Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Fou-Lu0014 (talk · contribs)

"05:35, 25 February 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Fou-Lu0014 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Oh god what the hell is going on?)"

I only broke the 3RR rule on MY userpage!!! (Why did I even get banned?)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Resolved

time stamp for the bot. Viridae^Talk 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns on Stacy Schiff

Resolved

If everyone disagrees with me, that's fine with me. But, should Ms. Schiff's birthday be included on her article or not? Per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays, would she be considered "marginally notable" so as not to include her birthday? or is she notable enough to include it? I also object to others characterizing my edits as vandalism, but have greater concerns about getting this right on her article. Please advise in on the article Talk:Stacy_Schiff#BLP_concerns talk page. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it disparaging to suggest that a Pulitzer Prize winner is only "marginally notable". If anything the article is under-developed. Such basic information as that should only be withheld if it is unknown or disputed. We've got articles about local newspeople, even weathermen, with twice as much content as this one. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If her exact birthday is widely known and available to the public, keep it in. Otherwise, remove it per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays. Since the issue is one of information research, this noticeboard's involvement in this incident is resolve. -- Jreferee 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauer ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke ^(talk) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Wikipedia. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.

And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.

In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.

A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.

There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.

ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Wikipedia admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And SSP case was opened in this instance, [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson here], but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JA here, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection. Seraphim 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editors for the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed on User RfC please

Resolved

Bishonen (talk · contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother" stating "This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.[1] -- Jreferee 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Would a previously uninvolved admin please help me out by taking a look at the current RfC on me brought by User:Anynobody, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother, and please consider cancelling it as not meeting the minimum requirement of two good faith efforts to resolve the dispute between Anynobody and myself. User:Smeelgova is listed as the 2nd party to attempt to resolve the dispute but he made no good faith effort to do so. User:Bishonen was advising Anynobody and Smee on the RfC before it went live and she strongly recommended that they do not file the RfC without further good faith efforts at resolution but that advice was ignored and Anynobody posted the RfC anyway. I welcome a neutral 3rd-party to help settle any dispute between Anynobody and myself. I am sure that they will find that I am very easy to work with. Thank you for considering my request. --Justanother 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: - Please note that there are already at least two administrators involved in this RFC process. Smee 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, one said to not post it without further attempt at resolving any dispute and the other, in my opinion, wrongfully promoted it from candidate staus. The latter is the situation that I would like some help with. --Justanother 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a disruptive waste of space on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, which has been done before. There is no need for more Admins to get involved, as your perceptions about the individuals currently involved are inaccurate. However, if other Admins wish to comment at the RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother, I'm sure it would be welcomed by the other editors already involved on that page... Smee 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow, that is pretty inappropriate, Smee. But OK, you've had your say. --Justanother 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You've both had your say here, it seems. I ask that you both refrain from escalating the conflict here. If the RfC is deemed to have failed, try mediation or arbitration. I'm not closing it because I have no knowledge of RfC. Don't dispute on this board past a complaint and response, please. Teke ^(talk) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Anyone, please feel free to remove the off-topic thread. Thanks --Justanother 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. I'm not surprised nobody uninvolved has chosen to research this, when the warring parties make it sound so *difficult*. This admin and that admin, both unnamed, and mysterious hints of warring admins (not the case at all). The salient facts are that Justanother has requested deletion, 48 hours are well past, and the dispute resolution evidence offered by Smee is utterly inadequate, see discussion on my Talk, where I told Smee: "The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it."[2]. My advice to get some real dispute resolution attempt made (besides that of Anynobody, who is one user, not the two users required by the RFC instructions) wasn't taken. I second Justanother's request that an uninvolved admin consider deleting this RfC.Bishonen | talk 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Having had a quick look at the RFC, I am struggling to see where there has been much effort at prior dispute resolution. Some of the claimed efforts at dispute resolution relate to warning templates - a sure-fire way to find common ground. Not.

I was also a little surprised to see that Daniel.Bryant upgraded the page from a candidate to an approved RFC just one minute before endorsing a rather negative commentary on the actions of the person whose conduct is the subject of the RFC.

I don't have much experience of RFCs, and am not familiar with the actions of the parties here, so I am loath to wade: can someone who with more familiarity of this process please have a look at this. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? OK, I'll just delete it myself. After all, I'm as "uninvolved" as anybody in the content of it, I'm on nobody's side; I've merely attempted, on request, to assist Anynobody and Smeelgova in setting it up correctly. The 48-hour rule is very clear, this case is very obvious, and Justanother has waited long enough to have a reasonable request executed. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much, Bishonen. I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - Some help needed

Hello people. Can I please get someone to help me with Emir Arven? Myself and this user have had disputes in the past, and both of us have been blocked as a result of personal attacks against each other. Our last dispute was a result of this edit summary. I then calmly started a discussion with the user about why they would falsely accuse me like that, but he just turned hostile straight away. The user then started provoking me some more, and that's when we started an exchange of personal attacks. I was blocked for 72 hrs for personal attacks, and he was blocked for 2 weeks, as he is a repeat offender. After his block expired, things cooled down, and I haven't heard anything from him so far. But, not ten minutes ago, Emir Arven has restarted with his provocative and offensive edits/behaviour (see here, here, and here. I am asking if an administrator (or maybe more) could step in, and tell the user to stop falsely accusing, stop provoking, and maybe tell him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like all the personal attacks this user has made against me on his talk page and elsewhere be removed, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please help, because when I'm in situations like these, I can't help but retaliate, and that would just result in bad results for me. Anyway, help! —KingIvan 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is totally false. This user, Ivan Kricancic was warned earlier by AnonEMouse because of his sockpuppet past. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets.

Here is conclusion about that

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

• 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [4] * 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [5]
• 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
• 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [7]
• 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [8] Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

I have found new evidence that he still continues his sockpuppet behaviour, so I told him that I would report him if he continued:

He told me once: Whenever I see an edit made by a fanatical Bosniak user, I will be sure to include your user name in the edit summary., and immidiately he went to Srebrenica Genocide and Alija Izetbegović articles to provoke. He didn't read the articles, but he reverted it immediately in order to provoke. I asked him about IP address and he didn't answer me. But continued to provoke. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit58.165.126.17.

There he goes again - twisting people's words and taking it out of context to try to turn the argument in his favor. The edit where I said the above can clearly be seen as a response to him not aplogising, provoking me some more, and if I acted on my words, it would have been me doing to him, what he has done to me. As for teh IP address, I was the one who even gave him the WHOIS link above - he did not start with a question about the IP - I started that discussion with this edit, where I sarcastically tell him that the anon could not be me, as I live hundreds of kilometers away from where it's IP is lcoated. Emir either did not notice this, ignored it, or just plain and simple, does not understand English. Even after answering his "question" numerous times, he still does not seem to understand or does not want to understand. Emir has only come to the English Wikipedia to provoke, attack and spread his POV - that's what I hate about certain non native English speakers who edit en.wikipedia; a lot of them only come here to spread propaganda and lies. —KingIvan 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Kricancic

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

• Code letter: C

So he came here, as he did before to talk lies about me, because I found more facts about his sockpuppet role: 58.165.126.167.I said I will report him if he continues, I didn't insult him. And the others will decide about my accusation. Emir Arven 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Report on Emir

Now I must say, creating sockpuppet pages with absolutely no proof or evidence is in very bad taste. These pages must be deleted until your unfounded accusations that came out of nowhere prove true - which won't happen because you are a perennial liar. This whole thing started because of a provocation by Emir, and now Emir just will not stop with the attacks, lies and falsifications. I am yet again asking that a good admin step in, and remove all the personal attacks/falsifications/provocations directed against me by User:Emir Arven. He cannot hide under the guise of doing good for Wikipedia with personal attacks like this - which translated means

Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also.

This is insulting and provocative beyond belief - yet this, and many more attacks like it, have not been removed, and he has not yet been warned or punished for posting the above message numerous times.

Also, notice his block log.

• 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
• 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
• 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
• 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
• 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
• 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
• 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
• 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
• 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Seven blocks for heavy edit warring, many personal attacks, and rampant incivility.

Now, let's examine some of his edits and edit summaries:

• Claiming an edit which has stood for ages as "false" without any evidence, and of a generally provocative nature.
• Here, where his racist tendencies are shown - he claims a source is invalid purely because it was written by a Serb.

• A page move which is provocative in many ways to people involved in the article (those who are not "on his side")
• 2nd edit after his most recent block. Immediately jumps straight back into edit warring, and removes a huge section about a war crimes investigation on the man.
• A regular victim of his warring. With this edit, he reverts a version that was a compromise version between warring parties, and shows that he is unwilling to compromise.

Also on the same article, this edit which he writes "this is ok", which it simply is not, because he has removed all references to the man being Serb - another example of his racism.

• 7th Muslim brigade. Another article in which he removes sourced information and edit wars in, so he can try to paint a rosy picture of "his side".
• This one! Imagine begin the anonymous user, and BAM, out of nowhere some guy just reverts your edits, then goes "Ivan, is that you?".
• I don't need a link for this one, as the edit is what you see up above there written by him. Reproducing the same attacking and provocative bullshit that he has written about me elsewhere - if that's not an insult, then you can also blow up the Western Wall and expect teh Jews to be happy.

Now consider his editing patterns, his mannerisms and his block log, then take a look at my block log. I was blocked once for vandalizing a real life friend of mine's user page [3] (which was wrong, but in retaliation to this). And my other block was as a result of me making personal attacks against Emir Arven after he provoked, harassed and attacked me. Now make a judgment over which editor is more trustworthy. I will ask again, please delete/remove his personal attacks/provocations/insults, warn the user not to do it, and possibly block him - in my opinion (judging by the numerous blocks, edit wars, slander, personal attacks, insults, provocations, and racism from this user) an indefinite block would suffice, but one of you admins may be more tolerant than I am, so a one or two month block would do if an indef is not made. Please read this, and do something about this vandalistic troll. Thank you. —KingIvan 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your report is irrelevant for the case and you are wrong. After you were strongly warned by AnonEMouse: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets, because you pretended to be an ethnic Bosniak in order to push false information about Bosniaks, your second account was indefinitely blocked. Your second "ethnic Bosniak" account which was blocked I just said I would report you if you continue to do this. P.S. When I edit I provide sourceses, my edits are valuable, I don't pretend to be an ethnic Croat in order to push false information about Croats (I am not interested in Croats), and you as a Croat, pretended to be a Bosniak, which was very low, rude and pathetic. Let me remind you what you wrote in your second blocked user page: [4]. You said: Also, articles of particular interest to me are ones concerning Bosnia, as I am an ethnic Bosniak. But, being born and raised in Australia, I suffer from "the curse of the English speakers", that is, It's really hard to learn another language even if you reall want to.. And according to your "interests" and "thoughts" in your original user page it is obvious that you, as a Croat, hate Bosniaks. I think this is not good for your health, because you are young and should enjoy life, not spend your life in lies and hatred. Emir Arven 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL at you talking about lies and hatred. You're obviously a racist bigot. And every single one of your edits has actually been disruptive to Wikipedia. Stop propagating your lies. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ivan's userpage may violate WP:USER, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:NPA (is "muslimani" an ethnic slur? I cannot tell). As a personal comment, I would like to point out that that bit about Alexander the Great being "non-Greek" just demonstrates a blatant ignorance of history.--Domitius 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is one of the modern Slav Macedonians - we all know that is false; I'm saying that the ancient Macedonians were different people than the ancient Greeks. But we don't need to start a discussion on him here. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, see the Muslims by nationality article. Speaking 'bout WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA; someone should take a look at User:Ancient Land of Bosoni. --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HRE, you have to know, when you pretend to belong to an ethnic group which you don't belong, just to take advantage in promoting false information about that ethnic group, because you hate it, then you cannot talk about WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA. And Ivan's second account was blocked because of that. I think, it was very dishonest act from him. And he continued to do that again although he was strongly warned not to do that. Emir Arven 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir, grow up. Please learn how to speak English properly or restrict your activities to the Bosnian Wikipedia. Your childish games, personal attacks, rampant incivility, and blatant lies have no place on the English Wikipedia. We both know that you falsely accused me just for the sake of harassing me. Your edits and your mannerisms show that you are a bigot, and even though you have been blocked seven times for your disruptive behaviour, you still don't understand that what you are doing is wrong. The best thing for you all of us is for you to just leave the English Wikipedia. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat the summary of this whole situation: Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by AnonEMouse. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he hates Bosniaks, and makes funny of them. So his "ethnic Bosniak" account was blocked and he was warned. I noticed similar behaviour from the above IP addresses on Bosniak-related topics. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

About his Bosniak-image obsession, here are some examples when he was logged in:

• [5]
• [6]

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [7]

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [8]

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [9]
• [10]

and when he was logged in:

• [11].

There are so many examples, but the best thing is to look again the evidence here Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet when Ivan was blocked earlier.

Regarding my behaviour, I didn't break any Wiki rule recently although I was provoked by Ivan. Emir Arven 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm, talking about - you have, and you still are, accusing me with absolutely no proof/evidence of any kind. You are the one who originally provoked me. You are the one who has been continually using personal attacks against me. You are the one who continues to harass and provoke me. You are the one who has broken numerous Wikipedia policies. You are the one who keeps on bringing up these false accusations. Furthermore, you were not invited to this discussion here because you have proven unable to contribute to a discussion; but ever since you came, this discussion has gone without any admin action because you started behaving in your trade mark fanatic manner, so know one even bothered to look into it. I suggest you just leave me alone from now on. And if you do not stop with your unfounded wild accusations, I will have no choice but to start making these claims against you. —KingIvan 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent uncivil behaviour by JoeMystical

Resolved

The JoeMystical's posts identified by Bi as the basis for the request in this noticeboard incident are not personal attacks. -- Jreferee 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reported JoeMystical before for uncivil behaviour bordering on personal attacks ([12]), though administrator User:J.Smith decided at that time it was a just a "one-time incident" and took no further action. Now, however, it's clear that it's not a "one-time incident", as JoeMystical is at it again: see [13], [14]. I therefore urge administrators to take some preventive action now, and put a stop to his scurrilous behaviour. Bi 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links aren't attacks, they aren't even uncivil in my opinion. He's stating simply that you're trying to get articles or content deleted because you are anti-Tech... whatever that means. That's not uncivil. He's arguing against your *position*, he's not calling you names. Wjhonson 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not one to put up with incivility, but I see nothing in those comments that requires admin intervention. You may be reading it as incivility, but it looks like perfectly ordinary criticism to me. I think there's plenty of room for you and JoeMystical to resolve your dispute without admins needing to point fingers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not proper criticism. It's "[u]sing someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." In each of the 3 cases, instead of addressing the specific issue being discussed, he's using the fact that I'm anti-Neo-Tech to discredit my arguments.

Anyway, I don't get it. First, J. Smith tells me the first attack is just a "one-time" attack of incivility, and now suddenly none of them are uncivil attacks. So which is it? Please make up your minds and let me know. Bi 08:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins aren't required to have one collective mind that they make up. I haven't seen the previous supposed attacks, but I know that the examples you quoted are far from personal attacks. "Discrediting your arguments" isn't against any policy. What you have here is not a case that requires administrator intervention, but a run-of-the-mill content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD Spamming

Resolved

Spamming reverted, warning given, CfD closing admin notified. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja (talk · contribs) (see contribs for a string of spam solicitations) has been spamming for CFD votes and attacking me for CFD'ing a cat. See [15],[16],[17],[18],[19]. And then a string of attacks on me [20],[21],[22],[23],[24] . The cfd's in question are Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil_Americans. Bakaman 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the spamming and given a warning to him in the strongest words possible. Please inform this noticeboard (or me) if he continues to canvass for the cfd. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a notice to the CfD closing admin regarding this thread. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nowonline and Original research

Resolved

User:Wjhonson removed as a source "Richard B Autry" and made a post on Nowonline's talk page regarding the same. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Nowonline is apparently ignoring the No Original Research policy WP:Attribution, and seems unwilling to discuss it, having blanked the section on the account's associated talk page. In several articles, the source is given as unpublished work by Richard B. Autry - am I right in saying the doesn't meet with policy? If so, could a friendly Admin "have a word" so to speak, or, if I'm wrong, let me know. Thanks, WLD^talk|edits 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a full text search of Wikipedia shows the number of articles that this affects: [25] WLD^talk|edits 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Matter does not need administrator intervention and has otherwise been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.111.128.3 edit/revert warring

82.111.128.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to undo edits in Socialist Party USA and Misandry, despite repeated warnings (past final), and with insufficient discussion. Particularly in Misandry this user is re-inserting (a long block of) text that has been repeatedly discussed with a consensus to remove in the past. User has been contacted on Talk pages for user and both articles, and has had policies pointed out. User seems to be an experienced editor (IP so can't be certain) and despite frequent reversions is avoiding 3RR on both articles. / edgarde 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the disputes at Socialist Party USA, though since I'm part of that organization I've tried to avoid becoming too involved. The user does seem to have some experience, though complained at one point about not knowing how to sign talk page posts.

The edits to the SP article are POV-pushing, but relatively minor. A few editors have addressed them on the article's talk page, focusing on verifiability. However, the user seems to be treating changes to his contributions as personal attacks, and is reluctant to trust the advice of other involved editors, or their discussions of policies. I'm not sure what can be done to improve this situation, with the user feeling so persecuted and defensive.

One final note: I was interested to see that the user has contributed to articles about the Croatian left. This reminded me of last year's "SP USA spammer", who edited exclusively from British and Croatian IPs. This of course is far from conclusive, but may be worth considering. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Still at it. Editor has abandoned Talk page discussion (participation had been minimal), and has reverted neutral helpful contributions. If the 3RR rules specified 25 hours he'd be in violation in Misandry^history, and is probably in 3RR violation in Socialist Party USA^history. Could really use a 24-hour block here. / edgarde 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) talk page

Resolved

The request for restoring the talk page or emailing the contents belongs at WP:DRV#Content_review. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please restore the talk page of this: the archives have been lost, and it's good we have a record of such things. 5 records worth, gone!! please help! --66.79.168.140 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of deleted articles are usually deleted together with the article itself. I see no reason to keep the talk page in this case. --cesarb 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason for doing so: people need this information for deletion review purposes, OK?? Gay nigger association of america has a talkpage even though article is deleted,. --Apoplexic Cafe Dude 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for deletion review purposes at all. Deletion review is simple provide some third-party non-trivial reliable sources, no need for a talk page to do that. --pgk 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Contents of that talk page until it was protected as deleted fell, for quite some time, into these distinct patterns:

• Abject nonsense
• "You just lost the game" or other similarly hilarious variants on that particularly unoriginal theme (also, incidentally, a common form of vandalism when we had the article)
• Reposts of the deleted content
• Argufying about the deletion

Of these, the last belongs on deletion review and the rest belong on Uncyclopedia or somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The request for restoring or emailing article page or talk page content will be best addressed at WP:DRV#Content_review. I posted this on 66.79.168.140 (talk · contribs) talk page. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohanishjagtap (talk · contribs)

Resolved

User_talk:Mohanishjagtap has been contributing to Wikipedia since February 25, 2007. This user has been participating in the current WPBiography template assessment drive. However, his/her contributions has caused considerable trouble. The user has not responded to any of the messages placed on his/her talk page and continues to make talk page posts that will need to be cleaned up. Blocking this user for 24 (?) hours may be the only way to get this person's attention to address the concerns posted on his/her talk page. Please review this situaiton. Thanks. -- Jreferee 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there appear to be several days' delays between their activities, so 24 hours may not be enough. BNutzer 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We cleaned up his contributions and an admin has gotten involved. The noticeboard's involvement in this matter is resolved. -- Jreferee 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fujimori-press.jpg on List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people

Resolved

Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor is consistently violating the fair-use requirement of the above image, and does not understand the appropriate fair use claims of the image. Can an admin please step in and describe whether or not the image should appropriately be displayed on the List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people? I'm not quite sure if this is the correct place for this inquiry, but the editor in question doesn't seem to listen to logic and doesn't understand the nature of the dispute. Thanks much, PaddyM 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this thread to the talk page requesting a Fair Use statement and provided a link for future copyright questions. Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SkipSmith

Resolved

Requestor's post created paper trail desired by requestor. -- Jreferee 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is someone who has cyberstalked me on various sites around the web. Suspiciously, just after I talked about my experiences with the article on the South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" in my blog, he shows up there solely to post a personal attack, as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=113790042&oldid=112769131.

I understand one incident is far from enough to justify any kind of block, but I wanted to establish a "paper trail". I simply want this person to leave me alone. - 66.93.144.171 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathunder's admin abuse

Jonathunder keeps moving Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag, stating that the most common name for this author "here in Minnesota" doesn't contain a diacritic in her name. I've been moving it back stating that her correct (and official name according to the covers of her own books) contains "á". I requested move protection for this article in order to bring the matter to the talk page, and it was effectively protected by Arjun01. Still, Jonathunder used his admin ability to edit protected pages to move it back to Wanda Gag [26] after the protection. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you.--Húsönd 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an objective (?) third-party, I do notice that the usage of the diacritic is not consistent within the article and should at very least be changed to be internally consistent and consistent with the page title. Ryanjunk 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a first obvious sign that something's wrong. The name had a diacritic throughout the article since its very creation. The title also had a diacritic until Gene Nygaard decided to move it to a non-diacritic version two days ago (disrespecting a community probation).--Húsönd 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that Gene violated his community probation here - it was a non-contested move per the MOS and therefore ok. Once the move was contested, Gene stepped aside and asked an administrator to look at it. See Gene's talk page for more. --Duk 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this situation, but I just read the terms of the probation, and they clearly state that he can only move pages where consensus is clearly in favor of a move, NOT simply when there is no consensus not to move. They're two different concepts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• In absence of any dispute, a move in line with the MOS is per consensus. --Duk 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,

1. This move by User:Tevildo was undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus.
2. It remained undiscussed, unreferenced, and without consensus in this move by User:Husond. Gene Nygaard 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've gotta say, regardless of who is right or whatever, an administrator involved in the dispute moving it after it was move-protected and the protection log admonished all involved to use the talk page is a blatant violation of the protection policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've notified Jonathunder of this thread; please remember to leave a note on users' talk pages if you start a thread concerning them, as instructed in the header of this page. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My bad, sorry. --Húsönd 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 13:25, March 9 2007 Arjun01 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wanda Gág: Continued moves without discussion. Please use the talk page. [move=sysop])
  • 13:57, March 9 2007 Jonathunder (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag over redirect: Use more common name.)

Has anyone asked the user about this? Jkelly 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mind you, we do seem to be the only one of the top Google hits that uses the diacritic... Guy (Help!) 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, although that could be attributed more to the fact that a good number of people on the internet have no clue how to actually insert a diacritic. As an example, here is an Amazon.com page listing one of her books for sale; the page lists her name without the diacritic, but the cover of the book itself (which, I think, would reflect the spelling of her own name, would it not?) clearly has it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not. The issue here is an administrator clearly using his powers to gain a leg up in an edit dispute. What's worse, it's actually worked: he's gotten off with a warning, and no one is reverting him in order to avoid wheel warring. As he clearly knew that what he did was wrong, I would say he should be told to move it back or face a 48 hour block. I've had enough of seeing administrators who know better manage to get the upper hand because no one is willing to castigate or undo their actions. If any uninvolved admin has guts to do what's right, please do ask him to move it back or block him if he won't. Part Deux 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe it was an honest mistake, done because he didn't realize it was protected. Has anyone asked that? -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've notified him of this thread, but he hasn't been active since the move. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Husond is everybit as guilty of edit-warring and tryig to gain an advantage without discussing the issue as Jonathunder is. The article should be moved back to its original name, and if Husond or Tevildo want to move it, they can make their case for a move through {{WP:RM]]. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand, are guilty of perpetuating this kind of edit-warring. It is you who have caused so much trouble that had to be given a community probation regarding unilateral moves, the same probation that you have been trying to dodge. It is you who are most obliged to list move proposals on WP:RM. No WP:AGF for you, Gene.--Húsönd 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Husond, you specifically claimed that your reversion of my move was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because, in your words "You [meaning Gene Nygaard] may not do so according to your community probation". Therefore, you were not making your move based on the merits of the case; something that was further evident from the fact that you already knew that the previous move had been objected to as being unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial--yet you provided no discussion, no references, no nothing for making your move. Therefore, if the only thing you were objecting to was me making the move, which in fact you explicitly claimed to be the case, then you have absolutely no cause whatsoever to complain about any other editor looking at it and making that same move, whether it be Jonathunder or anyone else. You had certainly provided no reason not to do so, had you? 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of bad faith RFD nomination

Resolved

Resolved by the deletion review and the withdrawl of the deletion review. -- Jreferee 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RFD with speedy keep as "clear...well, WP:POINT nomination.", Post on my talk page accusing me of having been involved in a dispute and nominating because of this - violation of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, possibly WP:NPA. Note also Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline I was accused of violating. Actually read it for comprehension everyone please, the common misinterpretation is exactly what my problem with the shortcut was. See also Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - others made posts on substantially the same issue long before I even thought of this. WP:POINT is widely misquoted, and the primary reason is because the main shortcut to it says "POINT" and ignores the fact that only _disruptive_ point-making is invalid. --Random832 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

When you thought about nominating it for RfD, did you actually think there was any chance at all that it was going to be deleted, or did you just nominate it because you think it's been misquoted? Picaroon 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it because the shortcut itself is harmful because i think that it is the cause of this misinterpretation. --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that people often incorrectly call 'WP:POINT' on things which aren't at all disruptive I doubt that the name of the redirect is the cause of that. People will always 'interpret' things more broadly than they were intended. --CBD 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only shortcut were WP:DISRUPT, you don't think people would think twice about linking to it when people aren't disrupting? --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - I didn't come here to complain about the closure. See the DRV for that. I came here to complain about the absolutely unjustified accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason. (which, incidentally, even if true STILL would not violate WP:POINT, because even if there were a conflict of interest or something else that might well violate some other guideline, a single RFD is in no way disruptive) --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that your RFD nom was sincere - on the view that deleting that abbreviation would clarify the intent of the policy. You may even be right about just having 'WP:DISRUPT' leading to less mis-linking... but 'disruption' applies to alot more than just 'disrupting to make a point', so that wouldn't be clear either. Not surprising that abbreviations for shortcuts are less than fully descriptive. --CBD 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The RfD nomination for WP:POINT was closed 22:19, 9 March 2007 with the phrase ", clear...well, WP:POINT nomination." The deletion review of this closure was posted at 22:26, 9 March 2007. This administrative request was posted 12 minutes later, at 22:38, 9 March 2007. The growing concensus at the deletion review appears to have addressed the issue posted here - "accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason." The deletion review was withdrawn 00:31, 10 March 2007. This 22:38, 9 March 2007 post issue matter appears to have been resolved by the deletion review and its withdrawl. -- Jreferee 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:69.132.198.252

A copending incident is posted here. -- Jreferee 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has become quite a problem for several other editors on the board for Shelby Young. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shelby_Young He has now flat out called me a racist, TWICE. The issue stems from him PRETENDING to be Greek. You'll note on Ms. Young's talk page, him posting in very plain English, harrassing Ms. Young, then reverting to "comical" broken English, which I find to be racist, seeing as how my father is a German immigrant. The user Leebo has been kept abreast of this, but I've had enough. I'm looking for admin intervention here. This user is wikistalking/wikiharrassing a teenager as well as wikiharrassing me. He contributes nothing of value to Wikipedia. If an admin takes action in this matter, would it be feasible to have someone watch Ms. Young's pages as well as those of Hailey Anne Nelson, specifically for baseless attacks from users coming from the North Carolina area? Thanks in advance. -- Ispy1981 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the main concern is that this user is edit warring with the real Shelby Young on the Shelby Young page. They are uncivil, but I consider this to be secondary. Leebo ^T/C 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And now he has made a revert to MY TALK PAGE. Also, he has reverted his own talk page to the comment calling me a racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=114203745 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.132.198.252&diff=prev&oldid=114204118

Edit: Added diffs

Ispy1981 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD Tamil Americans

Resolved

Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

... is getting ugly pretty quickly (i.e., it's devolved into "you're saying that because you don't like my ethnicity"). Don't know what should be done, or if anything can be done, but I really thought I should give a heads-up on this. Part Deux 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Somewhat heated discussion, but CfD posts are orderly. Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Echo16 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Incident being handled at Requests for arbitration per Guy.-- Jreferee 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has edited only to try to get John Bambenek undeleted. I was assuming good faith, until he requested an Arbcom case the instant after he created an RfC on it. Now I'm not. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I assumed good faith, but I also assumed that it's yet another sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek, whose good faith is at odds with policy, so I blocked the account and reverted the Bambenek RfC and comented on WP:RFAR. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard's probation

I would like to be clarified regarding the current status of Gene Nygaard's community probation. Quoting Gene himself about it, "the page (...) has a big notice a the top: This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest". Does the fact that the community sanction page is now tagged as inactive mean that the probations contained therein are void? Gene's probation clearly states that "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves until further notice". If the ban is still active, then Gene has been constantly disrespecting it, according to his move log. Namely, Gene's been moving articles with the well-known purpose of wiping diacritics off their names. Recent examples of this are Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag[27], Eggert Jónsson to Eggert Jonsson[28], Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic[29], among others. Particularly interesting is Šuligoj Roman to Roman Suligoj[30], where Gene states that the reason for the move was "order per naming conventions", not forgetting though to deface the name by removing the diacritic in the process.
I reminded Gene of his probation [31], but unsurprisingly Gene replied with his typical strategy of launching random accusations. I kindly request a review by the community regarding Gene's actions and current status of his probation.--Húsönd 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Wanda Gag for an example of Husond's shenanigans here.

Furthermore, the previous discussion dealt with only moving articles which didn't have the proper redirects from the English language spelling. I have not done that since. Instead, I point out to the editors of those articles the need for creating such redirects by using the maintenance Category:Articles needing redirects.

Note also that Husond tries to deceptively hide the fact that he is perpetually pushing the inclusion of diacritics where they do not belong, as he did here in the case of Arpad Elo who spelled his name that way for 80 years as a U.S. citizen, and for whom the only evidence of any other spelling he may have used was not the Árpád Élő spelling he was pushing, but rather the Arpád Éllő spelling used on the ship's manifest when he came to America as a kid. Gene Nygaard 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Shenanigans, ooooh. Why do you keep bringing up Árpád Élő, the one and only move proposal that pleased you (and solely because nobody could find reliable online records of his Hungarian name)? Should I cast tens of examples of move proposals where you fought an uphill battle and lost after wasting everybody's time and patience? Not here.--Húsönd 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable records of his Hungarian name are irrelevant, and you know it. There was oodles of evidence that "Arpad Elo" was the name always used in his publications, and always used in reference to the Elo rating system in chess for which he is famous (except for places corrupted by Wikipedia). That rating system is the reason he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place. Note that even the rabid diacritics fanatics like Husond have never tried to move that to Élő rating system; in fact, even they realize that there is absolutely no need for even a redirect from that, because it is never used, just as Arpad Elo never used any other spelling for the last 80 years of his life. That is one of tens or hundreds of cases where bad moves have been reversed. Our article is at Ho Chi Minh and not at at Hồ Chí Minh (which is of course a redirect). You are just a sore loser, Husond, because you argued unsuccessfully for retaining improper names in cases such as Amer Delic and others.

And then you have the gall to come here and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people here, trying to falsely imply that when a name is or was sometimes written with diacritics that the version with diacritics is always the proper one to use, and that if it is written with a varying number of letters with diacritics, the version with the most diacritics is the proper one. Why in the world are you so hell-bound on eliminating the use of the English language on the English Wikipedia in any case? Why you consistently claim that there is some error in using the English alphabet when writing in English? We may choose to use diacritics in many of the names here on Wikipedia, but we do not do so because it is incorrect not to do so in English. Rather, we are choosing among legitimate alternatives.

Note also that Husond was the one who unblocked User:Darwinek when he was blocked for personal attacks against me at the same time as Darwinek make the improper block against me to gain advantage in a content dispute, which was reversed as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. Husond puts his blinders on when it comes to abuses of admin powers as well as the violations of the rule against personal attacks by his fellow admin who has helped out with many of these undiscussed, unreferenced and improper moves, but for some reason has a vendetta against me. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The community-imposed probation holds no matter where the discussion occurred. Just because WP:PAIN does not exist anymore doesn't mean that personal attack complaints/reports posted there in the past were not legitimate and now void. I remark only on the procedure, not the dispute itself. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Husond, maybe you'd like to discuss this improper, unreferenced and unexplained move by you of Pal Benko to Pál Benkő, which was of course later reversed and moved back where it belongs without the diacritics, in a requested moves discussion which didn't even need my participation or even any awareness of it on my part to come to the proper conclusion. I haven't ever edited either that article or its talk page. Gene Nygaard 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you both should step away from the issue (and each other), as all of this is turning into a bit of a war. I'm sure the diacritics will work themselves out without the two of you for a short time until you can both cool off.

That said, I do find that moving a page over another Admin's block as User:Jonathunder did, or in spite of a community probation against such activity, as User:Gene Nygaard did, is not a particularly productive way to ensure that we all have the best Wikipedia we can. Just a random editor's opinion. Ryanjunk 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If, as Husond claims, he was merely reverting on the basis that I had violated the earlier discussion (which I totally dispute), then what in the hell cause does he, or you, have to complain about an independent determination to move it on the basis fo the facts of the case, whether it is by User:Jonathunder or any other editor whatsoever? If User:Husond wasn't making a determination to revert on the basis of the facts of the case, then it remains an open field.

Furthermore, if instead Husond was indeed basing his move on the facts of the case, then in light of the fact that it had already been pointed out that the previous move was unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial, then it was incumbent upon User:Husond to engage in that discussion, to cite his reasons and see if anyone else agreed or disagreed, before making the move. Husond did not do so. He can't have it both ways. Gene Nygaard 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene, please knock it off. You're skating along the ragged edge of wikilawyering and violation of the probation.

Husond, did you AGF and post talk page comments for all of this before coming to ANI, or did you short-circuit the normal process? Georgewilliamherbert 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith when it comes to Gene Nygaard, but I did leave a friendly reminder of the probation on his talk page, which he promptly refuted.--Húsönd 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by anonymous Telia user with shifting IPs

Resolved

Pilotguy applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. -- Jreferee 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What I believe to be a single user

• 62.20.114.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.20.115.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.181.178.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.181.178.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This person is committing a particularly invidious kind of vandalism with dozens of small edits that escape attention under AIV or even warnings a lot of the time, and has hours to devote to it. TedFrank 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While the edits aren't vandalism, they're certainly counterproductive, and attempting to edit from multiple IPs is also an aggravating factor. I've applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. —Pilotguy (go around) 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot out of commission

Werdnabot has now been blocked for several days following a malfunction. Werdna does not appear to be around to deal with the problem. It may be worth considering switching the archiving to MiszaBot II (for project talk pages and noticeboards) and MiszaBot III (for user talk pages), especially if talkpages are getting very full. To have either of those Bots handle archiving, make a request at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests, including the following information:

1. Page to be archived =
2. Current archive =
3. Age threads should reach before being archived =
4. Max size of archive before new archive is started =

Hopefully that should keep everything functioning smoothly... WjBscribe 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created a dedicated page for the requests: User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. Please post them there. Thanks, Миша13 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris77xyz (talk · contribs) - Legal threats, personal attacks, threats of an edit war

Back in 2002 I took some photographs of Tara Subkoff's Imitation of Christ fashion show. One of the "vignettes" in the show was of models wearing a line of underwear vacuuming topless. Professional photographs can be seen on the highly-regarded Vogue Magazine's Style.com and Artnet Magazine. I put my photograph on the Tara Subkoff page (there is no Imitation of Christ page). Chris77xyz has some kind of issue with breasts and initially tried to add a disclaimer that they don't represent Subkoff's designs (as the links above to mainstream publications show, they do) and then tried to take them off. He is now threatening legal action, called me a "scumb bag" and "perv" and is threatening edit wars. The photographs aren't obscene, unless breasts are obscene (British editors/admins take note). These are clear cut case of violation of Wikipedia:No_legal_threats and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. I note I reverted his edits one time and he has never made any attempt to contact me. --DavidShankBone 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have links to Chris77yz's offenses so that we don't have to search to verify if true or not? Cla68 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry - I had included it in the edit summary, but forgot to include it in the text - doh! It's on the Talk page of the Tara Subkoff article.--DavidShankBone 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[32] —xyzzy_n 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Chris77xyz for 24 hours for gross incivility, personal attacks, and borderline legal threats. Someone may with to review or expand on my comments on his talk page.

I note that some of DavidShankBone's conduct – while probably not rising to the level of blockable behaviour on a first offense – also has left something to be desired. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now left a note for DavidShankBone about his conduct on his talk page, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. --DavidShankBone 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the block, good messages left to both parties. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonty Rhodes article and edits by Paul Venter

Resolved

Hi, Paul Venter seems to take an issue with positioning of the Image:Jonty_rhodes02.jpg and insists it should not be placed in the infobox since this is simply convention and does not neccessarily need to be followed. There has been a discussion in the talk page, and every one except Paul agrees it should go in the infobox, but he keeps reverting this. Please have a look and protect the page since this might soon descend into a revert war.Rueben lys 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

content dispute. Cla68 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so much content as much layout dispute.Rueben lys 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for admin attention, try WP:DR. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added links to process on the article talk page to aid their discussion. This noticeboard's participation in the matter is resolved since no further need for admin attention. -- Jreferee 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Kittel (talk · contribs)

I'm having an on-going problem with this user at Berliner FC Dynamo and from the looks of his talk page he's been causing other folks various forms of grief as well.

While he has made some useful additions to the page its been an on-going struggle to keep him from turning the article into some sort of fan-page and from applying a pro-East Germany / Dynamo-themed POV on much of what he edits despite requests/warnings from multiple users. My specific concerns include:

• repeated use and posting of un-sourced image files
• repeated use of out-dated or incorrect material when it has been clearly shown that there are more current/accurate materials available
• consistent failure to respond to messages on his talk page whether in English or his native German including immediate deletion or archiving of other editors remarks, blanking or editing of other editors talk pages, tagging other editors remarks with NPOV markers
• consistent failure to annotate edits despite repeated requests to do so
• creation of pages that duplicate existing pages in all respects except their titles
• on-going edits to Berliner FC Dynamo which are not neutral in character and reflect a clear bias, including attempts to whitewash or santitize unsavory aspects of the clubs history, repeated addition of spam links to the page, deletion of material and image captions, deletion of citations, repeatedly restoring poorly translated materials after they have been properly edited
• on-going edits to pages about Marylin Monroe containing incorrect or unsourced material including an on-going dispute over a Latin translation that 10 minutes spent on Google would clearly resolve in other editors favour

A review of Nadia's talk page or the history of some of the pages in question will show a persistaint disdain for other editors and established policy here. He has previously been blocked for similar behavior, but still refuses to show any inclination to manage various POV's or ensure the quality/accuracy of his contributions. Anything you can do would be helpful. Wiggy! 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And he has also now taken to replacing without comment images at Berliner FC Dynamo with versions that are inaccurate or have been challenged as inaccurate at Image:Berliner FC Dynamo 10.png and Image:Dynamo 3.png making the job of cleaning up after him a little more involved. Wiggy! 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's hard at it, reverting my edit without comment and despite my remarks as I type this ... Wiggy! 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil userbox?

I came across an entry on a babel userbox that I'm a bit curious about. Which states: This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration.. To me it seems a bit off to be be referring to all your fellow community members as potential dumbasses. It seems to have been put in the template with this code: :UBX/du-1 but I have no idea where to find that. Can anyone offer some insight?--Crossmr 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the userpage which it is on UBX, is in existence simply to host userboxes. The userbox you refer to, I assume, is here: User:UBX/du-1. The account is an alternate account of METS501. You might try asking that editor about the box. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually more interested in whether or not anyone else finds that that type of wording is uncivil, or even a personal attack. It seems to me that it might fall under an improper use of humour.--Crossmr 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is, it is not a personal attack, but just uncivil. Now if you dismissed a user by referring to the userbox, that would be another story. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, personally. It's not actually saying that any one person is a dumbass, and I think that most of us would agree that we all have to deal with some dumbasses on occasion (though we would never call them that, of course — but we all think it ;). I don't know, just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. (ec) Oh yeah, definitely agreed with HBC's second point. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

that is kind of the point of civility. Whether or not I think editor x, or the editors who work on article x, or wikipedians in general are dumbasses, I shouldn't be advertising that.--Crossmr 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not saying any of the things you listed, though, it's saying: "Wikipedia is huge, and occasionally you'll run across a dumbass." In my opinion that's not an example of incivility, it's an example of speaking the truth. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. :) I really don't think David was trying to say that Wikipedians in general are dumbasses. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Princess/pea encounter. Possibly an effective filtering mechanism for anyone who feels personally attacked by what amounts to the statement 'there exist Wikipedians who are dumbasses'. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't worry, if you haven't had to try and make sense of someone speaking Dumbass yet, you'll be there soon. (We won't even get into my thoughts on leetspeak...) In all reality though, I don't even see effectively saying "I don't like dealing with dumbasses" as terribly uncivil. Who does like to do that? If the userbox said "This user thinks Someotheruser is a dumbass", it'd be a problem, but it's nothing like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Shelbyyoung (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Identity confirmed by bbatsell. -- Jreferee 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A co-pending incident regarding this matter is posted here.

There is some question as to whether User:Shelbyyoung is the living person that is the subject of the article on this actress. Per innappropriate usernames, this account may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation if in an administrator's best judgment. Please consider giving this matter a look. -- Jreferee 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never dealt with confirming identities before, but I dug into her userpage history a bit and she had a picture up of herself holding a handwritten sign with her username and mentioning Wikipedia. I have no idea if that is sufficient, but I am confirming (since it has since been deleted by request) that that picture existed, was clearly Shelby Young, and did not appear to be edited in any way. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish to discuss an issue

Resolved

This issue contains a situation of potentially utmost importance. It you visitthis userpage, you'll get a sense of this...predicament I have trouble describing.HarryisScary 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article this. What is your problem? Sandstein 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Account is a prank, only contribs are one to the userpage and this AN/I. It's a sock of someone, no doubt. ThuranX 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete_K (talk · contribs)

This user's behavior has been under review in an Arb comm hearing for some time, but in the last few hours is on a rampage and I believe there is urgency now, and he warrants an immediate temporary ban to stop this deliberate disruption which violates all kinds of WP policies. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review A review of his edits in the last few hours shows that his disruptive editing is very deliberate. Special:Contributions/Pete_K Venado 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. WP:User:Pete_K has received 1 week ban from WP:AN3 notice.Venado 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

White people article

Please have a look at user Lukas, in the white people article. You can clearly see his irrational position. He argues with almost everyone else and is ready in engage in any edit war if it does not suit his POV. He is treating that article as if it was his own private one and his POV the only absolute truth. Veritas et Severitas 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else might be LSLM: IP, User:65.3.245.190 [33] looks similar to his other sockpuppets, [34] [35], especially given the similarity of their post history and posting times. Lukas19 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS GUY THINKS THAT WE ARE ALL THE SAME. HIS ARGUMENTS ARE ALL OF THE SAME NATURE. NOW HE HAS VIOLATED THE 3REVERT RULE. vERITAS65.3.245.190 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that 65.3.245.190 is you which is veritas which is User:LSLM. And I was reverting Vandalism. You were deleting sourced material without explaining and without writing on talk page. Lukas19 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lukas has a 24h timeout. Oters involved should take a step back and consider whether they are looking for an acommodation or a victory. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes sign in and sometimes not and anyone can see my IP address. On the other hand Lukas position in the white people article can be seen by everyone. Veritas et Severitas 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SndrAndrss (talk · contribs)

Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · block log) is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, "[SndrAndrss] has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."

This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:

• Template:Infobox Football club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Country data England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:ENGf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Nordic skiing World Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.

And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.

I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.

Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:

• SndrAndrss15 (talk · contribs)
• SndrAndrss16 (talk · contribs)
• SndrAndrss17 (talk · contribs)
• SndrAndrss18 (talk · contribs)
• SndrAndrss19 (talk · contribs)

• SndrAndrss20 (talk · contribs)
• 88.88.42.199 (talk · contribs)
• 88.88.45.213 (talk · contribs)
• 88.88.47.236 (talk · contribs)

His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

Help...! – Elisson • T • C • 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly useful that he numbers his sockpuppets, which makes it trivial to confirm that he keeps evading his blocks. Persistently disruptive users such as he who show no inclination to communicate or cooperate with the community should simply be indefblocked, and their socks blocked and reverted on sight - which should be possible here given the vandal's narrow range of interests. He'll eventually go away. Accordingly, I'd support a community ban at this point. Sandstein 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that he is willing to communicate with others. He simply doesn't care of rules, warnings, blocks. Sockpuppetry is prohibited? Doesn't matter, he registers accounts with obvious connections to his main one. I support community ban against him, and recommend temporary semiprotection for his favorite pages. MaxSem 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Darwinek has been a big supporter of SndrAndrss, despite his refusal to discuss anything, including protecting pages to protect SndrAndrss actions

• Gilberto Aristízabal history
• Damir Matovinović history
• Antonio Márquez Ramírez history

Gene Nygaard 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm that looks like Darwinek protecting pages from being moved, by you, to titles without diacritics. Doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. Grandmasterka 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nygaard's "arguments" are as always not relevant. I am not a "big supporter" of SndrAndrss. In fact I have been many times a vital opposer of that user, reverting many of his wrong actions. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Gene Nygård (:P just had to do that), Darwinek is not a big supporter of SndrAndrss. In fact, it was Darwinek who notified me of SndrAndrss latest sockpuppet, which was what made me write the above post. And your problem with SndrAndrss or Darwinek, or both, has nothing to do with this discussion, as Grandmasterka says. Take your problems to a more relevant place. – Elisson • T • C • 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question, and ignoring the irony of Gene Nygaard's post, I think you probably should initiate a community ban discussion, either as a subsection here or over on WP:CN. Grandmasterka 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AntiVandal Bot

Hurray! Looks like it's back! --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and User:Pete K

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 23:59Z

Not sure where the ArbCom members/clerks have disappeared to - but User:Pete K is adding this <redacted> to the current ArbCom review - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. I think there might be a major WP:BLP issue here ... , have tried removing but Pete keeps adding it back in. Any help would be appreciated! Cheers Lethaniol 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be gone now (and I've deleted the link from the above also). I'm watching the page and if this is reinserted I will have to issue a block. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Pete K has now been blocked for a week for multiple 3RR violations. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

� (Bot unicode problem)

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:00Z

Problem with all of the AntiVandalBots that requires attention. The bots seem to be replacing all nonstandard unicode symbols with �s. The problem is quite widespread and may require the temporary blocking of all of bots of this type until the bug is corrected--VectorPotential^Talk 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As an example, [36], and they're all doing it--VectorPotential^Talk 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just came to report the same problem. Please block User:AntiVandalBot. Nearly all of its edits are bugged. --- RockMFR 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Already done. If you find another bot with the same problem, it may indicate a problem with the framework (if they use the same one, I mean). -- ReyBrujo 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot for a day and notified Tawker. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot (talk · contribs) seems to be doing the same thing, although it looks like Martin shut his bot down already since it hasn't edited since 19:35 when the first bug was reported--VectorPotential^Talk 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23 is aware of the issue. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that MartinBot has become active again--VectorPotential^Talk 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through all of AntiVandalBot's today's edits and reverted the unicode damage it caused on all of them. --cesarb 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot *should* be inactive right now. This behaviur is very strange and unexpected, but seems to stem from the fact that the bots use an older version of a python library, which has clearly become incompatible with Wikipedia's use of unicode. I'll take a look at fixing the problem tomorrow evening - there may be another library we can use to make the edits unicode compliant - failing that, I'll try to find out where the problem is being caused in the library as it is now. Thanks for your patience :) Martinp23 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The block on AntiVandalBot is just for 24 hours; will it stay stopped, or should the block be extended to avoid it becoming active again before being fixed? --cesarb 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking the second idea. // DecaimientoPoético 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As the IRC part of the bot is still online, make it indef until Tawker gets back (or a toolserver admin kills the processes). I've just made a small change to the code, which may fix the problems (but may not...), so I'll do a short, controlled trial on MartinBot - feel free to revert any edits by it, and I too will be watching them like a hawk. Thanks, Martinp23 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The bug seems to be fixed now (on my copy), but Tawker won't have this just yet until he recives the email I'm about to send him, so suggest that TakwerBot remains blocked. A caveat: the bots will only revert one edit, so will only revert the top edit on multiple edit vandalism - myself or Tawker willl throw a fix together for this soon. Thanks, Martinp23 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot seems to be working again too, so as long as these are the only two bots affected, all is well--VectorPotential^Talk 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lukas19, 3RR

Thread retitled from "3 REVERT RULE".

USER LUKAS HAS VIOLATED THE 3 REVERT RULE IN WHITE PEOPLE. VERITAS 65.3.245.190 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, calm down. I think you're looking for this. // DecaimientoPoético 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note the above section: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#White_people_article Lukas19 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already filed a report on Lukas19 The Behnam 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations.

At Electronic voice phenomenon there has recently been editing from multiple IP addresses, and on the article talk page, editors User:Davkal and User:Martinphi have made the accusation that they are sock puppets of a registered editor. Most recently, Martinphi made the following comment: "I suggest that we only edit versions of the article which are the last by an editor who is not a sock puppet. Thus, all sock puppetry will be useless. Also, let several sock versions pile up, then revert or edit in the responsible version. The sock will be wasting his time." [37] While it's possible that there is sock puppetry going on, this seems like a bad way to handle it (particularly if it turned out not to be a sock puppet). As far as I know, neither editor has taken any action with a sock puppet report or checkuser. Could an admin look into the situation? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User Theandrewdotcom adding lots of chess openings

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 12:23Z

User:Theandrewdotcom has begun mass-adding a lot of chess openings with no real attempt at articles. It's spam and possible vandalism. Mister.Manticore 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it "spam" or "vandalism". Certainly, at least some chess openings (the ones with names) are notable, though I'm not sure I'd consider all the numbered openings to be separately notable. That user is using some atrocious coding syntax, however, with malformed HTML instead of wiki syntax, though Mediawiki is great at making a valid XHTML document out of whatever the users throw at it. *Dan T.* 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody run a bot on these articles and make them redirect to List of chess openings? They seem to have little potential as articles, but some navigational value. —xyzzy_n 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've usernameblocked him, as "Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address" are prohibited per WP:U. Sandstein 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Theandrewdotcom seems to be a chess themed weblog--VectorPotential^Talk 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I noted the possible conflict of interest in my original message on the user talk page.

I've also left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess with the intention of starting a discussion as to whether these 200 chess openings merit individual articles. My opinion being that they are unlikely to be notable enough and should probably be merged with List of chess openings.

Would the next step with regards to this issue be to go to AfD? I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to add a link to the AfD on each page as per "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". I guess this would be fairly straightforward for a bot to do though. Adambro 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to, I have already redirected the articles to List of chess openings, there is no need for these articles. — Moe 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention to them that the block was based on their username, and that they're perfectly welcome to contribute to other chess related articles as long as they pick a non .com name--VectorPotential^Talk 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he has the {{usernameBlocked}} message on his talk page, which should be clear enough. Sandstein 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this issue resolved now all of the 200 articles created have been changed to redirects? Adambro 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

has a huge backlog, and now has links to even huger backlogs. I've done my small part, but I must leave and now all of you should carry on the good fight. By the way, there was once an idea to have some sort of automated template at the top of this page telling us when there's a large backlog at CSD... Whatever happened to that idea? Grandmasterka 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My word...makes the Titanic look puny. The template sounds like a good idea. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just add {{User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary}} to your user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:03Z

I did that... I don't know about you, but I rarely look at my own userpage anymore. A template here, that would be added by a bot when the backlog tag on CSD is un-commented, and removed when the backlog tag is commented out, would do the trick nicely. Personally, it would remind me that there are sometimes more important things at hand than wikidrama. :-) Grandmasterka 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, though then other people would say "what about WP:PER backlog?" and "what about X, Y, Z backlog", and eventually we'd have the entire contents of that bot-updated template on this page :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 03:02Z

Yeah... Maybe a drop-down version of the backlog template? A veritable backlog menu? :-/ Grandmasterka 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

National Anthem Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was brought up on the Help Desk, and I thought it might be a good idea to bring it here before it turns into an edit war (: Would probably be good for a third party to get involved--VectorPotential^Talk 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Iantresman

User:Iantresman is under ArbCom sanction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I think his comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6 constitute disruption, as well as gross incivility. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the background to this case, but his comments certainly seem incivil, and the whole DRV is arguably disruptive. I'd support a short block. Trebor 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be someone else, I'm an involved party. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm a newbie admin, so would prefer another set of uninvolved eyes to have a look. Trebor 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see him blocked within a couple of hours after he has filed an arbitration case, unless it's unavoidable. I'd have no problem with a strong warning, though, and follow-up if he continues. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's fair Guy; I report another editor for (a) abusing policy, and (b) being uncivil in removing my comments from an AfD (which another administrator agreed), and although the other editor was cautioned under the same ArbCom case, absolutely nothing is done. And I should get a ban!
• This is exactly why I have taken this to Arbitration,[38], and that should be the place to decide this issue, not because you think that the consensus disagrees with my views. --Iantresman 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin privileges by Yannismarou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been an ongoing discussion for over a week about whether it is correct to call Sparta a superpower in the introduction to the article Sparta. Essentially the argument against is that the introduction links to the article superpower which identifies a country with the ability to "project power on a worldwide scale", which I believe is not correct when applied to Sparta. The argument for is that there are cited references that mention that Sparta was a superpower.

As a compromise I offered that the text calling Sparta a superpower be moved down to within the article where there would be other text detailing Sparta's victories and defeats, for example see this [39].

Those favoring retention of the word superpower are Greek (ethinicity or residents) User:Domitius, and User:NikoSilver, and possibly Greek editor User:Miskin. Editor Miskin does not have information on personal page, but the vast majority of his last 5,000 edits involve Greece. [40]

Those who believe it is inappropriate to call Sparta a superpower include User:Dejvid (native language English), User:Gardener_of_Geda (Scot), User:Mehrshad123 (likely Iranian), User:Twospoonfuls (speaks English and Russian), User:Hodgetts (unknown nationality/ethnicity), User:A.Garnet (likely Turkish) and me User:Nayan_Nev (from India).

The entire discussion can be found at [41]. Here is a time sequence of the posts I regard as important.

User:Yannismarou, who is Greek, joined this discussion about 24 hours back with a post [42] replying to a post by me asking for a RfC or consensus [43]. His very first post was critical of me, saying "I think that your interpretation of "consensus" is a bit strange" and "I think that you are the one who should provide consensus supporting your view, and not the editors who defend the current and established version of the lead".

When I asked if the latter was Wiki policy [44] I did not receive a reply from Yannismarou.

Later he launched a personal attack upon me with innuendoes about my lack of politeness and honesty [45]

NikoSilver proposed a text which would retain the word superpower in the introduction [46].

Yannismarou approved of NikoSilver's suggestion, calling it "Nico's great proposal" [47].

I objected to this suggestion as it did not address the basic point of the debate (describing Sparta as a superpower). [48].

Yannismarou then claimed that I did not understand "superpower" was not much different from "hegemon" and that I was the only one objecting to NikoSilver's suggestion [49]. This is simply misleading as between NikoSilver's suggestion at 16:56 and Yannismarou's post at 17:12 there had elapsed about a quarter of an hour. During this short interval of time others editors objecting to the word superpower had not posted, but that does not mean they had changed their minds. I explained as much by this post [50].

At which point Yannismarou accused me of being disruptive [51].

My next two posts said I would accept the text proposed by A. Garnet as a compromise [52] and [53].

After that Yannismarou blocked me for violating WP:POINT! Essentially the last two posts I could post said I was ready to accept text suggested by another person (A.Garnet) as a compromise, and this according to Yannismarou constituted grounds for blocking me.

After blocking me Yannismarou began a section titled "Closing the Discussion" [54]. So he was silencing my disagreement with him by blocking me, and then moving on to "closing the discussion."

Saying that the word "superpower" had been correctly used (essentially the basic point of the unsettled debate) [55] Yannismarou unprotected the article and inserted the text suggested by NikoSilver [56].

When my block expired I challenged the correctness of Yannismarou's block [57] (at 18:45) upon which he reverted the article back to its previous version [58] (at 18:52).

Essentially Yannismarou took one side of the debate, accused me of being disruptive when I said I did not agree with the version he approved, blocked me, unprotected the article, changed the article to the version he approved, then self-reverted the article after being challenged by me when the block had expired.

I believe the evidence clearly shows my posts did not violate WP:POINT and Yannismarou abused his Admin privileges by blocking me for disagreeing with him on the appropriateness of using the word superpower to describe Sparta.

Thanks to all for taking time to read this,

NN 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking Nayan Nev's edit history, it seems that (s)he edited the main article Sparta only moderately (plus a bit of reverting vandalism), always including detailed edit comments. I did not see any 3RR violation. Most related contributions were on Talk:Sparta, trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, where I did not see any inappropriate language. In light of this, it seems the block through Yannismarou was in rush, as I did not see a WP:POINT violation as indicated in the block log, definitely not an egregious disruption. Note: I am not involved in the conflict and have not edited Sparta before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth pointing out that Admin Yannismarou later "regretted" blocking Nayan Nev, though he also said he had "no alternative". I, myself, took no part in the actual article reversions, but my opinion (as an interested observer of the goings-on) is that NN has been quite seriously harassed and bullied by other editors simply because he dared to suggest that any reference to a Greek city-state being a "superpower" was inappropriate. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was quite a few personal attacks by users like User:Miskin that User:Gardener_of_Geda had challenged.[59] I had ignored these attacks as responding to them would only make more difficult my goal of making the article more accurate. While I thank Geda for support I am quite willing to overlook the personal attacks by Miskin etc. What bothers me is being blocked, I believe that really interferes with the way Wiki is supposed to work. NN 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nev you really got some nerve. Overlook my personal attack? For the last time if you think I have delivered a personal attack to anyone then report me under NPA, just stop repeating something until it is verified. Garderner_of_Geda I've seen you showing interest in that article before though never making any contributions. If you are going to accuse people for bullying and harrassment then please do it by providing some diffs, just like I did. This is not about an edit which lacks its references, its about other people's integrity. Your contribution to the discussion was that "Spartans were stupid", or a similiar non-helpful argument in favour of Nev. Miskin 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Yannismarou expressing regrets, I asked him to say specifically whether 1) he was regretting blocking me or 2) he was regretting my (blockworthy) actions on my behalf?[60] From his answer it did not sound like 1), it could be 2), I don't know. [61]NN 00:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer and non-admin, I think this block was extremely inappropriate. Yannismarou was clearly involved in a content dispute with NN, and he blocked him for violating WP:POINT. Looking at the talk page, there was no disruption from NN who was calmly and rationally presenting his side of the debate. In fact his last edit before being blocked was to agree with another editor on the other side of the conflict. It looks like Yannismarou doesn't understand the blocking policy or WP:POINT. AniMate 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate use of admin tools by Yannismarou. Admins are not suppose to use their admin tools when they're in content dispute with other editors, to threaten and bully the other side into accepting their POV. Someone should start a RFC, and take this case all the way to the ArbCom. --Mardavich 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also protest this admin's blocking of one of the editors for their legitimate (and neutral) edits to the Sparta (Greek City State) article and the reversion of this article to the fictional version. (a) the Spartans never "Overpowered the Persian Empire" -- this statement is not even found in any of the Greek legends and indeed the Spartans were subjects of the Persians. and (b) the word "superpower", re-enforced by this admin, and my other Greek friends to describe the Persian vassal city of Sparta is exteremely silly. I BELIEVE THAT THIS ADMINISTRATOR IS BIASED ON THIS GENERAL TOPIC AND I REQUEST THAT NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATORS OVERRIDE CHANGES MADE BY YANNISMAROU. Mehrshad123 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a textbook case of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute. There was no violation of WP:POINT as claimed, as far as I can tell, nor WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. All of that said, there's no reason right now to apply MORE admin power to this situation. Yannismarou, please be aware that you have a lot of people looking over your shoulder right now. Everyone else there: civil discussion on the talk page does not require that you all agree on something. Nor does consensus - one person or a small group can't keep there from being a consensus of a majority of others. But you are expected to tolerate civil and polite disagreement and advocacy from those with other content opinions. Failure to do so is violation of AGF. Serious violations of AGF are blockable. NN does not get a free pass to winning the content dispute for having been improperly blocked, either. Georgewilliamherbert 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yanni's a friend of mine, so I may be a bit biased here, but I'd ask that people take a look at as much of that talk page as they can find time for before handing down judgement like this. While I agree that the block was probably hasty, I don't think it was intended to gain advantage in a content dispute. Rather, I think it was a case of frustration with a discussion in which NN had yet to bring a single source to the table, arguing instead from his (often seriously inaccurate) understanding of the period over an inordinately long discussion (it took me over half an hour to read through it just now). Looking at that talk page as a student of the period, NN's posts are essentially hollow argumentation, and his persistence in rehashing the issue had reached the point that he was getting on people's cases when they tried to take the discussion in a somewhat more interesting and fruitful direction. Although a block from Yannismarou was probably not appropriate in the circumstances, I can't really blame him for trying to restore usability to a talk page that was being appropriated in this way. --Robth^Talk 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no contact with Yanni before, but I would also like to hear his comments first before condemning his actions. Admins are also humans, and as such make failures on occasions. A call for desysopping is IMHO not yet appropriate unless there are multiple similar abuses. From my point of view, if Yanni understands&regrets his mistakes, possibly with an apology to NN, a stern warning would suffice. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read once again carefully the course of the discussion you will see that more than once, NN interrupted an ongoing discussion with other users in order to promote his point. I warned him once, and I told him that blocking is not my first option here [62]. Before my comment there you can see what this user was kept doing all the time [63]. A discussion was on with A.Garnet about a part of the lead in discussion, and NN not caring at all started a new section in order to promote his point! Nobody else was there for him!! Nobody else's intervention mattered!!! Only him and the promotion of his own opinion. Before my blocking, NN did exactly the same thing: disruption of an ongoing discussion, interruption of its course (because he did not like it) and starting of a new section here with the imposition of his own positions. He did not care that the above discussion was still ongoing! No!! This did not matter for him!!! And why all that? Because he had to promote his point.

If you think that my blocking was improper, I respect your opinion, and I can live with it. But I stand firm that I did the right thing at this particular moment. At least, during NN's blocking we had a proper discussion without the unconstructive participation of a user who disrespected all his co-editors there by interrupting their ongoing discussions in the most impolite and contemptuous way. After all, my blocking of NN was not punitive, it lasted just one hour, and its own purpose was to serve the efforts for the reaching of consensus. I'm sorry consensus was not reached, but thanks to my decision we came too close to an agreement. NN's activity was definitely disruptive and falls under the scope of WP:POINT.

And something last: as I have made clear in my userpage, I am an administrator open to recall. If you believe that my decision was so wrong that it deserves such a response by Wikipedia's competent organs, then do what is best for Wikipedia. Personally, I do not intend to apologize to a user who disrupted in the worst and most contemtuous way an ongoing discussion in Sparta's article for the finding of a solution just in order to promote his point and who repeatedly acted against consensus in another article (Republic of Macedonia); a consensus which in Sparta is his banner.--Yannismarou 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The diff you provided is not useful. Please provide some more...

I have gone back through the page, and I don't see any WP:POINT. I don't see any disruption. They're talking, on a talk page, discussing options and opinions. POINT is changing an article to make a point, not discussing opinions about changes. He's perfectly entitled to create a new section, start an alternate proposal, etc.

If there's more there, please provide specific diffs.

We cannot be recalling admins over every mistake. But your reactions here are worrysome. It's not clear to me that you actually understand WP:POINT, or WP:BLOCK and why it's so strongly recommended for admins to just not block people they are involved in content disputes over. Georgewilliamherbert 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The protesting user is repeatedly making a case against policy. He has been violating WP:NOR and WP:POINT, by constantly bringing up a resolved issue. He has been WP:SPAMming for support to irrelevant/unaware users (some of which have expressed their opinion here too). What tipped the bucket, IMO, is that he persistently misinterpreted/ignored the position of others (straw man), by "playing fool". His main "dispute" (if we can call that such a lame issue of wording) was that the word "superpower" should either be replaced or limited to within the boundaries of Ancient Greece. When a compromise proposal was made that addressed his concern by replacing plain "superpower" with "superpower of the Ancient Greek world", he pretended repeatedly that he does not understand the difference (that he himself had requested). He constantly misinterpreted other peoples comments and equated the two. Note that the word "superpower" for Sparta is sourced to exhaustion. I am sorry to see that he keeps twisting and equating the two wordings also here, continuing to "play fool". To add, Yanni is one of the most worthy contributors with multiple featured contributions, and one of the calmest people I've seen around in disputes. I endorse this block, and there is much more than plain "content dispute" in it. Note how many times he posted and reposted the same "playing fool" request, even after he was asked with the politest way to stop, so that we could resolve another more serious issue and come back to it lated. NikoSilver 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it a violation of WP:NOR or WP:POINT? I've been back over the talk page a couple of times and I don't see these violations you and Yannismarou are claiming. If they're so clear you should be able to provide diffs and citations to the appropriate policy.

I am afraid that you don't understand the policy.

I could just not be seeing something in the talk page history. It is late. I am entirely open to being shown the right set of offending diffs. But I don't see it on my own.

Please provide us with the specifics of what diffs, what claims, and what parts of WP:NOR and WP:POINT this discussion violated. I am especially curious how a talk page discussion violated WP:NOR and WP:POINT; the definition of NOR seems to exclude anything one might say on a talk page, but as I said, it's late and I may be missing something. I didn't see any POINT violations, but I'll look at any diffs you show us.

It's important on Wikipedia for admins or anyone advocating user sanctions to be prepared to show the specific evidence so that others can see exactly what was going on which was wrong. If we cannot independently verify what you suggest is wrong, you have to show it. Georgewilliamherbert 11:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add that when Miskin rejected a proposal of him, NN started a new section (the tactics he loves, and which along with his other actions constitute indeed a clear violation of WP:POINT), arguing that Miskin accepted his proposal, and pretending that he did not understand what Miskin said! Me and Miskin repeatedly tried to explain him that he interpreted the answer in question in the wrong way, but he insisted! In this way he once again attempted to mislead all the other users and tried to promote his own point. This was the contribution of NN to the discdussion, and this was his stance during all the day yesterday.--Yannismarou 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On this i agree with Georgewilliamherbert. While an editor may be difficult to discuss with on the talk page (and I am not saying NN is or is not), this alone is no grounds for blocking. Disrupting the articles may be blockable, but (re)starting discussions is clearly not. You definitely need to re-read on the respective policies! -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The block was not punitive, it was preventive so that the rest of the users could talk within reason. Disruption was also to the fact that there were constant edit conflicts for circular "playing fool" arguments. NikoSilver 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if disrupting an ongoing discussion (not just restarting a discussion, but disrupting the course of an ongoing discussion which is not over), misinterpreting other people's words, being impolite and direspectful towards other users (by not letting them finish their ongoing discussion), and in this way appropriating a talk page does not deserve an effort to restore the usability of the talk page by 1 hour's block, mmm ... then yes I may have to re-read the respective policies.--Yannismarou 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone called for disruption, much less blocked, for anything as weak as the level of debate I see on the talk page now. I think you both need to re-read the policies. Niko, edit conflicts are edit conflicts, not user abuse issues. The edits I see, all of you could have just ignored them, and gone on with consensus, and nothing they were doing would have actually gotten in the way. There's a world of difference between "he won't shut up" and "he's actively disrupting other attempts to talk". He didn't delete other people's comments that I see, insult anyone gravely, etc. If other stuff met the disruption category... I don't see it yet, but maybe its there. Please provide diffs, after you read the policy and look at some examples. Georgewilliamherbert 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As George requested, and unless Yanni does so in the meantime, I'll provide diffs later on. You will excuse me for some few hours though because I have to go. NikoSilver 11:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in this dispute. I suggested a few compromises which avoided the term superpower but made reference to Sparta's pre-eminent position in Ancient Greece. NN had accepted two of my compromises. I do not believe NN's block was warranted or helpful. I made no comment on this during the discussion because I thought perhaps NN had a history as disruptive user (people were citing WP:NOFEEDING), but this does not seem to be the case. It seems he was blocked because a number of Greek editors saw his opposing view as an annoyance, but what makes it worse is that NN actually agreed to both of my compromises, whilst they were rejected by the other disputants. Furthermore, I was definintely not pleased with Yannis using his admin powers to implement Niko's version while we were in the midst of a debate, though he recognised this and reverted himself later. But the point is his admin powers were not used constructively (or fairly) in this dispute. Sorry Yannis, you are a level headed and capable editor, but this is precisely why I was the only person to have opposed your adminship, knowing your tendency to fall on the side of Greek editors all too often. --A.Garnet 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion about the blocking may be (and I respect it just like all the opinions here), it is unfair to say that I "fall to the side of Greek editors". During yesterday's discussion I disagreed with Miskin on the part of the lead telling that "Sparta overpowered Persia". I also tried to place the use of the word "superpower" within the right context. Your proposal would be acceptable by me, but as you saw other users did not accept it. At the same time the term "military superpower of the ancient Greek World" was acceptable by the above users and me as well, but it was rejected by you and NN. I don't think this is exactly the case of "falling on the side of Greek editors".--Yannismarou 13:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

About my implementation of Nicos' proposal: at this moment I thought that a better wording (even without consensus) clarifying the Sparta-Persia balance of power and the meaning of "superpower" (not world but limited hellenic dimensions in this case) was much much better than the previous inaccurate edit under protection. After I edited it, I realised that NN and other users who insist on the removal of "superpower" will keep insisting on the (trivia for me) issue of "superpower", and will not accept my edit accusing me again for abuse of adm power. That is why, I decided to revert to the protected text, and not to be accused of violating any policies. Yes, it terms of policy my editing was wrong; but in terms of encyclopedic accuracy it was towards the correct direction. So, the final solution (revert to the protected text) is in accord with WP policies but it is against historical and scientific accuracy and content quality! This is the problem here!! We keep the bad protected text, because even a better text version is attacked and consensus is not reached.--Yannismarou 13:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing the same thing from Yannismarou here that I saw in the Sparta talk page, that is disagreement with him being labeled as disruption. He now says that starting a new section (to offer compromises) is disruptive, though he himself started new sections (like "Nico's great proposal" or "Concluding the discussion"). Basically he took upon himself to find a "consensus" with NikoSilver and objected to me offering an opinion during the process. This is simply censorship.

Looking at Yannismarou's logs, I see that he has only blocked two other registered users (and many anonymous users). The first one is a obvious block for vandalism, the next one is more relevant to this case. The editor User:Laertes_d was blocked by Yannismarou on 10:22, 3 February 2007. I do not condone Laertes_d's behavior, especially his posts after being blocked. The block no doubt infuriated him. The similarity to the existing situation is that this user too had been involved in a content dispute with Yannismarou. Referenced text in the article by Laertes_d had been removed by Yannismarou [64] with a generic explanation of "revert all POV". When User:Richardshusr questioned Yannismarou why he had removed referenced text [65] he received no reply [66]. All this was prior to Laertes_d being blocked, so Yannismarou was fully immersed in a content dispute before he blocked Laertes_d. Once again I do not condone the abrasive behavior by Laertes_d, but there was some of that on both sides, but only one got blocked.

Georgewilliamherbert pointed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used where it says "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on." It is instructive to note that Yannismarou disregarded the directive to report any problem he saw to other admins. This happened in 2 of 3 situations he has ever blocked a registered user.

So where does all this leave us? For the integrity of Wikipedia processes I think this should be resolved now rather than later. Yannismarou maintains that he did no wrong and that "NN's activity was definitely disruptive and falls under the scope of WP:POINT." even after neutral admins Chris and Georgewilliamherbert and neutral editor User:AniMate have told him otherwise. He says "I do not intend to apologize" and goes on to label me "a user who disrupted in the worst and most contemtuous way an ongoing discussion".

We have come a long way, so to leave this hanging is simply encouragement for similar behavior in the future. Here are some options:

1) Yannismarou apologizes and agrees to in the future not use admin powers in Greek related articles.

OR

2) As Yannismarou says he is an administrator open to recall, he acts upon it. As his admin actions have already been criticized by two neutral admins, I believe there is sufficient grounds for this.

OR

3) Other Wiki processes are followed.

NN 13:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, haven't you got something better to be getting on with? I thought you enjoyed wiki-stalking me the other day (something which nevertheless was trolling). I'm suffering now with the lack of attention.--Domitius 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, you along with NikoSilver, Miskin and Yannismarou have already been mentioned by me as part of the group. I would like to focus on the issue at hand rather than get into a slanging match. NN 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really surprised by NN's comments above, and especially by his inaccurate and false comments. The twisting of incidents which occured in the past is really impressive. More impressive and indicative of his behavior is the fact that NN declares that he "condones" the actions of a user blocked by me in the past after the blocking. He obviously does not condone the insults of this repeatedly blocked user that led to my blocking. I call for all the involved in the discussion users to check the history of this block and the diffs I provided in the userpage of the blocked user, in order to realise if the block was justified or not. The only thing I can do is to express my sorrow for the above comments by NN. His edit warring in Sparta, Republic of Macedonia and his last comments here make me worry about the way this user edits in Wikipedia, and make me wonder if the goals he declares (NPOV) for his interventions are the real ones. I hope that I am wrong.--Yannismarou 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately everything said in the past can be easily located. As for the two new allegations by Yannismarou, I do not see how saying "I do not condone Laertes_d's behavior, especially his posts after being blocked" equals condoning his behavior in any way. My point was not about the comparative behavior of the two parties, but Yannismarou's ignoring the Wiki directive to have a different admin block Laertes_d. As for my "edit warring" on the Republic of Macedonia page, I made one edit, was reverted saying there had been a vote, reverted back requesting the details of the vote, and then stopped editing on receiving the requested information. Essentially ONE edit and ONE revert, that's all I did. Judge for yourself if that qualifies as "edit-warring". NN 14:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this discussion goes down a long way, and this is obviously not helpful for anybody here. I'll take into consideration a comment from Chris in NN's userpage {"Hopefully all the abusive aspects of this incident are now all past and we can all get back to making an encyclopedia"), and I'll apologize for NN's blockage. I recognize it was hasty, but at the moment I thought it served the restoring of the talk page usability. It seems that my decision did not help the final outcome of the discussion there, and the building of a consensus. Following these events, I'll also stay away from the Sparta's page, and I'll hope, at the same time, that an agreed solution will be reached there. This is going to be the best for quality and accuracy, which are the only reasons I took the unpleasant and (as regarded by the majority of editors here, whose opinion I take into serious consideration) wrong decision to block NN.--Yannismarou 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the light of Yannis' comment above, the issue should be considered closed. Beit Or 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I too regard the matter closed. I would like to thank everybody here who contributed their time to make this resolution possible. My faith in Wikipedia's community has been been restored, no doubled! NN 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite it's been said, Nayan Nev has been an extremely disruptive editor. He has been extensively edit-warring on the limit of 3RR[67] and has invited Iranian users to edit-war on his POV. He has removed referenced information and has explicitely denied to abide by WP:ATT principles. He continues to randomly invite Iranian editors from Iran-related articles, who are apparently even more disruptive than him [68] [69]. Some have POV-pusher and vandal past (see User_Talk:Immortals) and are basically invited [70] to edit war - following Nayan's reminder on 3RR [71]. Yannismarou actually tried to speak in Nayan's stead in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Nayan kept attacking editors, starting new sections and trolling in a way I've never seen before, and all this during the others were trying to reach a consensus. Which forced me quit the conversation and Yannismarou put on him a one-hour block, only after explicit warning. The debate was basically started due to Nayan's incapability of respecting the WP:CITE policy and make edits our counter-edits that are based on credible sources. The article was basically locked as a result of Nayan's organised edit-warring[72] [73] Miskin 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannis, just a few words from someone who highly respects your contributions to Wikipedia and supported your RFA. I'm not going to plow through all the diffs or history, but this reads like the kind of situation that gives rise for concern. As an admin, it is up to you to rise above it and set the example. It is in no one's interest for this situation to escalate or fester. My recommendation would be to apologize, and agree to call in another, less-involved admin if future disputes arise on Greek articles. If there is in fact a problem with NN's contributions, that will eventually come to light. I don't support a recall or sysop or ArbCom actions, because I believe you can/will respond reasonably. I recently strongly-opposed another RfA candidate because I firmly believed he may use the tools to influence debate on certain country topics; this is not the kind of discussion that warms people's hearts. Try to end this quickly, and learn from it. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, late to the party again; I see I missed your apology above. I knew you'd do the right thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate is a question of WP:ATT and not wikipedians' POV. The opposing side doesn't respect WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Also very few of the people mentioned above have ever participated in the actual editing of the article. They all appeared after Nayan's disruptive activity. None of them have presented counter-sources on the question at hand. In my opinion (POV alert) there are only very few of those editors who can be considered as non-partisans, the rest have found themselves there as a result of wp:vendettas and wp:stalking. As shown in the diffs below, Mehrshad was invited by Nayan_Nev to openly start an edit-war, so was User:Immortans and who knows how many others. A. Garnet has never shown interest in the particular article, nor in any related article, nor has he ever proved himself knowledgeable on the topic. He appeared soon after he had a conflict with Domitius in a different article, Cypriot Civil War I think, where he received a block. And now, there you see him, pretending to be a completely neutral participant. This demonstrates how exploitable dispute-resultion method and wp:policy are. Nobody really respects the policies, not even old users, and unreferened POV is powerful enough to cause all this. Half of the people participating in Talk:Sparta have gotten there either by rv-war invitation or by stalking another users' contribution lists. None of them has _ever_ contributed in Sparta, nor any related article - yet their unsourced opinion counts as much as real contributors' referenced opinion, and is causing all this trouble. This is a just _laughable_ - it reveals how easily a malicious editor can exploit all Policies and still be taken seriously, without offerring any contributions to wikipedia whatsoever. In the apogee of irony - he may even receive an apology! Miskin 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of not escalating the situation, again, if there is a problem with NN's or anyone else's contributions, that will eventually come to light. NPOV is hardly enforced on Wikipedia (Wiki's largest problem IMNSHO), but it's in no one's interest for an involved admin to be blocking; an uninvolved admin should do that. Two wrongs (pervasive POV on Wiki, and involved admins blocking) don't make a right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that at least one person is being realistic about this. I repeate, this debate is just laughabe. We wouldn't be even having it if half of the people involved could just take a minute and read WP:ATT and take it literally instead of metaphorically. Anyone who wants to make an edit needs to have a reference. Anyone who wants to challenge an edit or include an alternative opinion needs to have a counter-reference - there's no case of dispute otherwise. Miskin 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wolfgang Mozart doesn't want to change username

Thread retitled from "I Love My Name, Please Let Me Keep It".

Resolved

 – The user has been informed that their username is allowed Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Im posting here to "beat you to the draw" if you will. My name obviously shares the name of a famous person. But that famous person is now dead. Since I cant be confused with him in real life, Id like to keep this name, as the name Wolfgang is quite common here in Germany.Wolfgang Mozart 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would WP:RFCN be more appropriate for this? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that nobody would have noticed it, as long as you weren't editing classical music topics. In any case, you could always add a middle initial—I can't imagine any objection to a User:Wolfgang Q. Mozart.

I'm also a bit surprised that you managed to come here – to WP:AN/I – on your very first Wikipedia edit.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the consensus on RFCN in the past has been for something like a 20 year rule on famous names anyway. The rule itself says "well-known living or recently deceased people", so this is an absolute non-issue considering that 5 December 1791 is by no measure "recent". --Random832 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been allowed Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was never in question, enjoy your name, I like it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added a middle initial to my username, now theres no reason I cant keep itTerry Q. Schiavo 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Above user has been blocked indefinitely as an obvious troll. --Coredesat 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, you beat me. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT. Twice. Ryanjunk 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any danger of someone thinking the real Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart rose from his anonymous grave more than 200 years after his demise for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. If that's a problem then I'd better change my own username because Nadezhda Durova expired only 141 years ago. Durova^Charge! 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All of my similarly-named relatives have been deceased for 500 million years or so; am I in the clear? ;) Opabinia regalis 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Magonaritus and sockpuppetry

The person who registered the Magonaritus (talk · contribs) account has been causing disruptions, on and off, at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. He/she has used a series of both IP and registered sockpuppets to influence the outcome of discussions on article content and format at talk, generally in an abrasive, uncooperative manner; all-together violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the page being locked. Evidence strongly points to sockpuppetry; such evidence and connections have been outlined here. A request for checkuser was already deemed unnecessary. Could an admin please look at this case and decide whether the relevant accounts should be blocked? --G2bambino 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Kricanci

Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by AnonEMouse. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he hates Bosniaks, and makes funny of them. So his "ethnic Bosniak" account was blocked and he was warned. I noticed similar behaviour on Bosniak-related topics:

• 58.165.126.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 58.165.115.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

Here are some examples about his Bosniak-image obsession, when he was logged in:

• [74]
• [75]

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [76]

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [77]

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [78]
• [79]

and when he was logged in:

• [80].

There are so many examples, but the best thing is to look again the evidence here Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet when Ivan was blocked earlier. Emir Arven 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Hi there,

Anon Ip User:83.78.136.13 has started making massive POV edits to Glyphosate, it is highly likely that this is a sockpuppet of User:Benjiwolf who has been blocked before for disruptive editing in general as on this page - see [81].

Note that their massive edit [82] removes some useful info, adds some useful info, but mostly seeks to push a particular POV on the article e.g. at the most basic it is not a discussion of Glyphosate anymore but of Roundup. From the their contributions [83] it can be seen that this editor is obviously experienced with Wikipedia, e.g. of trying to bait me into a WP:3R - [84].

I suggest an outside user please comment on User:83.78.136.13s actions, maybe semi-protection of the page is in order, and an investigation into the sockpuppet issue. Cheers Lethaniol 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note this edit [85] also - where the Anon Ip reverts all their work??? Cheers Lethaniol 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

accusations of baiting for a 3RR are patently false, the editor was warned several times clearly in several ways, including on his talk page about nearing a third RR...83.78.136.13 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about Benjiwolf. As stated on the sockpuppet report, I would be happy to pass out any blocks/page protections required but I believe there is a conflict of interest as I have dealt with benjiwolf directly on several pages. Read the user's talk page and you will see he/she is determined to evade any block placed. If I could get another admin to review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd), it would be very helpful. auburnpilot talk 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP user has also been trolling the Ann Coulter talk page at a level I've never seen before and our patience is wearing thin. He also accused me of something I didn't do on Talk:Cannabis (drug). All I did was add citation tags to a few sentences. --Ubiq 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone tried to change my password

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:15Z

I got an email from Wikipedia, saying someone had changed my password. The text is (removed - standard text Quarl ^(talk))

I've changed my password, just in case, but I wanted to report this in case others have been affected as well. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is located in the e-mail notice:

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

This happens fairly often, especially in disputes. Just ignore it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Very-very-speedy deleting of an article

I created Notable usages of the phrase "I love you" with content MOVED from I love you. It took me only the time to go back to the original article and delete that content, to see that the new article had been tagged for speedy deletion with reason "content COPIED from another article". Since I believed that reason was not correct, I put in a hangon on the article and started writing the explanation on the Talk page. When I saved the explanation, the article had already been deleted. From creation to explanation, the whole process took less than half an hour.

I don't want to discuss the merits or demerits of the deleted article and of the killed contents, but I'm very, very annoyed at some overzealous admin who couldn't wait another minute to see my explanation and who thus made me waste my (voluntary and good-faith) time.

Even if this is an acceptable behavior under admin guidelines, it still shows lack of respect for other people's time and efforts and the guidelines should probably be readdressed. Thank you (but still annoyed). --maf 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD, editors are supposed to allow time for article expansion before tagging it. Unfortunately, that is ignored a significant amount of the time and considering the backlog CAT:CSD normally has, it's usually not an option for the admin deleting it to check to ensure that enough time had been allowed. Responsibility rests with the tagger, in my opinion. I'm not at all a fan of an admin deleting a clearly good-faith article that is speedy-tagged with a {{hangon}} without giving enough time for a discussion on the talk page (in this case, less than 3 minutes from {{hangon}} to deletion by NawlinWiki). From start to deletion, less than 16 minutes. I agree that we can do better than this — the question is what needs fixing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that responsibility rests with the tagger. I believe responsibility rests with the writer, to take the time outside of main name space to create something that will stand up to scrutiny from the get-go. Good faith or no, a half-baked article is still only half-baked, nd there are few guarantees the article will be improved after it hits namespace. If people don't want their articles deleted, it is up to them to put something credible in place in the first place. Denni^talk 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is people want to tag now, rather than having to put "go back and check article X" on their calendar. A solution may be to use {{delayed}} (which I created recently). For example, {{delayed|2007-03-16|2={{db-talk}}}} can be used on a talk page so that {db-talk} will appear on 2007-03-16. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:10Z

Oooh, very intriguing template right there. My concern at first blush, of course, is adding it and then not checking the article again, so that if, for example, the article is significantly expanded, it would still end up being tagged. Obviously in this case one would hope that the admin wouldn't delete, but I've certainly seen lots of speedy deletions that have gone pretty clearly against policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It would help to notify editors of the article by using the "else" clause of the template to display a warning of the "scheduled" automatic tagging, and also to state in the db reason that {delayed} was used, such that the deleting admin should check to see if it still applies. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:21Z

I have undeleted the article and changed {db} to {prod}; it may merit AFD instead. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:05Z

Good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me. Selective entry schools was deleted within minutes of creation and the topic merits an article. Sfdasfr 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That article was also speedy deleted too quickly and tenuously. I undeleted it but then realized it's a duplicate of Selective school, so I just redirected it there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:51Z

I dislike the attitude that some new pages patrollers have that it's about "skimming the shit" that gets submitted (as Denni put it in response to maf's concern). If that's the attitude one has while watching new pages, that you're just "looking for shit to skim," then you can't help but pull the trigger too fast on needy articles that require assistance to grow. Leebo ^T/C 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I offer you this challenge: spend one evening on New Pages Patrol. My experience is that ten to fifteen percent of articles submitted are of such poor quality or are so frivolous (Damon Edwards is a l33t n00b and chicks dig him; The Wanking Shaggers are an up-and coming band...; Hamilton Heights School is a school in Prince Edward Island) that any reasonable editor would move to speedy-delete them. I read all articles on New Pages, and appreciate the fine quality of articles I often see. But I have no hesitation at all about nominating articles for speedy deletion that have nothing to contribute in terms of noteworthiness or serious intent. Please do not forget that I nominate them, but it takes a second editor to delete them. Please also do not forget that Wikipedia recieves literally thousands of articles an hour, and if there were no watchers at the gates, Wikipedia would quickly reach 15 million articles, most of them not suitable to line a bird cage. In the case of I love you, the article was in fact copied. I don't care that the author claims he wrote the original piece, fact is, the breakout poage was an exact duplicate of what already existed in a very short article, and no breakout was necessary. Claims that it needs "assistance to grow" are frivolous - it is the main article that needs time to improve, not some clip-out copy. As far as Selective entry schools goes, I tagged it as a speedy because it was about two sentences long and contained nothing to assert notability. Criticising me for ignoring a {{hangon}} is kind of odd, because only the deleting editor would have seen that, and that was not me. Bottom line: if authors do not want their pages deleted, they need to put in the time outside main articlespace to create an article that will withstand initial scrutiny before submitting it. I do not believe this is too much to ask. Denni^talk 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this article, all I said was I dislike the "skimming the shit" impression of it. I'm a new pages patroller too. Leebo ^T/C 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to creating an article in userspace before posting? That would eliminate most of the problems right there. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The best way to not get your article speedied is to not create speediable articles. Not even if you really are going to add more stuff, Real Soon Now, you promise! Write it in userspace, or write enough in your first mainspace draft that its merits are apparent. Opabinia regalis 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. New page patrollers are not mind readers and cannot assess the intention of the author. I've been around here long enough to see very feeble pages linger long after (I assume) the author has lost all interest in Wikipedia. It takes no more time to create a good article in userspace than it does in main namespace, and odds are the rresults if done so will stand much better in a speedy review. Denni^talk 07:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, it couldn't possibly be that people are tagging and deleting articles improperly. No, never. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Notable usages of the phrase "I love you" should have never been created in the first place, that is way to vauge info for the I love you article (how can you tell the phrase is extremely notable, and there is so many uses of I love you that it would be unmaintable anyways), so it should have just been removed from the article without creating a subpage. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits' bad faith PRODing & spamming

User:Vintagekits is engaged in spamming by placing PRODs on everything related to the British peerage or Honours recipients as "non-notable" or "nn?" or "nn??" He was engaged in abusive spamming on a massive scale, and it is directly related to the user's pro-PIRA bias.

See below a partial list:

• 19:14, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet
• 19:13, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 2nd Baronet
• 19:12, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Frederick Arthur
• 19:11, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury
• 19:09, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 2nd Baron Avebury
• 19:08, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Bernard Waley-Cohen
• 19:07, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Ian Frank Bowater
• 19:05, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) David Brewer
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir David Baird, 3rd Baronet
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Alexander Baird, 1st Baronet
• 19:01, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Barber, 1st Baronet
• 18:59, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gilbert Barling
• 18:58, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Thomas Erasmus Barlow
• 18:57, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 2nd Baronet
• 18:54, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry Benyon
• 18:31, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gladys Hartman
• 18:30, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Maureen Brennan
• 18:29, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gillian Pugh
• 18:27, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daphne Purves
• 18:26, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Una Pope-Hennessy

O'Donoghue 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: All the bad faith PRODs were converted into requests to expand article by User:kittybrewster. Regardless, User:Vintagekits' edits need to be reviewed given his history on Wikipedia and his blatant biases.O'Donoghue 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Vintagekits is currently blocked for an alleged 3RR violation that is under review. He has indicated on his talk that he will respond to this thread as soon as he is in a position to do so. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Vintagekits has made some very offensive comments in the past week regarding British people. On Talk:Celtic he said, "Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl" [86]; then later said "it was not for the IRA I would not be rule a free country and it would still by under Britsh imperialist sectarian rule. Thank god for the IRA"[sic] [87]. He has also been attempting to discredit good faith comments made by several editors in 2 AFDs on articles similar to the ones he has been targeting above. [88]

• So is anyone going to do anything about this hatemonger (User:Vintagekits), whose grammar appears to be at early grade school level, polluting Wikipedia? Also - the person who made the very useful comment directly above mine should return to sign off on it.O'Donoghue 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please

A few days ago, I sought to open an RfC on Justanother after attempts to come to an understanding failed. I was concerned finding a single neutral editor for a "third opinion" option and opted instead for the RfC to get as many different opinions as possible. I consulted with another editor about how to get one started having little experience myself. The editor I went to also had little experience too, so they in turn went to Bishonen who didn't seem to believe that two editors had made good faith attempts to address Justanother on his talk page. As it turned out, Bishonen felt the other editor's attempts were insufficient while I had not. Since I was making the RfC in good faith, I assumed the worst that could happen is that it would be rejected. It was not rejected, and the RfC was active as several editors had posted and others had planned to. I don't want to give the impression that I'm unwilling to accept that the RfC was incorrect. The problem I have is that either out of loyalty or perhaps a bruised ego, Bishonen acted unilaterally to delete an RfC he disagreed with at the request of the subject of said RfC. I apologize for having to take up more space here for the same issue. Anynobody 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do keep User talk:Bishonen on my short watchlist. And I saw her (not him, by the way) patiently describe *over* and *over* (to no apparent effect) that user RfCs need to show demonstrated attempts to come to a resolution, not just any old talk-page arguing -- or, yes, they get deleted. Also clearly explained. Ignoring her clear instructions, you went ahead and the expected, normal thing happened. And now you want to blame Bishonen and make it personal?? (Loyalty? Bruised Ego? See WP:NPA and Comment on contributions, not personalities, OK?) Get a grip, Anynobody. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fou-Lu0014

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:02Z

this user did not break the 3rr, because it was on HIS userpage, this user is very angry and would like to be un-banned

"He" can post {{unblock|reason}} on his userpage if he'd like to be unblocked. Oh, and could you also tell "him" he doesn't own "his" userpage and that he shouldn't try to evade his block via sockpuppetry? Thanks. Picaroon 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR does mention that a users own space is "usually" exempt from the policy, but that certain actions can still be seen as disruptive. I have not looked into the details of this case though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for an incredible amount of move vandalism. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous comment, apologising and requesting to be permitted to return, has been posted at User:Fou-Lu0014. The same IP also restored the userpage content (userboxen, etc..) this has now been removed; the comment remains. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

This is a content issue. Take it to the talk page of the article or WP:DR. Nothing belongs here.--Doc^g 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Serious Questions:

(I mean, look what happened to Essjay, I feel bad for him). Gwen Gale 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Are editors who are strong supportors of Essjay are allowed to edit the Essjay controversy article? Currently the quotes are gone from the Wales response and Essjay's response and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step is this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading. It is amazing to try to edit in an environment which a group of editors have made their support for someone who is now retired.

I do not know how to reason with a group of ediotrs in this kind of climate. Assistance and oversight is needed. What is the next step for this situation when the talk page will accoplish nothing. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Dispute resolution? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your first question, a) that's hardly "strong support" — I don't support what Essjay did, but I still feel bad for him..., b) yes they are. As to your second, the location for this discussion is on the article's talk page (or at WP:DR if you feel so inclined, but uh...), where editors have been attempting to engage you in discussion all day but for the most part you have refused. Please take it there and actually discuss first, thanks. Nothing here requires administrative intervention. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No amount of controversy should affect an article, short of it being protected or deleted. If you require further assistance, you should contact the AMA who may advocate on your behalf. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel bad for him, too. Feeling compassion for someone who's managed to get himself into such a predicament doesn't indicate that I condone his deception. I'm sure many of us feel like that. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What 'on bigotry's flying worms' asses the heck happened?

I always admired Essjay. --PaxEquilibrium 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay is a Saint compared to the behavior and tactics a few of the editors on the Essjay controversy article. I organized the sections for easier flow of reading and improved the style of the quotes. Now I am being treated as if I vandalized the article. The talk page is turned into a circus. The comments by other editors against me are personal attacks and disruptive. The real story is the problems how things are run on Wikipedia. Mob consensus is not consensus. I want to change policy to collaboration. Consensus allows a group of editors to impose their will. There is an inherent flaw to going along with so-called consensus. Collaboration creates a higher quality article. I want to organize the sections, include images, include an internal link, and have the Wales' response and Essjay's response in quotes. Currently, the article has a huge reactions sections. It would be best to divide that section into two sections. The article is cluttered with such a huge reactions section. If anyone has anymore suggestions on this matter it would be helpful. QuackGuru ^TALK 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Mob consensus does not equal collaboration!"

This is an "incident" in as much as massive trolling seems to be going on. This article has potential of becoming our latest GNNA / Daniel Brandt surrogate. And like these, it is a WP-internal thing that masquerades as an encyclopedic article. It has no place in content namespace. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: The article has turned into a circus. This is beyond a content dispute now. Read the talk page. A have been attacked. Wikipedia's policy does not address mob consensus against collaboration. Please help. QuackGuru ^TALK 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Doc glasgow's move to archive this content-dispute related discussion. (→Netscott) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta

I have absolutely had it with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In his latest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.

In this edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.

You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness over the deceptive banner on his userpage. It took only four editors and three months to get him to stop. --Ideogram 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want us to do? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but "absolutely had it" is a little ... strong, perhaps :P? Yuser31415 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a revert-warrior. 3RR is an electric fence, not a quota. Limit him to 2RR. --Ideogram 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric fence may be the wrong analogy. Try minefield. :) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer machine gun crossfire, actually. Yuser31415 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose troll?

Resolved

Please take a look at User:Rainbowwarrior1976's contributions:

• Created his userpage
• trolling
• nominated Wikia for deletion
• blatant trolling

Tha'ts all his edits to the date. Sockpuppet? MaxSem 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, as troll, possible sock of banned user User:Rainbowwarrior1977 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism incident: two edits, First Red Scare

I'm reporting two cases of straight-forward vandalism, at: First Red Scare

I'm also asking for information: what is the procedure for reverting multiple edits? Can both be reverted at once? Must they be reverted separately?

What's the simplest procedure? thanks! Richard Myers 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can revert any number of edits - see WP:REVERT. Actually, there was only one case of "vandalism" - an IP vandalized, and another tried to remove the vandalism, but did not revert all of it :P. Yuser31415 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

comments

(Quote) I'm not sure which dream world you live in, but its pointless to talk with you, as it always was. Believe what you please and do what you please. Demean me and Wikipedia on your private web forum - I don't care. I'm only here for knowledge, nothing else. P.S. - the controversy about Muhammad and pedophilia is a legitimate historical debate - criticizing Muhammad is free speech. But Baka's comments were meant as an insult to you, no doubt - I would have blocked him if I had seen that comment but I had not until much later. I don't know why the arbitrators didn't propose a decision against him - that's their business. Don't reply to refute this statement, as I already know that you don't respect me at all. Cheerio, Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unre4L/archive2" (End quote)

This user has blocked other for stating "160 million people have been denied their history".

His excuse:"Insulting a nation".

And now he calls linking Muhammed to pedophelia "free speech". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.44.184 (talk • contribs)

Diffs please ... Yuser31415 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading this right (and I may not be, the formatting is odd) our anonymous friend is complaining about Rama's Arrow. The problem is, as near as I can tell, Rama's Arrow has never been blocked for anything, let alone making a statement like that. So I'm not sure what is going on here. IrishGuy ^talk 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he's complaining about Rama's Arrow but I think the block log you want is Unre4L's and a read of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive183#Block of Unre4L. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

copyvio on Atlantis

User:Karohatch pasted the text of a National Geographic article into Atlantis: [89]. That diff includes about six revisions; I've reverted to a previous version, but should those edits be deleted from the page history? The author helpfully provided the url of the story in his edit. I haven't had a chance to look closely at Karohatch's other edits, but this one also looks like potential copyright trouble: [90]. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule we don't have to delete copyvios from the page history. Just not having them be the active page is ok. That is not true for images, where we outright delete them. Georgewilliamherbert 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But regardless of it is text or images, if the user is posting copyright violations galore, just block the account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They'd only posted one copyvio that's clear and evident, on Atlantis, and that one had credit and source info right in it so it was clear what they'd done. The Milesians one could be, but I don't know where it came from... someone have time to look at it?. They stopped (went to bed?) before the warning was put up. They just returned to editing a couple of minutes ago, and re-did one noncopyvio segment that was reverted out on Atlantis, but haven't done anything else yet. I'm going to engage more on their talk page to make sure they understand the policy. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him and an IP 24 hours for reinserting the material twice more, once after the two warnings were obviously on his talk page. Last insert was exact same material as an IP address, transparently the same person. Georgewilliamherbert 07:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuous Problems with User:Rollosmokes

User:Rollosmokes seems to have a problem with working with other Wikipedia users, He has been making unwaranted reverts and then when questioned about it he becomes very aggressive and eventually gets into long edit wars and leaving aggressive messages on user talk pages including my own (see here) which includes:

"Unless you want to get administration involved once more, stop making the nitpicky changes to the Metromedia article, as you have been doing for the past two days. I promise you that every time you revert to your changes, I will undo them. They aren't necessary, and as I have stated before, the article was FINE before you decided to FIX WHAT WASN'T BROKEN. Rollosmokes 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)" and

As a result User:Rollosmokes was suspended for a 24h period by User:Firsfron effective 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC), His request to have the ban lifted was denied by User:Sandstein on 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Following the expiration of he posted another aggressive message on my talkpage which stated:

"Since you insist on making these needless and redundant changes to the article (and are trying to prove a point by doing so), I have once again asked Firsfron to interject. I am also requesting that the Metromedia article be locked and protected from editing until this crap dies down. Rollosmokes 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"

Following that post he was edit blocked again, this time for 48h by User:Sandstein starting on 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC), User:Sandstein's explanation for the edit block was as follows:

"You are blocked for 48h for editwarring on Metromedia; see revert 1, 2, 3, 4. Please note that neither you nor any group of which you are a part owns any particular article, as you seem to assume judging from this comment. Please engage in discussion on the talk page about why the format you prefer is better, rather than editwarring about it."

and following the expiration of that edit ban he started making aggressive reverts on the article Soul Train, When User:TMC1982 asked User:Rollosmokes to stop reverting people's edits on the Soul Train article User:Rollosmokes again became aggressive and posted the following message:

"First of all, I never labelled any changes on the Soul Train article as vandalism. Secondly, the extra subsectioning in your version messed up the continuity of the text, and is otherwise unnecessary. That was my reason for reverting back, and I will reiterate again that I did not label your edit as "vandalism". When my block is lifted, I will change it back. Rollosmokes 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)"

In response User:TMC1982 posted

"What you call "messed up continuity", I call breaking the article down in sections for easier reading. You don't exactly "own" the Soul Train page!!!TMC1982 2:28 p.m., 10 March 2007 (UTC)"

Clearly User:Rollosmokes has some anger and aggression issues that he needs to deal with and the fact that he feels he has the right to revert any article in Wikipedia without question because he deems them not up to his own personal standards instead of Wikipedia's standards. I would like to recommend that he be edit blocked for a period no less then 14 days after which he will be required to have a Wikipedia mentor who will look after him and guide him along on what he should and shouldn't do and what is proper and what is not proper. They call me Mr. Pibb 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on placement of names

Resolved

User:Taalo is repeatedly reediting the introductory sentence (putting the German name, though it is one of the two official names, after the non-official Ladin name) of the articles Bolzano and Merano inserting his POV (contributions: [91]. I warned him on Talk:Bolzano#Warning: Vandalism). I really don't like it, but there is a kind of edit war, including personal attacks, between "pro Italians" and "pro Germans" on South Tirol and Trentino-South Tirol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhJ (talk • contribs)

Both edit warriors on Bolzano are now blocked for WP:3RR, and the page is protected until they get consensus about the order the names of the city should appear in. No further admin action required at this point. Sandstein 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True name privacy outing

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it.[92] I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot -- User:MetsBot

This bot is apparently fixing links to relocated user boxes and/or relocating the boxes. I have a user box that links to the box's subject (User:UBX/Monty Python). The bot changed the link to the box and also changed the link to the subject, Monty Python, so the box on my user page now links to UBX/Monty Python. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of privacy

User (and Admin) [[93]] had posted on Talk page what he thinks is a real name of an editor he is fighting against. I believe this act violates the WP privacy rules that safeguard editors from potential threats that exist in repressive societies and other environments adversary to open expression, and the spirit of participation in WP. I believe this act was willingly done in order to intimidate an editor [[94]]. Barefact 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hint! Hint!: Go here and report all of the instances (with links provided) of this user's real name being shown upon wiki [done by e-mail, of course], because it is a violation of the the privacy policy. Real96 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - vandalistic, nationalist troll deserves a ban or indef block

Thread moved to WP:CN, proposes a community ban. MER-C 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making personal attacks on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates. I apologize if this is not the right place to bring this. --NE2 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per various talk pages, I have asked Ideogram not to make personal attacks, NE2 not to delete them, and both to avoid 3RR arguing over it. It appears to have stopped. Georgewilliamherbert 10:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now claiming to apply style guidelines, while actually not applying them: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says that "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." but he removed a link a section and a number of paragraphs down from the first use. --NE2 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an ANI issue? Have you followed any of the lower steps of dispute resolution, asked for anyone else to discuss it with them...? Georgewilliamherbert 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over removal of talk page comments

Resolved

--Ideogram 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please intervene here. --Ideogram 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jooler

I was recently blocked for 72 hours by Jayjg. The incident that led to this block can be seen on Talk:Gillian McKeith. I am not very happy about what happened here. I don't believe I did anything wrong apart from breaching 3RR and even here I was trying to correct broken links and got caught in edit conflicts. I certainly resent the accusation of "acting dumb" and I also take issue against the claim that the material that I was restoring (I was not the original contributor of this material) constitutes original research. I also believe that Slim Virgin's bullet point explaination of the so called "original research" (posted after I was blocked) is flawed. Jooler 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:John Kenney‎

John Kenney‎ (talk · contribs) left this edit summary and this Talk-page comment, both aimed at me. Remembering what I'd seen here about the acceptability of applying a block in such cases (that is, blatant personal attacks, even though one is involved in dispute with the culprit), I blocked him for three hours. I think that the behaviour probably warranted a longer block, but I was hesitant because of my involvement (and at the time of the block I'd only seen the edit summary). It seems to have had the desired effect, though, and John Kenney‎ has acknowledged (up to a point) the unacceptability of his behaviour.

I've brought it here because another editor has expressed mild concern that I blocked at all. Could other admins confirm that I was right (or tell me that I was wrong), for future reference? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Always better to ask for someone else to review and block if necessary; blocking someone you're engaged in a content dispute with, even if you don't gain advantage from that, is always bad. It looks bad, at least, and there's always the question of whether your judgement was clear when you did it.

In this specific instance, I would agree that a block was warranted. John Kenney knows better. John, you gotta go walk away from the keyboard and take a break when you find yourself typing things like that. Georgewilliamherbert 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, block justified, but I think we're all moving in the direction that it's better to get someone else to have a look if attacks are made on yourself. Metamagician3000 13:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That had been my understanding, but I'd somehow got the idea that earlier discussions here indicated a shift in that position; I must have been wrong. I'll act accordingly in future (which, incidentally, isn't good news for those being blocked, as the blocks will probably be longer). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of this vandal!

I made the mistake of posting the link to an article which I had written (Battle of Baia) in a Hungarian forum in order to get some imput from their members. I got some good imput and changed some of the things in the article, but along came this strange Hungarian who claims to be a Muslim, threatens with religion retaliation and now, joined Wiki to vandalize the article. He's been vandalizing the article at least four times and not a single admin lifted a finger! See the history. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we were supposed to know about it. Anyway, I've just made some small stylistic edits on the article and will watch out for it over the next few days. However, it's nearly bedtime for me, so maybe some other admins can take a look. Without expertise in the area, I can't tell whether the person you are complaining about is deliberately vandalising or just engaging in aggressive point of view editing. Metamagician3000 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thannks for watching over it! --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR. It does look slightly malicious - I have no expertise on this subject but I do think Moldova won just by reading - but on either case, some edits are grammatically bad and some do look malicious. Either way, stop reverting to avoid WP:3RR and seek dispute resolution at WP:DR. x42bn6 Talk 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that he's not here to dispute the content. The guy knows what had happened, but does this just to annoy me. If it were a dispute, we could've talked it through, examined the sources and perhaps compromised on the content. Also, it's Moldavia, not Republic of Moldova. Thanks! --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks step accross the line

From december 27th 2006  : we have 12 reversions on the article Alsace :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=97199675&oldid=96775376
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=103146509&oldid=103084985
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=108528666&oldid=107984416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110519656&oldid=110212911
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110931743&oldid=110910812
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110959682&oldid=110942643
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=112421058&oldid=112408060
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113720175&oldid=112733464
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113966990&oldid=113962954
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113972840&oldid=113971905
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113995579&oldid=113976390
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=114253683&oldid=114106515

and he does not want to have a serious talk on his talk page (section Vandalism on the article Alsace)... I'm a bit fed up of his behavior. Can you do something? Sincerily user:Paris75000 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user-page?

Can user-pages be used for attacks on Wikipedia, Jimbo, Arbcom and former editors? Please see this --Mardavich 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, in this case, yes. The user is upset and wants to let off some steam. We should let him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(anon. only, account creation blocked)

I notice that there are still a disturbing number of rather harmless usernameblocks that are being issued with account creation blocked checked off. I realize it's the default setting, but it's almost certainly going to chase away new users if they're told to create a new username, and then find themselves blocked from doing so. Should we really be penalizing people so harshly for picking names like Wikipedian63 (talk · contribs) or Wiki=Great (talk · contribs) etc...? Or should we be assuming at least a little good faith and allowing them to create new usernames?--VectorPotential^Talk 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is something we need to be careful with. I leave account creation blocked if the name is clearly meant to disrupt, but otherwise I always allow account creation. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

For the last few weeks, I've been (I thought) trying to moderate two warring sides at Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to reach a NPOV compromise. I think I am failing to do that; moreover, I've been accused myself of many things on Talk:Goguryeo. This might not sound like an appetizing situation for anyone to get in, but I'd like to ask for some help here in trying to resolve the situation. The article cannot remain permanently protected, but as soon as it is unprotected, another edit war will surely erupt due to the parties' inability to compromise and inability to be even civil to each other. Help would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonty Rhodes

This was raised above, and marked as having been dealt with. I followed up the message, and found that Paul venter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indeed insisting on a peculiar placing of a huge image (e.g.), despite the clear consensus at the Talk page (100% against his view), and the fact that his edit goes against common practice throughout Wikipedia. I added my voice to the debate, so can't take action myself, but he's still insisting, breaking 3RR in the process. Could someone review the situation and apply a block, in order to give him a breathing space to calm down and think about what he's doing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet‎

- - Looks like user:Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden is enlisting sockpuppets and or meatpuppets again to protect his favored articles from deletion. See also his own website: [95], [96], [97] (complete with gratuitous mentions of Brittney Spears and Madonna.) - - I don't think there's any point in conducting checkusers, as he obviously has access to several IPs, and I think he sometimes enlists friends to post on his behalf. But the behaviour is classic sock/meatpuppetry, as evidenced in the contributions. And it's a pattern that repeats over and over. I've taken a lot of personal heat just for standing up to this user, so I'd appreciate another, possibly more impartial administrator getting involved, or at least expressing an opinion here. He's already under a community ban - is there any reason not to go ahead and block all the suspected sockpuppets? See: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach --woggly 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi

The article on Phi Kappa Psi is being vandalized by multiple accounts to remove referenced material:

• corruption by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona)
• deletion by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona; warned)
• deletion by SCollie76 (warned)
• deletion by 155.247.166.31 (Temple University, Philadelphia)

(The section involved reports a conviction and an on-going investigation of a gang-rape.) —SlamDiego 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

85.102.53.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP has only recently begun posting to Wikipedia. It seems their sole purpose is antagonism/baiting. Please see Special:Contributions/85.102.53.191. Thank you. Vassyana 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Database scrambled/ Missing edit histories

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#This_is_getting_strange: Keeping the discussion centralized--VectorPotential^Talk 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)