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

Questionable Behavior/Edit Issue

An Administrator needs to look into this, please. Recently, I started fixing up the article Royal Descent. However, over the last few days, another editor User:Michaelsanders has taken it upon themselves to take over the article. Everytime something new is added the editor deletes it. I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page with them, but they delete my edits, revert to theirs and then argue about it to the point it just had gotten silly. This user has already been blocked twice for breaking the 3RR rule and has been in trouble for their behavior in the past. I am not sure if this user has broken the 3RR rule again by re-editing the article several times already or if they violated any other policies on this site. But given their behavior the last few days there is definitly an issue that needs attention as no one may be able to edit the article. RosePlantagenet 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted they have done this at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article as well. RosePlantagenet 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The editor making the complaint persists in her own opinion, and continually reverts (possibly breaking 3RR rules). I have tried to discuss the issue with her; she simply talks down to me because I am 'a young editor', and considerably worsened the issue by taking a condescending attitude, before eventually saying she was no longer going to discuss because of my age. She appears to regard the article as her own (having taken particular offence today when I stripped the article of OR etc, and reverting). And finally, as a coup de grace, she did not even bother to inform me of this complaint. Michaelsanders 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a simple comparison of the two editors' versions, two things are quickly obvious. One, RosePlantagenet has engaged in a ridiculous quantity of OR (Although it's reasoned out fairly well, it cannot be a part of Wikipedia).However, Other sections of Rose's edits are sourced, and MichaelSanders removes them as rapidly as he removes the OR. Neither editor is working for the betterment of the project at this point, instead each is now defending their own page.

As for MichaelSanders efforts on Harry Potter, his edits are fully sourced, relevant, and generally add to the topic and content, and should be restored.ThuranX 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaelsanders's recent edits on Harry Potter are totally unsubstanciated and irrelevant: they are basically original research about a word that the author herself has refused to explain. What Michaelsanders proposed in the article was no less than a full interpretation on the meaning that the word will have in the next HP book, and his sources are no less than fansites. Also, he doesn't seem to be disturbed by the use of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.

While, to be honest, he didn't technically write these edits, he has vehemently tried to prevent anyone from removing all this OR, facing the risk of wiolating the 3RR rule without caring much about it. Of course, he has never been able to justify his reverts in the talk page, not once. Folken de Fanel 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would answer this, but it's inappropriate for this page (Folkendefanel seems to have no objections to violating 3RR and provoking long arguments, but I feel such is not suitable here). Anyone who wants to find out about this issue can see the relevant discussion page. Michaelsanders 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have started an edit war, you do not seem to have any objections to revert without debating it first, and you are ready to break the 3RR rule.

Arguments are the base of Wikipedia. I know you want to impose your opinions and your edits without further discussion, bu as long as Wikipedia remains as it is, you won't be able do do just everything you want. You'face opposition from other editors, even if you don't like it.Folken de Fanel 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MichaelSanders' edits seem thoroughly substantiated by the links, and present the nature of the word Hallows. he cites OTHERS who construct the Arthurian parallels, Cites the Arthurian hallows, and so on. Perhaps the only place where he flirts with OR is in the parallels of House Symbols and which element each represents. However, The vast majority is well cited, and germane to the topics. I support it's inclusion. Finally, Consensus and Citation are the bases of Wikipedia, NOT argument and conflict You're becoming combative, FdF. Wait or more comment from outside editors and admins.ThuranX 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedian rules, self-published theories and personal websites are not to be taken as reliable sources, so his edits are not well cited. That other fans write theories on the web doesn't make them reliable.

I'm not becoming combative. Folken de Fanel 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,. you are. Youe' trying wikilawyering, a tactic many here find distasteful.

Is this an open invitation to violate WP rules, ThuranX ?

You do not need to make false accusations of wikilawyering. If you're sure you're right and I'm wrong, then it'll be easy to prove, instead of resorting to mere negative accusations.

Wikilawyering is too-easy an excuse. Any one can accuse any administrator, or any editor removing vandalism/OR of wikilawyering, in that case. With that, I can publish any theory I want, nobody would be able to contradict me...Folken de Fanel 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You and MichaelSanders are both showsing a total inability to be civil in any form, to anyone. I'm done trying to assist. I suggest you both go elsewhere for the night. Cool Off. Stop poking the Fate Bear. ThuranX 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote the admin below - "please avoid directly engaging the other editor in combative fashion here on an AN/I about your conflicts with her. That looks bad to anyone seeking to help resolve the situation." Also, please refrain from frankly bizarre claims that I "want to impose [my] opinions and [my] edits without further discussion." And please, please, Stop lying. You began the edit war, you broke the 3RR rule. Now stop writing here, discuss the issue on my talk page, or on the article page. Michaelsanders 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See below. (edit conflict while you wrote this, i'm not covering it twice.)ThuranX 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaelsanders, stop making accusations about me and stop giving order to me. I'm not "lying", you began the edit war, you broke the OR rule. Folken de Fanel 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you need a separate engraved invitation? ok: Folken de Fanel, please avoid directly engaging the other editor in combative fashion here on an AN/I about your conflicts with him. That looks bad to anyone seeking to help resolve the situation.ThuranX 01:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards the information removal, I removed the cited information principally because, with the OR etc removal, the cited information became irrelevant (e.g. "Since, illegitimate children could not marry into other royal families because being bastards left them undesirable matches, these children had to marry upper class or middle class families from their own country." - becomes pointless, since it was referencing an uncited claim that some Europeans are descended from royalty. Michaelsanders 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you simply need to find a NEW source for that fact, which, if true, should be easily done. ThuranX 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply want this editor to leave me alone and perhaps discuss the edits before deleting them. However, if we are both wrong then I will not edit the article further and let someone better take over. RosePlantagenet 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards her persecution complex, you may see her talk page - where I asked her not to restore unsourced information to the article, and where I told her not to remove the comment. Michaelsanders 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, you both are engaging in a significant amount of interpretation and incivility. You both seem to know a lot about the subject, and I would think working together on it would be far better then competing for one particular viewpoint or the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MichaelSanders, please avoid directly engaging the other editor in combative fashion here on an AN/I about your conflicts with her. That looks bad to anyone seeking to help resolve the situation. ThuranX20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was simply referring to her desire that I 'leave her alone' - if followed, I don't see how either the OR issue or the (now defunct) inbreeding issue can be addressed. Also, could you please explain "No, you simply need to find a NEW source for that fact, which, if true, should be easily done." ? Michaelsanders 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what you just said. Sorry, I was just poking her one more time to see if I could get away with it, and by the way, here's me pointing her bad thing she did out once more. It's childish to the Nth degree. Finally, I meant exactly what I said. If illegitimate children of royalty couldn't engage in inter-monarchial married, and had to settle for marrying upper-class fellow nationals, that should be easily sourced, so source it. The inclusion of the fact does explain why some 'commoners' had royal ancestors. From there, you've got a sourced basis to establish spread of royal lineage through generations, if you can source it. But that is exactly the statement explaining the 'seeding' of the commoners, pardon the pun. ThuranX 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ADMIN - Please note: After being told to cool off here repeatedly, the editors have taken it to each other's talk pages: [1] for example. Probably time for Admin interventions? ThuranX 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This content dispute should probably be taken somewhere else, such as WP:RFC or WP:MEDCABAL. BuddingJournalist 07:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with user Sarvagnya

Hi, I am here to report Sarvagnya's numerous deletions of items on the Dravidian topics template here. I was fortunate enough to have an administor put a temporary block on there for 5 days here and to resolve the issue with this user, which I have attempted. I have been asked by Sarvagnya to show reference sources to back my claims, and I have here, here, here, and here, and here. So far, Sarvagnya has not shown a single referenced source to back his claims. He even refuses to do so and continues to ask me to show more referenced sources. Furthermore, he tells me to show him referenced sources and if I do not, he will continue to remove items from the Dravidian topics template here I have shown him books along with the page numbers where I found the info to back my claims, and he is still hell bent on removing items from the template. This user also shows a great intollerance of other people's ethnicities and nationalities, also generalizing certain ethnic groups here, here, andhere.

After the five days were up and nothing resolved, an administrator put a disabled tag on the page to protect it from further deletions here I have reported this user before and when Sarvagnya found out that I reported him, he sent me a threatening message on my talk page here to get me blocked. Lastly, Sarvagnya has managed to find a way around the protection plate and has has began removing items off the template again here, here, and here. Just now, he has just posted a demeaning message on my talk page here. I am beginning to get the impression that this user is messing with me and is trying his level best to get his POV across using wikipedia as some sort of a propganda machine. It would be most appreciated if someone could help with this situation here. Regards. Wiki Raja 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. First he called me a vandal when it was infact only a content dispute. And then when I had had enough of his crying wolf, I left a {npa2} on his page. This he now claims is my 'threat' to him. Between all this, he filed a frivolous rfcu in bad faith against me and many ips with all sorts of fabricated evidence. It got thrown out. As for his references, I'd like to see him point out even one user that he has managed to convince on the half dozen talk pages that he's pushing his case on. If he thinks I have some kind of pov and am biased, let him show atleast one user who has supported him. Fact of the matter is that all his so called 'refs' do not prove what he is claiming. For details, people can take a look at Template_talk:Dravidian topics, Talk:Yakshagana, Talk:Carnatic music, Talk:Dravidian people etc.,. You will see that he is fighting a lone and losing battle and yet he is continuing to tag dozens and dozens of articles with his nonsensical {Dravidian topics} template. If anything, he is guilty of blatant trolling and vandalism. Sarvagnya 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki Raja about the behavior of Sarvagnya. And I believe Wiki Raja has supported his claims with citations. He says Wiki Raja is fighting a lone battle. But if you see the [talk page], most of arguments are made by him and Gnanapiti who has been identified as confirmed sock puppet of Sarvagnya [see here].Praveen 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this situation with Sarvagnya in a civil manner here. However, he has replied me with an incivil message accusing me of personal attacks here. I then legitimately replied to him in regards to providing referenced sources to back up his claims here and he replied to me with this attack message here. As usual, I held my patience and replied Sarvagnya here. Even furthering the attacks on me, Sarvagnya has tried to get me in trouble in regards to the pics uploaded on my user talk page and templates. He has also continued to harass me with demeaning words here. Therefore, I have replied to him in the appropriate manner here.

I am not the first to have this encounter with Sarvagnya. He has had a long history of incivility towards other users amongst many other acts of violations. Sarvagnya has been warned in the past to be calm when dealing with other users here and was warned to refrain from shouting and using foul language here and here. He has also been warned for personal attacks against other editors, removal of items, and blanking of pages here, here, here, here, and here. [user:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya] has also been involved with incivility issues here, here, and here.

These issues in regards to his past behavior does not stop here. Sarvagnya has been warned for breaking the 3RR or 3 Revert Rule on 28 August 2006 here, and warned for being in danger of breaking the 3RR 17 on October 2006 here and finally blocked on the same date of 17 October 2006 here for breaking the 3RR. After being blocked, Sarvagnya receives another warning in regards to the 3RR on 29 October 2006 here. These 3RR violations are a result of his edit wars in which this user has been warned about here just recently. Sarvagnya has falsely accused me on this page for trolling and vandalism, something in which I have not been involved with. This user fails to see that he has been accused of being biased here and vandalism here and here.

With all this, Sarvagnya posts illegimate warnings on other people's user talk pages if they disagree with his POV here and here. Even worse, this user has the adacity to not only illegitimately warn people who disagree with his POV, but even brag about it here stating, "But last heard, the guys who was opposing me, one of them ran away from WP[2] and another there got banned for 4 months from Wikipedia. So just chill out and have fun. Thanks again for your cooperation. " Sarvagnya has been bullying a lot of editors on Wikipedia in order to get his POV across and even at one point dared an administrator to do a check on him when he was reported for an IP check regarding a sock puppet issue. He is not only using Wikipedia as his POV playground, but he is taking the Administration and editors of Wikipedia for a ride.

Wiki Raja 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the above rant is so full of blatant lies and half truths that I will refrain from answering them. Unless, of course an admin or another respectable user wants a clarification. Thanks. Sarvagnya 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya does have a record of showing a short temper and pushing pov. Plus, if per [3] he has been found guilty of sockpuppeteering, and should get down from his high horse. What we require from Sarvagnya is a statement that he recognizes that sockpuppetry is unacceptable, and that he is required to seek for bona fide compromise within policy; Wikipedia is not a bullying competition, but a collaborative project. His dispute with Wiki Raja may be justified in good faith, but he needs to deal with it in a much more wikilike way. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• First things first. No. I have not been found guilty of sockpuppeteering or anything like that. It was an erroneous result that concluded so and upon further investigation by Blnguyen, dmcdevit and few other admins, we(me and Gnanapiti) were cleared of the charges. Unfortunately however, the rfcu page was never updated until yesterday to reflect this. This has made me fair game for people like Wikiraja who revel in coming up with fabricated evidence using half-truths like this.

• I have never been blocked for 3rr. Wikiraja's claim is pure BS. Anybody is free to check my block log. The first time Aksi warned me about 3rr violation in august, I was very new and I didnt even know what 3rr was. Technically it wasnt even a violation, coz nobody warned me when I was 'in danger' of a violation. Since then I have never violated 3rr. The recent warning by User:RaveenS was frivolous and stemmed from the fact that the user probably forgot how to count.

• As for most of the other diffs he's dumped above, who was I warring with? With a WP all time great - User:Mahawiki. Everybody who was involved knows what he was and I am unapologetic. I dont apologise for having been rude to trolls, vandals and sockpuppeteers. He and his comrade User:Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra(who later was caught using multiple and abusive socks against me and banned) were systematically targeting me and the articles I edited. More recently another user who curiously had the exact same POV and editing practices as the duo got banned indefinetely from Wikipedia, again for using abusive and block evading socks repeatedly. If you are looking for an apology from me for being rude to those people, you're not going to get it.

• And dear dab, you accuse me of POV pushing. May I know where? POV pushing was what wikiraja was accusing me of on that template too. Now the votes(many of them from admins) on that tfd speaks for itself. It should be clear now, who was 'POV-pushing' and who was 'NPOV-pushing'.

• And dab, you of all should know that reading selectively quoted diffs can be misleading. For example, I can make a collage of diffs of your correspondences with say, WIN or Baka or somebody(and vice versa) and make a specious case that you've been incivil, vandal, pov-pusher etc., etc.,. I only know to say it the way it is and call a spade a spade. For that, I am unapologetic.

• If anybody(an admin or a respectable user) needs any clarification about any particular diff that wikiraja's dumped above, ask. Even going through something is too much for me especially when I know that it is nonsense. Sarvagnya 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you could not find the link to the actual warning where you/Gnanapiti were instructed not to edit same pages. Assuming good faith, I provide the link here. Also, the talk page where Wiki Raja is fighting a 'lone' battle is here. Its interesting to note most of the discussions were between Wiki Raja, Gnanapiti, some IPs, and you. Its also interesting see the IP ids which used foul language were found out to be open proxies and consequently banned by Jpgordon. Here is the diff view. All this seems to be too much coincidence to assume good faith Praveen 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't bother answering all these sockpuppetry accusations unless an admin demands clarifications. I have better things to do at wiki. Thanks, Gnanapiti 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My post was directed at Sarvagnya. Thanks for answering on behalf of Sarvagnya anyway :) BTW: you both say that you are willing to answer only when an admin request for clarification. Perplexing. ;) Cheers Praveen 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Remain perplexed. Good for you. :) Did you think of considering my suggestion below, yet? Gnanapiti 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no response about the proxy IP edits? Have you considered that yet? :) Praveen 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From whom are you expecting the response about the proxy IP edits? and for what reasons?

If you consider those IP's as suspected IPs, please feel free to open a CheckUser case. - KNM ^Talk 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And yeah, why don't you just request a check user rather than beating around the bush? Gnanapiti 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These two accounts were reported for a usercheck back in October of 2006 and both accounts have been confirmed to be the same person on 1 November 2006 here by Dmcdevit. On Nov. 12, 2006 Gnanapiti was unblocked here by Dmcdevit. Info on Sarvagnya's block can be found here. On 9 February 2007, both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were involved in a possible vote fraud here. Does it go against Wikipedia policy for sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet accounts to engage in voting? I have been attacked from all directions for the fact that I have formed a WikiProject Dravidian civilizations and have had Dravidian topics templates on Dravidian related sites. But, when those accusing me go against the rules and even break some of the most severe rules, they get a slap on the wrist. I just cannot believe how much biasedness, prejudice, and favoritism is going on here on Wikipedia. There is an intollerance for non-Hindus, non-Brahmins, non-Aryans (Tamils and other Dravidians), and especially against Sri Lankan Tamils here by these editors and administration of this social club who is campaigning against me. I have never once spoke out against a particular ethnic, religious, or any other group. However, it seems that some people are exempt to really trash mouthing the Tamil civilization in both India and Sri Lanka. I promote an interest group, and I get bombarded because it goes against some peoples nationalistic biased POVs. So, what policies are we going by here? Wikipedia policy, or POV policy? It is truly sad what is going on here and how much some of these editors and administrator can get away with by revising history and stating that certain ethnic groups or family of ethnic groups do not exist. When they feel that their POVs are threatened, they go for low blows and fight dirty. I have nothing else to say, other than I am really disappointed with Wikipeida. Wiki Raja 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You remind me of somebody else now... :). You really do. Sarvagnya 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) the one sri lankan tamil i ever worked with seemed not to be obsessed with national mysticism. o and btw, I initiated the checkuser against sarvagnya, at the height of his peculiar anti-Hindi crusade. I was later told sarvagnya introduced gnanpiti to wikipedia. There is more intolerance on the part of Dravidian Nationalists against Brahmins and their permanent obsession with Aryan Invasion Theory and other archaic therories, than there is from other "dravidian" users. Its only certain Tamil users (I am tamil myself) sympathetic to ethnic nationalist political parties and users that enjoy denigrating Hinduism that call themselves dravidian and preach of a dravidian race.Bakaman 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please do stop it. Sarvagnya has gotten close to line before when dealing with Mahawiki, Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra and Sarvabhaum, except that all those users are now either banned or are likely outdated sockpuppets of each other. Another user Dineshkannambadi who has provided multiple FAs for Wikipedia was also gotten irritated by the antics of these users, so the fact that Sarvagnya has gotten a bit hot under the collar is understandable if not ideal behaviour. Right, what exactly is the issue? I was quietly working through Wiki_Raja to make sure his images were in order yesterday..Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never spoken against Brahmins or any other caste, or any other ethnicity, or religion. Not even once. But I see that it is fair game for others to do so. However, I will not stoop to that level and put anybody down on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or caste (Even though I do not believe in the caste system). Also, by the way, another round of anonymous IP Address users are at it again this time taking off the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations templates off the Dravidian related sites. I am so surprised that this individual forgot to take off the Kannadiga user templates which I have created here, here, here, here, and here in which all of these templates were posted here. By the way, I have already taken care of the images on my user page. FYI: I am not of Sri Lankan background. So, stop making assumptions and stereotypes of me. Wiki Raja 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This should probably lighten the mood here. Just was so ROTFLOLing that I couldnt help but post it here :D No offence to anybody. :).... Dravidian "cricket" ha ha ha.. :D :)) Sarvagnya 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Donteatyellowsnow

Donteatyellowsnow (talk · contribs) has been trolling various articles about film, especially film in Canada topics, and adding false facts and changing the articles POV greatly. Notably seen in the articles Hollywood North and Runaway production. He has been banned for WP:3RR on Feb 7 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. On Feb 9 he vandalised my user page, [4] and was reverted by User:HighInBC. Donteatyellowsnow continously clears his User talk:Donteatyellowsnow and a full archive of all warnings he has been given has been recorded. On it he has received warnings for vandalism, WP:3RR, removing templates from articles, POV issues, and WP:CIVIL warnings. He continously disagrees with the working consensus of the other editors as seen on Talk:Hollywood North and Talk:Hollywood_North/Archive_2. Others on the AfD board described his nomination as 'bad faith'. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_North.

Ther are many other times where he has been uncivil to other edits. A recent quote:

• "It's too funny. If you don't like U.S. entertainment, then create your own! Don't call it "Hollywood North" unless you are willing to debate the theft. It's not America's fault that Canadians (and the whole world) loves our entertainment or that you guys are incapable of making your own without a heavily subsidized industry! - Donteatyellowsnow"
• "You guys aren't Hollywood! No matter how much you try to convince yourselves of it. And yes, I would know because unlike you guys I actually do know something about the subject. So yes I do have a specialty, unlike many of you "dabblers" or Canadian nationalists who have to have their government provide welfare to support their workers because the films wouldn't come there without it. Why don't you guys just create your own independent Canadian films and hire your own workers? Why do you feel you have to steal Hollywood's industry away and then steal even the name of the U.S. film industry too. I mean, come on! Should we start referring to Eureka, California as "Vancouver South"?! Should we start calling Montreal "New York North"? Do you see how ridiculous it is.Donteatyellowsnow 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC"

(Found on Talk:Hollywood_North#Peer_Review_and_Archive)

• "Yes, what you are doing IS vandalism. Because you guys have some weird Canadian agenda... you and your buddies who are conspiring to undo every edit I make to a page that I CREATED. You have posted this and other pages on Canadian portals to try to do your dirty business for you (including the vote for Hollywood North). That page should have been deleted or renamed -- but instead it became a popularity vote. What you are doing to this article is NOT making it Wiki "model"-like. What you are doing is the very same thing that GEORGE W. BUSH does to our American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) reports. He removes anything that he disagrees with or which doesn't promote his skewed vision of the world."
• "This isn't about the "weather" in Canada. It's so sad that you are so blindly in love with "the Great White North" that you can't see straight. No one asked you to be involved in this page. Examine your bias and check it at the door! (Or please just go make more arguments about whether Pluto is a planet or a star and leave the rest of us alone). And that goes for the rest of you Canadian parasites. Donteatyellowsnow"

(Found on Talk:Runaway_production#Donteatyellowsnow.27s_POV_edits) Similar messages can be found on a wide variety of user pages and edit summaries.

This user is also now starting to go around Wikipedia spreading lies about various editors.

• "Hi. There is a user who posted on here Skookum1 who is part of a contingency of Canadians who are doing personal attacks, deleting my edits, and generally making a hard time for any perspective on any pages that there is Canadian/American content on (I was actually surprised to see his name here as I came here on my own by your links to the California portal). But it makes sense that he is having spats with others on other pages because that is what he did with me -- making personal comments about me and such. If you are around and reading this (I know you said you are taking a break)... I would appreciate some help or advice in thwarting these people from their constant harassment of me, their constant reversions of my edits and their never ending and totally unfounded "warnings" they they post to my user talk page (including the fact that they are enlisting Canadian wiki "big guns" to try to threaten me or to try to get me blocked). Thanks. (A fellow American who is fed up). - Donteatyellowsnow"

(Found on User_talk:NorCalHistory#Nationalistic_Canadians)

Other various incidents and warnings can be seen at viewed here. He openly accused people of working for companies who are attempting to promote Canada as a film location: here and often attacks Canadians as reflected in his edits. Personal attack statements to other users and in articles are among some of his contributions: "Much debate has been sparked on when such references cease to be tributes and become plagiarism or just lack of originality." [5]

He has been noted for vandalising and wipe articles. Some few examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], the list goes on.

It could go on and on. This user fails to respond to warnings as he has been warned daily over a period of two months on Wikipedia. While not all his contributions are vandalism, they all consistently change the POV of the articles to which much clean up is needed (Wikipedia:Trolling). I feel this users contributions greatly take away from Wikipedia. Langara College 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had a brief encounter with this user. I tried to talk to him about what is and what is not vandalism, and he seemed to think I was part of a group of partisan Canadians. His removal of content from his talk page makes it a bit tricky to look through, however I have made a tool that can retroactively create archives: User_talk:HighInBC/Temporary_page_indexes/Donteatyellowsnow. I don't really have any advice in this case. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on the user's talk page. Maybe this editor will appreciate hearing from a fellow Californian. Recommended WP:ADOPT and some practice editing other topics. From a browse of the edit history I'd refrain from the t-word in this instance. Based on a lengthy and cited addition to the bio of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa I consider it likely that this is an entertainment industry professional who's concerned about outsourcing of jobs to Canada (a genuine issue in that field) and may have a COI on the matter. Maybe this is someone who can adjust to site standards. Get in touch with me if problems continue. Maybe my SoCal location scores a point or two here. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While he may be concerned with a genuine issue that may be a COI, I still feel that it does not excuse his vandalism to userpages, continuously removing maintenance templates, his exceptionally rude comments, randomly messaging other users with personal attacks about editors, accusing people of working for some sort of Canadian conspiracy, very anti-Canadian changes to articles, and disinterest in adhearing to concensus and other editors who have tried to give him friendly advice. This response just seems too light for someone who has already been blocked once and been informed about Wikipedia policy continuously and then deliberately ignores them. Langara College 05:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting with a friendly but cautionary note from a SoCal Admin is appropriate IMO. The goal is always to salvage potentially good (faith) editors while improving or at least protecting the encyclopedia. It's not wiki policy to punish editors for prior offences, and now that Durova's involved the editor's inappropriate actions will either be curtailed voluntarily or involuntarily. That's the Wiki Way. Shout out from a fellow Vancouverite, BTW. ;-) Anchoress 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that he has already been warned by admins in the past and subsequently been blocked for a period of time. If a user is continuously warned by his peers and admins and no serious consequences take place, he has no reason to change his habits. People have tried to help him, talk considerately to him, and in some cases, wrongly talked inconsiderately to him with no change. After he was blocked for 24hrs after a WP:3RR incident if you look at his contributions afterwards you will see not much has change. I will trust in your decision but at the same time will express my concerns. The best we can hope for is for him to accept this challenge and prove me wrong. Langara College 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know who this "Langara College" is only that I've only seen his postings recently. He has vandalized my talk page and constantly left unfounded warnings on there (along with others). I believe that "Langara College" might be a sock puppet site that is in fact a college IP address? I could be wrong, but I thought I would mention it. I seriously don't understand what this person's problem is. He is part of a group of people that have attacked, harassed and tried to provoke me. They engaged in an edit war with me, inciting an accidental 3RR (which was actually only the removals of tags that they kept reverting -- my actions of which are not formally considered vandalism on Wiki). This person "Langara College" and a few others ("Skookum" is another user) have constantly harassed this editor and deleted vital wiki content because it goes against their extreme Canadian nationalistic POV or simply because it was written by this editor. They have also tried to use the tyranny of the majority in the case of the "Hollywood North" page and have constantly removed sourced material that I have added to that page. Wiki is not a democracy, but they have acted with a false "consensus" that is extremely Canadian POV and have attempted a group "ownership" of that page. With regard to this user accusing me of "changing the POV" on the runaway production page, that is an outrageous and totally unfounded and uneducated charge because I was the one who CREATED that page in the first place. I have used sources to back up all of the writing and editing. I got sick of these people constantly barraging my talk page with unfounded warnings, so when they continued -- I sent a few warnings back to the ones who persisted. It's too bad that these people can't play fair and that they feel that they should try to have me blocked (for nothing!). I would seriously have administrators look into the antics of users such as Langara and Skookum on the Hollywood North and other pages. These people have engaged in other nationalistic fights on other pages long before I ever came around. This seems to be their "M.O." - Donteatyellowsnow 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks.

User fys has been abusive towards me:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

So I left him a warning using the standard template.

He removed it [14] saying "revert new user test". I made it clear it was not a test "rv deletion of warning re multiple personal attacks by this user on me. User has been told not to make personal attacks, and knows perfectly well this is not a 'new user test'".

He has now removed it again with the edit summary "m (fmt)". Nssdfdsfds 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to remove anything from a talk page. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what it says here [15]. While some people on the talk page argue that users should be able to remove warnings immediately, as to remove them they must have read and hopefully understood them, in doing so saying "revert new user test" and "(fmt)" doesn't demonstrate good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

"What it says here" (Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings) was a proposal, not a policy or guideline. It was not adopted. A note at top now clarifies this: "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." On the talk page, please note the comment: "Several proposed policies to forbid warning removal were defeated. As such, people remain allowed to remove things that they don't like from their talk page, and that includes warnings. Revert warring to replace a warning is bad form. One may assume that a user removing a warning has read said warning".... -- Ben 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty standard behaviour for Fys. You need to realise that Fys is absolutely right about absolutely everything and therefore any warnings are necessarily invalid. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • Might have known you'd show up in your usual provocative way - not actually arguing that I'm wrong, just insinuating that I must be. I might remind you that I still have my 100% record: whenever I kick up a fuss, it always turns out in the end that I'm right. If I'm not right, I don't kick up a fuss. That simple enough for you? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• This being the admins' noticeboard, and me being an admin, and one of the more active ones at that, I didn't "show up", I was here all along. "Revert new user test?" How about "I have read your comment and do not wish to engage in debate" or some such? And "fmt" (minor)? What's that if not a misleading edit summary? Has it ever occurred to you to be anything other than aggressive and provocative? Oh, and hey! You're edit warring on Anne Milton again! You need to chill. Why not ask your man Cameron if you can bum a spliff? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You didn't have to interpose yourself in this section, you chose to, in what is a fairly blatant provocation. I was a better admin on an off day than you've ever been, with your personalising of everything. You should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys, you were being blatantly provocative, and you are edit warring on a WP:BLP political article again. You don't want people to notice and comment on this behaviour? Try not doing it. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• David Cameron's on the other side. I don't think he'll be giving him any spliffs. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It appears he's trying to fix things by removing his edits about calling the other user an idiot [16], so hopefully things have calmed down. Cowman109^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless he's actually apologizing, that's not fixing things, that's covering his tracks. His last edit indicates that his sense of self-righteousness remains intact. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is a textbook example of a personal attack. From an editor with a significant block history and past ArbCom sanctions for disruptive editing. It's also very obviously a violation of WP:STALK. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am rapidly running out of patience for this user, continually involved in incidents similar to this. I would support an indefinate time out. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See also [17] with its rude edit summary, and [18], vexatious use of a standard template warning on an established editor, which by common consent is rude and provocative. I think Fys is often a good editor but is very very combative and his reaction to any challenge is frequently rude and obnoxious. He's a political activist and a Usenet veteran so this is pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, who's "stalking" whom? This started out not involving JzG, then he leaps in to revive a dispute long considered settled, and misused his admin rollback button in a content dispute. And the corollary to "don't template the regulars" is that you use a specific individual message: when I do this, he removed it. The reason I have learned to be combative with JzG is that he is a personal, vindictive and combative person who pays no regard to logical, well constructed arguments. He is unsuited to the role of admin. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You will note that when I removed your comments on my Talk I acknowledged them with civil edit summaries. The second was redundant anyway. But please don't try to change the subject. You have been rude and obnoxious with your comments and edit summaries, and this is part of a long-term pattern of rude and obnoxious comments and summaries. You should urgently consider changing this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think JzG ought to remove himself from this debate–I have a hard time seeing how this addition [19] merits the use of rollback. I also don't see how it's appropriate to bring up past sanctions against Fys as a justification of one's own behaviour–as we all ought to know by now, items in a block log do not speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was a mistake; I immediately made a null edit to add a summary (which was: taking it to Talk, which I did), but it did not show up for some reason. No big deal, I think, given that I gave justifications for the original edit in the summary and I took it to Talk. This is a sideshow which should not distract from the original topic. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make up. Also, I definitely think from [20] that Fys should use more moderate language, as a lot of his edit summaries seem to be provocative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I just read that as "I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make out." Not a pleasant mental image... Aecis^Brievenbus 12:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (and one, I might add, that JzG has involved himself). If the worst thing here is Fys calling someone an "idiot" (probably over this edit [21]), then I daresay contributors in this thread have said a good deal worse. Our focus ought to be on the article, which actually has on an active talk page. This doesn't require administrative attention, and I'm shocked that people above are seriously calling for a community ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of a long string of incidents involving fys and and his absoloutely uncompromising POV. There has to be a limit. Viridae^Talk 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of POV editing. You have caught this disease of JzG. I want this blog mentioned because it makes the article better, not because it accords with my POV. Withdraw that unfounded allegation. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that was directed at me. I wasn't reffering to your editing, I was reffering to your interactions with other users, your uncompromising position that you are always right, as clearly demonstrated in my past dealings with you. You never seem to have learnt from any of the disputes to which you have been a party and consequently you seem to be rapidly running out of chances for redemption. Viridae^Talk 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries in the last 50 edits today: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Many many users have been blocked for much less. What is it going to take for you to be civil? Viridae^Talk 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if I wasn't already involved in this discussion/had a history with you and I came across that lot I would have blocked you on the spot. Unacceptable. Viridae^Talk 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, Mackensen, with respect, it's not a content dispute. Fys has changed the subject, and that happened because I mentioned that one of the articles involved is Anne Milton, the article where I blocked Fys for edit-warring before, but the problem is not the edit warring (although that is part of the problem), it's Fys' repeatable use of insulting comments in text and in edit summaries. As Viridae says, it's a long-term issue with this editor.

I'm not going to press this further because I am "involved" (in the sense that one who does something to prevent Fys from doing what he wants is immediately "involved", since he seems entirely incapable of taking no for an answer) but you will see that the edit summaries and comments linked above use terms like "liar" and "idiot". He removed abusive comments instead of striking them and apologising (did he apologise for his rudeness? I didn't see it) and he posted blatant personal attacks, including evidently trawling through my Talk to find a disgruntled editor and stirring up dissent there.

In short: Fys is a troublemaker. His reaction to being called a troublemaker is precisely as one would expect from a politician and Usenet veteran: deflection and denial. Seems that's what's being tried again here. "Look at this horrible admin abuse, see this terrible edit warring". How about "Sorry, I should not have called this editor an idiot?" Or "sorry, I got carried away?"

Sooner or later we (for values of we which do not include me) are going to have to deal with this. Fys was desysopped for unapologetically edit warring on a political biography, and overall the one word that I think characterises Fys' behaviour generally is unapologetic. Like most politicians, he is entirely convinced of his own rectitude and he seems, from my limited interactions with him, to be absolutely unwilling to accept even the suggestion that he may be in the wrong. He is also not prepared to drop it, as we see form the fact that he is still evidently beating the dead horse of his 3RR block months ago. Of course the project can live with bullheaded and opinionated people, if it could not then I'd be out of here, but when they refuse to countenance the possibility they may be wrong, then we have a problem. WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to waste time drawing attention to JzG's blatant personal attacks and reference to off-wiki behaviour above; merely to point out that he says on his user page "If you act like a dick, I'll call you a dick". I'm merely doing the same, and "they don't like it up 'em". If this editing dispute has become heated, then JzG's contribution has been to bring much of the petrol. Where I am right I stick to my guns. Where I am wrong, I back down. The wiki would be rendered useless if editors backed down when they were in the right. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a whole world of difference between telling someone hey are acting like a dick and posting egregious personal attacks, which is what you did. Plus, the events whihc started this thread had nothing to do with me, you were insulting and attacking another editor entirely. Oh, and you're acting like a dick. Again. Like the man says lower down, put down the stick and back away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the utter and intense irony that it was Fys who claimed my Conservatives Userproject was POV-pushing... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an organised attempt to recruit Wikipedians by POV. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Articles I have written are NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I think it's rather silly to claim everything you've written is NPOV. Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [28] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neturality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective han overt bias. Of course everyone will do this, nobody is without opinions and bias, and to claim that you are an impartial observer, infallible and completely without bias is just silly. This is consistent with other recent edits of yours to the effect that you are always right, and doesnt' do you any favours. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't and you know damn well it wasn't. I even offered you the chance to act as an NPOV checker. No article I have ever written has contained POV either, so your insinuation that I have is a fallacy. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing - you have been desysopped for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread has wandered far afield from "User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks" (removing warnings is not an offense, by the way). As a non-admin, may I suggest it be closed here? And may I ask the disputants find some other way to settle their disputes than by bringing them to ANI?

If editors can't reach agreement (or at least agree to disagree civilly) on the talk pages, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process. -- Ben 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should run for a while. Fys is very skilled at diverting discussion of his problematic behaviour down blind alleys, but he does keep on with the problematic behaviour and, as noted above, he has an unshakeable belief in his own neutrality, which is a pressing problem given that he is a party political activist; it is unwise in the extreme not to acknowledge even the possibility that you might have bias. Add to that the extremely unhelpful nature of some of his comments, and we have a problem editor. With a history of blocks, an ArbCom sanction and a desysopping behind him. Every time he diverts the discussion by poking sharp sticks at everybody who disagrees with him, we all say "oh, content dispute" and wander off. How many content disputes do you have to have, with how many editors, before it;s considered a problem? Fys will not accept criticism, even when it is seen by outsiders as well founded. Anybody who criticises him gets a shitstorm. Do we need that? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that this particular incident report took not less than five insults by him calling me an "idiot", which I repeatedly asked him not to do (and which he ignored), and then two removals of my warning template about his abuse (which I only added after he had slapped a warning template on my own page about reverting (something, which of course takes two, and that second person was Fys) - in other words he wanted to warn me (and I responded), but refused to listen to my own warnings, firstly in the edit summary, then in the page itself, and then on his user page). In other words from the issue of whether or not this text

"In February 2006, Milton was among a minority of Conservative MPs to oppose exceptions for private clubs from the proposed Smoking ban in England. The next month, she was the first Conservative MP to sign an early day motion tabled by Labour MP Chris Mullin calling for fake fur to be used in the bearskin hats worn by some regiments of the British Army."

is notable enough to include in the article on Anne Milton, it escalated into this. This escalation took, by my count, NINE acts of abusive and/or arrogant behaviour against me by Fys. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] And this despite my requests to the contrary. I can't help thinking that it could have been stopped long before this. Nssdfdsfds 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And by my reckoning this is pretty standard behaviour for Fys, certainly not unusual or unprecedented. Which is why I think we ought to consider what, if anything, to do about it. It's the complete lack of openness to the idea that he is anything other than completely neutral in his editing that bugs me here. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Probable hoaxers

I blocked Jane 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bradles 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending clarification. If they are not one and the same they are connected, looking at the contribution history; Bradley Anderson does not appear to exist and the edits at Sports Trainer overlap and include identically ridiculous images (see deleted mage:SportsTrainer.jpg for a laugh). Guy (Help!) 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Bradles 01 posted an autoblock unblock request showing that he was caught by Jane 01's block. So they use the same IP. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppetry

A while back, there was a lengthy discussion at WP:MOSNUM regarding changing the MOS on binary prefixes, currently stating that any change to them should be accepted. No consensus was reached to change the MOS. However, quite a few anonymous IP's (User:63.215.28.13, User:209.247.21.237, User:209.244.42.183, User:209.247.23.17, have come in, all pretty much only to revert these particular changes. One editor claimed this was a dorm [38]. It does indeed appear all the IP's are very similar, but it could just as easily be one person as several-one would think a dorm would use NAT, but what do I know. In any case, it's very likely this stemmed from someone involved in the debate that's subsequently ducking 3RR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot User:Sjenkins7000 User:63.215.27.55 User:Warrens User:Planetary Chaos User:Maustrauser and many others who have reverted the binary prefix.Some of these are established editors not the Single purpose account like User:Sarenne who is the main focus point here.209.247.23.17 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The established accounts engaged in discussion, and after the MOS discussion failed to achieve consensus, have not, that I've seen, continued in reversing the changes. I'm a lot more concerned with an open threat to bring in sock/meatpuppets then those who participate in a civil, if spirited, discussion, and abide by its outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The MoS for this is completely biased that is not hard to figure out. Every one here that knows about whats going on (here on campus) refuses to have anything to do with Wikipedia now solely based on this MiB being correct,Yes it may be but it is not accepted amoung the students here any anywhere that I know of we are not socks but rather intrested individuals trying to set things right despite the four person consensus to keep it the way it is.209.247.23.17 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no campus. You are just using a dynamic IP connection. Sarenne 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow,if I am all of them I must have one hell of a multipersonality problem..let Wiki Admins who know more about this then you do decide.209.247.23.17 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I must add that those ips seem like either organised campaign or socks and are reverting in excess of 3RR (possibly even of 10RR if there was such rule).--Pethr 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a major problem. These sockpuppets/meatpuppets are creating edit wars on a number of pages. Many editors are reverting them to comply with current MOS guidelines, they have all been informed of the policy, and some have even had temporary blocks imposed. These anon editors try to debate the validity of the guideline on various users' talk pages, despite being asked to take up their issue on the style guideline page. This guideline has been challenged many times and still stands, which I think the anons fully realize. Can some administrator please watch some of the pages that are being warred over for IP reversions? The persons editing anonymously have shown no attempt to work this out within the established conflict resolution system, and at this point I think we are looking at simple vandalism. -- mattb @ 2007-02-11T22:35Z

Another IP to add to the list: 63.215.27.181 (talk · contribs). -- mattb @ 2007-02-11T22:39Z

Reggardless of whether this is one person or several, none of them have attempted to go through the proper channels for dispute resolution. This page, user talk pages, and edit summaries are not the place to debate the validity of an MOS guideline, and all of these IPs have been informed of this. -- mattb @ 2007-02-11T22:44Z

It is higly unlikely that so many people did come to Wikipedia to change this in such a short time. They also use Undo and other user´s contributions lists from the begining - that suggests experienced WP editor is behind this. How many people come to WP and know all of this first minute? Their first moves were often text/image/tag removals (the older ones) and things like postings on Admin´ notice board and Undo discussion.--Pethr 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Planetary Chaos. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pethr must think most people are ignorant of how a to use Wikipedia.I could sit a 10 year old in front of a computer and bring up Wikipedia and he could edit using the same method I use in a matter of seconds ITS NOT THAT HARD!209.247.23.17 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another one: 63.215.28.39 (talk · contribs) -- mattb @ 2007-02-12T00:15Z

Smells like a meatpuppet storm. Block 'em all. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually been brought to light that these may be socks of a previous puppeteer, Piratesofsml, PC has taken interest in almost the exact same things and exhibits the same characteristic typing mistake. I've requested a checkuser. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCU was declined, basically on grounds that this was already proven. Can these guys be blocked? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Events on International Cultic Studies Association

I request a review of the recent conduct of both myself and of admin Jkelly on International Cultic Studies Association.

The important events as I see them:

• Without identifying himself as an admin, Jkelly removes a mention of a living person. His edit comment says that it was not a well-sourced mention. In fact, it was extremely well-sourced, but Jkelly did not ask whether it was well sourced before making the deletion.

• Still unaware that Jkelly was an admin, I revert the unilateral deletion of well-sourced material.

• Jkelly then dleleted the material again.

• I revert again with a demand for an explanation. (This was my second revert and I was not planning to revert again.)

• Jkelly deletes the well-sourced material again and protects the page. He still had not yet identified himself as an admin; this was the first indication .

• A lengthy discussion ensued.

• WeniWidiWiki ends the discussion with "You do not dictate policy at wikipedia, and Jkelly has every right to discuss this issue, edit and end a revert-war or remove inappropriate material just like any wikipedian." My response to this would be:
  • I did not attempt to dictate policy at Wikipedia, I attempted to apply it by restoring well-sourced material. Someone has recently been blocked twice for deleting well-source material on Cult and Cult apologist. The admin involved called such unilateral deletion "edit warring." Perhaps I misunderstood in trying to apply that concept to the present article.
  • If this can be called a "revert war" then Jkelly participated as well, and not as an admin because he had not declared himself as such.
  • If Jkelly can delete "inappropriate material just like any Wikipedian", meaning that he was not acting as an admin, then I can certainly revert it as well (please note that I was being conscious of and observant of 3RR) since it was a unilateral deletion of well-sourced material.
  • In the discussion Jkelly suggests that I did not respect his admin authority. We were well into the revert cycle before he revealed himself as such.

My POV during these events was formed in large part by the fact that we have quite recently been through about 20 deletions of well-sourced material on the other articles mentioned above. We still haven't recovered the material.

The ICSA page is also cult-related. Absent any prior discussion I could only assume that the same thing was happening there. Perhaps I now don't have enough tolerance for unilateral deletion of well-sourced material without proper explanation either before the fact or for awhile after it, I don't know.

An opinion on these events would be appreciated. If I need a hard slap to the head then please do apply it. I'll accept and apologize profusely to Jkelly. I will actually consider that an acceptable outcome to this posting, as if I have screwed up I really need to know it. Tanaats 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to an m:OTRS complaint (2007021110005369 for other team members). Admins who'd like more information are invited to email me, and it would be great if some more editors could help us figure out what to do about the non-urgent issue discussed on the talk page. Jkelly 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct link is 2007021110008581. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to offer that Jkelly never said a single word about an OTRS complaint. When he first arrived as a non-admin editor and starting deleting well-sourced material, all he said was that "someone complained". I did not find that argument from just-another-editor to be compelling. Later, after revealing himself to be an admin (or rather after I had to deduce it), he dropped that argument entirely and started asking why we were using ICSA's own website as an RS for a mention of who the ICSA's own staff was.

I am used to admins identifying themselves as such rather than making editors guess. I am used to them showing respect to editors by giving at least a brief explanation as to what guideline they are enforcing. None of this would have happened had Jkelly done that. I happen to have respect for admins. Bishonen has advised me on several occassions that I was misunderstanding the guidelines, and I have been happy for that. But all of this has completely bewildered me. Tanaats 23:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you might be agitated by having your edits reverted, but I don't see what the big deal is about the admin identifying himself, etc. You were not blocked or anything. His second edit summary should have been more descriptive, because the fact did have a source. (However, the source is not a strong one—it is a non-published website and not an independent source—and even supposing the accuracy of it, there are separate reasons why it would not be appropriate to have listings of living non-notable ex-members of organizations who choose to leave. —Centrx→talk • 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, don't worry too much about whether or not you misunderstood guidelines. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and in this case we have a living person affected by it, in a real sense and a sometimes legal sense. In such case, we have weakly sourced information which, even if it were perfectly accurate, would not be very important to the article—and it may very well be completely false. Both of you were trying to improve the encyclopedia; Jkelly's summary of the edit or other explanation was simply not sufficiently explanatory. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really not trying to fight you folks here, I'm really honestly sincerely trying to understand so that I don't repeat this apparent screwup in future. Please help me here:

• Actually, I was not at all agitated about having my edit reverted. Not at all. On the "cult-related" pages (like ICSA) I get the hell reverted out of me all the time. Actually I and others have been so reverted that someone has been blocked twice on those pages, the second time just a day ago. I've gotten used to it. My strong understanding from the admin in that case is that it just "isn't done" to unilaterally delete well-sourced material without prior discussion and consensus -- if I understand her correctly then she considers this to be "edit warring". Perhaps there are nuances to this that I don't understand, and that it is sometimes ok for a new editor on an article to to delete well-sourced material, and that it is improper for other editors to protest, ask for an explanation, and revert until the deletion can be discussed. Honestly, that's where my head is at right now, trying to understand this. I know that if I go to the disputed pages mentioned above and start unilaterally deleting well-sourced material that Bishonen will hand me my head.

• I'm really not at all understanding why the ICSA website is not an RS from which to source a mention of who their own staff is. It would seem that it would therefore not be possible to make mention of the staff of any organization anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be flippant. And so far there has been zero support offered for the proposal that he has left the organization. Had that ever been presented to the other editors on the article we could have discussed it. As things stand I didn't realize that a rumor, presented by an ordinary editor (which is how Jkelley was functioning as I now understand -- see below) that someone had left an organization was sufficient cause for invoking WP:BLP. Again, I could easily be confused. And at this point, I'm definitely not being flippant about that.

• Jkelly has elsewhere recently told me that his initial edits were made as an ordinary editor rather than as an admin. I thought that someone who was an editor on a page was not allowed to exercise admin authority on the same page because it is a COI. I got this notion from Jossi who has several times mentioned that he was not allowed to administrate artricles on which he was an editor. But I must have been confused about that as well.

Any help understanding these things would be appreciated. Honestly, I'm very very confused. I want to be a contributor, rather than a troublemaker, and I need to understand these things. Tanaats 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First, your actions are not those of a troublemaker and I don't think this qualifies as a "screwup", though in general even if it had been some random user removing the name, it makes sense to bring up the change with the user without reverting repeatedly. Still, not doing that would not mean you would be a troublemaker. The reason the website of the organization is not the most reliable sources is that they have may have an interest in skewing the data; they could, for example, want to inflate the numbers of their leadership, or associate themselves with authors and academics in order to appear more credible, even though the authors and academics might have been only loosely or never related to the organization. I cannot anywhere Jkelly said that his initial edits were made as "an ordinary editor". There are several things he could mean by such a statement, but he does not mean that he is a regular editor of that page or that he has any special interest in it. He came to the page in response to a complaint on OTRS. Making some edits to an article, or for example coming there after a report on WP:ANI, does not entail that the admin suddenly becomes biased. —Centrx→talk • 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats, 3 points:

1.) I don't at all agree that Jkelly's actions were just the same as those I have blocked another editor for twice in the last few days. That editor had, as you point out above, not merely removed well-sourced material, but removed it about 20 times, performing essentially the same few reverts over and over. My first block was for 3RR violation together with edit warring on other articles, and incivility on talkpages. The second was for aggravated 3RR vio together with gaming the 3RR on another article. I haven't gone into the matter of sourcing at International Cultic Studies Association—can't face it at this time of night—but there's no way Jkelly could achieve anything approaching that lot in the few edits he did.

2.) There was no need for Jkelly to mention his other, admin, hat to you when you were discussing edits; you're ascribing too much importance to adminship, it's "no big deal". It's often positively inappropriate in an editing discussion to mention one's being an admin; as it's quite likely to raise complaints of being threatening, or of trying to "lord" it over other users. And a lot of the time, it's simply irrelevant. I won't belabor this point, as I think several people, including Jkelly himself, have been bringing it home to you. When it comes to giving editing advice, being an experienced, knowledgeable user is the point, and hopefully that point proves itself; being an admin is irrelevant.

3.) However, I agree with you that Jkelly was wrong to change hats in mid stream, i. e. to protect an article he was involved in an edit dispute over. "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dipute over" is both official policy and common sense. Overtly reverting to one's preferred version and then immediately protecting, as shown in this edit summary, is even wronger. The way you've described seeing Jossi do it is the right way: he edits the articles, and therefore never protects them. The only correct alternative is what I do on the same articles: protect them or block editors when necessary, and therefore never edit them. Just don't edit them at all, IMO, if they're in the least controversial, as you never know if somebody else will find your editing to be conflictual. (Mine is a dull role, yes. Best kept for articles you're not any too personally interested in.) Sorry, Jkelly, but you need to pick one of those, not mix them. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for your comments.

• I definitely see your first point. I wasn't actually intending to make it seem that this issue was anywhere remotely as egregious as the earlier incident, but I definitely made it sound that way. I sincerely apologize to Jkelly for speaking unclearly enough so that such a comparison could be inferred. I really messed up in allowing such an inference to be made.
• Thanks for the reminder, and I am actually aware that an admin doesn't have to go around saying "I'm an admin" every time he makes an edit to a new article, and that an admin is just another editor most of the time. I don't think that there was any problem at all with his not mentioning his admin hat if he was going to take and keep the role of an ordinary editor. This issue, however, you have already addressed.
• Please see below for an attempt to restate my still remaining points of confusion. Tanaats 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, I'll email you more details, but this wasn't a content dispute. Either that, or we need two admins to respond to every OTRS complaint. One to fix the problem, and one to deal with people undoing the fixing, since the original admin is now "involved". Jkelly 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, perhaps I've been too voluble previously to be understood clearly. Here is is in a nutshell... Were you or were you not functioning as an admin? If you were functioning as an admin enforcing WP:LIVING, why did you not say so right up front? I wouldn't have blinked an eye. You would have been in and out in flash. I would never have reverted your deletion, and you would never have had to make the same deletion three times in a row. We wouldn't have had to discuss it on the Talk page, and neither you nor I would be here on ANI. It really confuses me that you didn't do that, but instead chose the route of multiple reverts and page protections instead.

But if, as you've told my on my talk page, you did not make the deletions as an admin, but rather as an ordinary editor with no OTRS mandate, then in what way were your deletions appropriate? You did not discuss first on Talk. You did not give an adequate reason in any of your edit comments. You just unilaterally deleted well sourced material. In what way was this appropriate, and in what way were my two reverts, taken before I could get you to Talk, inappropriate? I really would appreciate having this explained to me, as I am very confused by this as well. Thanks. Tanaats 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that Jkelly did anything wrong. There was a complaint to OTRS. OTRS participants are expected to act on legitimate complaints, and if there is an unsourced assertion posing a problem it can and should be removed, and if an edit war ensues, page protection is appropriate. Policy is at WP:LIVING. OTRS participants, or for that matter any admin removing unsourced assertions per WP:LIVING, are not expected to find a different admin to protect the page if protection is necessary to enforce the removal. Once the immediate problem is dealt with, discussion and consenus-based decisionmaking are appropriate, but the onus is on the editors adding assertions to demonstrate that they are well sourced. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever this OTRS system is, it seems to be secret. So if I'm in an edit war and don't get forward, instead of bringing up an argument, I write to info at wikipedia dot org and its done??? --Tilman 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you would need to be personally mentioned in the article, and you would still need to bring up an argument—a sounder one than would probably be necessary on wiki, and ultimately you would get the same result if you brought the matter up on WP:RFC, WP:AN, or WP:BLP/N, only more immediately (Actually, this is not true. There is a huge backlog on OTRS.). Content disputes are referred to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. To take this case as an example, there is no reliable source for this statement about a living person, nor reason why the listing is relevant to the notability of the organization (see WP:BLP and WP:RS), so it is removed and it would have been removed if the issue had been brought up in the aforementioned places. If, on the other hand, it were well-sourced and it were relevant to the notability of the organization, no amount of e-mailing OTRS would get it removed. —Centrx→talk • 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's incorrect to state that there is "no reliable source" for including this particular staff member. There is. The reliable source is the organization's own web page which lists it's own staff members and had this person on it. That is sufficiently reliable in an article about the organization. That the organization has now removed the person, actually makes the event even more notable. In fact it's downright suspicious. Makes me want to research the person to see why they are so important to generate all this fuss. Wjhonson 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Let's say for example I ran a very controversial organization. I could choose to discredit a public figure by listing him as a member of the organization on my website. One Night In Hackney 08:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, as in the example I described above, they may wish to appear more credible by associating themselves with certain academics. I don't see what would be so suspicious about it. The most reasonable explanation is that the organization inflated their relationship with this person, or someone simply made an error, and then when they were contacted they removed it because it is false. —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I would like to drop this now. I thank everyone for their comments. I have learned some valuable things. Tanaats 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd respect Tanaats's wish to drop it, except that I feel a need to reply to Bishonen (with whom I seldom disagree). Bishonen, your third point was that Jkelly "was wrong to change hats in mid stream, i. e. to protect an article he was involved in an edit dispute over." Actually, if I were to make a list of the admins I considered to be least likely to abuse their powers, I'd struggle to think of someone who'd be higher on that list than Jkelly. It's true that the proection policy forbids admins to protect a page when they are involved in an editing dispute. But the WP:BLP policy explicitly allows editors to "enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." Even with that exception, I'm far from convinced that Jkelly was in any way "involved" with the article. That article was started in March 2005, and Jkelly never edited it until yesterday, when he removed something, citing WP:BLP in his edit summary. Since Tanaats did not know he was an admin, and since there was a source for the information that Jkelly had removed (though it turned out to be controversial, and was subsequently removed), I see no reason to blame him for his revert. (Of course, asking for clarification on the talk page would have been better, but let's face it, lots of respectable editors revert once before going to the talk page.) Yes, Jossi is correct not to protect articles that he edits, unless there are BLP issues. If there are, then he, Jkelly, you, and I, not only may, but should protect if it's necessary. It would be an entirely different matter if Jkelly had been editing one of his favourite articles, had come across an editor who was inserting something he personally didn't like, and had protected the page after reverting, but it would be difficult to convince me that that's what happened here.

Jkelly, of course, had no reason to identify himself as an admin immediately. ("I'm an admin: don't revert me" would be a very inappropriate edit summary.") He should have made it clearer to Tanaats a little earlier, but that's not an abuse; that's an "oops-he-didn't-explain-himself-properly" mistake. Tanaats, I don't think you "need a hard slap to the head" at all. Your misunderstanding was entirely excusable, and since you did misunderstand, it was perfectly okay to raise the question here. There's no indication that you were trying to be disruptive in any way, and I don't think anyone, least of all Jkelly, will hold it against you that it turned into a big discussion. Musical Linguist 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pimpmywatch

Pimpmywatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently on a promotion drive regarding SCALFARO - Contemporary Luxury like Portocervo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) last August. I already deleted one article and warned, but it is just the tip of the iceberg, and I need to go off-line. Could someone keep an eye on that? Agathoclea 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO you're being far too lenient. Were I an admin, I probably would have blocked him indefinitely as a spam-only account. Yuser31415 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to be quick and decisive on these issues. IMO as more people realize that Wikipedia articles usually show up on "page 1" of Google searches due the wiki's inter-linking system, more spammers will try to put their stuff on the site. Cla68 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't do any harm if we came down more harshly on spammers. Yuser31415 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that. I had to go off-line so couldn't. Agathoclea 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Misuse of Admin Rights, User: Aksi_great

Attention Wikipedia Administrators,

User Aksi_great has misused his admin rights when blocking another user Emir_Arven. Emir Arven's complaint can be found here.. I am recommending Aksi_great admin privileges be stripped away or at least, you should investigate this clear abuse of admin rights. Bosniak 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? You violate 3RR, you get blocked. PTO 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR. Read here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

one two three four. Looks like a clear-cut 3RR violation to me. PTO 04:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup; nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems he very clearly removed the same material four times, and was quite uncivil in his edit summaries. The "you didn't warn me" thing doesn't fly - he's been blocked several times and two of them were for 3RR. Hard to make a case he was unaware of the policy. Kuru ^talk 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look more clearly, those were not reverts. Those were legitimate edits. If you look more closely, you will notice that disruptive users were vandalizing article, example Ivan Kricanic. Bosniak 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy of edits is in the eye of the beholder. The edit war was in itself disruptive, and should not have occurred in the first place. Those edits were indeed reverts, and hence the block stands.

P.S. Perhaps all parties should be more civil in their edit summaries. Why is it that whenever I view a Balkan, Greek, Turkish, or Turkic article there is almost always rampant personal attacks and incivility? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Happens on Islam-related articles as well. Surprise surprise. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They're both responsible, and they've both been blocked accordingly. Now please stop. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's nothing left for me to say. I also urge all parties involved in the dispute to be civil, and not edit war. 3 reverts in a day is not a privilege, and you may be blocked even if you don't break 3RR. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:67.76.231.35

• 67.76.231.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address has been blocked twice for vandalism, but within two miutes of the last block finishing, they've started vandalizing again (on page Lucas). Lucas42 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm... appears to be a shared IP, I've tagged it as such. Looking over the contribs, I haven't spotted any productive-looking edits since at least December 2006 -- anybody object if we give this one a longer soft block (similar to school blocks)? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Threat of Violence and Vandalising my userpage

It has just come to my notice that AlamSrinivas first threatened me and then vandalised my userpage - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Makrandjoshi&action=history First he left a message saying - 'Makrand ji, aapko dar nahi lagta hain? Ye IIPM log aapko maarenge.', which is hindi for 'Makrand, aren't you scared? The IIPM people will beat you up/kill you', because he does not agree with the edits I am making to the page of his institute - IIPM. Then he vandalised my page, deleting his previous line and calling me a "vandal". Vandalising my userpage and leaving threats is a very serious matter and i request the editors to block AlamSrinivas. Makrandjoshi 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AlamSrinivas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for issuing death threats. Any administrator, especially a Hindi-speaking one, is welcome to review and amend this action as required. Sandstein 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi's translation is correct. I endorsed the block. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User User:Eedo Bee

Evidently hasn't learned from being blocked for a week. Please see here. Wjhonson 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And please see here where Eedo Bee pipes his own page to Jimmy Wales in some kind of odd attempt to divert comments? Who knows. Wjhonson 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm issuing a warning to Eedo Bee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In case of further obvious misconduct please report at WP:AIV. Sandstein 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He needs more than a warning. Please see these diffs for the complete picture. He was recently blocked for a week, after tagging articles such as Pedophilia with the LGBT Project tag, and taking the tag off of as many articles he could find. His block, by the way, he has attempted to conceal by deleting it from his talk page without archiving it. He is now posting a wide variety of offensive comments on the project page, such as "Laughs at AIDS", "Laughs at the AIDS epidemic in the gay community", and is also removing other's comments from the talk page, and substituting the founder of Wikipedia's name for his own to sow confusion. I request he be blocked once again for a longer length of time, or banned for these kinds of attacks. He has already removed Sandstein's final warning from his page without archiving it, so I don't think he is very impressed by the warning. The last time he was blocked, he was told further disruption would result in an indefinite block. Please follow through. I will also add I am now monitoring his every contribution as a matter of course, so concerned am I as to his behaviour here. Jeffpw 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exhausted everyone's patience, I think. Blocked indefinitely. Proto::► 09:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

hidden page

someone created a page named OTRS:SYSTEM, but now OTRS has become a interwiki link, and the page cannot be accessied anymore, can any admin delete the page?

see Special:Prefixindex/OTRS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oemkid (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't access it either; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS:SYSTEM&action=delete also leads to OTRS, not to the usual deletion page. Kusma (討論) 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask the devs about renaming it. --pgk 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The developers have a script which finds all such pages and rename them (prefixing a Broken/). Just get hold of brion on IRC and ask him to run it. Then go to the prefix index and rename back to a working title. --cesarb 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that page is a redirect to OTRS (check Special:Whatlinkshere/OTRS). No need to worry about it. --cesarb 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

CarlosMyers

All edits by new user User:CarlosMyers are pornographic, solicitations for porn, racist, or similar. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to block him, I saw that Ryulong has already blocked him indefinitely for trolling. Kusma (討論) 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is just creeping me out. I just stumbled onto this account, User:Beulah Nelson-Myers after I came back from work, and now this account using my RL name. I know for sure tat User:Beulah Nelson-Myers isn't actually my mom even if it is her name and makes me wonder if I've picked up a stalker. I'm half tempted to see if a an account using my dad's name is lurking about on wikipedia somewhere. --Farix (Talk) 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Ahoy. I've reverted a non-admin's attempts at the early closing this AfD early; I feel the AfD is legit, and, my understanding is that admin decision should take precedence over non-admin decision in a closing of an AfD. If I am incorrect, or if another admin feels the article should be speedy-kept, please close as needed. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of Adrian's close, my understanding was that AfD closes should be reviewed by WP:DRV even if potentially improper closes by non-admins. The view that "admin decision should take precedence over non-admin decision in a closing of an AfD" seems to be rather a strict interpretation of the fact that non-admins should defer to admins in closing AfDs. WP:CSK states "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps", it does not forbid it outright. WjBscribe 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but, as much as possible, we should stick to recommended guidelines. Additionally, the one who closed the AfD also voted on it, which, while not expressly forbidden, is also generally frowned upon. The AfD is not illegitimate, and as such, we should stick to accepted procedures, either the full five day deal, or an administrative speedy closure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about before, but there is a delete on there now. Viridae^Talk 11:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This WP:AFD was opened by an anonymous user, who lacks standing to nominate an article for deletion.

Wikipedia does not exclude anonymous users, but AfD and other processes are understood to be community procedures, actioned by members of the community who are familiar with the community. When an anonymous user shows up straight at WP:AFD, they're either not a member of the community since they've never edited before, or they are, and they're hiding their identity.

The only support for deletion in the AfD was from another anonymous user, who subsequently threw a copyvio onto the article for good measure. I did close the AfD, and I believe I did so in-process, because a procedure begun without standing can have no legitimate outcome, and an administrator cannot sanction an illegitimate process.

Afterwards, the anonymous user edited the closed AfD and re-opened it, an action supported by Jeffrey. The situation can have no legitimacy past this point. If my closure was improper, there are procedures to review it, and the AfD can have a second nomination. We do no, to my understanding, ever re-edit closed AfD's. They are an archival of a community process, and we've gotten up to (10th) AfD on some articles specifically because as new issues arise, new AfD's should be opened.

Having multiple anonymous users all intimately familiar with Wikipedia points beyond the province of doubt at bad faith. I can't speculate at Jeffrey's motives, but must assume good faith -- he's almost certainly doing what he believes best for Wikipedia. The same can't be said for anon users involved. To clear the air, I'd like to see a checkuser take place here.

As has been said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Where there is abuse, it should be actioned. In this case, an effort to correct abuse was countermanded without discussion. I've done my best in my given time, as I always have and will. Thanks for reading.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 11:06Z / Adrian Lamo

I don't think Adrian is completely correct here. Although IPs cannot create the AfD page no rule prohibits their participation once the AfD page is created. If their comments are properly argued and reference policy, they should be as valid as those any other user. The validity of XfD comments should not be judged on the number of edits a user has, but on the reasoning behind their opinion. WjBscribe 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll excerpt from my talk page reply in response to this ...

«« Thank you for having the kindness to be candid about your opinion. I still believe I acted appropriately -- if an anonymous editor nominated an article with a well-reasoned rationale, I wouldn't close it out-of-hand. However, in the face of multiple anons with a suspicious familiarity in re. Wikipedia, the decision is clear to me, though I respect your opinion. »»

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 11:30Z

You should probably just let it run course so the "previous afd closed keep" tag can be added at the end. That said, I think Adrian felt he was doing the right thing here, though I just don't think this is a valid speedy at this point and probably should not have been closed as such.--Isotope23 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with User:Taz Manchester

I need some help in informing with user User:Taz Manchester about the policies of no personal attacks, use of images and usage of unfree material.

After his insistence in readding unfree image violating WP:FU#Counterexamples #7 in articles Aria Jasuru Hasegawa ([39] [40] [41]), Osama Elsamni ([42] [43]) and Yu Darvish ([44] [45] [46] [47]),I tried to communicate with him about the importance of this policies, why he shouldn't use these images, and how the failure to understand Wikipedia's policies could led him to be temporarily blocked.

He replied explaining that those images where ok to use, implied that I haven't checked those images correctly, and said he wouldn't be willing to accept block advice from a user that have been blocked before. He also took the opportunity to categorize my behavior as wikistalking and harassment (it's really fashionable now to call me this). After this message, re readded the problematic images to the three articles again ([48] [49] [50]).

I sent him another message asking him to avoid such harsh words, explaining all my blocks were all reverted, and asking him again to re-read the policy and the images description pages (which were all tagged for deletion since the beggining).

He readded the images to the articles again ([51] [52] [53]), and again called my edits vandalism (as he did in almost all of his edit summaries).

Would anyone communicate with him? Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the addition and removal of policy-violating images considered a normal content dispute? Should I try to resolve this my self talking with this user (while still being accused of stalking, harassment [54] and vandalism? [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]) Would I be violating WP:3RR for repeatedly removing those images from those articles? Or should I just wait for those images to be deleted? I really would like someone to interfere in this case to avoid me and user User:Taz Manchester to go further in this unhelpful dispute. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam bot action

There appears to be a concerted effort to spam this link to multiple articles using multiple IP addresses. I've been removing the links as I see them on Special:Linksearch but the list keeps increasing. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reverting lots of these also (see Special:Contributions/Dzubint) lots of different IPs... maybe a javascript bot net? I dunno.. I'm also giving up right now, 'cause I have to work. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also get the feeling that this is just a test of some bot since they were so obvious on the RC list and easy to revert. If the bot edits "Edit Summary" were different, it would have been a lot more difficult for a simple RC patroller like me to revert. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. In any case, the wave seems to have abated; Special:Linksearch is returning zero links for the past fifteen minutes or so. Thanks for the help Dzubint. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears I spoke too soon. Links are still being added. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a complaint with AOL Hometown. Perhaps they'll take the site down (or perhaps not). If they do, I'm sure it will come back from somewhere else, but it might slow them down a bit. -- JLaTondre 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Observation Post

I blocked the user indefinitely due to disruptive editing & in light of the explanation by Netscott on my talk page. I submitt the incident to review. El_C 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse I see no useful contribution history, and the accounts all appear to be recently created. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User has asked whether I "would kindly unblock [him/her], with the understanding that [s/he will] revert no more?" I declined, defering such a decision to someone else (by all means, feel free to do so if you feel it is warranted). Thank you. El_C 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is 0 doubt this is a sockpuppet and very likely a sockpuppet of User:Kgeza67/User:Wik based upon the first two edits this sockpuppet ever did. (→Netscott) 14:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for further clarification: Over the last couple of days myself and User:Proabivouac (much moreso myself) have been engaging User:Kgeza67 sockpuppets and user Observation Post (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now has targeted both of our talk pages in pointed removals. This is very apropos because I specifically mentioned removing/reverting banned users edits during this time (which Observation Post was doing). (→Netscott) 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose the block, but some of the material that he has deleted and that has then been restored is pretty questionable. There is some clear defamation in there that should probably be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I have decided to unblock the user following private correspondence with him/her, and with the understanding that s/he will tread lightly from now on. I'm not at liberty to discuss the detail publicly, but I'd be glad to do so via email. Thanks again, everyone. El_C 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A user space deletion

User:Lantoka/Sandbox2, the page's creator is agitating about this on my Talk but seems unwilling to bring it here themselves. So.

• General Mayhem has been deleted and deletion reviewed. A quick search finds General Mayhem, General mayhem, Genmay, GenMay, General mayhem forums, we have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genmay, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November); I'm pretty sure there are more.
• User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 was created on November 17, reportedly with the blessing / assistance of User:Essjay. There were about a dozen edits to the article that day.
• On December 25 there were two further edits, bringing the total to around 16 (excluding creation of the original blank page).
• I deleted the article on January 29 as WP:CSD#G4, abuse of user space, and also I note that the original content was a copy and paste from a mirror, so violates GFDL.
• The user began to agitate on 8 February. I explained the problem, but the user evidently believes that the reported past support of Essjay is justification for keeping the page in user space in perpetuity. The user asserts that it was being "worked on" and that they have founght hard to keep the article itself (undeniable).

Yes, I should have been kinder to the user. Not at issue. Was it acceptable to delete it? I think so, but I welcome input. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• If it was a clear copyright violation G12 and recreated work G4 under the general criteria, then I would say yes. Additionally, if the user is going to work on something in userspace, then s/he needs to work on it to a point to where it is not a copyvio perhaps on his/her computer, once it is cleared up, then move it to userspace for collaboration if that is his/her goal. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The copyright violation is a red herring - the user took it from a Wikipedia mirror. G4 explicitly does not apply to userspace. If Lantoka had asked an admin "I want to see if General Mayhem can be made into an acceptable article, can you undelete it to my user space?" then I think most admins would have assumed good faith and done it for them. In fact, Lantoka performed the same operation for himself without admin assistance. But as far as I read it, speedy deleting it without first raising a concern with Lantoka was an out of process deletion. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• But an admin would have undeleted and moved to userspace, preserving the history and not violating GFDL. You should know this, having been an admin. Which would leave only the problem that it's multiply deleted and reviewed content sitting around without being worked on... Guy (Help!) 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys: You wouldn't miss taking a shot at Guy, wouldn't you? The page has been through the process many times before; and the clear consensus has been towards its deletion. JzG has already provided the evidence that the user in concern has been re-creating deleted material in his userspace, when no good would come out of that. I also expect that you know that content in userspace is available to the world-at-large by a quick search using Google. I see WP:POINT and abuse of userspace. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can't see why the copyvio would be a red herring, the GFDL is quite explicit in terms of attribution. Persumably the mirror has attribution the version copied didn't. I guess we should be moving our real version to user space in these circumstances for further work. We do permit such activity if they are trying to actively improve the article (that would be to address the AFD issues), but as arbcom has reiterated in at least one case, using userspace to merely evade proper deletion process (or to keep POV forks if you don't like where the real article is going), is unacceptable. Sounds like a judgement call as to if the user was actively trying to address the issues of AFD and thereby ultimately enhance our collection of articles or if it were just trying to evade the deletion. I imagine Essjay didn't evisage his involvment as being seens as some sort of permission (which he couldn't give) to keep it in userspace indefinitely. --pgk 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't refer to the identity of the admin and my comments would have been the same no matter who it was. What I am concerned about is that a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia has been jumped on heavy-handedly by an admin. If the concern was GFDL, why not do the undelete and userfy, thereby preserving the history? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fys, it doesn't matter if you name the admin, comments like [60] tell their own story. Lantoka appeared to have accepted matters until you stated with great confidence that there was no policy basis for deleting stale copies of multiply-deleted GFDL-violating content from userspace. Hey, turns out you're wrong about that! ArbCom says that this is an end-run around process, and WP:C and GFDL say it's a copyright violation and must go anyway, plus we have done it numerous times before under WP:NOT a free web host, WP:POINT and other justifications. Friday undeleted to User:Lantoka/gm in November, a different location, but then Alphachimp moved this version back to mainspace at General Mayhem in order to delete it, which was done on Jan 1. At no time between Nove 16/17 (when the two appeared) and January (when they were deleted) was there any significant activity on either copy. The copy at User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 was not an admin undelete for rework, it was a copy from a mirror. And there was no work being done on it. A good faith attempt to rework an article rather implies some actual activity, wouldn't you say? Two edits in nearly three months is not working up a new article. Lantoka obviously doesn't understand the details of GFDL, not a big surprise, it looks like Lantoka is not a very active editor (either here or on the GenMay forums, only about 350 posts there since 2003). So although you're wrong on a number of levels I'm not surprised since you have not, as far as I can tell, been involved in any of the deletion debates or reviews for GenMay, and you've never edited it, so it's not a big surprise that you've not got the full picture here. I would, however, have expected a former admin to understand the copyright issue a little better. Anyway, thanks for trying to help, but you didn't. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer Guy's original question (and Fys's heinous personal attacks notwithstanding), I have absolutely no problem with this deletion. I, and many other administrators, will undelete and userfy deleted articles if a user expresses interest in improving them, but it most certainly is not an unlimited offer to turn userspace into free webhosting for articles not appropriate for mainspace. If it is not edited for weeks at a time (such as in this instance), then it should be deleted, as it is, in the end, an attempt to subvert deletion process. I'm not even touching the GFDL violations in this instance, which made it an even easier delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce malicious edits

Repeated inclusion of malicious and unsourced material is being regularly introduced into the Rolls-Royce plc article by Retay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.144.75.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with identical text. This material is potentially libellous. Is it posisble for action to be taken against this/these editor(s)? They have already been warned about their contributions. -- MightyWarrior 14:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked, blocked and semiprotected for a week. Please report back if this recurs. Thanks for reporting, Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at Justin Raimondo

At Justin Raimondo, new accounts are being used to reinsert material that has been disputed as a violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, etc. These accounts do not appear to be used for anything else and include: User:Physician79, User:Clownbasher, User:Mortmain9, and User:Sisyphus Aeternal. DickClarkMises 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by user:Anupamsr

This user is attacking me with these comments.

I don't want to get baited into another fight by people like this user as I did by Hkelkar so i seek a neutral admin to handle this.

Here is the pattern:If Indian nationalists cannot have their POV in the articles,they either start with threats like these or get a an Indian administrator to punish us for not accepting their pro-India POV. His threats clearly indicate that he wants to get me blocked by an Indian admin as other Indian users have done to Pakistani users in the past.

The dispute is regarding Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who was born in Lahore.Many indian editors insist that pre-british SOuth asia (including Pakistn and Bangladesh) was Inida. User:Fowler&fowler who is not Pakistani may i add is also agreeing that falsely claiming pre-british SOuth Asia as "india" is completely incorrect.

user Anupamsr placed a bogus warning on my talkpage(as others of his kind did on Fowler&fowler's talkpage as well).

His statement "our encyclopedia" enraged me as wikipedia is not "owned" by any single user.I am not going to respond to him anymore as I know where it will lead to and ask that a neutral admin or party handle this.

Since I am not the only one know that Lahore,along with the rest of Pakistan was never part of India,I would like user:Fowler&fowler,user:unre4L and other users who know that I'm correct on this issue to comment here.--Nadirali نادرالی at 16:26, 12 February 2007

It looks like a content dispute. The word our generally does not refer to single ownership. Have you tried the steps at dispute resolution? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have tried "Dispute Resolution", and even RfC in other articles. Unfortunately, I was banned before the debates started, for bringing up the Argument in the first place, which was referred to as "POV pushing" in order to ban me.
I can confirm this. user:Anupamsr and a few other users, insist on writing "Lahore, India, (now Pakistan)", even though Lahore is a Pakistani city and has Never been part of India. It was part of British India for 95 years, however, these users refuse to write British India, or link the page to British India. The page is currently linked to the India Disambig page, where the reader has to guess which India is being referred to.
Besides, in every encyclopaedia out there, Lahore is a Pakistani city. I dont understand why they just cant write "Lahore, Pakistan".
The fact is, that Lahore has only ever been an Indian (British) city for 95 years, which was during the British Raj.
I gave up editing this page, as I have been banned twice for having my say in articles like these.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask which admin tools could solve this problem? I don't think this is an admin matter, unless someone needs a 3RR or civility block, but I see any evidence of that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the purpose of such threats to get me blocked.And accusations of "block evasion".If I made such an accusation against an Indian user,RA would block me on the spot.As he stated in his threats about Unre4L being blocked,it corresponds to what Unre4L being blocked.I just think a warning should do for the time being thats all.--Nadirali نادرالی

You don't need an admin to give a warning, anyone can do that if they have an understanding of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

admin abusing his privileges

Rama's Arrow has committed serious violations as the evidence shows below.

Ramas Arrow

Deliberately linking Pakistan to religious fundamentalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Coverage_expansion_-_Media.2C_Education_and_Islamic_fundamentalism

Blocks Unre4L for a week for what he refers to as "POV pushing", and by handing out a warning and ban for the same "offense". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnre4L&diff=100577222&oldid=100468963 , while only giving User: AMbroodEy a warning for extreme insults towards Unre4L. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASubrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar&diff=98770115&oldid=98768327

Blocks Unre4L again for a week http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnre4L&diff=102721076&oldid=102534796 , for "extremely moderate" posts, and by using Misleading references AND without any warnings issued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive183#Block_of_Unre4L ,while ignoring several Indian users who caused disruption of a RfC and ignoring arguments and posting unrelated references to PakHub (to disrupt anyone else from replying to the RfC) aswell as insulting unre4l. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_India#RFC_Renaming_this_article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_India#RFC_History_of_India_Name_Change_.28back_on_topic.29

Unjustly blocking Nadirali for a week http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=99827361&oldid=99721670

Blocking Szhaider for a week.Szhaider warns other editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99261646&oldid=99261267

Using the term "Paki". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99130713&oldid=99124046

Creating conspiracy theories in order to extend Unre4Ls ban, while ignoring abusive forum threads proving Indian users were trying to recruit people for edit wars on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=103303071&oldid=103302738

Indicating that editors of Pakistani descent are troublesome http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=103029468

Accuses Unre4L of "making derogatory remarks towards Jews" when in fact Unre4L was trying to calm down a Troll, who was accusing them. It was a stunt to gather support to extend the initial ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=103409507&oldid=103408021

vandalizing Nadirali's contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=104167733&oldid=104166846

Testimoney from a liberal hindu user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinaretDk&diff=104278879&oldid=104278412

User MinaretDk testifies here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinaretDk&diff=104280202&oldid=104279607 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MinaretDk#.22Rama.27s_Arrow.22_block

Blocks Pakistani user for removing indian POV from articles.No clear reason provided for block http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARama%27s_Arrow&diff=105220299&oldid=105157704

Blocks Minaret again for a week while allowing Bakman to continue making personal attacks and racist remarks against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MinaretDk#blocked

blocks MinaretDk while giving d-boy a simple warning for personal attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dangerous-Boy&diff=105670740&oldid=105610989

No evidence of Unre4L's violations when blocking him.Simply what he interpertates as "violations". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=102912468#Block_of_Unre4L

he had blocked user:Szhaider for edit warring on Iqbal.What's funny is he tag-team edit warred side by side along with Hkelkar/Rumpalstilskin223 and Bakaman against Szhaider.After blocking Szhaider,he then proceeded to edit war this time against,user:Fowler&fowler.he has not provided any evidence to justify his blocks.--Nadirali نادرالی at 16:43, 12 February 2007

If any more evidence is needed, or Clarification of existing evidence, then please let me know. I can explain everything, and all the ways User:Rama's Arrow has been abusing his admin privileges in order Ban users who disagree with his POV, no matter the credibility of the ban.
This admin has also been ignoring "extreme Insults", edit wars, and big offences from Indian users, Usually letting them away with Nothing or a mere warning.
I have been given two, 1 week bans for putting forward Arguments on Talk pages. After the second ban, I was accused of Anti Semitism. I (without thinking) defended my self against his accusations on the admin review panel without loggin in. Ramas Arrow, ignored my statements, and banned me straight away for "Block Evasion" Surely there is a difference between Block Evasion, and defending yourself against extremely hurtful accusations.
This admin has been behind the banning of half a dozen users who happened to disagree with his POV. And naturally, certain Indian users seek his help when settling "disputes" going against their POV, which usually result in the ban/block of the non Indian user.
I hope he can be brought to justice. I have been through 3 weeks of unfair bans because of his agenda.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow has filed a request for arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nadirali, Siddiqui et al. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That should give everyone all the audience they need. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks / Vandalism from TheEditor20

User:TheEditor20 seems to me to be a habitual vandal who under various aliases (including 194.177.166.118, User:Edgovan20) has been vandalising various pages especially Ben Thompson, Bethany School and now my talk page and my user page. Would just like to see an end to this tedious episode. Also see User_talk:Edgovan20 which translates as an explicative attack on User:Yamla. --BMT 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked anybody. Edgowan20 is not my account, I have no idea what your talking about. By the looks of things that user hasnt been active for a long time. I have not been vandalising talk pages, although one should look at the history of vandalism towards me from BMT.

I have helped with several articles including Ben Thompson, Bethany School--84.9.66.118 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Loli pedobear

I have indefblocked Loli pedobear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for vandalism to Anna Nicole Smith and his username. Loli is short for Lolicon, pedo for pedophile or pedophilia, and a bear is "a masculinist subculture in the gay community". Please review. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. The username itself might be merely questionable, but combined with the illegible spam seems to clearly fall under the "For inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism" section of Wikipedia:Username. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lest someone actually think this is a reference to the gay or bear comunity, it's not. See encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Pedobear — It's a 4chan meme. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a valid username block and I endorse it. --Coredesat 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it's absolutely a valid block. I just wanted it made clear that this has nothing to do with the bear community. — coelacan talk — 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, it does have to do with pedophilia, as following the link makes clear. 6SJ7 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd think the motive had more to do with 4chan than pedophilia. --tjstrf talk 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tops156 & Charlotte Yanque

User:Tops156 has just begun a Wikipedia campaign to promote an Ohio real estate agent across dozens of articles. Creating new articles such as Charlotte Yanque, Charlotte Yanque Broker Associate and Million Dollar Agent Star Charlotte Yanque, while editing existings articles such as this edit, which is not in good faith, an intentional mis-attribution of a quote for promotional purposes. Since this involves so many articles and appears to be on-going, I wanted to post here for any possible intervention before too much damage is done. It appears very self-promotional in nature (or boyfriend or somthing). -- Stbalbach 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Yanque is on AFD to work out the validity, verifiability, etc etc of the claims made in the article. I've gone through and cleaned up a bunch of the related stuff. FreplySpang 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Two pictures were uploaded also (same picture, different names) tagged as "self created" and "public domain", from the agents website, most likely bogus. Ive tagged them as unlicensed, they have 12 days to confirm with a valid license that can be verified. -- Stbalbach 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another offended image uploader

Here's another user who takes badly to being challenged over image copyrights ([61]). He's got a huge list of image uploads, and while some of them are probably legitimate, most of them lack proper licensing and source tags. But now he's offended and stomping off Wikipedia. Who will help clearing up after him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He stomped off Wikipedia in a rage, leaving behind him a track of insults and vandalism on his own image pages. I've blocked him. Indef, if for no other reason than that an indef leave was apparently what he wanted right now, and I don't know how long it's going to take him to cool off if he wants to come back some time. Anybody, feel free to review or unblock if he comes back some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A Press Concern.

I posted the following message to Mr. Jimbo Wales:

Dear Mr. Wales, I am Acalamari. I am posting this message here due to a "situation" that I am dealing with. I understand completely that I should contact other administrators, but I believe that I am better off telling you about my issue.

A user, Richardrushfield, says he is from the Los Angeles Times, and has provided information to prove it. He has been contacting users about a press inquiry. I believe he wishes to interview users about how what happens on Wikipedia when a celebrity dies, as he showed up when several other users and I were busy editing and removing vandalism from the Anna Nicole Smith article. He also wants to talk about how users protected (the protection, of course, was done by an administrator, but he doesn't seem to know that) and maintained the page directly after hearing the news of her death.

It's due to the fact that this situation involves the press that I decided to come to you, as you have dealt with the media. I have told this user to stop contacting other users about press inquiries for the moment, as I am unsure if his actions are legal on Wikipedia. I thought it was best to tell him that in order to avoid trouble.

I do hope I have not misused your talk page, sir. As I said, I came to you because I believed that you have the most experience at handling these situations. I respect your time, and I will be patient. Acalamari 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to inform Mr. Jimbo Wales about this discussion here so he knows about it. I feel it's worth letting him know.

I hope that we do not start posting loads of messages to Richardrushfield's talk page just yet about his actions. I've already posted there (as did Persian Poet Gal after he contacted her), and am waiting for a response which he is bound to give. I would appreciate as much input as possible on how to deal with this. Acalamari 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine if he wants to contact people to interview them (and from looking at his userpage Jimbo agrees).--Isotope23 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very common for the media to contact members, especially administrators, for comment. There's no problem with it to my knowledge, as long as you don't misrepresent yourself as speaking for anyone other than yourself; if you don't feel comfortable answering any questions, then simply politely decline :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's weighed in on this and all's well with Richard Rushfield contacting editors. (→Netscott) 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine then. I thought it was best to tell people about this, as I wasn't sure if Mr. Wales had policies against users dealing with the press. Acalamari 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of Main Page article

For some reason, Make Way for Ducklings is being tagged with dispute templates by new users, repeatedly. I would suggest protecting it, but seeing as it's on the main page, it can't be.

One user - WilliamHarrisonKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours. --sunstar net^talk 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have a thread about this, I should probably mention that I blocked a whole gaggle of accounts over it, yesterday (suggesting they email me or unblock-en-l to explain and request unblocking). There was obviously sockery or organized disruption involved; either way, rather plainly not done in good faith, and revert-block-ignore carries the day. On the off-chance they were acting in good faith, I'd like to think they'd try and establish some sort of contact. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and Impersonating me

Please block 24.23.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for impersonating me, see[62], and for committing various acts of vandalism. --Bryson 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Make Way for Ducklings

I know its on the main page but this article is getting hammered by new users and annonymous IP's, would anyone consider sprotecting it for an hour? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And it will continue to get hammered. With as much action as this has been getting, and as many admin and non-admin eyeballs alike on it, it can survive the next five hours or so. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Huimiero

Defamatory edit sumamries: [63]. Andy Mabbett 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked... and might be a WP:OVERSIGHT situation as well on those edit summaries.--Isotope23 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversought. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A line in the sand

I'm sorry, but is it just me? If someone appears here and their immediate demand is for a desysopping then my kneejerk reaction is to check their edits and look for evidence that they are abusing editing priviledges. Which they usually are.

Anyone who appears here wanting the immediate desysopping of someone - and in the last month or so, this has not been an unusual cry from people who have disagreed even on a minor issue with an admin - should really go away and think about what they're saying. If nothing else, they are promoting a situation where real abuses will be ignored. A similar thing is happening with people dragging admins to RfC because they disagree with policy or the implementation of policy.

Perhaps something along those lines, less bitey perhaps, could be added to the header of this page? 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree with you, Redvers. I have frequently seen headings stating admin abuse, but I never actually see a case where this has actually occurred. People should really be cautious in how they address situations, and they shouldn't jump to conclusions. Nishkid64 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't give the impression that there is no place to turn should an admin misbehave. Unfortunately, there have cases that are at least debatably abuse by admins, and this is as good a place to bring them up as any. For example, the discussion on AN/I was a prominent player in the recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock, and not quite as prominent, but still influential in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, this is not the venue to have someone desysoped. This is a good place to report legitimate abuse, but if your goal is desysoping, better to go to arbcom. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a problem when people drag admins to WP:ANI, shouting "This admin clearly ABUSED his PRIVILEGES and SHOULD be BANNED", when (a) they don't clearly see the situation, or (b) they take advantage of an admin's weak points and use them to exploit their block etc. For example, "Admin Foo blocked me for 24h. She has a bad history of leaping to conclusions, as seen in <diff>. Therefore, the block was incorrect and unjustified.", which is a variant of a straw man/ad hominem attack. Yuser31415 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. We shouldn't miss the point I was making (well, not this quickly): if every single dispute with an admin is to be declared "ADMIN ABUSE!!! DESYSOPPPP THIS IDIOOT!" then we'll soon never be able to spot admin abuse on the rare occasions it does happen. The screams of "ABUSE ABUSE!" and the pointless RfCs are increasing the signal-to-noise ratio so much that a genuine complainant will simply never be heard. This is a Bad Thing. I don't wish to discourage people from complaining; I just think the shouts of "Wolf! Wolf!" are getting too loud and should therefore stop. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's anything you can do or say to stop it, though. A warning will not deter trolls. A warning is most likely to deter cautious editors who have legitimate, especially borderline, claims, and who really don't want to cause a scene. Those are exactly the people we want to hear from. I think it's better to leave the ANI header warning as it is, and just get used to taking one short look at lame complaints, marking them unfounded, and then letting them get archived away. -- coelacan talk -- 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And half of them can't spell rouge properly, either... Guy (Help!) 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

SPELLING! SPELLING! SPEELLLINGG! I DEMAND that JzG be immediately BANNED FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. Yuser31415 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's a damn 'crat when you need one? Grr... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, 'crats can only promote a user to adminship - you need a steward to desysop. Yuser31415 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just poke holes in my lame joke, see if I care... :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(back on track) legitimate editors with legitimate claims are unlikely to come here screaming abuse in all caps. Therefore, ignore the trolls/malcontents and just deal with normal claims. Viridae^Talk 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If I see a report that starts with "I have a concern" or something similar, I'm inclined to pay more attention than practically anything in all-caps (also, in the above thread, I checked the block log of the complaining editor to very quickly ascertain the editor's tumultuous history with admins).

Basically, while I think the concern about crying wolf is valid, I think most of superfluous complaints/complainers distinguish themselves from legit situations well enough that we have little to worry about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't called for the desysopping of anyone (or know what that means, for that matter). I simply believe very high standards should be demanded of admins. At the very least they should have a very good grasp of Wikipedia policy.

〈REDVEЯS〉, you must admit it does no good to Wikipedia to have admins around who are claiming that you can't do original research to check a source at the Talk page. Think of the many possibly valuable contributors that may be scared away from Wikipedia by such behavior.--Abenyosef 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You also can't make rant threads gloating over how you were right and the evil, evil, evil man who dared disagree with you was wrong and lambasting everyone who said you were overreacting for demanding the community avenge you for his "incivil" remarks. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is being lost, Abenyosef, mainly due to the WP:STICK thing you've got going here. Please give it up. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Give it up" was the same advice given to me by the admin who unsuccessfully tried to bully me into silence, and who has now retreated in disarray after having been resoundingly defeated by my solid arguments after other, more sensible users came to my help and... ok. OK. OK!!! Here and now I solemnly promise to never, ever again file a complaint on this page or, for that matter, contribute to it in any other way. The thing worth doing is trying to add stuff to the Policy pages so that the guidelines will be unequivocal and policy abuse will become rarer. --Abenyosef 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Emir Arven, not you ("you" being Abenyosef). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were talking about me... I do now ;o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly pronouns... you win again, English language! Clarification made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits by Zmaz0ox (talk · contribs)

Thid editor has a long history of introducing inappropriate articles. Look at his user talk page [64] and you'll see it has some messages about this, and finally, at the end, a warning. After this warning, the user went on to contribute a couple instances of petty vandalism [65] and [66]. I haven't reported this at AIV because they'll just say he hasn't been warned enough, but it's pretty apparent that this person isn't going to contribute constructively. Also, this person has a history of introducing bogus names to image thumbnail descriptions like these [67], [68], [69], [70], etc. etc. Most of these are sneaky and probably aren't detected right away, so people don't bother to find who did it and warn him. TheQuandry 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The image thumbnail edits were from May 2006 as far as I can tell, the initial talk page warnings were on some of these. Since just one edit in September and 2 now on 12th February:

Joseph_Stalin and John_Cockcroft, each of these deserves further progressive warnings as per policy, but I do not see that each type of disruption needs qualify in turn for the 4 warning steps before we take action over disruptive only accounts. Given page creation at warning level 4 (block on next such edit) with heed to follow policy, these 2 edits today seem to confirm the editor as making only disruptive edits over a period of time. I've issued test4 and test5 (blocked for 24hrs). Further disruption should lead to progressively longer blocking or an indef block. David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:FarmSanctuary inserting copyrighted material into the Foie gras article

A new user, User:FarmSanctuary is stubbornly inserting and reinserting materials into the Foie gras article which is taken straight from the [www.nofoiegras.org] site. He says he FarmSanctuary is his organization and thus he has ownership and right to copy them here. I have two questions based on this:

1)Should the user be allowed to keep the name of "his" organization as his username?

2)Should we take this user at his word that he duly represents the organization and therefore has the right to license the material to Wikipedia under GFDL?

The opinion of someone more familiar than myself with copyright violation issues would be welcome. Thanmks in advance.--Ramdrake 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this user cannot do so, for these reasons:

• Conflict of interest.
• No proof this user really is an employee.
• Spamming is not tolerated.

Yuser31415 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If he edits nofoigras.org to note that User:FarmSanctuary is a duly appointed representative of the company on Wikipedia, that would satisfy issue #2 that Yuser31415 mentioned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mm... well, at minimum, some proof of ownership of the copyright is necessary. I believe this is usually handled either through contact with the Wikimedia Foundation, or through a statement placed on the organization's web site stating the material is so licensed. If that should happen, then there's no issue with using that material, per se. However, it may still be a conflict of interest. Shimeru 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This "GFDL" claim does not jibe with what I see on the website. There is no mention of GFDL there.--Isotope23 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, editors claiming to own the copyright to material published on other websites should be directed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org -- the email used should match the domain the media comes from. Jkelly 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam sockpuppetry in Anna Nicole Smith

Normally I would just take this to AIV but it involves possibly sockpuppetry so I will bring it up here. Someone has been trying to add a myspace link for some "memorial song" about Anna Nicole Smith to the article. The first time it was

71.99.174.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and I gave them a {{uw-spam1}}, but they put it back two more times so their warnings escalated, it was then re-added by

71.99.200.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

which is likely the same ISP and city, and had no edits prior to this. Then after that was reverted, a new user

Jerri1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

creates an account and tries to add the link again. Is it worth it to checkuser this guy? Should any blocking be performed? —Dgies^t c 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user back with new account

Recently indefinitely-banned user User:Booze broads and bullets seems to be back with a newly-registered username User:Broads. The "new" user just recreated the page Bakekang, which was recently deleted for copyright violations and has reuploaded an image ripped from the show's network site, Image:Bakekangnew.jpg. Shrumster 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article and image deleted, user blocked. --Coredesat 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet in RfC discussion.

I'd appreciate if someone can take a look at the user LimerickLimerickson to investigate if they are a sock puppet (possibly for user I m dude2002). The user made two comments on I m dude2002's RfC on the Lebanon talk page, and those are their only contributions ever. They quite emphatically agree with I m dude2002, and format their text quite well for a brand new user (indentation, bullets, etc.). Wording seems similar to me as well. — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:M Jilburn

This account has blatantly been created to mock me. The name is similar to mine, and my userpage has been copied over, with words changed. It follows a string of vandalism to my userpage. I request that the account is blocked, and that the userpage is deleted. Thankyou. J Milburn 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

mv report /wp/AIV. Yuser31415 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, next time AIV can probably take care of it. No worries. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just reported it there, sorry. Need to get to grips with this side of Wikipedia! Thanks. J Milburn 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I've done the same thing before :). Yuser31415 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures

I'd be grateful for admin eyes on what's going on here. After lengthy discussions (at Wikipedia talk:Username#Non-latin characters and Unified Login and Wikipedia talk:Username#Latin character transliterations) on the issue of asking editors with non-Latin-alphabet usernames to provide a Latin-alphabet portion of their signatures, consensus was reached that we should require this. Kim Bruning disagreed, but things went against him. He subsequently turned up at Wikipedia:Signatures, and deleted the relevant section. This was immediately reverted, and he took it to the Talk page.

When reminded of the consensus, he dismissed it as having happened elsewhere, and insisted that only the local discussion mattered (using authoritarian language such as: "I am provisionally willing to accept that compromise"). He then watered down the section, saying that he'd reached an understanding of the consensus in discussion with Pschemp. I pointed out that this was a novel notion of consensus, and he claimed that he was acting ina ccordance with WP:BRD; this turns out to be a procedure that is neither policy nor guideline, and which was largely written by... Kim Bruning. Moreover, leaving aside its status as nothing more than an essay (though it's in Wikipedia space with no descriptive template to say what it is), its own introduction says goes against the way that Kim Bruning has applied it in this case.

This whole business is worrying, as it seems to be a straightforward and sustained attempt on the part of one editor to overturn consensus; I'd really like others to look in on it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've looked and I can't seem to find a consensus on that page. Personally, I think the whole 'block people if they do not use our alphabet' thing is a bad idea and suggested a code alteration instead. With single login on the horizon I envision the 'transliteration' scheme resulting in people with 'usernames' like, 'Bob / Боб / हिन्द / り仮名'. --CBD 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Return of User:GordonWatts

Some of you may remember the mess that was Terri Schiavo and its related articles a year or so ago. One of its prime POV warriors, GordonWatts (talk · contribs) is back, and is now upset that a couple of links to his Geocities and AOL Homepage websites were discovered and removed by myself when I stumbled over them at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. Despite being told by more than one person that they're inappropriate, he's in full Wikilawyering mode, arguing a variety of rationales (that he's a "recognized authority", that his "paper" -- actually, a Geocities site -- is better than those know-nothings at the New York Times, etc. Now he's started a "poll" and canvassed a whole bunch of editors (mostly IPs), despite being told how inappropriate THAT is. Perhaps a word or two from veterans regarding Wikipedia policy would be good, but be advised that long engagements on his terms are likely to be fruitless. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've whacked the poll. For some reason, I really hate polls on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Polling is evil. PTO 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually polling is not evil it's just generally not a substitute for discussion. (→Netscott) 02:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Serial vandalism of Nancy Pelosi by User:76.177.226.195

Vandalizing the [Nancy Pelosi] article. Warnings have been left. Latest act of vandalism blanked the page. Needs immediate admin attention. Dino 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

$ mv report /wp/AIV

$ echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks, Yuser31415 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"

$ vi AIV-redirector.sh

mv report /wp/AIV

echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks,~~~~

~

~

~

~

wq!

:-) (→Netscott) 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly good to see another Vi user (although I use the extended Vim).

$ ed
a
#!/bin/sh
mv report /wp/AIV
echo "WP:AIV is the appropriate place to take vandalism reports. Thanks,~~~~
.
f AIV_redirector.sh
w
q

:). Yuser31415 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the #!/bin/sh part was not there but a simple . AIV-redirector.sh (in the same directory obviously) gets it. But enough of this WP:BJAODN cruft. :-) (→Netscott) 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking by PageantUpdater

PageantUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Several days ago, a difference of opinion arose over the placement of a fair use image in the Kandice Pelletier article. The editor in question, PageantUpdater and I went back and forth about the placement of the image and the boxes. In retaliation, PageantUpdater went and singled out the image in question for possible deletion. I stand by the assertion that singling out the one image rather than the whole class of photos in Category:The Amazing Race contestants makes it hard to WP:Assume Good Faith

We've gone back and forth about this. Today, the disagreement escalated so I felt I should issue a 3RR warning.

With these last four edits:

1. edit 1 - 1 minute revert
2. edit 2 - 13 minute revert
3. edit 3 - 6 minute revert
4. edit 4 - 29 minute revert

I wondered if I was being wikistalked. Since I asked to stop this abusive behavior the following articles have been nominated for deletion by PageantUpdater:

• Mary Conley - 13 minute revert
• David Conley, Jr. - 22 minute revert

There is a pattern here of disruptive editing. Whenever PU doesn'tget their way they start nominating things for deletion. It's happened repeatedly today and started with the image listed above. This is abusive. Finally, as I've been writing this PageantUpdater has left me notes accusing me of being harassing. Please help. --evrik ^(talk) 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you are violating WP:POINT evrik. Reality contest contestants aren't considered automatically notable if their only accomplishment is the actual show, yet after an argument about this on PageantUpdater's page, you go and create two very short stubs about it to see if there is any reaction, and then go and wikilink redlinks for non-articles which are traditionally held to not be notable, which is why they are left unlinked, much like failed politcal candidates on election pages. Looks like you've been blocked a lot as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you have awarded PU a barnstar in the past, are you really being objective?

Actually, I have text for all of the candidates in this season as this is the All Star season. I was going to load the bio pages from the articles when PageantUpdater started reverting my edits. I went away for a couple of hours and then loaded the Mary Conley and David Conley, Jr. pages. PU nominated them for deletion within minutes. Stalking. --evrik ^(talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My side of the story: Back on the 6th of Feb I noticed a fair use image in Kandice Pelletier and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kandice_Pelletier&diff=106165735&oldid=103249678 removed it], while adding a pertinent infobox. The image was re-added by Evrik at which point I removed it citing the fair use rules. For the past week there's been to-ing and fro-ing about the use of the image and the positioning of the two infoboxes in the article (see the Talk:Kandice Pelletier) and I clearly admit that I have "used up" my three reverts today. Regarding the image, initially I mistakenly thought that it was only used in the biographical article and tagged it as "rfu". Later, after lengthy debate and argument, I realised my oversight and removed the rfu tags from the image, and again removed the image from Kandice Pelletier. Evrik seems to have a real issue with what I have been doing but in my opinion at least I have been working to improve the article, for example by adding detailed references and expanding the article.

The latest is that I noticed that Evrik had wikilinked some names in the Amazing Race episode articles which I reverted because I couldn't see the point of having redlinks. In my final revert I noted that that these articles, if created, would fail on notability. My edits were reverted, the articles were created, and I nominated them for deletion. Evrik then removed the afd tag on one of the articles [71] which I replaced. Creating the afds and my reverts to the episode articles has led to me being accused of wikistalking - which is ludicrous. The articles were all on my watchlist prior and had any other editor tried the same thing I would have reverted and dealt with it in the same fashion.

I probably have more to add but am due to leave work for the day soon so want to get this posted in the interim. I will just add that I prior to this ending up on here I suggested that Evrik launch an RFC if he continues to harrass me in this manner, because I am sick of it. Clearly, for reasons I cannot fathom, he chose to address it here. I have already attempted to extend an olive branch and call in other editors but this hasn't met too favourably with Evrik.

PS Evrik has basically challenged me to deal with the other images yet chooses to revert my action when I do so -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My side of the story (part 2): Ok back home now. Not going to add a whole lot right now but to say that I am frustrated by the accusation that by not immediately dealing with other Amazing Race related images at the time I removed one from Kandice Pelletier I have somehow acted in bad faith. To be honest at the time I didn't care a hoot about any other articles or images, but only the one in the article I was dealing with at the time (Pelletier's). When I was challenged on this I decided to go and have a look at the others, which I edited in a way I felt was appropriate, tagging some [72], moving those I thought were okay under the fair use guidles to appropriate places in articles [73][74] and nominating whole articles for deletion because I did not think they complied with the notability policy[75]. Yet Evrik still accuses me of singling the one article out. As outlined above when I finished up dealing with the images some of my edits were reverted.

I admit that I have been mildly rude to Evrik on one occasion this afternoon when I just couldn't stomach this any longer (see [76] [77]) but I feel that it is I who is being persecuted here, not Evrik. I have been transparent and open throughout the whole ordeal and quite frankly I am sick of it, as I indicated to him here -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment of mine has just been deleted from his talk page as "abusive". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS if I was truly wikistalking him, wouldn't I be messing with all his edits, rather than just those we share a common interest in? Lol -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that anyone can make edits on an article. You shouldn't be taking it personally if someone changes or removes your edits. The fact is, most of those contestants are non-notable outside of the Amazing Race. --Madchester 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Using another editor's signature

An IP editor (User:86.42.176.24) left this [78] on a user talk page. The "Bitch" star seems insulting enough but the editor included the signature of a probably uninvolved editor in the star text. This seems exceptionally bad behavior to me. Don't know what I'm asking anyone to do, but I wanted to report it. --Pigman^talk 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "impersonation" here was intentional. I think (s)he just copied the code and didn't bother to update it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by 63.64.185.249

63.64.185.249 (talk · contribs) has made legal threats at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration: [79], [80], [81]. The last of these took place after he/she was warned he/she would be blocked [82]. Heimstern Läufer 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

endorse block, and I'll draw the matter to the attention of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Chanakyathegreat

While reading old posts and archives as a result of a recent ArbCom request invloving me I found this comment by User:Chanakyathegreat; please have a look at the later part. This kind of users often escalate often already hot issuse. Although this post is more than half a month old still I think disciplinary actions should be taken to prevent any such comments in future. I do not know how this comment went ignored but many users have been punished for far less severer offences. This comment can be found in archives at [83]. Szhaider 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

I saw some guy accuse User:Gwernol of vandalising his user page. This user's userpage says that he's also User:ZacheryWanzer, but this userpage has information on the kid's birthdate, and he's under 13. An admin might want to delete the revisions that contains this info. – Chacor 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Threats of violence, personal attacks, and likely sock-puppetry

I have been threated with physical violence by User talk:198.172.206.148. Please see this edit for an example. There are already multiple warnings at this user page. I believe this is a sock puppet of indefinitely banned User:Joehazelton. Please investigate. Thanks. Propol 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)