstance. I don't agree with desysoping over this (at least not if recent issues are limited to Zeq), but in fairness to Dcmdevit, at least he's also arging to ban Zeq. Whereas Beit-Or, BigDT, IronDuke, and Leifern all found reasons to ignore Zeq's role and only comment on Zero, which does not seem even-handed on their part. El_C 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, the prohibition against admin action when involved is absolute. ArbCom often doesn't feel the need to specify that, just like WP:BP doesn't add that it is only for uninvolved admins in every sentence. Your claims about Zeq's poor behavior, even if correct, merely demonstrate that you chose to respond in kind with sterile revert warring rather than to seek a resolution, it seems. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an uninvolved admin I have come to the conclusion that Zeq has edited the article disruptively as specified by his probation; I have banned him from editing the article for one month. He is not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathieugp redirected Québécois to Quebec and blanked the referenced material in the article despite the fact that the dispute to delete the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois) has been settled. In response to the '"keep"' decision, and despite invitations from myself and others to contribute positively to the article, User:Mathieugp and User:Laval blanked several referenced items in the article, have indulged in increasingly personal comments on the talk pages(Talk:Québécois#Soul_scanner_wasting_peoples_time), started another "discussion" on redirecting the article, (Talk:Québécois#Vote_on_a_redirect) and redirected it before anyone could express an opinion(see "History"). I have restored the article to its consensus form, but I don't think it will last long. I don't have time for edit wars. I'm requesting that the page be protected from moves and redirects, and that User:Mathieugp and User:Laval be reminded of Wiki protocols regarding Vandalism(Blanking) and ignoring consensus. --Soulscanner 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of the events and actions. First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.

A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.

Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong. This appears to be an editorial dispute and attempts at negotiation have thus far failed. Have editors involved in the article requested third opinions at Wikipedia:Request for comments (RfC) or Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O)? --Iamunknown 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that I think that either RfC or 3O would be an appropriate step. The Arbitration Committee would almost certainly reject a case if other steps of dispute resolution had not been tried first. --Iamunknown 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone be able to please help me, I have been authorized to place the following notice on behalf of Ecopave Australia^(R) to the following Wikipedia articles but someone is deleting the notice.

NOTICE - Ecopave Australia^® hereby kindly requests that any Wikipedia Administrator or User who has any knowledge or information about this rogue (Malicious) group of people (Spammers) who are posting entries in Wikipedia and on the internet masquerading as Ecopave Australia^® employees, to contact us immediately by emailing ecopaveaustraliaATgmail.com or ecopaveATecopave.com.au please make attention to Admin. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Ecopave Australia® strongly rejects the above assertions and takes them to be a slur on its reputation and its intellectual property, the comments and opinions expressed on this website do not in any way represent or reflect those of Ecopave Australia^®.

I Added the above NOTICE to these Wikipedia article pages on the 4-4-07 but they have been altered or removed by someone since. 1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive63#Ecopave_Australia_nonsense

2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive63#How_to_get_an_archived_article_deleted

3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_64#Why_delete_one_article_but_not_the_other_2

4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive148#.5B.5BUser:Fact_Finder.5D.5D

5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#User:Fact_Finder

6)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers

7)http://en.pediax.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#

8)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive-Oct-2006#.5B.5BUser:Webmasters.5D.5D

9)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_November_26#How_to_delete_an_archived_article

10)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws

Is there a any way to have this above notice stay in these above articles so that it cant be altered, deleted or vandalised or alternatively have these articles deleted all together? I would greatly appreciate your help Asstmgr 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia articles are not owned by Ecopave Australia, and should not have notices implying that they are. Articles are open to being edited, or even nominated for deletion, by any well meaning user. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason a lot of these were deleted is because you were adding them to archives, which are supposed to be archives, not active discussions. Don't spam people either, they are allowed to make comments about your company or the notability of an article about the company. Natalie 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids, please direct your accusations elsewhere, I or Ecopave have nothing to do with these spam articles which were put into Wikipedia by this rogue group of spammers. I am keen to hear from a Wikipedia Admin please Asstmgr 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just heard from two admins, kid. Natalie 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was just going to say that both of the replies you got were from admins. Essentially, there is no way to keep that text on those pages unedited. Probably the best course of action for you if you have concerns about the effect these statements may have upon your company is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns directly. Contact info is [here.--Isotope23 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a proper admin :) Asstmgr 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks kindly Isotope23, thats more or less what I was looking for I guess were done here :). Asstmgr 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what is a proper admin? Natalie 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have two types of admin here: normal ones and rouge admins. Sometimes either type goes commando. Please specify whether you would prefer a normal admin, a rouge admin, a commando admin or a rouge commando admin to assist you.-gadfium 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just one more thing Isotope23, does that mean that I can keep putting the notice back on the articles every time it gets deleted? Asstmgr 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that. No. It would violate WP:3RR, more than likely, and I am neither a proper or improper admin. IvoShandor 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What IvoShandor said is correct.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if thats true then why are these vandals (allowed) to delete this notice? in the first plase? this is clearly a contradiction in terms, right? Asstmgr 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people deleting the notice aren't vandals. The notice doesn't belong, so anyone can and should delete it. Natalie 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding additional text to an archive. Once these pages have been archived, they don't get edited, so your edits are being reverse by other editors. This doesn't constitute vandalism. If you are concerned about some text in these archives, your best course of action is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns. Someone from the foundation can review this and take the appropriate action here.--Isotope23 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be its because they are admins vandalising? Asstmgr 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, so if thats also true Isotope23, then why is there an option to "edit" on these archived articles? and yes we have sent the removal request to the Wikimedia foundation by email on several occations without any effect.Asstmgr 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because those archives are pages just like any other page. Just because the Edit link is there doesn't mean you should. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict... I was just typing exactly what EVula said... scary.--Isotope23 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks guys I think Im a bit more clearer about the matter now :) Asstmgr 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, it was all a malicious joe job which purely by coincidence promoted the interests of the firm right up to the moment it was all deleted and we started getting bogus legal threats asking us to take the debates down - "how dare you call us spammers when all we were doing was using your non-profit volunteer-run project to promote our interests". We cleaned up once, the spammer came back more than once with sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. My reserves of goodwill were drained dry long before we chased the last incarnation away. I'd say more but I've already used up my invective quota for this week. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an invective quota? Oops. Natalie 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Kevin Green342243 (talk · contribs · count) is making a lot of citation-related blankings on wrestling articles, using WP:A to justify himself. The chances of a user account less than a day old making these sort of claims right out of the gate seems unlikely, so I think that the account could be a sock of Jonathan Barber. I'd appreciate getting a second opinion, as I don't want to make a Checkuser request based on sketchy evidence. Shadow1 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm familiar with Jonathan Barber (talk · contribs), but looking at Kevin Green342243's edits, it doesn't appear to be the same MO outlined at the JB summary (other than the one speedy nomination I saw). I will say a new editor correctly citing WP:ATT would lead me to suspect this isn't a new editor at all. Most of what he's deleting falls under WP:BLP though.--Isotope23 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was Barber, but based on his use of open proxies a checkuser won't prove much. Best think to do is get a checkuser to confirm if the IP is an open proxy or not, and block if it is naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to CheckUser. Barber has stated through one of his numerous sockpuppets on my talk page that he would continue to do this kind of thing [57], so this fits in perfectly. (BTW, I know with the recent controversies and everything, we've lost one of our most tireless CheckUsers, but what's with the slow down on that page? things are starting to back up, the latest JB196 set has been up for 72 hours without review...) SirFozzie 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of WP:POINTy tagging of wrestling articles. Quack, quack. Hackney, please review and reinsert anything that was worthwhile, but I'm WP:RBIing. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did your last slave die of? I'll make a post on WP:PW, and let them handle the reverts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My last slave knew a lot more about wrestling than I do - and so do you. I, on the other hand, am WP:ROUGE enough to assume the worst when a brand new user comes along using all the right Wikimarkup and Wikishortcuts right after Barber got booted from Meta after his attempted joe job failed. Of course, I could be horribly, horribly wrong. Hopefully the quality assessment of the edits will shed light on this. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit Conflict x4) I can just see Guy as the Wikipedia Admin Boot Camp Drill Sergeant, "Alright, editors! Drop and give me 25 Reverts!" Thanks Guy. SirFozzie 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, good work, it is likely barber. For what it is worth, here is the checkuser page. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Spam patrol! Sound off! Incidentally, this [58] is illuminating. I checked 198.138.41.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and rouged it up a bit. No doubt he will manage to get another IP. But he does fulfill a valuable function in highlighting redirection sites and open proxies for blocking... Guy (Help!) 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wonder who twice suggested blocking that IP 4 days ago? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FozzyEnemy (talk · contribs) name matches previous sock accounts used to harrass SirFozzie (talk · contribs) and has also was created and immediately went at a wrestling article. We possibly have a sock farm that needs blocking. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a farm over at CheckUser already.. just need a CheckUser and an admin to A) Pull the JBWeeds out and B)Apply some herbicide to the ground to keep him from using the likely open proxies underneath to keep him from coming back. SirFozzie 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a rush and on a computer that I can't log in on so could someone look over User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User Kirbytime requesting Child Pornography pictures again. It was brought up here under "User:Matt57 and WP:STALK". Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather. 205.234.33.204 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. Editor was warned about this.--Isotope23 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of this. The account Rackabello (talk • contribs) has been created on April 7, and has since voted in multiple AfDs, as well as in some RfAs, and also posted an RfA reform proposal. With the very recent RfA sockpuppeteering business in mind, I decided to bring this to admin attention (better safe than sorry). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already posted a notice here over 34 hours ago (which has just slipped into the archive, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive226#User:Rackabello: Sockpuppet?). As far as I can tell, no action has been taken on this matter. I'll post it to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard to see if they'll take some action and investigate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have 2 users with apparent histories warring over an article I watch. One is an admin (Husond) that in my opinion is not acting very admin-like (brandishing admin powers, leaving uncivil edit comments, edit warring). The other user (Gene Nygaard) isn't acting as a model wikipedian either. ccwaters 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest that I'm not acting very "admin-like". Yes, I was edit warring with Gene Nygaard, happens frequently. But please provide diffs that I'm leaving uncivil edit comments and brandishing admin "powers" (as you insist in calling them). I strongly stand against uncivility and admin abuse, and I find these claims not only unfounded as also deeply unfair.--Húsönd 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also see this. I'd appreciate a second opinion from an uninvolved admin here - Alison^☺ 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some help removing personal attacks and personal information from the User talk:Reddi page please? User:Reddi insists on including this in contravention of my requests for him to remove it. Thanks, ScienceApologist 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack. It is a personal commentary of my experiences and my views.

I have already discussed, and altered it (from the discussions), at WP:CN#Community_ban_or_lengthy_block_of_Reddi

J. D. Redding

Reddi, that list is uncivil and patently unhelpful to the project. Please remove it. Heimstern Läufer 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi refuses to remove it. You will need to act. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Heimstern has removed it. I personally think it's okay for Reddi to describe his difficult interactions with people in his own view, but that list crossed the line into personal attacks. If Reddi adds it back without changing the attack language, I will apply a block. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some concern has been raised about this user apparently promoting a website also called mathisfun (see User:MathsIsFun). I'm not sure what kind of action may be necessary: would deletion of the user page be the right answer? Is the user spamming? Or has it become a username issue that needs an indefinite block? The user has been around since 2005 and has lots of productive contributions. There was an RFCN debate which I closed in order to move the debate here -- as a block of an established user, I think this needs to be discussed in a more visible place. The debate is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/MathsIsFun. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related reports at WP:COIN and WT:WPSPAM. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a productive contributor and the website is non-commercial and shares our goal of making knowledge available to everyone. We may or may not need to do something, but certainly we must not read such people the riot act. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:COI apply if a user's site isn't selling something? (→Netscott) 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still promotional for the users site, we shouldn't linch mob him, but we should suggest a name change and a change of editing habbits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest if you are promoting something that you love, even if you don't make a profit from it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have a love of science and my edits on scientific topics reflect this... I have a conflict of interest there? I'm not sure how applicable WP:COI is if a user is adding a link to a site that corresponds to the article about the subject related to the user's web page. I suppose I should peruse COI a bit more and familiarize myself with where the policy on this stands... (→Netscott) 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't created an organisational website on it which your now linkspamming wikipedia with Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've properly reviewed WP:COI and I understand now. Yes obviously this editor's self-promotional behavior should be curtailed. (→Netscott) 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Beetstra's COIBot has been uncovering numerous editors who have been editing with a conflict of interest, some of them for years. I've been posting the most egregious cases at WP:COIN. But I think, we as a community, are going to have to figure out how to deal with this. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I think all we can do is make sure that we undo what damage there is and try to tell them about WP:COI ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked in depth yet, but this looks much more benign than the other cases your bot has found. Consider the nature of the website in question. If this is what we call an egregious conflict of interest, then maybe something's wrong with the policy, and it's worth taking this up at WT:COI. In the meantime, imagine a world in which everyone can share freely in the sum of human knowledge. Be nice. Ignore a rule or three. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have been unfairly targeted. I have been a passionate contributer and supporter of Wikipedia for years. I have been open and honest about myself, and because of that I am being told I am wrong? And the "Math Is Fun" article does not deserve the "COI" tag, as the original article was extensively discussed when it was created. I have not "damaged" Wikipedia, but enhanced it. What are you doing to Wikipedia? It is not like it was. MathsIsFun 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, you do have a conflict of interest by adding links to your site that don't meet WP:EL guidlines. You do great work on Maths articles, but you need to stop linking to your site. Your username is a problem at present because of your site and your linking to it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a religion, and I have several websites, these things don't make me money. I would love to promote these things though. Why have I not told you of these things before? Simple, Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. That being said, I don't think the user page is any sort of problem. And while the username is the same as the website, it is also an expression of interest. I don't think this user has acted in a promotional manner, either with his/her name or userpage. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to be on a page re-naming spree, re-naming high visibility religion-related articles (Among others, including several tech-related ones I think) with, as far as I can tell, no talk page discussion whatsoever, and if I understand this right, page re-names mess up search engine results for articles, among other problems. Because, at least for Jesus, the entire page history has been moved but the original article title is still there as a redirect, I don't think I or any non-admin user can undo the damage. Could someone take a look at all this, he's renamed a whole bunch of articles. Plus, in Jesus' case, I think there was a ton of discussion about the page name already, which settled on the content now at the new title definently being at an article named, well, Jesus. Homestarmy 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, why on earth are you giving this guy any good faith at all? Did you look at his contribs list? Assume bad faith, people, it works! --Golbez 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the page moves also appear to be vandalism, he just copied the content of what I guess was the Mohammad article into Jesus, and he renamed Talk:Evil to something to do with economic theory, though somebody reverted that move. Homestarmy 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked.↔NMajdan•talk 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor wants to be unblocked but I am hesitant to do so. I have informed the editor that if he can explain his page moves, then I might consider unblocking. I left the following comment on his talk page: "I believe an indefinite block was warranted given the nature of the user's page moves (see my comment and Stephan Schulz's comment further down). However, if the editor can state his reasoning for the page moves and/or a general explanation of his actions, I might consider lessening his block. After all, a block is not a punishment but a way to prevent damage to Wikipedia. If I and the other admins monitoring the situation feel this user no longer poses a threat to Wikipedia, the ban may be lifted." So I will await a response from him. However, I must say I am dissappointed with User:Golbez's actions in the matter. He indefinitely blocked the user (which was the appropriate action) but then he led the user to believe he was removing the block ([59] [60] [61]) even though he never had the intention of removing the block ([62] [63]). Extremely bad faith, in my opinion.↔NMajdan•talk 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, the user never expected to be unblocked (and if he did, then he has perceived a culture of weakness here that may or may not be accurate - and needs to be dealt with if it is). No problem with having some bad-faith fun with someone who constantly and deceptively begs for good faith. --Golbez 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I can see why other people might be upset and offended by my having fun with the vandal, and I apologize to them - but not to him. He had it coming. He asked for good faith in an entirely bad faith fashion, and I returned in kind. I should probably not have done it. --Golbez 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology. I don't believe edits in that fashion are warranted even against the worst of vandals. However, regarding the issue at hand, your reasoning for the indefinite block surpasses the editor's reasoning for his actions so at this time, I will make no attempt at lessening the block.↔NMajdan•talk 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the matter and on the admins clamoring to be the first to unblock/shorten the block are summarized here. --Golbez 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a shorten or unblock is merited, but there also is no reason to poke him in the eye with a pointy stick now that further vandalism has been prevented.--Isotope23 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sabotage has been vandalized — for once, by someone who is not anonymous. Can someone please send appropriate notice, etc.? thanks, Richard Myers 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, is there a particular reason that you can't just do it yourself? Non admins can place user warnings just as well as admins can. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least enjoy the irony. HalfShadow 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user deleted the warning from his talk page so I reverted it. --Chuck Sirloin 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address has vandalised articles recently, even after a LAST warning and two blocks, where each have lasted from 30 to 40 hours. I believe this user should either be blocked altogether, or barred from editing. Tails0600 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look here: [64]? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison^☺ 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of false translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_brigades&diff=122006717&oldid=122004017

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.^[1]

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also may take a look here: [65]Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison^☺ 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: [66]. I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Wikipedia should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government [67], his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation [68] and [69] and [70] and [71]? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit [72] sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation/Requests#E104421_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_Tajik_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree on Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.

As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.

Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.

I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.

If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Wikipedia runs on California servers, Wikipedia should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Wikipedia, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin#How_can_we_move_forward. Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Wikipedia WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Wikipedia community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

• (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
• (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
• (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
• (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
• (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
• (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
• (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

• (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
• (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Wikipedia definitions)
• (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
• (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
• (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see [73]) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: [74].Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [75]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Wikipedia would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [76]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see:[77] It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". [references].Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

• 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
• 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
• 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
• 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
• 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
• 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
• 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of sourced text is vandalism)
• 18:44, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv to version of Rich Farmbrough (Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism),)
• 18:42, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 18:40, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 03:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 20:02, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page (the text was supported by reliable sources)))
• 20:01, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:48, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:26, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page)
• 22:15, 31 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism, see talk page)
• 19:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism)
• 19:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (Vandalism again)
• 18:41, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:40, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:39, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:38, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (→Biophys false translation and personal attacks)
• 18:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Vlad fedorov (Vandalism warning)
• 14:57, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alison (Vandalism report)
• 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Active measures (Alledged vandalism)
• 04:32, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring well sourced text about BLOGGERS - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv well sourced text - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:30, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv - restoring sourced text (I warn you: what you are doing is vandalism))
• 05:35, 1 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group (←Created page with '==Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov== Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his arti...')
• 22:49, 21 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalging - see discussion)
• 22:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism and POV editing of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:36, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:35, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv vandalism (each cited statement was supported by a reference))
• 16:40, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:04, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Galina Starovoitova (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 16:00, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:55, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:50, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 05:22, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion; he also removed links to reviews of the book)
• 05:18, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links)
• 05:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of Vlad Fedorov - correctly describing ideas of author is not violation of BLP policy; this is quite the opposite)
• 22:50, 16 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv to last version by Biophys (BLP and reverting vandalism) - see discussion)
• 05:05, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion. The source are the books.)
• 05:07, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv - vandalism; she does NOT work now for Izvestia; she was fired)
• 21:39, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism (reliable and notable source - see discussion))
• 20:11, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism)
• 06:24, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 04:54, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv - vandalism (deleting valid reference to a notable person); there are no BLP issues here)
• 05:47, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - vandalism)
• 00:52, 9 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Disinformation (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov. I did not remove anything. I made this more clear and added more text.)
• 06:42, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Boris Stomakhin (rv - "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" is falsification by Vlad Fedorov - see my comments in Litvinenko talk page)
• 05:46, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (rv vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov)
• 02:54, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted - 3rd time. This is statement by directer of a notable human rights organization.)
• 18:20, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 18:16, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 15:54, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Alexander Litvinenko (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted.)
• 15:49, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverterd. Naftalin and others (not me!) are talking about suppression of a dissident.)
• 15:45, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted. Naftalin is talking about ethnic problems here.)

Reply. Could anyone trace my recent edits of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Ramzan Kadyrov, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, Human rights in Russia, Persecution of political bloggers and others (with their talk pages where I explained my position) and check if editing by Vlad was actually a vandalism? What he always did was deletion of texts supported by perfect references! He even did not want to recognize such sources as Nature (journal) Review Genetics (article Nikolai Koltsov). I openly warned him about vandalism twice in his talk pages (he deleted this) and openly asked advice of administrators twice (see my talk page). But if I was uncivil, then yes, please do whatever is appropriate. Biophys 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other instances of Biophys personal attacks against me

1) User Biophys on his User page put the following: attack on me.

2) Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Another cover-up of personal attacks.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) Calling me a troll.

5) Calling me vandal.

6) Calling me a stalker and vandal again

7) And again I am vandal

You know guys, I am actually tired of putting here all the links where Biophys attacked me, because these are of enormous quantity and would just clogg all the board.

At the top of it is the creation of attack page against me titled Internet troll squads. Just in order to call a troll all those who dared to defend not even Putin's policy, but him as an ordinary man.Vlad fedorov 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of death wish by Biophys

First of all, here is the complete context for your claims that I wished you to die:

---

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog [78] because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

After putting the relevant context, I would like to note that there is no actually death wish, because I am replying to death suggestion by Biophys. He tell imagine if Putin dies. I replied the same would be. In this context if I made personal attack, Biophys also made personal attack against Putin. I just defended him as an ordinary man who deserves the same kind of respect as other individuals, despite all his wrong, bad an so on sides, features and so on.

Second, I was punished for this By Alex Bakharev. So I can't be punished twice for one and same thing. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of attack with Phallus

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person - Putin. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV. Vlad fedorov 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking about your continuous insertion of Putin phallus allegations into the Phallus and other articles. Considering that you have so many times inserted this into many articles, it would be logic to conclude that you love that topic. By the way this was the only my such post and it was because you have contacted the users with whom I had conversation on Freedom House article. You began to contact them posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. It was a case of wikistalking by you, since no one of these users have ever crossed your article and you never was participating in Freedom House. Moreover in all these "requests for help" you was attacking me too, you said I "wikistalkied" you and all your usual stuff.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here just notice from your talkpage: I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation of me by Biophys

Biophys also began to contact different users by posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. In these messages he called me wikistalker. Vlad fedorov 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I called you "wikistalker" because User:Colchicum officially filed an RfC about your alleged wikistalking of him and me (sorry, I did not write "alleged").Biophys 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-reply. You called me wikistalker, after adminstrators on RfC declined to acknowledge wikistalking. Moreover, it happened exactly when I decided to step aside from mine articles. I decide to tackle with Freedom House and see the talk page. I have pretty nice discussion with these guys. But you have followed me and began you witch hunt by posting these defamatory statements, knowing already that Bakharev and others didn't shared you accusations of wikistalking, violations of BLP and so on.

User Swatjester already said that you just can't leave without "your victory". I should add that you also couldn't leave without defaming me. You want harass me and to abuse me. This is exactly what you did posting these messages to other users. You just want to "cause me pain" right by blocking me?

Reply. What victory? This is nonsense. I only wanted to keep well referenced text that you simply deleted. A lot of people edited my articles after me and I never had complaints because they did good faith editing. I also objected inserting poorly sourced defamatory claims in biographies of living people that you did. Biophys 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You excuses for "alleged" are of no avail. I never was writing to every editor of the articles which you have edited, that RfC was also filed against you. Vlad fedorov 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New attempts to eliminate others POV by Biophys

Please look there how Biophys again censures and deletes other work without credible explanations. Here is the diff. He creates an article where he inserts only his POV sources and then eliminates any attempts to insert all the POV's. It is he who sterilizes the articles. Vlad fedorov 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User G-Man insists on styling pages, to suit his display, [79], [80], using sizes on thumbnail images, despite an explanation of why this is a bad thing and a request to stop being placed on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a couple of other editors contacted him about this after that last edit. Let's see if the message sticks.--Isotope23 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his talk page it hasn't. He's persisting and now appears to have breached 3RR. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Naconkantari 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it... yeah he needs to get the clue.--Isotope23 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't give a damn what happens to G-Man, I thank you for starting this thread. I have added sizes to thumbnails I have entered, simply because I thought it was required. Now I know better. I actually learned something here today! :-) Jeffpw 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally abuse the thumb option and then resize the image, it seems to be the only way to add a caption. --Edokter (Talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait, what are editors supposed to do with infoboxes? Those always ask for an image size. — coelacan — 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which they should not per WP:IUP (Rules of thumb #11). Images should be thumbed, not sized and then everyone can be happy by setting their own Special:Preferences. --Iamunknown 06:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately size preferences cannot be referenced in infoboxes, which do not use the "thumb" parameter. --NE2 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too had not heard this rule, but now I have found out about the preferences setting it makes sense. However, I should point out that at least some featured articles do not comply with this rule. The current one, Scooby-Doo, doesn't; I checked two more at random (Cochineal and El Lissitzky) and both had non-compliant images. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News to me too, as it would probably be to most other folks who ever frequent FAC. I've never seen it mentioned there. --kingboyk 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a (fairly civilised) encounter with a Polish editor and I had to use a machine translation to understand and reply. If anyone wants to read it and comment, it's at User_talk:88.156.254.3. --Guinnog 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated both his messages, please see on his talk page.Vlad fedorov 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a SPA, and there may be some NPA violations, but I'd say he's right on with questioning the editor who seemingly is calling anyone who disagrees with his POV a "nutter". --Onorem 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no editor did, you might reconsider your position. --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Apart from the nutters, it seems that most people accept that the *science* here is essentially correct" - No editor did? --Onorem 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which has the important "most" qualifier. Since the group of "nutters" is well-defined and very small, that leaves plenty of room for disagreement. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my mistake. I guess it's only a personal attack on most of the people who disagree with his POV. It was a completely unnecessary comment which could easily be considered offensive by someone who was not one of the "nutters" but did disagree with him. I'm done now since this is not the reason you brought this topic to the board. --Onorem 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Questioning another editor, whether admin or not, is fine. What I object to is calling him an "arse". --Stephan Schulz 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein as MathsIsFun (talk · contribs), which remains unresolved above, we continue to run across long-established editors who have been linking their own websites, in some cases for years. Please see Dking (talk · contribs) and Gsociology (talk · contribs) (reported at WT:WPSPAM) - also guilty. I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg - COIBot is discovering dozens of blatant COI editors every day. What are we, as a community, going to do about this? RJASE1 ^Talk 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub the articles down. CSD-A7 or G11 them. If they assert notability and/or aren't blatent advertising, tag them with {{advert}} and prod them at the same time. AfD the rest and try to convince the people there that WP:COI is a good enough reason to delete. Lobby for WP:CSD to add CSD-A9: blatant conflicts of interest. Lobby the Foundation to have article creation allowed only after a waiting period of circa 5 days. In that order. Well, that's my plan :o)   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam articles are easy to deal with. This is more subtle - people linking their own websites (and in most cases nobody would blink an eye if someone besides the website owner had linked them). RJASE1 ^Talk 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously posted above under the section "SlimVirgin", SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and now El C are trying to use WP:BLP to harass other users on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah.

• Yesterday SlimVirgin removed my comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[81] on the pretext that it somehow violated WP:BLP.[82]
• I requested clarification from SlimVirgin[83] and received none.
• I asked for comments on this page[84] but received none because administrators got off on a tangent, arguing with each other over... nothing.
• I restore my comment and El C, previously not a party to the incident, decides to remove my comment again[85] under the pretext that I am "not entitled to do so."
• I make it clear that it is my opinion Al-Durrah is alive[86]
• El C reverts[87], I revert, he reverts again[88].
• He threatens to block me[89], deciding not say why or cite a policy.
• I ask him what policy he is citing[90]. He cites WP:NOT#SOAP. Hilarious given SlimVirgin's repeated posts complaining about how we have to show respect for Al-Durrah.[91][92]
• I rephrase my comment[93].

Now Jayjg is threatening to block Liftarn on "BLP" grounds[94] for expressing his opinion on Talk:Muhammad al Durrah. I disagree with Liftarn's opinion but he is in no way violating BLP. KazakhPol 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol has been a menace at Muhammad al-Durrah for months. The article is about a Palestinian child who was reportedly shot and killed during a gun battle between the IDF and Palestinian gunmen. There is a tiny minority theory that the incident was staged, an example of Pallywood, and that the child isn't dead at all. The majority view is that it happened more or less as reported, though no one knows who fired the fatal shots.

KazakhPol believes the incident was staged, and keeps posting to that effect on the talk page, and making edits to the article that over-emphasize the minority view. The post that I removed for being a BLP violation called the boy and his mother "fakes." [95] The mother is still alive, and is named in the article. To post this about her is extremely disrespectful, and is arguably libellous. I removed it and told KP that if he restored it, I would request admin action against him. [96] My thanks to El C for following up on that.

KP's post comes against a backdrop of being abusive toward any editor he disagrees with, routinely calling other editors vandals, constantly reverting, introducing poor writing then calling it "tidying," inserting the word "terrorist" into articles about Islamic groups, and adding the NPOV tag when he doesn't get his own way. He has been blocked seven times since December for edit warring/3RR. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to block User:Liftarn for WP:BLP if he makes one more Talk: page comment equating respected university professors with convicted Holocaust deniers. He's done it three times so far, even making light of it, and he's been fairly warned. Regarding your own edits, aside from their many obvious deficiencies, you've used complex reverts to violate WP:3RR. I'd report you for it if I had the energy; I still might do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a probation or ban from the article? - Denny ^(talk) 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, KazakhPol, Wikipedia isn't the place to put your personal views of things. They are disruptive and hurtful, should someone related to that person see it. Wikipedia isn't a blog so if you have no worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, apart from making theories and stating your views of things, you will be blocked. Consider this your last warning. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol has just accusing me of "lying" on the talk page. [97] Admin action would be very much appreciated, as this pattern of personal attacks against many editors has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of abating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Feel free to disregard these comments, as I just became familiar with this situation here on this AN/I thread, but WP:BLP is an extremely important policy to adhere to, and personally attacking users for implementing this policy is exceptionally bad form. As such, I would support most any (within reason) administrator action made to protect users making good-faith attempts to adhere to BLP gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked KazakhPol for 24 hours for the "lying" comment. I had given him ample warnings. El_C 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I blocked a couple of sockpuppets of Bombshell (talk · contribs), namely Scavenger (talk · contribs) and Govert Miereveld (talk · contribs), in what I felt was a perfect Duck test case (exact same POV editing profile, same behaviour, very striking matching pattern of editing times, see User talk:Scavenger#Blocked for evidence.) I left the oldest account, Bombshell, unblocked. As this user is stubbornly refusing to admit the sockpuppetry, has resumed the same edit wars he used his sockpuppets on ([98]), and actually created yet another sock today (IamScavenger (talk · contribs)), I've now blocked the main account for a week. Open for review, since I might be seen as involved in a dispute (having taken part in a discussion with Bombshell at Archaic Dutch declension). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Administrator (REDVERS), left the message below on my Talk page 2 days ago:

Hi Mario, on the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.  REDVERS 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After that, I wrote to REDVERS twice asking for a clarification but he didn't respond to me. Can somebody help me understand who is the sockpupeteer at the Fellowship of Friends Talk page using the diffs that REDVERS lists above? This user is creating a lot of disruption. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? Are you saying that REDVERS is causing lots of trouble? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a closer look, Im pretty sure that User:Esoteric Sheik of Inner Confusion and User:Babycondor are both sockpuppets of other people, or possibly one person, due to their lack of contributions other than on the talk page. I am also pretty suspicious of User:Veronicapoe and User:Wine-in-ark because their account seem to be made on the same day as some of the other users in the argument. So far all the accounts in the discussion, with a exception of Redvers, have been made in the same 7 day period, which although not incriminating evidence, is very strange. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which was my point exactly and why (in the full quote User:Mario Fantoni has chosen not to copy across) I said I was unable to help out any more on policing the edit war they're all having - both side are obviously using socks and my interest wained rapidly.

As an aside, the above messages are worded very badly and leave a suggestion that I have been involved in sockpuppeting and edit warring. I haven't. I'm just the admin who protected the wrong version and tried to bang heads on the talk page. People are welcome to look for contributions I have made to the article (none).   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it came out that way, but I didn't mean that you were a sockpuppeteer. I was saying that they were socks of other people and that you were the only guy in the discussion who I am not suspicious of. Again, sorry if it came across differently... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear the original AN/I question was calling Redvers a disruptive user. He's calling the sockpuppeteer disruptive, and he's asking what Redvers meant. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that my watchlist is sporadically lagging by several minutes. This was also discussed recently at ANI [99]. Contribs seem ok.It's only for some pages, e.g. my Watchlist (and the page history) for RFCN currently shows the last edit at 20:13. Anyone else notice this? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with my one this time ... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that sometimes when I revert or add something, it doesn't actually show up on the edit history for a couple of minutes. I just put it down to lag, myself. HalfShadow 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use FireFox, but when I try to use IE it shows my watchlist from January. Beat that :) My watchlist is OK, but my contribs are lagging, and page histories too. Not an ANI problem, though :) – Riana ^ऋ 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say; shouldn't this have gone on Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) instead? Acalamari 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current job queue like, anyhow? – Chacor 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok today. I user FireFox as well. I posted here because of the similar posting I referenced above. But I will post and such probs in the future at Village Pump (technical). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please address the concerns I have raised to the following admin: [100] [101] - if the redirection of the article was incorrect, I strongly urge to unprotect and revert to this version [102] which does not contain the ethnic group template and also has a POV tag. Currently, the article, which is about a provincial/national group like Californian, New Yorker, Ontarian, Albertan, and so on, has an ethnic group template and makes claims that the Québécois are an ethnic group equivalent to French Canadian! Please, Wikipedia is not here to indulge anti-francophone original research, fringe theories at that. Furthermore, at the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois, it is arguable that the consensus was "keep" - to me it looked like "no consensus." Wikipedia is not a democracy - as with all other such articles, Québécois should be a redirect to Quebec (in line with all other Wikipedias) and per the discussion at Talk:Québécois. Failing that, the contentious material must absolutely be removed from the article, and not allowed to appear there again, since such POV-pushing is used as an attack against the francophone population of the province. Let us be reasonable here and not indulge users like User:Soulscanner who constantly lie and misrepresent other editors' views and push fringe POVs that no person with a shred of credibility would even dare attempt to promote (that the Québécois are an ethnic group). Sincerely, Laval 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the admin reverted to the version by Soulscanner [103], rather than the last one prior to my edit: [104] (this one has the dispute tag). Either way, whatever decision is reached, the absurd inclusion of the template and the removal of the neutrality tag is bogus. Laval 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can make edit requests for specific articles by adding {{editprotected}} and a description of your desired edit to the talk page. As an uninvolved editor who does not have a sysop flag, I would suggest that you add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and engage in discussion with other editors about what to do within the context of the result of the deletion debate. Regards, Iamunknown 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Zenniy Seems to be the latest incarnation of James Ewing - and is again "outing" me for some reason:

User:Spankr

Spankr 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs) has been warned countless times to observe WP:CIVIL: reminders abound on his talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia (and I believe that this is common knowledge actually). Gene was recently blocked for incivility [105] by Rama's Arrow. Earlier today I once again reminded Gene to be civil after he wrote (and I quote) "[User:Husond] needn't try to bullshit us here"[106]. Gene contested the occurrence of any incivility [107] and later wrote (and I quote) "unscrupulous editors like Husond, a sysop well aware of this fictious rule, who will take advantage of [the protection policy] to game the system"[108].
I found this comment rude, unfounded and a personal attack, and I considered blocking Gene for his constant incivility right after being reminded to refrain from such behavior. However, I've never blocked an established editor for gross incivility against myself (apart from Gene, it simply never happened) and I didn't want the block to eventually look like admin abuse. Therefore, I'm seeking advice instead. If I had blocked Gene, would that be unjustified or adequate? --Húsönd 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be able to point out on the appropriate talk pages when someone is gaming the system. As the discussion shows, User:Steel agrees that:

• "There is a potential problem with people reverting an article and then immediately requesting protection; it is, in effect, gaming the system. I have yet to hear a good solution to this."

Clearly, in order to discuss the appropriateness of that policy, a recent, specific example of someone who has been gaming the system in that way, as opposed to bland generic discussion of some hypothetical potential for such gaming of the system, is exactly on point and totally unobjectionable. Gene Nygaard 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely endorse a week-long block over this. Gene Nygaard just refuses to understand anything about civility. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Husond - pick a different kind of section title next time. This one sounds like a flop'd NBC sitcom.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not one of my best creations. I was hoping nobody would notice it. Too late. :-P Húsönd 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Húsönd, you have been in a long term edit dispute with Gene over article naming conventions. And you are in a current edit dispute with Gene on the page of the link that you cite. Under no circumstances should you block Gene. Do not bring your admin buttons within ten feet of Gene or any article you two are fighting at. Darwinek just lost his adminship for not following this advice. Immediately after you two started your most recent fighting, Gene took a four day break from Wikipedia. Húsönd, I encourage you to do the same. --Duk 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the edit disputes that I constantly have with Gene, this is strictly about Gene's incivility. Darwinek was desysopped for very different actions, such as blocking Gene for going against him on edit wars, and also incivility. More importantly, I did not block Gene and I'm here asking for independent comments on this apparently perpetual situation. It seems to me that this is the most balanced way to discuss it without chancing any admin abuse. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are Wikipedia's policies that Gene has been transgressing for far too long. Don't you think we got a problem here that ought to be solved rather than let it be? I thank your wikibreak suggestion, but I will decline. First, because as you can see, Gene's back from his break and it clearly didn't improve anything. Second, I'm too addicted to Wikipedia to be absent for all that time. And third, why should I require rest if I'm calmly communicative as always?--Húsönd 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take special note of your two-faced attitude towards incivility, noting specifically that it was none other you, Husond, who unblocked User:Darwinek when he was blocked for personal attacks against me. Gene Nygaard 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And further, that the most recent dispute involves your move of Josef Vasicek which was every bit as much undiscussed, every bit as much unreferenced, and every bit as much contrary to every source cited in the article as was the earlier undiscussed, unreferenced move contrary to existing sources by none other than the very same former sysop buddy of yours, User:Darwinek. Gene Nygaard 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Húsönd, I apologize for suggesting that you take a break, that wasn't good of me. But I must say, Gene has some legitimate complaints. He's received inappropriate blocks twice recently (that I know of). And I've witnessed a kind of pack mentality against him during one of these events. That's bound to make any long time editor angry. Also, his incivility isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be - certainly not as bad as this or this. Is there any way you two could "fight the good fight" without resorting to blocks and litigation? --Duk 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he expressly said that he didn't want to block him so as not to be seen as abusing admin privileges and brought it here instead, right? :) I don't know enough about the rest of the dispute though.. Baristarim 02:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Husond's out-of-context edited version, here is the full paragraph from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, including the supporting links showing that Husond was deliberately gaming the system:

• "There will always, of course, be unscrupulous editors like Husond, a sysop well aware of this fictious rule, who will take advantage of it to game the system. To make an edit while at the very same time request its protection as part and parcel of his gaming of the system to shift the burden of proof in any subsequent discussions."

That's something that needs to be able to be discussed. That is not in any way a violation of civility policies. Husond can disagree with my characterization and offer an alternative explanation if he chooses (but he has not done so as yet). Gene Nygaard 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even that one full paragraph needs to be considered in the context of the several other paragraphs of my disussion in the section ""Protection is not an endorsement of the current version"—a delusion? a lie? or both?" which I cannot get to work as a link to the specific section, so just find it in the table of contents and read the whole thing at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Gene Nygaard 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my differences with Gene in the past. Yes, he was incivil, but he is also an active contributor. I'd suggest civility parole via WP:CN/WP:CEM instead of straight punishment blocks. Gene should accept he was incivil and be more careful in the future. 'Just a block' is a blunt penalty - I suggest the finesse of CN/CEM civility parole.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely endorse a civility parole.--Húsönd 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time we met was today, and frankly, I was not impressed with Gene's tone, language nor aggressive attitude [109] - Alison^☺ 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given his continued character insults on this thread, ie "two faced" in bold type, and his persistent stunts in claiming that Husond improperly unblocked Darwinek (it was a self block by Darwinek), and his bogus claim that Husond was an abusive admin for requesting protection of a page that he edited, I have blocked Gene again for 48 hours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request my prior complaint be look at as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Josef Vašíček. I stated my take thoroughly at Talk:Josef Vašíček. Neither are innocent in this matter, and such behavior from an admin is unsettling. ccwaters 13:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. If this is a recurring problem with Gene, then perhaps some civility parole would be appropriate. – Steel 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud Blnguyen's decision to block Gene Nygaard. I don't see this block as punitive, but rather a widely used mechanism to prevent further incivility. New users are blocked all the time for refusing to observe WP:CIVIL, established editors should be no different (especially because from their experience on Wikipedia, they should be well aware that incivility is unproductive, damaging and never contributes to help someone's cause on a discussion).--Húsönd 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think CEM would be better, but perhaps two days block will have as much effect; we shall see. In the meantime, comments about incivility and appropriate reaction are needed just a few threads up at #Claims_by_User:Vlad_fedorov.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, you've shown incredibly bad judgment here since you too have a history of dispute with Gene regarding article naming conventions. Also, when you block someone you should leave a note on their talk page with an explanation. I think the Gene's "incivility" has been exaggerated by the people he's in a long running dispute with. This is not surprising and to be expected, but these people must not be the ones to block him. --Duk 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled by the way you are defending Gene and your levity towards his undeniable incivility, but after a quick investigation I noticed that you seem to share some of Gene's points of view that cause so many of his disputes. Needless to say, agreeing with Gene effectively prevents him from being uncivil towards you (therefore I'm pretty sure that you've personally never experienced his attacks or lack of manners). Maybe you haven't witnessed his incivility, or maybe you have but regarded it as an unimportant detail because, well, he was on your side. But please be reasonable and consider investigating Gene's incivility record instead of relying on your alignment with him as a justification for considering unfounded and exaggerated any claims against him.--Húsönd 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Húsönd I respectfully disagree with almost everything you say above. First of all, to the current dispute about article naming conventions, I have no opinion about diacritics in people's names. I really don't care. I have never (to my knowledge) moved an article away from or to diacritics. The only time I remember agreeing with Gene here is on the Árpád Élő article. He pointed out that (at the time) wikipedia's spelling Árpád Élő didn't have any reliable references (it does now). And that the references people were coming up with either post dated wikipedia's spelling or were explicitly derived from it. Further, a reference Gene found (from ellis island) disagreed with our spelling, presenting the possibility that wikipedians had just invented some reality. Also, the naming of the article was a no-brainer. I seriously question not only the neutrality, but the judgment of any person who would not want to spell the article with the name that Arpad spent his whole adult life using and publishing under. Outside of that debate, I really don't care about diacritics; we have redirects to handle things like that. I think fighting over them is silly.

I first met Gene when he called one of my illustrations "an abomination". I quickly realized two things: first, he's usually right and has solid understanding and reasoning behind his opinions. Second, while his language is rough, it always seems to go to the point and not to the person. This has changed a lately, as the point has shifted to packs of admins who are picking on him and don't seem to be able to resist bringing admin tools into their content disputes. (one of these editors just lost his adminship, with the arbcom noting an inappropriate block of Gene).

Húsönd, you say that my levity towards Gene's incivility has its origins in the fact that we share some points of view. This is flat out wrong as detailed above. Additionally, I've never unblocked him or condoned his "incivility" - I've only noted that you exaggerate it. Now, I'd like you to make the same audit of your own motives; do you think it is possible that you have an unfairly negative view of Gene because you two have some fundamental different points of view? Perhaps some of Gene's observations of your judgment and preferences have struck a nerve? When two people disagree, it's natural for them to loose perspective and get worked up. This is exactly why admins are never to use their tools at content disputes they are involved with. --Duk 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone urgently block User:KURDBIJISTAN? a definite sockpuppet of a banned user [110]. He has vandalized many pages (see contributions [111]), including my user pages. He put speedy notices on his user page and talk page - the one for the talk page was declined by an admin. Urgent block needed - I also filed a 3RR report at [112] - I don't know who he is for the moment, but I will file a checkuser. Baristarim 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, all his edit summaries are deceptive [113] which makes the vandalbot and other users hard to detect. Baristarim 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taken care of.. Baristarim 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

This is banned user Artaxiad. I guess here's as good a place as any to note his reincarnations, as determined by checkuser: Vrastic (talk · contribs), HayasaArmen (talk · contribs), Mexicana (talk · contribs), Fakers (talk · contribs), Russ (talk · contribs), Mr. Barnstar (talk · contribs), Hayastan (talk · contribs), Lakers (talk · contribs), Graeco (talk · contribs), and Kursarta (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. I was sure that KURDBIJISTAN was Artaxiad, but didn't want to voice it, since it would have been embarassing had I wrongly accused someone of being such a malicious troll - but now that the cat is out of the bag, yeah it definitely is him: I know the editing style, the temper, the articles he visits - everything - it is him. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how many accounts he has created (I had thought that Russ, Vrastic and Hayastan was him) but had no idea how much it had escalated. The worst thing is that he seems to want to continue this forever [[114]. As soon as it became apparent that he would be blocked and before it became formal he went on a trolling spree which got him banned for 48 hours. It is amazing.. I know he is banned only for a year, but considering that he was back to editing like this a day after the ban came into effect, it might be good to envisage the possibility of a indef ban - it is just too much to track him down and waste time fixing trivial stuff. I wish that he would come to his senses and return as a normal editor, but I feel that he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously and that he actually enjoys trolling..Baristarim 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same hunch, and was not at all surprised to see it was him. Looks like the Arbcom made the right decision in banning him. --Golbez 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may be more of them. -- Cat ^chi? 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, check this: [115] deniz^T_C 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Baris, I don't enjoy trolling I'm obviously immature and I loose my cool easily theres no coming back, one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do. I helped alot with Lakers on Turkish articles, and to Cool Cat stop blabbering please, checkuser revealed all my accounts so be quiet. Theres nothing else to suspect all those accounts were recently created. 202.28.186.3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to be expected, the entry on Capella University is currently being vandalized again after having been locked due to edit wars caused by Capella University users in the past. At the moment, Capella University's Financial Aid Director is being investigated for received kickbacks from a student loan company for which he served on the board, in addition to his employment by the university. It appears as if the same user (who uses the name "Pizzaman" and involved in previous edit wars is now vandalizing the current entry. Pizzaman and other users from Capella University have been previously warned for TOS violations. It might be wise to restrict edits again in light of this individual's past.

No sooner had I corrected [Pizzaman0000] and [Pizzaman6233] vandalism (while I was creating this post) and he has again vandalized the page and continues to engage in name calling and personal attacks.Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better off posting this to AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article though... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll post this request on AIV too. Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new user [ElKevbo] is now blanking the article. In addition, take a look at bottom of ElKevbo Talk Page - note the personal attacks by an annonymous user - more than likely [Pizzaman0000] or [Pizzaman6233]? Shac1 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Shac1 for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on this article, but it seems that other editors are also editing in an unproductive way. User:Shac1 has asked for an unblock. I invite review of thsi block, note the report on WP:AN/3. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who didn't already hear about it, a BBC reporter vandalized his own article as part of a news story today. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this reversion eliminated one policy violation but created another, possibly more severe one. I presume it was an oversight on User:SlimVirgin's part, but should be fixed. However I feel User:Mantanmoreland should have known better than to create such an irresponsible, defamatory and potentially actionable userbox.--Live and Active Culture 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, Slim was only trying to revert spam, so you can hardly blame her... The userbox issue is a problem, but I'm pretty sure its going to be deleted. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 67.110.221.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has blanked comments on several article and Talk pages [116], [117] [118] for which he has been repeatedly warned [119][120] [121].

This user has also removed warnings from his Talk page several times. [122] [123] [124][125].

User has been warned several times.

-- Eleemosynary 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I wrote a complaint 18 February of this day regarding users Teke and Chacor (sorry couldnt link). I would like this to be looked into as I see at least one of the named parties behaving in the same fashion that prompted me to file my first complaint. In filing my complaint i followed the rules exactly. Admin Ryuong quickly brushed this aside because my complaint had "more than 100 words." The full complaint can be found on 18 February of my history and this page's history. Even if you do not pursue this at least look into the characters named above. Please look in to this. Feel free to Wikify the usernames. Thank you. WikiTony 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original complaint. Anyway, you have no case there. You were warned for civility, and you continued to be uncivil. There is no exception to WP:CIVIL if you have a good reason to be angry, which is the thrust of your argument. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gets funnier as I go on. You don't understand how calling someone childish and telling them that only you have the correct way to write current event articles is incivil? -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been two months since that thread, in which the issue surely has been solved. Also, my original request was that you summarize it. I don't believe you had.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Abuse of Power Complaint: admin Teke—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking this here, please look at your contributions and tell us who started the fight first. Civility and No personal attacks are important policies in Wikipedia, and noone has immunity towards it. Take Amarkov's comments into consideration please, as your behavior is extremely disruptive. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I was the original victim of incivility from multiple partys. B. Nothing there is meant to be funny. C. I never said i was the "only way." I do consider myself a good example. D. The issue "surely" has not been solved. At least one of the people i mentioned is doing the same things to this day. E. I will not summarize anything. Please take the time to actually read users' complaints. It really is not that long. F. How is my behavior disruptive? G. Thank you. WikiTony 04:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil behavior, by its nature, is disruptive, and being a victim of incivility does not excuse that. Many people seem to think there are circumstances which completely excuse incivility, but there are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. Doing what? This issue is from nine weeks ago. Teke is still an admin, is that what you mean? Chacor is still editing current events, is that what you mean? If you want your complaint to be responded to, summarize it. "Please make your comments concise and civil, and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." Otherwise, tough luck. Grow up. ありがとう。121.82.209.25 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean is that Chacor is still bullying others the way he bullied me. I will not shorten anything. I have made a thoughtful argument and i feel that every word of it is relevant. Please actually take the time to read your users' complaints. Everything I make eference to can be seen on my edits from 13Feb 07- 19 Feb 07. So far, after attempting to voice a complaint (again) in a professional manner I have been called "disruptive" and told to "grow up." And I am the one who was banned for 3 days for civility? This reeks of hypocrisy. WikiTony 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your original complaint runs to 3000 words. The productivity of any noticeboard approaches zero if the participants can't be brief. No-one has the time to study such a long complaint. Since you clearly have the ability to compose a 3000-word message, you should also to have the ability to create a shorter one. EdJohnston 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. I can't speak for Chacor cause I don't have dealings with him, but Teke is one of the most civil and fair-handed administrators or editors I've ever run across. The only incivility I see is coming from the IP above and from wikitony. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an NN autobio page written by User:Extremador. It was CSDed as nonsense, and it has since been recreated. I have speedied it as nonsense once again, but I think it may be wise to salt the page. MSJapan 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, nonsense doesn't apply in that case, but CSD A7 (nn biography) does, so I have deleted it. Secondly, its now listed on WP:PT. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based my decision on the content, which was pretty nonsensical. Thanks for taking care of that. MSJapan 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - User: 67.110.221.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked[126] for one week, approximately 1 hour ago, by Riana. Since then, he has logged on under a sockpuppet ID 209.206.165.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has continued to blank the Chelsea Clinton talk page.[127][128][129][130][131][132] Please see the diffs in the above report for several instances of this user blanking Talk Page text, as well as warnings from his/her own Talk page. -- Eleemosynary 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOIS tool says it's two different people, one from Washington the other Michigan. I'm wondering if one's a proxy... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could certainly be a proxy, if not a meatpuppet. The blanking is identical, and the edit summaries have nearly identical rants attached. Eleemosynary 05:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Riana has blocked the user for 48 hours. Eleemosynary 05:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). I have also posted this message at the BLP noticeboard. I am asking that an administrator intervene, given the repeated insertion of this material by a disgruntled editor. FNMF 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.

• The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobel writer Nadine Gordimer, 82, attacked and robbed". The Sunday Times (London). October 29, 2006.

"Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) I've full protected the page. Durova^Charge! 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link: George Galloway

The above article has been fully protected (by myself) since 22nd February 2007. The dispute revolves around a section about charges of anti-Zionism, Galloway's criticism of Israel, etc - a section which I removed from the article after protection, hoping that it would faciliate better communication on the talkpage. Quite apart from WP:BLP, Galloway is, as one editor puts it, 'notoriously litigatious', and there's a fairly real chance for the subject to bring charges against Wikipedia.

All unofficial attempts at mediation have been roundly rejected due in part to the nature of the above noted accusation, and in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be

• The use of potentially questionable sources
• The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words
• The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV.

This is a request for an impartial admin or experienced user to take part in the ongoing debate, and attempt to cool the flames, because an editor has asked me for help and I'm, quite frankly, out of my depth. The page has been locked for far too long, and consensus is nowhere in sight, mainly due to the fact that it's the same editors spinning out the same arguments. An editor new to the page and not party to the prior debates attempted to mediate with little progress. Some fresh insight into the matter would be great. After that the next step will have to be mediation (which has been rejected by some of the users), or an RfC.

Thanks, – Riana ^ऋ (with help from Jackbirdsong) 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. It seems to be an unfortunate rule that Religion+Wikipedia=really, really sucky articles. Grr. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'll have to rule me out of this one. I'm come across one of the main editors involved in this before: we spent a couple merry hours revert-warring. The person he was revert-warring on behalf of quickly turned out to be a sockpuppeting troll who quickly got permabanned, and the page stayed at the Right BLP-compliant Version. Hence, I don't think he'll be very pleased to see me after our last encounter, or at least not on something as contentious as this. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to take a look. Baristarim 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is not whether George Galloway is anti-zionist (because he is openly supportive of Palestinians) but whether he is anti-semitic. This is quite a different issue and needs to be handled extremely sensitively, even if the subject were not inclined to take legal action we have a duty to be fair. Sam Blacketer 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious. It's not just religion, look at alternative medicine etc etc. Are there any projects that help people maintain calm? Dan Beale 11:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've just eloquently said something I've been trying to figure out how to express into words for over a year now. Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious.. That should be policy or something. Thanks for brightening my day Dan Beale! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passage has gone through numerous revisions already. All arguments were considered. I will go step by step.

• "The use of potentially questionable sources"
  • All sources that say what Galloway has said are perfectly reliable, and there are several of them. Furthermore, a video of the interview is available online. The criticism of Galloway's comment appears either on news sites or the official websites of the critics.
• "The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words"
  • This has already been taken care of during revisions. The passage either writes Galloway's words verbatim, or the new sources's words verbatim.
• "The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV."
  • Every single statement relates. Every single one. --Shamir1 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riana, you wrote, "in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be..." You are mostly correct. I have been active in the discussion, listening to others, while they all smeared me as "biased" without telling me what is wrong with the passage. I continuously asked for compromise and never stopped asking what should be done before requesting mediation. They did not reply politely and rejected any mediation, although I myself had nothing to fear in it.

Riana, most editors hardly stated any violation of policy. They simply said why they dont agree with the criticism. They said "my" sources are "driven by the agenda of demonizing critics of Israeli policy like Galloway," a smear which he has no basis for, to which I replied, "Who do you expect to criticize it? The Sierra Club? A women's rights organization?" In actuality, members of Engage are harshly critical of Israeli policy themselves. Most, if not all, of Galloway's cited comments are not critical of Israeli policies but rather of Israel. This editor further talks about Jewish critics of Israel, trying to argue why he believes the criticism is wrong rather than arguing for any WP policy. Many of them jumped to conclusions, saying that the sources labeled him an antisemite, which not a single one of them did.

As for any "violations" of policy, this is what User:Halaqah had to say: "'South African white citizens are settler in African lands' . U define the term to fit the people. U have such a narrow definition that if i said 'jews own Hollywood' i am antisemitic. Jews were part of the slave trade. Israel is a neocolonial state. Jews control the central lobbying powers in America. Now if i said this about another group it isnt necessarly racism. White people control America. Isnt racist."

I was being attacked by numerous editors, by people who refused to even discuss it or have a mediation. I could not believe the comments by Halaqah who just began an attack campaign using some of the most irrelevant and disproven myths (slave trade) about Jews in the discussion, hardly even mentioning Galloway. This is of course the same pattern of just saying why they think the criticism is wrong, without saying why it is worthy of mention. I repeat that I still asked for mediation, even from these people, but they would not participate. I was talking to a wall until User:Jackbirdsong came along. Finally someone who did not attack me or the criticisms. We did not always agree, but we often did and we certainly moved along more in those 1-2 days than in the weeks with the other editors. I wouldnt say this last passage is in need of any more heavy-duty revision. --Shamir1 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shamir1, it was actually me who wrote the part about an "unwillingness to compromise", and I feel it applies to all parties involved. I appreciate that you feel as though you were attacked for putting what you clearly see as noteworthy and legit info into an article, and I agree that some of the other editors were less than cordial with you, but you must have been aware that this info would stir up heated opinions, right? I am glad that we were able to perhaps at least get the compromise ball rolling together, but I would strongly disagree with your assertion that no more "heavy-duty revision" is needed. On the contrary, I came to Riana for help in part because I believe a revision, mediated and furthered by an objective party(s), is the only solution that resembles any form of compromise here- something that has yet to be accomplished.--Jackbirdsong 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these spam links made by this user, Pub4you? Real96 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly approach them as such. El_C 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please help me with this page, re: an administrator, Irishguy? He continues to troll the board, where we had some issues, where I got quite angry at a couple of people a few days ago (my bad, but done is done).

Irishguy, an administrator, continues to erase my entry to this woman's page, about her work for which she's won awards. There is a video of the woman's work from the NY Times.

This Irishguy keeps calling this an advertisement. It is not.

What he also didnt notice is that someone added some inappropriate material, where there were value judgements applied to the woman's story, calling it "sordid" and people who helped her "humane". In other words, he's not trying to improve the article, he's trying to provoke me, so he can continue to block me, and satisfy some need he has to control users.

Please, if someone can take a look at the page Mukhtar Mai and please give a 2nd opinion about whether my insert is "advertisment" (which I surely feel it is not) I would be so grateful. And I would like someone to please ask Irishguy to stop this? Thanks.

Also, if someone wants to "wikify" this page, I would be grateful. I think it is fairly wikified, but if I take off that tag, then I am going to get hell from Irishguy. He wants to continue to fight with me, and to continue to block me. He just won't let it go. I'm simply trying to update a page, and I find this recursive interaction between us (he undoes my changes, deletes relevant things) boring. Thanks for your help.

Thank you. Jenniferpowell 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what he called "Advertisement"

= Mukhtar Mai’s work =   
   
Mukhtar Mai became famous after she took the money awarded her 
in the court settlement, and began to work to educate girls, 
and to promote education with a view towards raising awareness 
to prevent future honor crimes. Out of this work grew the 
organization [http://www.mukhtarmaiwwo.org Mukhtar Mai 
Women's  Welfare Organization]. Through this agency, Mukhtar 
Mai continues her work to educate young girls, and to educate 
the community about women’s rights and gender issues.  This 
work also includes the creation of a center for victims of 
violence.  Mukhtar Mai not only teaches the young girls, but 
has been active in helping to make sure that underage girls 
stay in school, rather than get married.  In Fall 
2007, a high school will be started by her group.     
[133]. 
New York Times Video: “A Conversation With Mukhtar Mai”

While I wouldn't clasify that as an advertisement, the link is already entered under External Links. I have gone through the article and did a general cleanup, and removed the tags. I have seen lots of articles on Wiki in MUCH worse shape (and this one is not in bad shape at all) which were not so tagged. It is a good article and needs a little work, but not enough to warrant big bumper stickers on the top of the article. Jeffpw 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Yet another editor harassing/behaving uncivilly toward one of my Wikifriends (an editor in very good standing. Ms. "Tunn" has left a few snarky messages on User: Dev920's talk page now, for which I have unofficially warned her. It might mean more coming from an admin. I note she has done this to Dev many times before, both under this name, and her old one, User:TerriNunn( now deleted), for which she has been blocked. I don't like to see people I care about being hassled for no reason, and ask that somebody put a stop to this. Thanks. Jeffpw 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you could supply evidence of this past harassment. I also note that Dev920's response was not exactly a shining example of civility. --ElKevbo 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can I supply evidence of past harassment when the user name was deleted??????? I'm not a lion; don't make me jump through hoops of fire. As for Dev's response, you might be a bit crabby had you been continually provoked by the same user in the past. I did my bit, admin can take it from here. Jeffpw 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users are never deleted; the redlink only means that the user page is deleted. TerriNunn's contributions are still fully available. — Lomn 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While my reply was not perfectly polite, I fail to see how that excuses NerriTunn's accusations of me being stalinist, stupid, immature and irrational. NerriTunn has squatted on Talk:List of bisexual people for months, trying to insert people who are not bisexual and trying to persuade people to throw out all normal definitions of bisexuality and "stop putting people into narrow categories". Her last post, in which she wrote "many, perhaps most, people will become bisexual in the right circumstances." sums up pretty much her attitude to who should be on the list, and I wonder why exactly she works on this list at all when she really wants List of people. She has often argues for blatently BLP entries to be included (such as the entire "disputed section") on the basis that it is interesting, and scoffs and mocks at editors who tell her we are writing an encyclopedia. I have told her repeatedly that this simply isn't accurate or according to policy or in fact, normal standards, but she just ignores me and blathers on about being "open to experiences" and "leaving it up to the reader to decide". This isn't just me - everyone who has posted to the talkpage has rejected NerriTunn's view of who should be included. So with this background, forgive me if I was not amused when she wrote "Just try and be rational and sensible and human and you will improve with practice. We are very patient." on my talkpage, when she has had (probably, see my AN/I report on it) to resort to sockpuppeting to forcibly insert her views. I am getting very fed up with people harrassing me on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that always grates me is editors, like this, who persistently create a hostile atmosphere for others. However, NerriTunn seems to have annouced her departure - see her talk - is that the end of that? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the end, apparently. She is now harassing me on my talk page. Make her stop, please. Jeffpw 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And has just accused me of being a man pretending to be female. Even though I have a link on my userpage to an interview with the Times in which my gender is somewhat prominent. Seriously, this person is being really incivil now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to link to that. Editor needs a sitout I think. --Fredrick day 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this editor has continued this behavior after "abandoning the account", I've issued a 24 hour timeout.--Isotope23 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an administrator comment on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon? There have been some comments that pertain directly to WP:LEGAL. In particular, User:Davkal has made a few statements that accuse myself of libel and also say obliquely that it opens Wikipedia up to legal action. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Davkal. He borders on NLT with the libel accusation but is not quite there. I told him if he has a problem, bring it up with the foundation, not with other editors, and if he continues he'll be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Dhwani1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted images with fraudulent/misrepresented/dubious boilerplate tags and source information. Images lately have been screen captures of political TV programs (Meet the Press, etc.) which are being tagged as work-product of the Senate, and he's listing the source for each image as she official website of the subject, although no one seems to be able to locate any of these images on the site listed. After running behind this guy for weeks (maybe months) I'm asking an admin to step in and help me out. Thanks! /Blaxthos 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some opinions on this user? He seems to be creating a lot of articles - two of which I've flagged for speedy-deletion and he seems to have an aversion to replying to anything on his talk page (although he is aware of the page and possibly the notices). It was suggested he could be part of the clueless newbies in previous incidents (he has 3 of them in the archives). x42bn6 Talk 12:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable, that Irishguy is doing this again (reference no. 62 on this board, re: Mukhtar Mai deletions. Irishguy is trolling ISTIA to try to provoke a fight, after I had a dispute with some men and he blocked me.

Considering his inordinate pursual of the page created by me in my professional scope,Irishguy is considered to be a troll on this board, pursuing a vendetta. This was already reported to the Business and Economics Wikiproject board. The Business and Economics Wikiproject board invited ISTIA as a Wikiproject, after which I joined them as a member. In other words, I am not the person that made it a wikiproject. Other experts did. ISTIA is a specialized international agency which is funded by, and works with, governments particularly to help poor governments. It is also a world competence center for globalization data and globalization data capacity building.

Unless Irishguy has sufficient experience with economics, trade policy and international statistics to debate the entry of this board with Wikiproject he is invited to leave this board alone. Thanks in advance. istia 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam is also trolling. He is is pursuing a vendetta for a disagreement over another page. The Behnam is invited to discuss this page with the Business and Economics Wikiproject, which invited ISTIA to be one of their projects. If TheBehnam wants to have an offline discussion about why ISTIA is an important source of information for globalization data (which is why it is listed on the UN Development Gateway capacity building webpage as a partner, why it is a partner to the OECD, and to see the list of governments supporting ISTIA, he is invited to contact me offline. Thank you. istia 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to posting on WikiProject Business and Economics istia 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istia, you have not been blocked as you claim. If you had been blocked you would not be able to post here. Please understand that Wikipedia does not allow people involved in organizations to write articles about those organizations. Please read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Rash accusations of trolling and bad faith against long standing members of the Wikipedia community do not help your case. Gwernol 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ludicrous. istia did not post this, Jenniferpowell did. Note that Jenniferpowell has already posted this further up the page, and User:Istia clearly identifies herself as "Ms. Jennifer Marie POWELL". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[134] This may be useful to people reviewing this situation. The Behnam 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She also continues to use her sock, Istia, to remove maintenance and 'prod' tag from her own organization's article. The Behnam 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see if I can sort this out... Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs) had 2 accounts and posted this from JP, but signed it Istia (talk · contribs) which is her other account. Confusing, but not a big deal. Jennifer Powell's eponymous account was blocked for personal attacks and then the block was extended when she continued to edit around it from an IP. So what exactly is the problem being asserted in the original post? Irishguy (talk · contribs) has almost no edits in regards to the International Services Trade Information Agency beyond the fact that he PROD'd it yesterday which has now been changed to an AfD. He removed content from Mukhtaran Bibi, which has been removed by several editors and keeps being added back by Ms. Powell. He also unprotected Powell's talkpage today. I don't see any evidence of "trolling" by Irishguy (talk · contribs). Nothing to see here; move along.--Isotope23 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not nothing, there is a pressing problem with Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs) / Istia (talk · contribs) in that the user was editing using another account and an IP_ to get around a block; the editor is also taking very personally the debate over inclusion of her organisation, which she freely admits is very new and has no real independent sources. So somebody needs to go over there and wield the iron hand in the velvet glove. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant in regards to the claim that Irishguy had somehow acted inappropriately. The issues you bring up JzG are a whole different can of worms I'm just starting to look into.--Isotope23 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its also worth noting that both accounts have been edit warring on the ISTIA article in violation of WP:3RR. I blocked User:istia for 3 hours for canvassing for support for the AfD after being politely warned not to. This user clearly misunderstands the core mision of Wikipedia and its policies despite extended efforts by many editors to help her. She has also resorted to some borderline personal attacks. Gwernol 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now she is promising meatpuppetry [135]. The Behnam 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is english her second language? She seems to struggle to follow basic conversations which makes me think this might be the case. In addition, shouldn't we block one of her accounts? as she's currently repeating content between the two. --Fredrick day 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course her sock should be blocked. And she is still continuing with personal attacks [136]. Most of the people who get indef'd at AIV haven't been this disruptive; I have no idea why her behavior has been tolerated as much as it has. The Behnam 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2005 Istia edited General Agreement on Trade in Services which is an article that Get-back-world-respect had edited earlier. 16 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect stopped editing and demanded that his/her pages be blanked...behavior that JenniferPowell later does when she gets blocked. On 17 February 2007, one day later, Istia recreated Get-back-world-respect's user page with an advertisement for her company (which I deleted so you can't see it). I believe she has been using numerous names and will continue to do so. In fact, on the 9th Jennifermpowell was created. This was done while she was still blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone keep an eye on the AFD - she is just dropping massives of stuff in all over the place - wreaking the formating and the flow. --Fredrick day 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another account - not used yet, but needs blocking. --Fredrick day 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have contact with a checkuser willing to work this monstrosity? RJASE1 ^Talk 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brew182db left a profanity-laden tirade, including everyone's favorites ur butthole is the size of the mooon, You must suffer from Cranial Rectal Syndrome, and the ever-popular ur momma such a fat whore that wen she prostitutes she gets paid in cheeseburgers on my talk page a few minutes ago. Since I'm involved, I can't block him, though a message on his talk page makes it look like he's been vandalizing since August 2006. Can someone take a look at it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He got a "final warning" for what he did on your userpage. He only has 1 edit logged, presumably because everything else he's done here are nonsense article creation. I'm going to watchlist him and if I see anymore vandalism I'll block as a vandal only account.--Isotope23 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech two edits obscenity and vandalism by Special:Contributions/146.145.79.137 with some previous history Richard Myers 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the vandalism and warned the vandal.↔NMajdan•talk 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the commemoration of the death anniversary of the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin - Google Inc has put up a special logo on it's search engine page which links to a search, which - quite obviously - gives Wikipedia a top slot - [137]. The article was vandalised regularly and was therefore semi-protected by an administrator. The discussion is underway here - [138] - on the admin noticeboard. Comments are invited. --Zamkudi 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DDRG persists in reverting a section of the Asahi Shimbun to his version with no citable proof of his statements, and he is the only one making the claims of notability of the issues he added. He claimed he would find more sources, but has not, and has returned to simply reverting the page to his version (because it's got to say "Scandals and alleged report" in the header, apparently; "Controversies" isn't good enough).

It comes down to POV-pushing; the user believes that a few minor reporting errors that weren't responded to by the paper 15 years ago are acceptable to call "scandals" (despite no secondary coverage). DDRG blames the paper for actions of individuals (interviews with people regarding comfort women, and the people were later found to be liars; a photographer who staged a shot and sent it to the paper, and apparently stating two politicians met in Nagano when it as really Tokyo). His sources are weekly magazines that appear to be tabloids (links to what I could find are on the talk page). DDRG also gives only the magazine title and the date of publication (thus there is no way to validate the citation). I think this requires intervention, but as there are so-called "sources" cited, I'm not sure a case can be made for a set of warnings. MSJapan 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I stuck my oar in these waters a week ago, but was handicapped by not knowing Japanese. The essence is apparently now down to (1) whether or not Shinchosha is a sufficiently reliable source to be cited saying that there were issues with an Asahi Shimbun story. Our article on it doesn't say much, it could be Time (magazine) or the Weekly World News. I asked for someone who reads Japanese to help before, but to little avail. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about titling this "JB196: An Army Of One (and about onehundred fifty sockpuppets)". JB continues to cut a wide swath through WP, vandalizing articles, blanking them, and then getting them deleted, and bragging about the articles he had deleted(he's hit my user page a couple of times times [139], [140], and bragging about his vandalization off-Wikipedia [141]. He also was responsible for a joe job spree across several different WP in an attempt to land sites on a SPAM blacklist (see meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#cross wiki spam). We have compiled all the JBSocks we can find, but we need them blocked and a CheckUser run to eliminate the open proxies underneath Here. Thanks. SirFozzie 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can help by placing {{sockblock|JB196}} on the user pages of the blocked ones, there is no link from the block log to the "block this user" feature. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I edited a dead link in the original post to have it point to the archive. Jesse Viviano 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an edit war between two admins on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, despite the fact that the page is protected. >Radiant< 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that was 2 days ago? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was 3 days ago, though that is a really bad thing for admins to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deliberately ignoring the {{editprotected}} tag for this reason. But it was clear early on that there was not consensus in favor of the "wrong section" wording. CMummert · talk 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of requesting a checkuser on Buttonsforeyes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), but I think this is an obvious, disruptive sock so we can spare the checkusers some effort. His contributions consist of trying to nominate Arthur Ellis for adminship, and vandalising Rachel Marsden. Arthur Ellis is community-banned; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis for history. Could someone indef block Buttons please? Kla'quot 05:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and RfA deleted.--Isotope23 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After getting blocked and getting two unblock requests denied, SuperExpress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now posting threats of possible further vandalism on his or her talk page, and therefore possibly committed extortion. Should I just semi-protect it, or should I state that we have technical means of tracking him or her down and that continued theats will result in a complaint with the FBI or an ISP abuse report? I do not want to violate WP:NLT, but I do not enjoy extortion by trolls, either. I was about to post this message: "Extortion will only result in a complaint to your ISP or the police. We have ways to find your IP address when necessary.", but caught myself about to possibly violate WP:NLT. Therefore, I would like to seek input on how to handle extortionists and other criminals on Wikipedia, and how severe a crime must be before I file a CheckUser request (with code letter A, if you insist) with a request that the results be forwarded to the FBI (The FBI gets jurisdiction on Internet crime, as the majority of Internet crimes cross state boundaries) or other appropriate law enforcement agency. I know that all death threats and child porn cases (I actually ran across two photos on the Commons that were unquestionably child porn, and requested a CheckUser there) should go to CheckUser. Jesse Viviano 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you're overreacting. Just delete his pages and forget about him John Reaves (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have only one stance for vandals - Revert, block, ignore; and yes, don't forget to protect (not semi-protect, the user is registered) the talk page. I suppose, the users are not permitted to make legal threats or even insinuations on Wikipedia. --Zamkudi 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no legal threats. John Reaves (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but Jesse was intending to, even though his intentions are honest. --Zamkudi 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to the vandal. John Reaves (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the ruckus I caused. I guess my judgement was clouded by a conflict of interest because this vandal put a bunch of nonsense on my own talk page. This is why I sought community input. As for my last sentence in my above post, I should have added ", but where is the line for how severe a crime should be before being sent to CheckUser?". Jesse Viviano 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the seriousness you probably did not intend, we generally do not term these as crimes. Users may fault, and they are blocked when they are being knowingly and intentionally disruptive. Checkusers are generally used as a last resort to establish links between patterns of abusive sockpuppetry. There is a whole list of reasons how and when RFCU should be resorted to, see WP:RFCU for more details. In this case, the troll user account threatened us with more vandalism. The administrators would be present to block those disruptive accounts when they turn up. If there is something peculiar about their actions, i.e. they target a particular set of articles or userpages, they get blocked and templates like {{sockpuppet}} can be used to mark those accounts. Good day. --Zamkudi 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought to attention by another user on the AFD for Frank Jasper. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Jasper. I am reporting it here as a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. The messages are obviously partisan toward Keep and targeted toward fans. See the diffs provided at the AFD: [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did he continue after you warned him? Is he still doing it? John Reaves (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user was given a {{uw-canvass}} warning at 12:05 April 12, and has not sent any more messages since. 8 messages were sent in a 4 minute window on April 10 with 4 more sent in another 4 minute window on April 11. Since then the user has not canvassed further, but removed the warning on their talk page [154], leaving behind a quite uncivil response. But no, the user has made no contibs outside of their talk page since the warning was issued. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the issue here? John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in retrospect I should have checked that first. Well, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [155]/ Andy Mabbett 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the personal attack. Perhaps he's rude, but rudeness alone is not a personal attack. The user appears to, quite brusquely, be asking you to not post inflammatory stuff to his/her page. That might not be kosher, but it's still not a personal attack. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears he is asking that Adambro (talk · contribs) not post anything on his talkpage be it inflammatory or not. I agree with Chairboy (talk · contribs); while rude and not at all in the spirit of a collaborative project, it isn't exactly a personal attack. I'd recommend disengaging from contact with Captain scarlet (talk · contribs). If there is something that Adambro would normally inform a user of (AfD of a page they created, RfC, etc) I'd say he can safely not contact Captain Scarlet about it and if anyone else points out that the nice thing to do is contact an individual in that situation, he can point them to that diff.--Isotope23 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not silly and not about to post inflamatory, insulting, unappropriate comments on someonelse's talk page. The message was intende dpurely as a coutrious advice to Adambro not to speak to me as I generally disagree with him and do not hold him in particular favour. Instead of letting each argue I'd prefer cutting all inwards communications be it in a brusk way. There is afterall a specific definition for bruskness. I, however, appreciate Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)'s concerns for adambro (talk · contribs)'s wellbeing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment made by Captain scarlet, I'm not sure I would view it as a personal attack, I suppose the assertion that anything I say will be considered with little value could possibly be seen as an attack on my character. As Captain scarlet notes in his message, he has previously asked me not to contact him but I have seen circumstances where the guidelines suggest I should notify him of my actions. I have replied to the comment on my talk page and explained that I will take his latest message as negating me of this responsibility in the future. I appreciate the suggestion made by Isotope23 to this effect. I would also thank Pigsonthewing (Andy) for highlighting this and allowing me to hear the opinions of other editors as to the appropriate response. Adambro 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't want comments on their talk page, that's their right. How is that a personal attack? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Doing so is, despite what you or anyone else says[156], trolling". Please explain how unfounded accusations of trolling can be anything but a PA. Note also that the text concerned was re-added. Andy Mabbett 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a second opinion. I've been trying to educate User:Nowonline about proper attribution, and no original research and getting nowhere. The editor Nowonline seems to be a "Richard B. Autry", and citing himself, and claiming to be publishing a book soon. Before I nominate all the articles created by this user for deletion as original research, is there something more I should do - or should I just walk away? Extensive text on the Nowonline's talk page (which he keeps deleting items from - so be careful to review the history) here: User talk:Nowonline Thanks WLD^talk|edits 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you can pretty aggressively remove anything that doesn't meet WP:ATT or WP:BLP. The onus on sourcing is on the originator and sourcing things to vague "future books" doesn't cut it.--Isotope23 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your view. I really don't want to come across too strong, as I don't want to bite a newbie, or dishearten an infrequent contributor, but it looks like I'll start nominating articles for deletion. Thanks again. WLD^talk|edits 19:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you can do what I'm doing at Micajah Autry; removing insufficient sources from the article, editing, and inline citing everything. Deletion may not be the necessity for all these articles.--Isotope23 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, that is what I intended for articles that have sourced information - the problem being that I may not have access to the sources to check. I'm not after wholesale deletion, and I'm sorry if that's how I came across. WLD^talk|edits 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user came back under User:195.56.205.29 to do what he always did. Reveal lying by users [157] here. He's got a bad temper and harsh wording. He deserved indef block for that, since content is not a matter here, just wording, and speaking style. Good. Best way to achive the goal of finally changing the motto(?) of "The Free Encyclopedia" to the more specified "The POV Encyclopedia". Speak nice or die, so now kill block me. Thank you. --195.56.205.29 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COUGH*Don't be a dick*COUGH* HalfShadow 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged one of this user's pages as nonsense while on New Page Patrol about a week ago and then gave them another warning when the page was further expanded. (The page was subsequently deleted as nonsense). S/he now appears to have turned their user page into a petition against me. I think said user is just being silly and intends no genuine malice, but if a sysop could remove the offending article, warn the user (and explain that New Page Patrol do not "mercilessly crush" anything, that's not how it works), I would be very grateful. A1octopus 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darin Fidika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darin Fidika was blocked indefinitely due to repeated blatant copyright violations (see here), and is now back under Tathagata Buddha. As I have already been involved in previous incidents with this user, I'd like someone else to look at it and make the determination on whether or not to block the new account. I found out about it by stumbling across his Wikibooks page. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]