Purge the cache to refresh this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

• 2007-07-03T07:53:25
• 2007-07-03T09:30:05
• 2007-07-03T09:52:47 (a .5 revert)
• 2007-07-03T09:54:13
• 2007-07-03T09:57:50.

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi ^Talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi ^Talk 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakasuprman unblocked

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblock of Bakaman. Yes, Anwar's edits do violate WP's policies and guidelines but blocking him is not really an option here. Blocking users in this manner is a no-no and does more harm than good. Terence 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Nick unblocked Bakasuprman, but apparently didn't unblock User:Anwar saadat. This reeks of special treatment, especially given Nick and Baka's involvement in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. And who exactly is the "we" that Nick refers to? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is for the community. I will endorse an unblock of Anwar saadat if done by any other administrator. As for your misguided comments, it was I who highlighted the inappropriate block of Anwar saadat on the Evidence page. Please cease with this conspiratorial and partisan rhetoric. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying, then, that User:Moreschi is not a member of the community? As for Anwar, two different administrators have already denied his unblock requests, so I won't override them. I don't like to undo other administrators' actions. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin's judgment was clouded and if he would have cared to take a look at those pages where the alleged warring took place, these are effectively 0.66 RR blocks. We need dispute resolution for this and not blocks to escalate the situation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.66RR across six articles? Yep, that's disruption, and last I checked we block for that. And no, my judgment is not clouded: my reasoning abilities are perfectly intact, and I'm virtually uninvolved when it comes to these users. Moreschi ^Talk 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clouded"? I think you should have initiated a discussion here before concluding that. Since Anwar had three unblock requests declined before FaysaalF unblocked him, I see a pretty robust consensus for Moreschi's block of Anwar. As for dispute resolution, from what I've seen, neither Anwar or Baka has shown great inclination to engage in discussion, mediation, or anything similar during their sporadic edit-war (except, as I noted, Baka made some talk page posts yesterday). For what it's worth, it looks to me as if Anwar is stalking and trolling Baka, but Baka's response is, for the most part, simply to revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Akhilleus. Now is reverting (and making my best attempt to discuss) anything comparable to stalking? No it isnt.Bakaman 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu, anyone? "Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake". That and the earlier "edit-warring duo" post have me confused as to where Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) ends and Akhilleus (talk · contribs) begins.Bakaman 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As civil as ever. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a banned anti-Buddhist troll and I took offense at your mis-characterization of evidence and your opprobrious facilitation of admin abuse. I find that is covered in policy, under WP:CIVIL. Your remarks are little more than "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock of Bakasuprman per Nearly Headless Nick.Dineshkannambadi 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block was hasty and badly judged. I support the unblock. Sarvagnya 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Do either of you have reasons? Do you wish to expand on this? Hornplease 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You masquerading as an [opinion] is absurd.Bakaman 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anwar saadat unblocked

I've just unblocked User:Anwar saadat to cool this down. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are my thoughts: It seems my unblock requests would not have been declined three times by admins if the diffs I provided were read through. I was not revert warring with Baka here (as Baka blanked entire section without discussion or even a note in the edit summary and here (as Baka removed the formatting for the filmography table without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here and here (as Baka inserted link to FU image, no FU rationale provided and introduced POV with links to a partisan blog) and here and here (as Baka reverted a tag to a FU image and blanked a whole section along with supporting links to the Guardian without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here (as Baka inserted a subscriber-only link). I hope the matter is clear now.Anwar 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing co-admins blocks

I am not a fan of undoing blocks. It just makes things worse as shown above. Both users have been edit warring since a long time and honestly the block of Moreschi was appropriate. My unblock of saadat tries to bring the balance back. I hope both users refrain from using the revert button excessively. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of blocks. They just make things worse as shown above. Was this really a situation so extreme that the blocks were necessary? Are the blocking admins aware of the psychological effects of blocks? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Threads about both editors has been common here. It is not the first time Anwar and Baka's conflicts are brought here. There would be rather psychological effects of the blocks on admins i believe as shown above (i.e. Nick and Akhilleus). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things are brought up on ANI, not all of them are legitimate. It is our job as administrators to decide what is good for the project and what is not. Instead of seeking quick solutions like blocking users pronto, we must encourage them to seek dispute resolution; or perhaps take the prerogative ourselves and initiate one for them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These guys have been at it for over a month (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar). Despite plenty of warnings, and two sets of blocks (both undone rather quickly), they've shown no serious inclination to engage in dispute resolution. How do you suggest solving the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this behaviour is endemic for these editors, as witnessed by the sheer number of unpleasant RfArbs in which they have been involved, I'd say ending a fairly lenient 24-hour block is strange, to say the least. That it is Sir Nicholas who's done it should alarm anyone who's read the Request for Arbitration in which he and Bakasuprman were involved. This is quite ridiculously unsubtle, really. Hornplease 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your motivations, as presented on arbcom and another argument are clear.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins must recuse themselves from taking any admin actions, in cases where allegations of Conflict of interest may occur. And also, requesting the blocking admin to reconsider the block is much better than taking any controversial admin action to undo a block. My $0.02. --Ragib 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ragib, and note that this principle from the ongoing Hkelkar 2 arbitration states more or less the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answar is a vandalising Hindu articles for no reason. Seeing as he is a muslim, makes his actions extremely predujice.--D-Boy 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While no one disagrees with that, it seems .66 Reverts and attempts at talk page discussion are equal misdeeds.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just trolled ourselves

First, I would like to reject the suggestion that my judgment was clouded. It was not. I'm not the one with a vendetta here. I'm not the one trying to push a POV. I'm neutral. Couldn't care less about Indian politics, or Wikipolitics.

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated this rule and the clause in this one, which states the disruptive edit-warriors should be blocked even if they have not violated 3RR. Fighting like across so many articles clearly falls under that clause. Both users violated the rules: they were being disruptive, and we block for disruption, don't we? The unblock was a joke. Politics are clearly being played here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, no Indian Wikipolitics for you. Thought I should remind you of the invectives you used for Bakasuprman and another gentleman over IRC a few days ago. You are obviously, an uninvolved party. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the specifics (and I incline to Moreschi's view of them), what happened to discussing a block with the blocking admin before undoing it? Am I missing something? Was the first notice that Moreschi's block had been overturned really a notice on AN/I stating, "We do not appreciate your administrative action; it has been undone"? MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that is the case. This brings on the question of conflict of interest, given that there is an ongoing arbitration case that specifically barred any admin actions among the parties. In the end, such admin actions just bring the adminship into disrepute. --Ragib 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still perplexed by that "we". Apparently Sir Nick believes he can unilaterally determine the will of the community, whereas Moreschi's judgement is "clouded". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too perplexed by the "we". Ragib and Akhilleus were a couple the original supporters of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) during the notorious meatpuppetry fiasco. What brings adminship into disrepute is willingly making hypocritical statements and equating stalking with legitimate knee-jerk reactions.Bakaman 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And so was Moreschi...oh, wait, he wasn't. And guess what, he's the blocking admin. Not me, not Rama's Arrow (who left, so why are we bringing him up, exactly?). And you know, if you're foolish enough to take the bait when you're being trolled, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. As for "hypocritical statements", I would expect that if you agree with the principle that administrators shouldn't block users on the opposite side of a dispute, you would also agree that administrators should not unblock users on their own side of a dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never in any sort of edit dispute with Rama's Arrow. I had a spat with him maybe a week or two before the April 22 incident. I attempted to discuss after the second reverts. Anwar has a long history of this, as we can see in Rama's first RFA where he was censured by a number of users for attacks on religious beliefs. This isn't about one size fits all remedies. I have demonstrated on the talk pages how my edits were within policy. Anwar's inability to do that is not my problem. Facilitation of stalking and religious hatred are also not becoming of admins.Bakaman 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, you're being trolled. Anwar's been trolling you for over a month. There have been numerous ANI posts about this, and it's played a role in the arbitration case. And you still haven't figured out a way to respond except pursue your "revert first" policy, even though you've already been warned, several times, that this is not a good idea. Anwar's behavior is worse than yours, but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I noted above, you made some posts to talk pages of some of these articles, after this note from User:Andrew c. You gracefully replied here, where you said, in part: 'I do not feel a need to discuss with a troll...That being said I "discussed" my edits now.' One might conclude that your efforts to discuss (sorry, "discuss") were in less than good faith; in fact, you explicitly said they weren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I should add that your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition consisted of "The link works." ([1]) Another one of your posts ended "I can remove this bs at whim." This was probably not the most constructive way to approach the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi referred to me as a bastard over IRC, I take strong offense at that, and his misuse of admin powers. He is obviously more than clouded. On the other argument, you still cannot refute that my edits were clearly sanctioned by policy. My use of BS is meaningless. Might I remind you Jimbo has said "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Referring to things as BS may not be nice, but there is nothing wrong with being blunt about things.Bakaman 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ArbCom appears about to pass a decision, in Hkelkar 2, specifically barring actions such as Sir Nick's unblock of Bakasuprman as inappropriate uses of administrative powers. Perhaps this unblock was technically "legal", in the sense that the ArbCom case is not officially closed, but it still doesn't pass the smell test. Unless I'm missing something here? MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Bishonen, morven and Flonight's comment on the talk page of Proposed decisions here – [2]. Some of those proposed principles are self-contradictory, and the Arbitrators are still reviewing them. They were originally meant for somebody else. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle in question is uncontroversial. Or do you disagree with the idea that "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in"? Note that the sentence starts "As always," implying that this is something that doesn't even need to be said. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nick has absolutely no experience with Anwar. The real issue is moreschi's cluouded judgment and his inability to differentiate differences in conduct.Bakaman 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Sir Nick's behaviour in the light of ArbCom rulings and precedent that is being discussed. Concerns with Moreschi's block are properly aired above. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Code letters: E, C and D

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

Apparently not resolved after all, as Deskana's blanking of the page was reverted by User:Orangemike.[3] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am being wikistalked and they are being incivil to me. This is against wiki policy [[5]]. I made a very neutral comment on the talk page of Senator Barack Obama here [[6]]. User:Tvoz, who POV pushes at the Barack Obama article (as he as edited 239 in this article, far more than any other article he has edited), began wikistalking me.

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

Tvoz is all violating AGF by calling me a sock because of my 2nd very neutral Barack Obama talk page edit. [[7]]

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

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

I would hope that an uninvolved admin would indef block this latest sock of a community banned user. Please also see recent abusive edits [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] to my Talk page by an unknown-to-me IP address, whose timing seems curious, considering the above. A 31-hour block is in effect for the IP address, which seems rather light to me, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz accuses User:Plumbing of being a Feddhicks sock and therefore a Dereks1x sock. This is wrong. Plumbing is a sock of cat POV pusher DreamGuy [[13]]. According to Tvoz's logic, DreamGuy=Dereks1x, which is a false accusation. Given that Tvoz's 2nd most favorite article to edit is Cat Stevens, I suspect that Tvoz=DreamGuy=Plumbing (as all 3 edit controversial stuff about cats or cat stevens).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editor Orangemarlin:

• sent me frivolous warnings about alleged vandalism [14] [15],
• repeatedly insulted and slandered me
  • "… Mr. panty and penis obsessed …" [16]
  • "… Mr. Panty obsessed …" [17]
  • "I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises." [18]
  • "… audacious ****wit …" [19]
• was extremely aggressive and provocative
• tried to remove an active unfavorable discussion from his talk page and then called me a vandal when I reverted it
• falsely accused me of being a vandal, even though it was explained to him by a neutral third party that it's wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with Firsfron, this is a very odd situation. Perhaps it is indeed typical of a certain haste and superficiality of our "ANI culture", as Orangemarlin proposes above. Oddest of all is Sasquatch's uncalled-for block threat here. Fatalis seems determined to prolong the conflict until everybody apologizes to him (for ... uh, not sure). See this thread, with Orangemarlin's offer to move on and Fatalis insistence on "justice." Or see Fatalis' call for "repentance" just above here, with the hilarious and petulant misstatement "I did not decline [his attempt to make peace] anyway". Fatalis needs especially to stop reverting Orangemarlin's changes to his own talkpage, which he is free to make. See for instance this revert and this, note especially the edit summaries. Stop trying to police his talkpage right now, please, Fatalis. Incidentally, isn't it time you stopped sheltering under WP:BITE? You've been editing here since April 2005.[20] Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an unfair summary. After I archived the big talk page (280 KiB; the mistake was in moving the page history with it), Orangemarlin attacked me [22] and issued a false warning about "vandalism". I repeated what I had said in the summary, and suggested that the active discussions should be moved back in. [23] I then told him to not get so agitated, that I was just following the WP:ARCHIVE guideline. Perhaps it was impolite (it could also be taken as humorous), but he met it with pointless insults, and showed that he does not understand the situation, and kept calling me a vandal. I was reasonably upset, and told him to stop being a dick. I was met with more pointless vitriol. Two other editors told him that he was wrong about tagging me as a vandal, and he just dismissed them, and also called me a "POV warrior", showing that he had just made that assumption, without bothering to see my edit history. After that he has not yet acknowledged that I'm not a vandal, and is still making aggressive comments. Also, all this muddle is because after the history was restored by User:Banno, a certain editor moved back in not just the active discussions, as was the idea, but almost the entire archive, ranging from 380 KiB to about 200, with many threads long dead. –Fatalis 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You are right, and I have never denied that it was a mistake, but if you disregard that I moved the history, everything else was more or less correct. I moved the page to the archive, added the archive tag, moved the top part back to the old page, added the history info-box, and then commented that the active discussions should be moved back. The immediate vandalism warning was undeserved, and OM's insults much less. I've outlined the order of events above, and you can see that Orangemarlin overreacted and did not try to AFG or be civil at any point. Now he's saying that it's "totally unfair". [24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stand corrected

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

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

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

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

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

Postscript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

Resolved

Per the blocking policy, I'm looking for a consensus of sysops to unblock Ned Scott. The 12-hour block relates to obscenity in a DRV "Cut the bullshit matthew" followed by removing warnings with edit summaries of "fuck off" [25] [26] The block was clearly appropriate, but the contrite dialog at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Blocked (with an editor Ned Scott has previously been in conflict with) including "I will resume reading and considering other people's comments, and not swearing at them" leads me to say that the block no longer serves any preventative purpose and should be lifted. What do other sysops think?--Chaser - T 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I too would be opposed to an early unblock. (disclaimer: I have had disputes with Ned Scott before) In my experience, Ned is usually extremely contrite during the block, but then simply goes back to old behavior when the block is lifted. On June 24 when he was blocked for 3RR, I offered to support an unblock if he would avoid editing the Juice Plus article and just participate at the talkpage.[27] At 04:27 Ned agreed, saying he was done with that article completely. So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to that article and edit-warring again,[28] making another 4 reverts in 26 hours. Then June 26, he was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR at a completely unrelated location, the WP:BLP page. Now he's blocked again, for incivility. I actually think a 12-hour block is very lenient considering recent history. I would be opposed to lifting the current block -- Ned needs to take some time off from Wikipedia, calm down and realize that there's a problem. --Elonka 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay32183 (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked twice for incivility toward users who disagreed with him on the interpretation of policy [29]. Now he is arguing with Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination) and, while he's avoided the colourful language of the earlier incidents, his attitude has been highly combative ("It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong"). He's threatened Tyrenius with a block for continuing to advance an opinion that he believes is against policy and insists is in bad faith. I've tried to ask him to stop, but to no avail. Perhaps someone uninvolved in the debate would have better luck. —Celithemis 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocking threat.[30] Failure to AGF.[31] A word of advice from someone uninvolved might help to steer him in the right direction. Tyrenius 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main page was vandalized in a personal attack by GreekElite shown here: [32]. Please help me. --Asams10 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't find a tag removal warning. However, it might be useful to give a note about WP:3RR if there isn't one already. The user does, however, seem to think that he/she has improved the article and is removing the tags (although I cannot explain the {{fact}} removals), but (likely) the same person did try and add a source [33] even though it's not the greatest way of doing it in the world. Perhaps a little nudge in the direction of WP:ES? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I constantly get reverted (see history) by some user with such explanations: the article was initiated and written entirely by me, thank you, and now (s)he is trolling me on my talk, (and again: [34]) and several articles I have recently touched ([35], [36]). Is it normal in Wikipedia? Colchicum 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I consider Colchium's repeated attempts to remove my plea to stop revert-warring over the trivial issue with the edit summary "WP:TROLL" grossly incivil[37] [38]. I also resent his attempts to cast himself as a newbie who has never interacted with me in the past. Calling me above "she/he" is particularly pathetic. I'm sure he knows my name after so many discussions he's been involved with me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir/madam, are a hypocrite: [39], [40], [41]. Digwuren 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know you personally and have no idea of whether you are male or female. Yes, I have interacted with you, but I am surprised that you consider yourself so memorable. As to the edit summary, I merely followed your habit: [42], [43], [44], [45].Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here is the diff: [46]. There you can easily see how much of the text is in English.Colchicum 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff: [47]. There you can see that the debacle started with your attempt to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being moved to Wikiquote. There is no need to take offense that your pet page has been transwikied; it's a normal practice in such cases. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second, and stalking a user with whom he disagrees on other pages (ex. [48], [49]) is not a nice behavior - particulary as Xx236's edits to the Fire of Moscow (article Balcer's diffs brings) where nothing but helpful and civil ([50], [51]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

“Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact,” “Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists” (Ghirlandajo) - the more I read stuff connected with users with such vocabulary (cf. [52], [53]), the more inconvenient I feel here. The more I learn of certain displeasing personalities here, the more I doubt in the future of Wikipedia. The "dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" (Larry Sanger) seems to be an irreversible development. E.J. 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I concur with Ghirla here. Note that the users he mentioned above, have a month-long history of ganging up on other prolific users whose edits they do not agree with. Petri Krohn is a prime example, and he definitely is not a Russian nationalist. With one exception (User:3 Löwi), all these accounts have been created very recently. Within hours of their appearance on Wikipedia they were AfD'ing articles and holding discussions in which hardly household English words like WP:UNDUE and WP:COI were daily occurrences. The check users did not prove or disprove that all these are different users, it only established that because of the way Tartu University servers are set up (and we cannot exclude the possibility that one of them is behind that - have a look at User:Digwuren's conributions to the check user debate), it is virtually impossible to establish who is a sockpuppet of whom. Surprise, surprise, the only non-Tartu exception was found to have at least a meatpuppet. ([54]) Since they prefer attacking editors who are also prolific in other areas of Wikipedia, and with their RfC's and threats of RfC's are diverting those users from those other articles as well, therefore holding up the further development of Wikipedia, I would venture to say that most of their existence on Wikipedia hitherto has been disruptive. To User:Colchicum: "with friends like that, who needs enemies?" --Pan Gerwazy 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• declanthebullbull has been vandalized, can this be deleted?

• Dereck poliink was set up as an argumentative hoax

Krummy2 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would seem that Paul venter (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least two copyvios, Dorothy Gurney from [55] and Vibration-powered generator from [56]. I have warned him about this and waiting for a reply. However, past experience leads me to suspect these 2 incidents could just be the tip of the iceberg, so I'm requesting help in looking through his contribs for further copy and paste jobs. --W.marsh 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, here's part of his reply: "You obviously don't write many articles. One starts with a source and then modifies it drastically". [57] Cleanup on aisle six please. --W.marsh 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 24 hours, and will make it indefinite if he does not stop. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for handling that side of it... it does seem like he feels he has a right to start with a copyvio and just make tweaks here and there and add more content, which hopefully isn't also a copyvio. I looked through his new articles in his last 500 edits and most are clean at a glance. But some started out as copyvios, and were mostly rewritten... others he seems to start with a source and change some words, e.g. Icadyptes salasi [58] from [59], which has some similar phrasing but not outright copy and pasting that I can find. Very difficult cleanup job here... but as far as I can tell a lot of the content he adds is actually not a copyvio, at least not as detectable with the search engine test. --W.marsh 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I saw an article by the Boston Globe, and went to the wikipedia article on Thompson. I noticed it was removed by Eseymour.[60] The article? A discussion about a memoir writen by Thompson in which he admits giving information to the White House during an investigation. Included is a statement from the Thompson campaign, which does not deny it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • Now Eseymour is removing the quotes from Thompson and claiming that quoting the word "MOLE" with a QUOTE is a "copyright violation."[61]

The indefinitely blocked Alex mond (talk · contribs) has been creating new accounts to edit Armenian hypothesis against consensus (e.g. [62], [63], [64], [65]). He's also canvassed other users to perform controversial edits ([66], [67]). Alex mond only showed up a few months ago, but I'm wondering if there's a longer history here that I don't know about, perhaps a previously banned user or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBOzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalizing Criticism of Mormonism with blatantly anti-Mormon edits. BBOzzy2 is now adding POV tags to Mormonism related articles.[68][69][70] shotwell 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved

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

Fursuit

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. User:Ed Fitzgerald has been relocating clean-up templates in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article.[71][72][73] Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page [74], 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page [75], and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations.[76] Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Wikipedia guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating here. María (críticame) 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page here, and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on my user page. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --Haemo 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page before they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --Haemo 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the opinion of an editor, and are not in any way definitive, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.

A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Wikipedia, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.

By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without any discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the taboo against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only moving them.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have moved {{unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the rule than the exception on Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Wikipedia projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Wikipedia.

I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —Kurykh 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Wikipedia needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. alteripse 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. alteripse 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

 – Carson 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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