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

edit-warring duo

I bring to the attention of administrators, 2 edit-warring ideological trolls - Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat. For more than one month, these 2 have been revert-warring with each other (without any earnest effort at discussion or dispute resolution) and with other editors - violating WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:POINT and gaming WP:3RR by conveniently spacing out their reverting over 24 hours. As a result, they have converted the following articles into battlefields:

• Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
• The Goa Inquisition (book): [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
• Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg: history is filled with blanket reverts without any reasoning; just personal attacks
• Idolatry: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
• Persecution of Christians: [25], [26], [27], [28]

I request administrators to take definitive action, as both Anwar saadat and Bakasuprman have a long history of disruptive edit-warring. The latter is an involved party in the on-going Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 with me, which is why I can't take action myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I already warned both of them last time this was on ANI two weeks ago (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar, for example). I admit I haven't really kept an eye on the conflict since that night, but the amount of continued warring since then is unacceptable. It's probably time for a block. Dmcdevit·t 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection on a couple of the articles. Perhaps this will encourage use of the article talk page. Regards, Navou 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(lol) I have already protected Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham, Idolatry and Persecution of Christians. The result on the latter two has been the immediate resumption of hostilities after protection expired. No, I agree with Dmcdevit that a strong block needs to be imposed - both these editors are experienced, disruptive trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement also, however, I lack the technical ability. Navou 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of problems, and given Dmcdevit's warning, I'm going to block both for a week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did. Circeus 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. Still, problem resolved! Let's hope they calm down a bit on return. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. For heavens' sakes Baka made the same reverts that Rama's Arrow made on one of those articles! How convenient of Rama to incite admins here with gratuitous use of labels to brand these users! If we cut out the motivated high pitch that Rama uses to present the case and examine the issue, this is what we find with regards to reverting...

• TNMMK - 5 in 20 days
• Idolatry - one revert by Baka in a week.. Anwar keeps going against consensus of three other editors..
• Persecution of Christians - 3 reverts in three days

This is nothing!

Compare this to RA's three per day on Iqbal in January and then goes on to block his opponent! With regards to civility, this is nothing. The incivility that RA has displayed on arbcom and elsewhere is far far far worse than this. And RA is an admin!! Shameful. If Baka can be blocked for a week for this, by that same yardstick, RA ought to be blocked for a month atleast! Sarvagnya 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RA noted that they didn't break 3RR. They just reverted each other a number of times on various pages without discussion their revert on talk or user-talk pages over a long period of time. Don't you think it would have been better if they had at least notified each other about their ongoing reverts? They are both experience Wiki-users and should have known what they were doing was futile. And apart from some of the parties involved, I don't see this isn't really to the arbcom case. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You also rolled back Anwar on those pages without saying anything. You have solicited others to revert what you are unwilling to do. Are you going to block RA or any other admin for reverting? Are you going to block anyone. You know full well that you would never have done those indefinite blocks in April (since you have only ever blocked vandals and seem unwilling to do any nontrivial blocks)...Why did you incite RA to do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Four of those six reverts were a different matter. Anwar was adding false speedy tags on various India-related pages. Instead of reverting, I could have said "Rm speedy tag, doesn't qualify for CSD A3 criteria." But yes two of those reverts were on the "controversial" pages and I did blindly forget to notify Anwar, Baka et al. I admit I'm a hypocrite and deserve to be punished for being an admin but stooping to the level of trolls. You can block me if you like (I going to take a break anyway).

As for never blocking them but endorsing, I had known their cabal for a long time. Hkelkar (post-block) had sent me emails about setting up RFARBs on "Anti-Hindus" Zora and Dbachmann, telling me to revert various Hindutva/Islamist organisations that I've never heard of in my life. I told him to bugger off but he didn't so I quickly listed his email address as junk/spam. Alongside with me, guys like Baka, Ambroodey, D-Boy and a few others were sent the emails. The problem was that though I knew these guys had their links but didn't know of how to successfully explain the problem to Wiki. So I deleted those emails. Once Nirav discovered it, I naively thought that he would have ability to expose their activities but I was in that part. Having witnessed it myself, of course I would endorse the blocks. The problem is proving it. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the blocks. One revert every four days is hardly anything, and if we blocked people for that, heaps and heaps of people would be blocked, including many admins like RA and many many other people including some arbitrators I would bet. As for the "troll" edit summary, what is happening here? See what has gone on the arb case by RA calling other people criminals etc etc. This block is useless and inflammatory. The Persecution article where Baka does three reverts in three days, he discussed them on the talk page. RA himself did three reverts per day back in January without discussing and with a machine revert on Iqbal for consecutive days and went on to block his opponent. Here is a clear case where admins are subject to different rules than ordinary users. RA took umbrage when Nearly Headless Nick noted that admins are subject to different rules.....well here is RA getting a benefit which Baka and Anwar did not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can remove blocks if you want to Blnguyen but the edit-warring will start again sooner or later. January was a quite a long time ago and while that doesn't justify his reverts at all, it is very likely that many users here have edit-warred since then. Can you please clarify your exact reason for unblocking them. The main reason seems to be that RA has also been involved in edit-warring. From that reasoning, it appears that if the person who notified the war on ANI was uninvolved, "neutral" etc. your opinion may be different. The other reason is that their reverts were spaced out over long period of time. May I ask, wouldn't it have been embarrassing if in a couple of months time the Goa Inquisition History page had "rvv"s and "Undo"s from Anwar and Baka, but of course not on the same day. There was a good chance they were not going to stop because neither of them has posted a message on a talk page even once. If I misunderstood anything, please tell me. Thank you Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. DaGizza has once again made us privy to his duplicitous nature by choosing to forget that I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can read. I said that two reverts per week is hardly anything.....I just pointed out if this was going to be applied to everyone, then a lot of people would be blocked. We're supposed to be even handed aren't we? The edit-warring is always going to be there. It's a fact of life on religious and ethnic articles. If you are going to be strict, then be strict to everyone. There'll be nobody left. And everybody knows what you have been doing Gizza. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Does your sentence refer to my reverts. If it does, I replied to that above. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the unblock by Blnguyen. It is also interesting to note that Rama's Arrow is referring to them as "trolls", and vilifies them for doing the same thing which he has done in the past – "edit warring". In any case, there are only two reverts in a week, the block was not justifiable, and heavy handed in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above thread. But this is my opinion. I suspect Rama's Arrow is still sulking over my oppose vote on his RfA. I noticed him regularly adding fake charges on edit summary in the event of a block. Anyway, it is not my concern if this is the quality of admins Wikipedia is forced to put up with.

As I explained earlier in my unblock request on my talk page, the reverts in TMMK and the Goa Inquisition image pages were spaced out over several days to avoid a ugly exchange. I appreciate Baka's patience in this regard. The only reason I did not engage with him was I was busy with mapping resources on other pages. I believe Baka will be made a scapegoat and his past history may be used as an excuse to implicate him in the ongoing ArbCom case. Rama's Arrow has once again proved that he does not understand Wikipedia policies and quite able and willing to game them for his ends. This is a encyclopaedia first and foremost. Anwar 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(LOL) it is infinitely amusing how the "defenders of Baka" were absent for almost 2 days; the issue was resolved by un-involved admins; and then comes the joint tirade attacking me, DaGizza and un-blocked 2 trolls with a known track record and undeniable evidence. Excuse? Some alleged offense I supposedly committed went un-punished. Above all - arbitrator Blnguyen directly involved himself by attacking me and un-blocking the 2 trolls without any respect for the admins who had taken the decision. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry. You set yourself up to be attacked by acting like a puissant super-admin, a person misusing knowledge and power, a Ravana if you will.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What Rama did was notify it on ANI. The blocks was endorsed by three uninvolved admins. The most I guess you could say was that Rama was twisting the facts, but admins of high integrity should be able to see through the fact-twisting if there was any. I'm suprised that User:Circeus, the admin who blocked them, hasn't even been told of their unblockings, nor have the other involved admins that participated in the earlier part of this discussion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins of high integrity are of course needed to make up for the integrity Rama and DaGizza lack. I'm surprised that Gizza justifies a block made by ignoring the discussions present. However, I suppose that being a yes-man for Rama's Arrow entails this sort of blatant sycophancy. And yes, I will not turn the other cheek when insults come my way.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not discussed anything - especially on TMMK. Plus, you ignored user:Dmcdevit's warning. And what makes you think that revert-warring is justifiable even with discussion? Bakasuprman's behavior is consistent with the endless edit-warring he undertakes on Babri Mosque, Godhra Train Burning and almost every Hindutva-related article. Also, Baka, I don't care what you think is right or wrong, Wikipedia expects everyone to abide by WP:NPA/WP:CIV. Your "monkey see, monkey do" is not a recognized policy here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source on the page. Here's the quote,

“ Several Islamist fundamentalist organisations in India are allegedly controlled by former SIMI cadres. Prominent among them are the Kerala-based National Democratic Front and Islamic Youth Centre (IYC), and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu. ”

Thank you for again displaying hilarious obstinacy and blatant ignorance. Rama is again displaying his hypocrisy by telling me to abide by WP:CIV/WP:NPA. Referring to substantive discussion as "bitchin" and death threats are not civil either, incase you were confused as to the definition of civility.Bakaman 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What else can you expect from this shameless troll on Arbcom who is cosying up to his payers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.215.3.44 (talk • contribs).

If I'm understanding what went on correctly, Blnguyen unilaterally overturned blocks that had the support of two impartial admins (three if you count Dmcdevit), without discussion with the blocking admin, and in spite of the fact that he seems to have some prior involvement with at least one of the blocked editors. This doesn't seem like the ideal way to do things. In any case I think the 1-week blocks were perfectly justifiable: both editors have been chronically edit warring, were already warned not to do so by Dmcdeit, and kept on doing it anyway. In addition, both editors were uncivil to each other and to other editors (some examples can be found in this very thread). This kind of behavior isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde is harassing me again

Now it's Routesteep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Somebody please rangeblock this troll ... I don't want to have to semi-protect my talk page, but if it's to keep this guy from trolling I may have to. Blueboy96 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just asked him to avoid writing lies about me. Is writing false statements a good thing here? The fact thath he calls me "troll" and "vandal" means he is showing no good faith.--Routesteep 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you filed a checkuser? -N 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this fellow is boring. Yes, get a checkuser to find and block the IP, anything to end this silliness. Moreschi ^Talk 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. *sigh* Here's another one: SouthernStock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Blueboy96 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Working on the IP block. Moreschi ^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply answer my questions? You said I was banned for "POV pushing and incivility", but there is no reference to such allegation in my banning. Are you extempted by writing the truth?--Poetry is legal 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you're blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Repression wins over truth, right?--Drama of range 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, what do you expect? Yes, you're blocked as well. Moreschi ^Talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is your Wikipedia. Mine had good faith an trusted truth.--GrarTrees 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and a whopping amount of revert-warring, 3RR blocks, and incivility. Moreschi ^Talk 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ACB, anyone? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"ACB", what is it?--GrarTrees 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Somebody's persistent. Marskell 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent, but at least they're polite enough to announce their sockpuppetry. Natalie 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim continues uncivil behaviour

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) As I previously pointed out this user feels no one is allowed to disagree with him, and he should be allowed to threaten users and attack them if its for a really good reason, like getting his way in an article. He owns his talk page, and removes reminders not to make personal attacks with personal attacks. Most recently he's now Made a comment like this [29]. On his talk page, which is neither appropriate or civil. Here is the pre-archive version which you can compare to my talk page for the conversation that takes place [30]. Where he admits that he thinks he should be allowed to attack people to defend his view point. His threat against another user [31] as well as an article talk page where he's had some civility issues Talk:Bose (company). While passionate he refuses to acknowledge that he's bound by the policies and guidelines here and thinks he can act however he wants as long as he's doing the "right" thing. This is a situation which is just going to result in more personal attacks and threats unless its dealt with.--Crossmr 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the editor been warned about the perceived or actual WP:NPA violations prior to this AN/I report? Regards, Navou 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I warned him a year ago when he was involved in some similar tension of an Apprentice Season 4 article. He continually sanitizes his talk page so you have to dig for it. I will dig it up, but also bear in mind I had that long conversation with him about his behaviour and he's still making uncivil comments and attempting to own his talk page which shows an unwillingness to change his behaviour.--Crossmr 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous warnings and behaviour:

• Here he was previously warned for making threats against other users and trying to control content he put on wikipedia (the same behaviour which bore the recent personal attacks) [32].
• here is a previous warning over another article he got too passionate about [33].
• Even a year ago he was demonstrating this behaviour of taking every comment on his behaviour as a personal and painful insult.
• Here radiokirk reminds him to assume good faith, and its again suggested he shouldn't act so abrasively.[34] by theresa.

There is quite a bit more in there as far as warnings and previous examples of behaviour go. Plenty of examples of him ignoring policy and acting uncivily towards others.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Further examples of behaviour and warnings, I did some more looking and this is just from what is picked up on his talk page. He's had numerous examples of this behaviour, and in fact several individuals have spoken to him about it previously. This is a recap up to 1 year ago. There should be a very clear pattern established.

• [35] - Makes statement close to owning article
• [36] - Attempts to own talk page
• [37] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned about WP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
• Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta [38].
• Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult" [39].
• Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him [40].
• He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour [41].
• Which he dismisses by again calling it an insult [42].
• Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred [43].
• Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia [44].
• He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like [45].
• Here his reminded to assume good faith [46].
• He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[47].
• modifies his control message of his talk page, and in process of those edits, removes theresa's previous reminder as an "insult" [48].
• Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable [49].
• This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely. [50]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat.

--Crossmr 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, this user appears to be significantly uncivil when provoked, but is otherwise not a disruptive presence. Blocking him at this point would do more harm to Wikipedia than good, but someone might want to help him understand why stalwart civility in the face of provocation is necessary. He is otherwise a productive contributor.
As for his "threats" and "attacks", in all cases I've seen they be be construed as good faith warnings or simply more uncivil smack talk. –Gunslinger47 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay I'm not sure how that could be seen as anything other than a threat? People have been trying for a very long time to help him understand why his behaviour is inappropriate. He dismisses any such conversation as a personal insult of the highest kind and wipes it from his talk page. He's been doing that almost since his arrival here back in 2005 if you go back through his contrib and talk page history. Any good faith assumptions are long gone on this. Several editors made a heroic effort to try and get through to him a year ago, and he's gotten bent out of shape for far less than what he's hurled at other users. Good edits don't give you license to stomp all over other users and treat them like garbage because you think you're right. Wikipedia doesn't and will never need that kind of editor.--Crossmr 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two problems at work here. The user seems to believe that any disagreement with his positions is a personal attack or "abrasive criticism". This makes it difficult for him to engage in any kind of content dispute without it quickly degenerating into a unilateral broadside of warnings and threats.

Second, I think the user's skills in English are at a somewhat less-than-native speaking level, at least in formal writing. In order to get a message across to him, one must repeat it over and over and over again, each time attempting to make it clearer and simpler. This is exasperating, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the user to find a Wikipedia that more closely matches his formal writing skills. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, that does make sense. If you notice the discussion I had with him (using my provided link and my talk page) I noticed once or twice he seemed to clearly miss the point. I wasn't sure if he was doing it intentionally, or if he was lacking complete comprehension. Even after several exchanges of my explaining his behaviour was inappropriate, he then draws the conclusion that I was taking some stance on the article dispute, which I had never brought up other than to say that he shouldn't have behaved as he did in that dispute. Either way, if you edit on wikipedia, you're going to eventually (and usually frequently) not see eye to eye with someone and this user clearly cannot handle that type of situation.--Crossmr 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

His user page states he's from Illinois and that English is his native language, so that's not the issue. Maybe his comprehensive reading ability is somewhat lacking, or he reads all the messages with a "he's against me" mindset and therefore misinterprets what is being said.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is another possibility. However I don't know if finding the reason he behaves as such is really key here. There is no obvious trigger other than the fact that if he does something wrong and someone corrects him, he lashes out and holds a permanent grudge. The two articles I've seen him lash out over are completely unrelated (apprentice season 4 and bose) so its not like there is a specific subject that we could have him avoid editing. From what I've seen so far, no one is being unfair to him when they correct his behaviour.--Crossmr 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not a coincidence his archived "heated debates" were deleted shortly after you filed this report. That tells me he's well aware of the fact his behavior is sometimes unacceptable, since he would rather delete evidence of it than refute your claims. Anyway, I've asked on his talk page if he (and some other guy that was there) would like to tell his side of the story.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that he's told me exactly how he feels and why he acts like he does on my talk page. The diffs show that this is a long term issuing going back 2 years, and that plenty of effort has been made to correct it. There needs to be some serious adjustment and turn around here. because there is no evidence this is going to stop, and after 2 years, its just too well established to assume it will just pass on its own.--Crossmr 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He continues with edit summaries like this [51].--Crossmr 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

and continues to dismiss even polite reminders of policy as "harassment" [52].--Crossmr 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that this likely won't stop. I noticed he applies a peculiar double standard for what can and cannot be said on Wikipedia. He considers he's allowed to arbitrarily call people "untrusted editors", but if someone else so much as frowns at him for that, it's harassment worthy of a lifelong vendetta. It's really strange.

That said, I can't see any remedy other than keeping an eye on him. A block doesn't seem right at the moment, since he's been relatively quiet the past few days. I seems best to me, that other people also start setting him straight, as he clearly won't take any advice from you.--Atlan (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with that if this was behaviour which just started within the last week for the first time after 2 years of good behaviour. He's shown that even if its quiet for a time, it will come back and be directed at anyone who he perceives as getting in his way. I think the only likely course here is to file an RfC (which will very likely be ignored) and then go to arbcom, the RfC is more for process because even at this point with this evidence I think arbcom would deny it unless other dispute methods were tried. There has certainly been a few editors try to get through to him and he's ignored them all so I don't think waiting for someone else to take a crack at it would really benefit us at this point.--Crossmr 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

good faith vandalism

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=138800335 Is this good faith vandalism to my talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=124685002 Cool Cosmos sent me the welcome message.

The real question. Is there such a thing as good faith vandalism? Any thoughts. I have a right to remove old discussions from my talk page or what I feel is harrassment or what I believe is vandalism. My talk page should not be turned into a battleground. Other editors should not undo my edits or change the name of who welcomed me on my talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to Fyslee about this? Metros 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to my e-mail. Nevertheless, I want my talk page properly restored to the correct name of Cool Cosmos. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back. I see the problem. Sorry about that. It was an honest mistake and an AGF would not call it vandalism. My apologies. -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline can be found at WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings. You might want to peruse all of WP:USER and WP:TALK. Everything removed from User:talk is archived in the page history.

• As far as the first diff, it would at first glance appear that you have signed a post as [[User:Cool Cosmos|Cool Cosmos]] here and that the other editor corrected it here. More investigation is required.

• As I read more, and review the page history in depth, I realize that you did not post the original welcome message and was only restoring it to the original poster, which is why I had originally assumed good faith, while I investigated it. Seems like a misunderstanding to me. I have none the less restored your user page to its original welcome message according to your wishes, and the fact the Cool Cat had originally posted this message. I'll also direct User:Fyslee to this discussion. Navou 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my mistaken edit. I misunderstood things, all the deleting of warnings and such. I made a false assumption. Good to see it's fixed and that the current comments and warnings on the talk page have not been removed. Collaboration here is based on openness and communication and talk pages are there for a purpose. I would gladly have fixed it myself if I had gotten a message on my talk page, which I would have noticed before getting an email. Sometimes an email gets me first, sometimes my talk page....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the so-called warnings on my talk page (not by one but two editors jumping all over me). As per guidelines, I will remove the warnings and take a deep breath (and possibly a wikibreak too). The wikidrama is getting tiresome. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you would be permitted to remove the warnings. Removals are taken as you have read them. Navou 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reading" and "heeding" are two different things. Regardless of the current (it has been different in the past) guideline, your current pattern of editing and dealing with criticism will cause involved editors to see your deletions as devious attempts to avoid discussion and bad faith attempts to ignore warnings and to hide them from others. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here (that's another guideline), and refusal to discuss problems violates our obligation to edit collaboratively. Ownership of articles is not allowed, hence cooperation is a must. -- Fyslee/talk 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no authority to enforce Mr.Gurü carrying a scarlet letter just because it makes your life easier. The page history exists as a record of actions; if you feel a stronger record needs to exist, make sure your edit summaries reference the behavior in question. Persisting in the replacement of warnings on a user's talk page is incivil at best and disruptive at worst. -- nae'blis 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. This user needs all the allies he can get, and he isn't making life easier for himself by being uncooperative with his own allies, of which I have been one. Not very smart, but that's his problem now. He's already been (and currently is) the subject of several RFCs and this is going to end badly for him, which I'd like to prevent. I have never seen a user start so many articles and lists that have been successfully AFDed (I'm sure there are others, but this is the user I'm familiar with), and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. -- Fyslee/talk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee went against policy with his warning (because editors are permitted to delete warnings)

[53] [54] He undid my edit on my talk page and gave me a warning: You will be reported if you continue. Actually, I allowed to remove warnings from my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: Not very smart, but that's his problem now. I did not do anything for you to call me not very smart. No, it is not my problem now. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is your responsibility to comply with policy and stop breaking policy with strange warnings against policy on my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. ...and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. After Fyslee broke policy he is now saying he will leave me to my own fate. No, I have not tried the patience of the community for a long time. Fyslee, please try to remain civil. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This complaint involves old actions, not new ones. I immediately stopped interactions with QuackGuru when I was informed of the new way of doing things (as I have mentioned below). -- Fyslee/talk 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not break policy, he went against a guideline, which is entirely different. He still shouldn't have readded the warning, though. — Moe ε 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

.... and I didn't re-add anything after the explanations above. At the time I wasn't aware that things had been changed. There was a time when deletions of warnings on personal talk pages was strongly frowned upon and such deletions could call down the wrath of multiple admins. Apparently things have changed and non-cooperative editors can whitewash their talk pages, hiding the evidence of their run-ins with other editors. I'm not getting involved in this matter anymore. -- Fyslee/talk 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=138908108&oldid=138829593 This editor reverted my edits on my talk page. Also read the edit summary. Very disruptive. This is blockworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not blockworthy QuackGuru. But it is your talk page, so I have reverted to your last revision. Removal of warnings is acceptable, and an indication that the editor has read it. It's when the editor is still engaging in the activity that is when they need the warning. Plus, it's always going to be in the history that you were warned. — Moe ε 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Ned Scott wasn't aware of this discussion and was reacting the way many editors would, by following earlier procedure. Even though removal of warnings is possibly an indication that the editor has read them, it is just as likely (when it's a contentious editor who is the subject of multiple RFCs) that they have read them but may not heed them. There is a difference, and whitewashing the talk page to make it look like they have been behaving themselves can be a part of the contentious behavior. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, and editors who are involved in the editing of that person will look at matters differently than outside persons who don't know the context and get involved here at the noticeboard. They may still be right and I'm abiding by the advice I have received here.

I hope that those here who advise QuackGuru will also advise him to archive things instead of deleting them. What he has a right to do, and what is wise to do, are two different things. -- Fyslee/talk 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

This article has been arbitrarily full-protected, cleared, and redirected by JzG without any form of discussion or consensus. In the edit summary, the protecting admin had claimed that the article was original research and "crap." However, the article had numerous reliable sources to back up the information and notability of the article - and I believe the admin's actions were unjustified. Ali ^(t)_(c) 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources to the article were Wired blogs and the like. I agree that the lolcat phenomenon would be better covered under Image macro SirFozzie 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were also references to the Houston Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Austin American-Statesman. What's more, the article had survived an AfD already. I suppose DRV is the correct place to handle this? JavaTenor 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this has been somewhat corrected already by Viridae (see below), but since I already typed this out: Sources from the reference section include Akron Beacon Journal, Star Tribune, Slate Magazine, Tampa Bay Times, Creative Loafing Atlanta, Austin American-Statesman, New York Times, and two links to Wired blog. The AFD discussion (with overwhelming number of 'keeps' btw) is here. Comments by JzG on talk page prior to using admin tools = 0. Seems like if this article is to be deleted and redirected, it should be deleted after at least a discussion and probably another AFD. Why does this need to go to DRV? This deletion and redirect should be reverted, it goes against the consensus result of the AFD on April 23, 2007. R. Baley 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and protection. Protection policy explicitly forbids the use of protection to support your actions in an editing dispute. Guy is well within his rights to redirect it (and merge if he wants) but stopping anyone reversing his decision is a misuse of his admin tools. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse, more like abuse. --MichaelLinnear 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But when one acts consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living felines the rules simply don't apply... Joe 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article. The thing that has been studiously ignored throughout is that the cited content exists at the merge target, image macro, all that was lost was the crap. Reversion fomr redirect was by a single purpose account with no edit summary. I diagnose process wonkery but I am in a bad mood so who cares what I think. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And once again you are abusing your admin tools to enforce your opinion? Must be nice to be able to lock other editors out when you don't like that consensus is running against you. Resolute 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not so much the redirection to which I am opposed but (a) the manner in which it was performed and (b) the incivility and rudeness with which JzG has interacted with fellow editors in this discussion. Neither the use of admin tools to prevent other editors from undoing an editorial decision nor the hostility that followed when that action was challenged are becoming of an admin. --ElKevbo 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect all you like, but the use of protection to force your argument is extremely bad form. If your definition of process wonkery includes abusing your admin privelages in such a manner, then you had better hand back your bit now. I would be very interested to see if you could pass a recall given your recent spate of misuse of your tools. Viridae^Talk 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic needs covering but I agree that image macro would be a better place. However, Guy's actions and comments are simply not appropriate. "Be bold" does not allow you to totally go against an overwhelming AfD result which was keep and not merge, and then to protect it - that's bad. violet/riga (t) 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, the action needed doing, doing things boldly is fine -- but Guy shouldn't be doing the action? Sounds like you skip a logical step along the way. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing things boldly is fine, and undoubtably Guy believes he is acting in the better interest of the project. However, attempts to redirect it have been reverted by three or four different editors now, indicating that there is no consensus to merge/redirect at this point. Rather than dicuss the issue to reach consensus, Guy simply protected the article at the state he preferred. Resolute 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy is quite welcome to attempt the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. He is not welcome to enforce the Bold part by protecting it - the use of protection to enforce editorial decisions is specifically forbidden by the protection policy and well Guy knows it. Viridae^Talk 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Controversial content changes should not be done without discussion first; this is no exception. I don't care how bad the content is, as long as it doesn't violate BLP or a similarly strict policy, discussion and debate is more important than speed of action. And using admin tools in a content dispute is very, very bad form. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bold, revert, discuss is fine, but if you get reverted, is shows a lack of respect to other editors to go on redirecting, especially when the page has previously survived an AfD. Whatever JzG's problems with the page, since there is clearly not consensus at present to merge. He should discuss it before redirecting again. —dgies^t_c 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed - ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to post this here, but neither WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA cover the situation exclusively. I didn't want to post it on the Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks then have them refer me to Wikipedia talk:Civility. I realize issues like this are unpopular here, so I'll try to keep things as brief and concise as possible.

Background User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3

A few months ago Orsini created a a sandbox page for editors to plan a WP:RFC/U about Justanother's tendancy to violate WP:CIVIL when he encounters editors who disagree with him, often in the form of WP:ICA statements. (Other policies and guidelines have been infringed as well.)

Situation

Orsini, myself, and the other editors who have contributed to it are more interested in contributing/improving Wikipedia than we are pursuing action against Justanother. However if his attitude does not change it could impact the ability of several editors to make productive contributions. If this occurs the information gathered would be used to show a pattern of disruptive behavior going back a long time.

Summary

Since additions are made to document the ongoing negative actions and statements of Justanother they are a record of his attacks against others and are not an attack against him. I don't mention it as a threat to him, in fact I don't even discuss it with him unless he wants to talk about it. To my knowledge none of the others involved have either. Anynobody 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a no-no. If you want to do a user RfC, do so. But these type of pages are not acceptable. Please copy the text of that page to a local document as I it will be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that option as well, Jossi, however I was unable to locate anywhere in the policies and guidelines where it says that it is indeed against either. Would you please link me to where it says that? (If I had seen a policy/guideline that forbade the practice I would not have posted here having already known what the situation is with these cases.) Anynobody 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines can't exhaustively enumerate everything you shouldn't do; some common sense is needed. WP:NPA does state, though, that "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process." The important thing to note in the dispute resolution process is that every step of the process is supposed to be focused on either encouraging discussion or cooling down the dispute. Making a page to "get" a user and plan out your strategy to "beat" them in the RfC misses the point entirely. Yes, maybe you feel the user is totally impossible to negotiate with, but part of the point of early conflict resolution is to get people to put their cards on the table... if the other person is plainly dragging their feet and impossible to talk to, it'll become clear to everyone pretty quickly. RfC, in particular, is supposed to in part attract outside views that could help cool things down, not just serve as a stepping-stone to ArbCom. By approaching RfC like a courtroom, you're shooting yourself in the foot. --Aquillion 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are frequently not written down.WP:DICK is the only important one w.r.t. user conduct. RFC's were designed to help resolve disputes. Keeping a sandbox of alleged abuse tend not to resolve anything. Just start the rfc now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Anynobody. The way your question is formulated is itself a thinly veiled personal attack. It shouldn't have been posted here. My advice to you is to try reading policies for their spirit and intent, rather than in order to "locate" loopholes for attacking other editors. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Furthermore, you're supposed to inform the person you discuss about it. If common sense doesn't tell you so, please see page instructions above. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

It is always the case that given enough rope, the proverbial knot will be placed around our necks by our own doing. I would argue that by creating these type of pages, the possibility of conducting a user conduct RFC has been forfeited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I'm having a hard time accepting good faith with your post.

1. Your first words are: "I'm sorry to post here". That's clearly untrue, given that you did post here and nobody forced you to. And, you posted with such ellaborate detail.
2. You could have asked a very simple, short, and neutral question: "Is it appropriate to keep a bad conduct list about another editor, on a sandbox page." Instead, you went into elaborate details about how naughty Justanother has been, and how important it was for you to document this behavior. You biased the entire question, attempted to justify your conduct, and provided details to involve Justanother here, instead of asking a completely neutral question.
3. You went out of your way to include Justanother, but you decided Smee could be left anonymous. Why? If you wanted an opinion, and it was important enough to justify your actions by detailing the problem with Justanother, why isn't Smee's involvement significant enough to mention, given that almost 1/3 of the edits are his?
4. You failed to mention that there two full one month gaps with no entries on that page, from April 9 - May 11, and again from May 14 - June 17. I think that those gaps are significant, given that you are trying to establish a pattern of bad behavior.
5. Your claim that you are more interested in improving wikipedia than pursuing action is .. well..a load of bovine excrement. The existence of the page itself belies your statement. You are clearly pursuing action against Justanother. You simply don't have enough evidence yet, so you are collecting it IN ADVANCE, in anticipation of pursuing action in the future.
6. It's clear that you want to get him, as you aren't simply collecting information about encouters you have with him, but are watching what he does and are documenting anything he does wrong.
7. You claim to need the list to establish a pattern. That is also absurd. If there is a pattern of bad behavior, it will be obvious and easy to document at the time of an RfC.

• The fact that the page exists and has been updated by multiple users, indicates that editors were watching and monitoring Justanother.
• Justanother's request that it be deleted, to Orsini (not Anynobody), indicates that Justanother has known about the page for some time and did not raise an objection (though he could have).
• There was no activity on the page, twice, for a full month each time. This indicates that even editors who were "out to get him" could not find anything significant and shows there is no "long term pattern of abusive conduct" on the part of Justanother. It does, however, show a long term pattern of Bad Faith on the part of Anynobody, Orsini, and Smee's.

Justanother tried to handle this situation quietly and privately with Orsini. It's unfortunate that Anynobody insists on keeping things stirred up at AN/I.

Anynobody you owe Justanother, and the editors/admins who read this AN/I board, an apology. Lsi john 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior? I've seen many non-admins banned for it and some admins scolded for making lists documenting it. But some people can just do it all the time and actually get praised for it. SakotGrimshine 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Bishonen, Lsi john, and Justanother I mean no offense, but I'm actually much more interested in the opinions of editors who are uninvolved with our past. I'm not saying you can't post here, of course, but just as you have difficulty assuming my neutrality I must unfortunately reciprocate those feelings.

Aquillion, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn, and SakotGrimshine I appreciate your taking the time to comment on this issue. Your posts all reflect the general idea I understand WP:RFC/U to be, in fact with the info I've provided so far were I in your situation(s) I would probably have said something similar. I should explain there is a bit more to the history of this issue you should know. I did set up a RFC/U on Justanother's behavior around March 8th. I don't want to editorialize, so I'll just say the following diffs give an idea of what occured:

WP:RFC/U diffs

RFC/U 1

RFC/U 1 approved

RFC/U 1 deleted by Bishonen

Bishonen's background

1.1 --- ::1.2

2

3.1 --- 3.2

Jossi's background

(I'm not trying to be rude by not including his signature as I did Bishonen's, he's asked me not to do so.)

Anything I can do to assist... ... you with in relation to your dispute with User:Anynobody?

Lsi john's background

Most recent interactions listed first:
1.1 --- 1.2

2.1 --- 2.2 --- 2.3

Anynobody 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve here? Do you want the editors you regard as uninvolved to repeat the advice they gave you above? The last RFC seems to have been deleted on the grounds that insufficient attempts had been made to settle the dispute before the RFC was started; if you still have a problem with Justanother, then that would look to be a good place to start. Yomangani^talk 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have taken the hint and accept the advise given to you. Instead, you are just digging a bigger hole for yourself. I would advise you to stop using this board to make these type of remarks as it is disruptive. If you want to pursue an user conduct RfC, do so. I am closing this discussion as of now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's (only) reply

I will not bore you'all with the counter-attacks, especially as I promised Bish that I would not be a party to such use of this board. Suffice it to say that Sandbox3 is a collection of out-of-context remarks on my part, many of them after considerable provocation and, the most important thing, I vowed months ago to not rise to bait in that fashion any longer and posted a public apology for doing so in the past on my user page and on my talk page and left it up for one month. In the rare instance that I have slipped since that vow, I have promptly apologized to involved parties. --Justanother 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Zelda Classic deletion review

The wiki page on Zelda Classic was deleted earlier this week for lack of notability; to address this complaint, one of my fellow developers (Dark Nation) edited the article, and added citations to third party sources, including at least one in the media (TechTV). He also started a deletion review of the page.

That deletion review is now listed as "closed," with no real explanation given: the requester having "no other edits" strikes me as a highly spurious reason to ignore a review request.

Is it possible to start a calm discussion of the page's deletion and review? I believe that it is possible to create a page on this topic which meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and would like to find out what I need to do to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talk • contribs)

Do you have any links, or diffs? It's kind of hard for me to hunt down what you're talking about without some direction. --Haemo 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links:

• Zelda Classic's deletion log: [55]
• The original AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda Classic
• A discussion on the subject can be found at Talk:Zelda Classic

–Gunslinger47 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - it looks to me like the closing admin's rationale was just a little terse, and his actual justification was that the re-created article did not substantially differ from the original content. Perhaps he could stop by and comment? --Haemo 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a wikipedia newbie and am not sure how to post diffs or even access the old page; when I go to the Zelda Classic wiki page I just get a "deleted and protected" page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talk • contribs)

That's okay, another editor helped you on this one. I left Guy a message on his talk, so hopefully he will show up soon. Also, please sign your posts so they are easier to read. --Haemo 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I would like to request that the old Zelda Classic page be undeleted and unprotected, to allow for revision leading to the article meeting the notability guidelines. According to Wikipedia's notability policy, an article should be deleted "if appropriate sources cannot be found"; in this case such a claim is absurd, since after a few minutes of searching I found:

TechTV http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3637/Rick_Thorne_5MP_Digital_Cams_WiFi_Dog_Backpack.html
Gaming Today http://news.filefront.com/zelda-classic-free-tribute-to-the-classic-game/
Slashdot http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/146238
Electronic Gaming Monthly: In the Zelda 2005 article (not available online; I could find a print citation given time)

In short, I do not understand why this article was deleted (and then had its undeletion review summarily closed without discussion) when the only problem with the article was lack of secondary source citations - which could be easily added if editors are given the chance.
Evouga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion ran for five days, which is the appropriate length of time for such discussions, and once a deletion discussion is closed, it should not be added to. If you disagree with the deletion, you can list the deleted article at WP:DRV, but you need to come up with new reasons for why you think the deletion was incorrect, as there was a strong consensus for deletion, and DRV is to discuss improper closures, not to re-debate the notability of the subject matter. Corvus cornix 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I do believe deletion was incorrect. The notability guidelines say that articles should be deleted if sufficient secondary sources cannot be found. Though perhaps the original author, and the people who voted in the deletion discussion, were not willing to do so, I am and have done so. I now wish to clean up the article so that its adherence to Wikipedia policy may be reconsidered. What should I do?

Evouga 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. Present your sources. Corvus cornix 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so. I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate, since the first deletion review was closed for the requester having no other edits, and I am in the same situation. Evouga 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by Ryulong

Yesterday I was indef blocked by Ryulong with the 3-word summary in the block log "Abusing multiple accounts", despite the fact that I had engaged in no disruptive or abusive behavior. Apparently he objected to my tagging of an image as needing a fair use rationale when it actually didn't. (This was my mistake and I would gladly have corrected it myself, given the opportunity.) No message was left on my talk page regarding the reason for the indefinite block.

I spent the day, on and off, attempting to resolve the issue by e-mail and IRC. The indefinite block was endorsed by SlimVirgin; I finally contacted Ryulong on #wikipedia-en-unblock; his behavior there toward me was incivil and he terminated the conversation after a brief time. That said, shortly afterward he unblocked me.

I twice attempted to post the log of our IRC conversation in my userspace as a temporary reference for this report (per the unblock channel notices, those logs may be published); but Ryulong deleted them as quickly as I could upload them.

I have no desire to beat a dead horse, or to get into a long discussion here. I just felt that Ryulong's behavior should be called to the attention of someone. Videmus Omnia 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though you may not be able to post the logs, could you explain what transpired in the channel, to the best of your recollection, and let Ryulong reply to it, and explain himself? --Haemo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, he wouldn't tell me how I deserved an indef block, and when I requested a review here at WP:ANI or at WP:AN, he said my request was "irrelevant", then said "I'm done with this" and terminated the conversation. Videmus Omnia 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound very civil; people who have problems with a block deserve to be treated with respect, especially when their concerns surround the block rationale being incorrect. However, let's wait for Ryulong's reponse. --Haemo 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a case of mistaken identity, for which Ryūlóng appologized.[56]

As for the the heavy-handed treatment Videmus endured in the IRC channel, I'm unclear on if Wikipedia policies extend to cover off-site conduct. –Gunslinger47 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the user in question was a sockpuppet of someone due to his immediate edits concerning {{nrd}} on various images. I blocked, and sought out a checkuser to see if this sort of sockpuppet was permitted. I was not able to procure one until this evening. Anyway, when Videmus Omnia made contact with Slim Virgin through unblock-en-l, he had said that he changed accounts as per his right to vanish. When I asked him if he could give me the name of his former account through a private message so I can confirm that the account did not violate policy, he did not comply, and simply continued to ask why I had blocked him. I left the channel at that point. Based on some of the information my IRC client gave me, I did some digging on Wikipedia, found what I believed was the account he was talking about, and unblocked him and removed the autoblock on his IP. His only actions in the past two hours have been posting the log in that subpage, and then making various complaints about my actions in the deletion, and the tone I had in the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a case of mistaken identity, coupled with some raised hackles all around. However, SlimVirgin's comments are odd; they claim he admitted to using multiple accounts. I guess this is just another part of the misunderstanding going on here. Videmus, I think Ryulong understands that you were upset by what happened, and he apologized. You've also brought it up here, and I understand where you're coming from -- being accidentally blocked can be a real heart-stopper. However, as NewYorkBrad said on your talk page, it's probably best if you move on. In my opinion, I think it was borderline incivil what went on there, but it's understandable given what he explained. This is a real gray area, and I think you would do well to just put it behind you -- I don't think you're really going to get a lot more out of this process than the account you just got. Just remember that we're all friends here, and no one's out to get anyone - just smile, and move on. --Haemo 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHy can't IRC chats be publishd here like Videmus tried? That smacks of the IRC elitism often brought up (and quashed) here on AN/I. What's the deal? ThuranX 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freenode doesn't let anyone publish logs, for privacy reasons. We try to keep up our end of that bargain. --Haemo 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then move to another IRC provider, problem solved. Hypnosadist 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm sorry, but that just sounds like 'hey all, let's go talk in this place where no one can prove we ever said anything' and smacks of cabalism. Now that I understand this, count me among the masses opposed to IRC use by Admins to create 'consensus' for things on Wiki. Without transparency, there's no accountability. ThuranX 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Wikimedia Freenode channels do not permit the posting of logs publically. Now, #wikipedia-en-unblock is a grey area, in that public logging is permitted, but discouraged. Administrators can see the content of the discussion at Special:Undelete/User:Videmus Omnia/Ryulong. #wikipedia-en-unblock is a public channel, and anyone that was in there knew what went on, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an attempt to create "consensus" - it is a useful service, to help contact admins in real-time. It's a service. And if you've ever spent time on IRC, you know there is no cabal. --Haemo 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that there is 'no cabal', however, the secrecy protecting IRC from review doesn't help to dissuade those who feel that Admins gang up on them from having those feelings. My point is that IRC decisions cannot be reviewed like a Wikipedia Talk apge can, nor like a WP: page can, like this one. That's it. There are a few areas in which IRC has merit, but it's not universally great. ThuranX 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the problem here, this was the unblock channel, the editor in question joined that channel and discussed with the blocking admin, and the logs aren't published. That is no different to the normal practice of encouraging users to email the blocking admin (Indeed it's only a couple of years back that this was your only option), we don't allow publishing of private email correspondance either. --pgk 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, #wikipedia-en-unblock channel expressly permits public logging of what transpires in the channel. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may post IRC logs if you wish, James F's "IRC rules" (what you may (and may not) do) don't apply to Wikipedia. I'd also advise that you may start a request for comment into Ryulong's misuse of administrative powers, due to the nature of this being an on-going habbit (but, of course, Ryulong has cascade protected his RfC already -- irony, or what). Matthew 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like how we constantly get told that IRC is nothing to do with wikipedia and thus any problems with admins using it are nothing to do with Wikipedia. However if someone wants to publish logs, well that's against the rules of Freenode and should be removed. So what if it's against freenodes regs? That's freenodes business to enforce not wikipedia because (as we keep being told) the two are unconnected. --Fredrick day 10:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Public logging of Wikimedia channels is expressly prohibited on Meta and should not be done. Regular posting of logs is a blockable offence. There are legal issues with this as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps on meta it's prohibited... let us be thankful their policy doesn't extend here. Matthew 10:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It extends to each and every project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy on Meta seems to consist of "logging is prohibited because we've said that logging is prohibited". --Fredrick day 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then challenge policy, we have already have had these discussions a lot many times before on this very page. One of the major reasons of prohibiting public logging is that material becomes libel once published, and that is not one of the conditions with which users engage in multi-partite discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh so we need IRC channels to help protect admins from the libel they are spouting, very interesting. Hypnosadist 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to a page that says Meta policy trumps (local) wikipedia policy - because I cannot find such a thing either here or there - our own policy page doesn't even seem to mention Meta's involvement in the development of policy. --Fredrick day 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further checking seems to reveal that there is infact no policy against logging on META - there is 1) a guideline page which states that maybe it's not a good idea and 2) Because the Wikimedia IRC channels are not officially WMF material, this page could never be deemed any form of official policy. However, those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels have stated that they are official, and so, within #wikipedia at least, these rules are binding :-) - so as far as I can see - the state that "Meta prohibits logging" does not seem to be true or is badly worded - unless there is another policy page there I cannot find? --Fredrick day 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the no-public-logging rule comes from; it's in the topic of every Wikipedia-related IRC channel I've visited, but I'm not sure about the original source. I feel the lack of logging interferes with my ability to do anthing substantive on IRC (which I hardly ever use, by the way); if something isn't logged and you can't see where a decision was made, the decision may as well not have been made at all because you'll have to make it again to demonstrate where the consensus is (although this is preferable in my view to a situation in which private decisions could sensibly be binding, except in OFFICE and similar cases). Other channels on Freenode are logged; for instance, sometimes something on Esolang (another wiki) is discussed on #esoteric on Freenode, but there are two logging bots there constantly so that something can be referred to if necessary (Esolang doesn't get enough traffic for this to have been necessary, yet, and discussing the wiki isn't the prime purpose of the channel). I would like a logged channel to be available, possibly as an alternative to the current unlogged channel, but I'd be interested to hear where the no-public-logging rule (which I respect; I don't even have private logs of Wikipedia channels) comes from, and I'm interested as to what its rationale is. (Presumably it was discussed in an unlogged channel somewhere, so nobody can now find the original discussion...) --ais523 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears that ais523's work proves that the logs can be shown, so editors should not be blocked for sharing them with us. Hypnosadist 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I kind of think the topic of discussion has changed somewhat. If you have an issue with IRC or anything else, I'd really prefer it to be taken elsewhere, as it isn't very relevant to Ryulong specifically. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, thank you, Zero, for bringing some intelligence here)

What the hell went on here? Logging is discouraged with the unblock channel. I blocked him before he signed on there, and he was merely in there to get unblocked. I unblocked him after finding out what I asked him to begin with. Again, this is not an issue for WP:ANI. If I was slightly incivil in dealing with Videmus through the IRC channel, that was because he was:

1. Requesting that I ask for review of the block I made on a 4 day old account (his) here at ANI or at AN.
2. Asking why I blocked him (which I told him and I explained further up)

and I was getting exasperated trying to get the information I wanted out of him. The only administrative actions I performed in dealing with him were deleting of the log he took, because I was not aware of #wikipedia-en-unblock's permitance of such a fact. But honestly, anything beyond my unblock is beating a dead horse (damn I've used that term a lot this morning). If Videmus contributes, I'll have nothing else to do with him. If he disrupts, I'll block him. And the only reason Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong is cascade protected is because during the early days of my adminship, I was dealing with sockpuppets who repeatedly recreated that page because of a proper block I made on vandalism accounts (see User:CBDrunkerson). It can be taken off at any time, although I see no basis for any RfC with this situation (Matthew doesn't feel I'm an administrator anyway). Also, the guidelines are currently at meta:IRC guidelines: "Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. This is a good rule of thumb, but some channels do not have this restriction - if in doubt, check." If someone wants to restore the logs of that channel in his subspace, then they can, but nothing will come out of it being published or not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok just as long as we now know there is no policy to stop publishing logs and therefore no-one should be blocked for publishing them. Hypnosadist 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what this block was about, anyway. I had suspicions of sockpuppetry, and my "incivility" was after he would not reveal to me information I requested to unblock him, which I did in the long run. And per comments below this, I'll be unsalting the RfC page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting against the creation of an RfC on yourself is the sort of thing that, regardless of the actual reasons behind it, certainly gives an appearance that you're making yourself immune to criticism, like the "untouchable caste" I've been lambasted for hypothesizing the existence of before. *Dan T.* 12:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the RfC page has been protected against creation since February as a temporary measure, I'm going to un-salt it. Any problem with that? MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP#Articles_about_Edward_Gibbon

Resolved

 – Pages semi-protected.

Could someone adjudicate this? An anon with a floating IP is continuing Stevewk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 's revert war against standard formatting and infoboxes on these four articles. The section title does not contain a {{la}} tag, but that's because these are four articles with the same problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And incivility continues, as here. Edit summary: continuing to revert defacements by braindead busybodies.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done... sorry it took so long to get this taken care of. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to stop User:DavidYork71 and others

He continues to create new user accounts after three edits in an article (see contributions of Progressoriser, Llangowen, Dyspareunia, User:RealismIncorporated) . Hence I cannot file a WP:3RR report. Filing checkuser report is useless because, he leave his old accounts after some edits. For example see Islam and children histroy [57]. I know check user will confirm my allegation but what the use when he will create another account in a second. Do we have some more useful and long-term solution? I suggest make creating account difficult may be? --- A. L. M. 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't make account creation any more difficult, there's nothing in the software to let us. I suggest you file a checkuser request, and also ask the checkuser to block and underlying IP addresses ACB. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it has been not done before. There is a long list of user banned, see his old check user log Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DavidYork71. We can make it neccessary to specify a valid email address. Hence each time he (and others like him) has to create a new email address. --- A. L. M. 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we can't make account creation any more difficult. If you want new features, ask the developers at Bugzilla. None of us can make creating accounts more difficult. You need to try to relax a bit and not be so confrontational; I suggested checkuser because you never mentioned it had already been done. Make sure you state the situation clearly to get the best feedback, otherwise people will just suggest things you've done before. --Deskana (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with ALM's frustration - it seems he's been stalked by DY71 socks, as have I on obscure articles I'm working on. There's nothing that can be done really, but to just revert, revert and revert - one day he will get bored, and he's already had bored patches. The point is, that his edits are actually not on wikipedia that long at all before they get removed. Perhaps we can get a list together of people who are aware of DY71 and notify everyone when he comes on. The systems worked reasonably well tonight. There is also a suggestion on WP:3RR of an exemption to the rule of 3RR if it is to revert a banned user, but it is not clear. I suggest we seek to have that clarified for continuous reverts of DY71. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions too. There are some good admins who have been great in keeping him in check. It's like some illnesses you can't eradicate, you just need to manage.

It's a sad and pathetic case, i really wonder what motivates him to do it. Something is sadly wrong.Merbabu 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign - this about 15 mins late).

For the record, reverting edits of banned users is not covered under 3RR. You can revert edits of banned users as often as you want and not get blocked for 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? OK, I will give it a go. :) Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to a standard checkuser, you can go to the bottom of WP:RFCU and file a "Request for IP check" - this is an attempt to identify and block the underlying IP's DavidYork is using. Maybe this has also already been done - these IP checks are not archiving for the long-term - but if not, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, you could consider semi-protection of the target pages, rapid reporting of the socks, reverting their edits, and denying them the satisfaction of getting everyone worked up. Many, if not all, of these strategies are probably already being used here. Eventually, the torrent will subside. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

rapid reporting of socks? Where too? Normally, it takes a while to wait for a checkuser or an admin who knows the situation. Is there a place you can suggest to rapid report? thanks. --Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, ask that these pages be semi-protected. That will stop both IPs and newly-generated throwaway accounts from editing. - Merzbow 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record (although it sounds like this goes beyond simply WP:3RR), the three-revert rule applies to users, not accounts. If you can credibly show that two accounts belong to the same user, their edits count together for the 3RR, and, as noted above, edits made by a blocked user may then be reverted freely. A checkuser isn't necessary when it is trivially clear to any observer that someone is using a series of socks. --Aquillion 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps is needed is a place like WP:AIV to report ongoing transparent sockpuppetry of known sockpuppeteers. The system now is only (vaguely) effective against puppeteers who have trouble accessing another IP or who invest in their new usernames. For a case like this, RfCU isn't the right venue - we already know it's DavidYork71, why wait a day and waste checkuser time confirming it - and it would be bothersome to post every new puppet on this board. Yet it seems that some administrators now see the existence of RfCU as an excuse not to block obvious socks on sight, despite the clear language of RfCU: "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet: Block. No checkuser is necessary."Proabivouac 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Aquillion 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Several reports there appear to be several days old, and unlike AIV, they are often treated as matters requiring the careful investigation of an administrator.Proabivouac 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i like your suggestions, which let editors take on the issue themselves. Combined with the earlier suggestion above that reverting obvious disruptive socks exempts good faith editors from WP:3RR, this should see us getting around our tiresome and frustrating hamstringing in red tape that has been playing into DY71's hands. Thanks all. Merbabu 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack edits

Resolved

 – Vandalism-only account blocked.

Could someone please have a look at this editor please- numerous offensive comments [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is quite shocking is that noone even warned him despite most of the edits being reverted. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Level three vandalism warning posted. HalfShadow 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't those edits warrant something a little stronger than that? I strongly think the person should be blocked.

"Irish are filthy Germanic/Romanic scum." [64]

Naming a living boxer "The Disgusting Nigger" [65].

Naming a living actress "The Prostitute" right in the top of the article[66] which stayed there for over a day.

and worse. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and at least half of his edits seem on the level. A three seemed appropriate. Anything above a two is basically the equivalent of 'Stop screwing about or we'll lock you' anyway. HalfShadow 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not "on the level" at all- they are all either rambling nonsense about red hair and apart from that adding derogatory racially and sexually offensive material to biographies of living people. Oh and I just found this one to add to it [67]. This person is contributing nothing of value to this project. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen enough, between the above cited diffs and this one, this one, and this one, which I found by randomly picking from the contrib history. To make matters worse, these diffs deal with living people. I've indefinitely blocked the account to prevent more such edits; comments? MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Those were awful edits. We will not miss contributions like these. --John 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. What I find hard to understand is why noone posted a message warning him for his behaviour before in which case he might well have been blocked much earlier. Would it be possible in the future to automatically warn or "mark" an account when reverting then we might avoid something like this happening? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen anything before now, or he'd have been warned by me (and possibly banned already). And my point was that they weren't derogatory trash like what got him banned, not necessarily that they were anything of value. HalfShadow 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying as long as an editor doesn't make edits that are solely offensive you then will then allow that editor to "get away" with edits such as those above? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody 'gets away' with anything here. If an admin decides a warning isn't enough, they are free to do what needs to be done. I will remind you again that I am not an admin and that I have to follow procedure as I see it. To me that means warning and then reporting. If that isn't good enough for you, you'd be surprised how little that bothers me. HalfShadow 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lay off and leave User:HalfShadow alone. He's a volunteer, like we all are, and he's doing his best. It's not his fault that it took a few days to catch this particular vandal, and his warning was erring on the side of assuming good faith, which is hard to criticize. Situation's resolved, we'll all keep our eyes peeled in the future, and no hard feelings, right? MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think we should make it clear to people that make edits like this person did above that they are not welcome to edit here- I don't think the message that HalfShadow left really reflected the seriousness of those edits- and yes it does matter because if HalfShadow think like that then other people who come to this site will think it's OK and just post a little minor warning and most other people will just forget anyway (remember no one actually posted ANY warnings till I brought this up). I assume (or hope) that "assuming good faith" doesn't extend to encouraging editors that call people "disgusting niggers" and call women who dare to show their faces "prostitutes"- if we do encourage them, they will only make improving the encyclopedia harder. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin protects POV version

Admin User:CBM declines to insert new updates or news links to this article [68] [69] citing this is a Wikipedia policy. Can someone explain if its a correct interpretation? He refused to move the protection to last known stable version until consensus is arrived... effectively endorsing a POV version. More importantly, he refuses to update the page with even minor edits until the ArbCom case of Bakasuprman is resolved (which is totally irrelevant to this article). Let us suppose Bakasuprman is indefinitely blocked as a result of the ArbCom. Does that imply this article too would be indefinitely protected? I am more worried that the article would reach rigor mortis if minor edits are refused. Anwar 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought page protection was explicitly not an endorsement of the version that happens to coincidentally be protected. Sancho 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed and User:CBM even says as much in one of the provided diffs. --Fredrick day 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review m:The_wrong_version. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, are you suggesting he make a point? (inside joke) Lsi john 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Remarks stricken, so they won't be misunderstood further. Lsi john 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CBM wasn't even the one who protected that page. Not only that, but User:Rama's Arrow protected it after a ten-hour lull in the edit-warring, without making any change (it looks like it was a slow-burn edit war, so it's not so odd.) It doesn't make any sense to allege that it was deliberately protected on a particular POV under such circumstances. Now, granted, {{editprotected}} can be used to request changes, and it would be a little odd if CBM was refusing to make minor typo or spelling corrections... but controversial edits aren't usually made via that, since it would defeat the purpose of protection. Protection in a content dispute is supposed to be blind, not endorsing any version; you're asking CBM to endorse your favored one, which is exactly what the protection policy is supposed to prevent. Finally, protection doesn't usually last that long. Does it really matter if the page says one thing or the other for the next 24 hours? You should be using this time to try and hammer out an agreement on what it will say after that... even if CBM edited it to your favored version, it wouldn't stay protected for ever, so you'll still have to negotiate eventually. --Aquillion 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

[70] - could someone please deal with User:Cstanfie? Corvus cornix 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with a note about legal threats and how our blocking policy relates to them. -- Merope 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[71] - Sock puppet Rellis0415 (talk · contribs) is continuing the legal threats. Corvus cornix 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked by User:Ryulong. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Venetian albania-montenegro

An article by User:Brunodam has been made that is known as Venetian albania-montenegro, however the article is highly controversial as it both failed WP:N and violated (and still violates) WP:NOR. The article seemed to be research of a University Professor (who's the Wikipedian that created this). We have managed to find a sourced name for the article, moving it to Venetian Albania. However the problems regarding the fact that over 70% of the article's content have absolutely no relevance to the article remains. The whole situation can be observed here. The author accuses me and User:Sideshow Bob, who are opposing the majority of this article's content, for nationalism, and considers that we as Montenegrins/Yugoslavs/whatever-from-former-Yugoslavia are not capable to judge the facts properly, demanding/insisting I REQUEST AN IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR TO STOP THE VANDALISMS ! for quite several times. Here, at the article's talk page the current discussion can be observed.

As per this user's demands for an administrator that does not originate from former Yugoslavia and refusal to discuss with Wikipedians who do, I am asking anyone free to oversee the situation and put his opinion on the talk page. Thanks in advance and sorry for the buggin'. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Knock-knock. --PaxEquilibrium 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

212.219.203.115

On following up a Help Desk post, I reviewed the contributions of 212.219.203.115 (talk · contribs). This IP first posted on December 16, 2005, last posted on January 24, 2007, and only made five posts total. However, those five posts all were reverted, for a variety of reasons. The Golspie post seemed to raise some tension. (See Golspie Help Desk post.) 212.219.203.115 does not seem to be using 212.219.203.115’s account for proper purposes. Please review. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHOIS says it's registered to Highland Council Education Department, Scotland. With that in mind, it's possible it's a shared IP address. If we could safely assume it was all the same user, a string of disruptive edits over a long period might be worth a block -- I'm not sure if we can make that assumption in this case, though, so I'd hesitate to block at this point in time. If problems persist, we could revisit that. Happily invite another opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth getting too worked up about. Yes, it's probably safe to assume it's a proxy, but you're also pretty much guaranteed it's the same person. A block is pointless unless it's going to be of sufficient time to still be in force the next time they're sufficiently bored. They need to get some real news up the Highlands! Ta/wangi 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Parsecboy

Resolved

 – One or more IP addresses blocked after an edit war; possible sockpuppetry? Relist if further problems arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy is showing a double-standard. He removed some of the talk page text here, yet keeps reverting the page when others remove talk page text. [72] [73]

What gives? Should this be reported as a violation?

161.55.204.157 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... it's considered bad form to remove other people's comments. Even if User:Parsecboy went a bit too far there, though, there's a difference between removing extensive off-topic arguments, like he did in the link you provided, and removing relevant discussions related to an ongoing content dispute, as happened in the other links you provided. I probably would've speedy-archived the off-topic argument myself, rather than just delete it, but User:Parsecboy can hardly be blamed for not wanting it there; it's hard to have coherent discussion on an article when people are just throwing blind invective at each other. --Aquillion 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about the other off topic arguments accusing people of theft and a contination of the same by two other users? Should these remain in the record? If yes, what is the difference between one personal attack and another? I don't understand. And are you an admin, Aquillion? If not, could I have an admin's opinion here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

It's not a big difference. The difference between an admin and an experienced user like Aquillon is three extra buttons. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer any questions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

There's a clear difference between the text being removed, and the text being restored -- specifically, the text being removed is of little (if any) apparent usefulness to the goals of this project. Contrary to what some might have you believe, talk pages are not open forums for any purpose, but are intended specifically to coordinate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Comments and sections which do not further those goals can be subject to removal; that the user is or isn't an administrator (I haven't checked) doesn't seem to factor into this, either way, unless I'm missing something. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally addressing part of the problem here. I have attempted to remove accusations of theft made by several Wiki users against another user. Those sorts of statements are pure personal attacks and as you point out, have nothing to do with any usefullness to the article. Yet User:Parsecboy keeps reverting the text each time I try to remove the useless and false personal attack statements. What can be done about that? Thank you. 161.55.204.157 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text I removed was a tangential discussion, rife with personal attacks and incivility against those who disagreed with this anon, (who was Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), until he was indef blocked for said gross incivility) that did not belong on the talk page. The text this user is trying to delete is relevant discussions on links to external youtube videos. I have done nothing wrong here. Parsecboy 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text that I removed were also personal attacks, especially the ones that wrongly accused another user of theft. I would like to see ALL personal attacks removed, not just the ones that User:Parsecboy has posted. ALL personal attacks should be removed. What is the difference between one attack and another? 161.55.204.157 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon, lets stop pretending you're anyone other than Labyrinth13. Falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. The difference between what you deleted and what I deleted is that your comments, as Labyrinth13, were deliberately malicious and incivil, with no connection to the article itself. You were just telling everyone who disagreed with you to "fuck off" because you couldn't have your way. The discussions you deleted were relevant to the article. Parsecboy 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a wiki rule that says that falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. Standing by. 161.55.204.157 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, to show where WP:NPA states that accusing someone of theft (falsly or otherwise) constitutes a personal attack. Parsecboy 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, which I why I would like an admin to render an opinion here. Are there any actual admins around who can look at this dispute? I'd love to have this settled and will abide by an admin's word. 161.55.204.157 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. But you're wrong. I can't say "Here's WP:NPA, and it says right here, that accusations of theft do not constitute personal attacks". You can, however, do the opposite. Show where it says accusations of theft do constitute personal attacks, or drop your pointless crusade. And unless it's hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page, in legal print, it doesn't exist anywhere on WP:NPA. Parsecboy 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are so cute, but I'd rather hear what an admin has to say. 161.55.204.157 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are so condescendingly avoiding the argument. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What do you care about having the accusations of theft removed, anyway? Why do you feel so strongly about leaving that sort of thing there? Would you want comments accusing you of being a criminal or say, a pedophile left in a public forum? Obviously, the answer is "no" to the last question as you saw fit to remove part of the talk discussion accusing you of being a thief here. And that is not a double-standard because of what reason? 161.55.204.157 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed your rantings because they were just that, rantings. You were pissed because you couldn't have your way, and were being extremely incivil, which has no place in Wikipedia anywhere. Regardless, just because someone accused you of being a thief doesn't mean you get to blank all sections of a talk page relating to the dispute. The reason I have reverted you is because you apparently have this desire to whitewash the talk page, so there's no obvious record of the dispute. If you're going to make claims and argue your point, be a man about it and leave it for all to see. If you're ashamed of it, then you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion . . .

So, the way I read that statement above, what is or isn't a personal attack is open to interpretation, hence the reason why I have been trying so hard to get a seasoned admin who is familiar with the subject of personal attacks to answer my main question: Is accusing someone of theft on a Wikipedia talk page a personal attack?

If the answer is yes, then the statements in question should be removed. If the answer is no, then does that opens the door to being allowed to accuse people of all sorts of things, so long as it takes place within a relevant discussion? 161.55.204.157 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin does decide that accusations of theft are personal attacks, remove them. But use a scalpel, not a hatchet. My comments (and those of others who made no such accusations) should remain untouched. Or better yet, put a strike through the comments. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved -- I think we've gotten as much closure as we're going to, for the moment. I count two or more IPs blocked, apparently related to this in some way or another. Any chance of sock/meatpuppets, I guess? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgile1991

Virgile1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This young user keeps replacing the current flags of the French regions with the old provincial flags from before the French Revolution. You can find an example of this here: Île-de-France (region) (check the page's history). The same is repeated across a majority of the 26 regions of France articles. This user was warned several times on his talk page that he should stop doing this. A discussion was also opened at Talk:Nord-Pas de Calais but he has refused to take part in it so far. It seems there's no way to discuss things with him, and I don't know what to do. This user's behvior forces me and others to watch and correct these articles on a daily base now, which is time consuming. Also note that this user's misbehavior is not limited to the French regions articles. I noticed he has also vandalized the Maine article by adding French as an official language in that US state infobox. Godefroy 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If they don't quit edit warring and start discussing, I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "they"? It's just Virgile1991 who refuses to discuss things and revert all these articles, despite having been asked to provide references for his changes by other users such as Kiwipete, ThePromenader, and myself. Anyway, if he continues to revert (which he'll probably do I'm afraid, given his past behavior), I'll report him here again. Godefroy 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"They" is simply a gender-free way to avoid using awkward constructions such as "he or she", "he/she", or artificial abominations such as "xir". --Calton | Talk 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What Calton said. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request more eyes on AfD discussion

Can I ask an outside admin to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Beck? I nominated this today for failing WP:BIO, which triggered a firestorm of accusations and attacks from Oldspammer (talk · contribs), the creator of the article. Highlights are here, here, and here, for example. I took issue with some of the comments, but to no effect. Can I ask for some outside eyes on the deletion discussion, if nothing else, to keep things from degenerating further? MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me. I left a message for Oldspammer. --John 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldspammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also a username violation; I'm listing it at WP:RFCN. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice the block log - it's already been resolved by Shanel. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MagicalPhats

Resolved

Trolling. See Special:Contributions/MagicalPhats. See WP:SAND history. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page discussion... Just seems like a particularly misguided user. I'll watch them. Grandmasterka 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He agrees to stay in his user space. I'm watching closely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Throwing my hands up: Nick Dinsmore

Wow, just wow. Will an un-involved administrator please review Nick Dinsmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? It is amazing what people have to put up with in order to enforce WP:BLP and related policies. Example: [77] Burntsauce 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a "last warning" regarding personal attacks on the user's talk page. There's probably more that needs to be done there, but perhaps that's a start? MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I work with the PW folks from time to time, let me have a word with Govvy. SirFozzie 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Myleslong blocked him for a week. *sighs* SirFozzie 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A week seems a bit harsh for a single incident of personal attacks, particularly without a warning. I've left a note for Myles, and I'd actually advocate unblocking User:Govvy if he would be willing to tone it down and discuss things civilly. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalism

One or more anons are repeatedly vandalizing the Mike Koplove page. Approx 1-2 times a day for the last week. They are deleting sourced reference to the fact that the ballplayer is Jewish. Despite several RVs, by me and other non-anons, and discussion of the issue with others on the talk page. They are also often inserting all-cap drivel in place of the deleted language. I requested semi-protection, but was told 1-2 deletes a day does not qualify for that, and that I should come here. I do not want to engage in more RVs, given the 3RR. --Epeefleche 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the protection, but also declined to block, the user that is removing content (I would not class it as pure vandalism) has done so around 5 times on 2 different IP's over a period of 4 days, a block seems a little punitive here - I suggest just keep on reverting until they get bored. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I had first put this up for semiprotection on the 15th. The admin then declined it, but told me "Different admins have higher levels of activity that they require for protection, there is no set standard. ... It might be better to try WP:ANI or possibly WP:AIV something for a persistent yet slow vandal." So I tried again on page protection first, and just rcvd your response. AS to your suggestion that I just keep on reverting until they get bored, I wonder whether that is really the best use of my time and that of the others who have RVd the vandal all week. Also, as to whether it is pure vandalism, I question whether the incluson of the following, not even in the comments but in the body of the article, isn't vandalism: " DO YOU THINK ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL MIKE KOPLOVE WOULD DEVOTE THIS MUCH ATTENTION TO MY PAGE? I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. STOP WRITING THAT. IT IS IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BEING INACCURATE.; Koplove is not Jewish. I know this because I AM HIM. ; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM HALF JEWISH ON MY FATHERS SIDE BUT I AM TECHNICALLY A PRACTICING CATHOLIC.; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM NOT JEWISH.; I AM SERIOUS. STOP WRITING THIS!!!! ; ACTUALLY MY RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CORRECTNESS, MY DAD IS JEWISH, MY MOM IS CATHOLIC, AND I AM CATHOLIC. ; Koplove is Jewish. NO I AM NOT! I DO READ THIS. I AM NOT JEWISH." Also, these go back nearly a month in all. Is it really the best use of our time to keep on RVing him? For how long? Thanks.--Epeefleche 23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple solution. Next time you revert him, use your edit summary to refer him to the Wikimedia foundation offices, and ask him or his agent to directly contact them about this. If it's REALLY him (and we know it's 99.9% NOT), then he can handle it that way. If there's no Office action, then a block is even easier to substantiate. ThuranX 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tx. Will do. If it continues after that, do I come here it go for semiprotection? Tx.--Epeefleche 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by Biophys (talk · contribs) and Mike18xx (talk · contribs); BLP violations and WP:POINT from Mike18xx (talk · contribs)

Problem started with Mike18xx (talk · contribs) taking personally my attempt to have the article The Intelligence Summit deleted, as it had been the previous time the article was up for deletion. The article survived the deletion attempt, so I have been adding well sourced and legitimate material to the article. Every small change I made also included an explanation of the change in the edit summary (see the change history to see the changes). Rather than discuss changes, Mike18xx (talk · contribs) began a revert war, reverting everything without explanation even though I pressed for one in talk. Much of what he did was delete well-sourced and relevant content without discussion -- basically the equivalent of vandalism (though it is obvious he sees it as a content dispute). Then he stalked me onto another article that I have been involved in, Operation Sarindar, reverting my last edit twice, explaining in talk that his action was purely a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Biophys (talk · contribs) then clearly took a cue from Mike18xx, and stalked me back to the Intelligence Summit page, reverting my last changes there (in order to team up with Mike18xx). Biophys has done this before, showing up on the Bill Oreilly page to revert my changes after we had an earlier conflict on the Sarindar page. After that incident I warned him to stop stalking me (both in my edit summary on Oreilly and the Sarindar talk page) but he has done it again today. He also keeps renaming the Sarindar page in order to avoid content problems or notability problems -- again disrupting Wikipedia to make his point. I will add that I am not the first to have noticed Biophys's stalking behavior (see his talk page for other instances; I believe it has come up on WP:ANI previously).

I think both of these users are taking every edit personally and starting edit wars over large amounts of material based on a disagreement with small portions of the material changed. This sort of thing should be sorted out in talk but instead of responding to talk they stalk me to other pages and do other disruptive things to make their points. In addition, User:Mike18xx has engaged in several BLP violations, which I warned him about and then an admin warned him about (including a "Final Warning"; see the relevant discussion here, here, and here), yet his stalking comment to the talk page on Sarindar (comment here) included another such violation.

I'd like to work constructively with these users but they have shown again and again that they will only edit in a very one-sided manner and will disrupt Wikipedia and break the rules here in order to get their way. I believe some concrete action by admins is warranted here. csloat 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I went to The Intelligence Summit because it is closely related to Operation Sarindar that I edited today (one article is internally linked to another). I have also explained my position at the The Intelligence Summit talk page [78]. Cslot simply does not want to work in collaborative fashion; he does a lot of changes on contentious issues, without trying to explain anything and find a common ground, as should be clear from today's history of The Intelligence Summit. I have made a single edit in this article today and tried to talk with other users.Biophys 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two articles is not WP:STALKing yet, although I would recommend participants not to follow the other party's list of contributions (unless simple vandalism is there). Please follow WP:DR. Alex Bakharev 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Honestly, I "met" csloat only three times. First time, I created article Operation Sarindar, and he nominated it for deletion twice. Second time, I tried to edit an article about Bill O'Relly, and cslot promised to report me here for "wikistalking" (so I decided not to edit it anymore). Third time, I edited The Intelligence Summit today, and he reported me here. Sorry, but it is Csloat who deserved a warning for intimidating other users.Biophys 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not intimidating anyone. Your account above is false; as you well know, we had a long-standing dispute on Sarindar, which you were wrong about. An RfC quickly showed that. But after you saw me having trouble with another user, you joined forces with him. In any case I'd like an admin to review not only the stalking charge but also the BLP violations and the WP:POINT violations, which are still ongoing on the Intelligence Summit page. csloat 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Resurgent insurgent

Resolved

 – page deleted

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR:)

Resurgent insurgent keeps vandalizing my user page User:Anber. My user page contains details about me. He should not be changing it. If he sees a problem he should develop consensus from the community asking me to change it by convention. I need assistance because I don't know how to properly report this. Anber 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(end copied text)

I maintain it is advertising and should be removed. Resurgent insurgent 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. --Haemo 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an advert to me. DPeterson^talk 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. That is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to advertise your business.--Crossmr 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as an ad. Corvus cornix 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as without doubt, blatant advertising. - auburnpilot talk 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an IP who keeps removing templates from the Drew Barrymore talk page. Can someone either block the IP or protect the Talk page from unregistered users? Thank you. --David Shankbone 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. Because it is so recent, I'll take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I might have blocked, if I'd spotted this at the time; however, it seems they've stopped for now, and we don't know if they're even still on that same IP, so a block may not have much use, by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Angel of truth

Resolved

 – user blocked

The user Angel of truth (talk · contribs) has only edits which are nominating articles for deletion which I have created, probably from my list of 150 articles at User:Moeron/Created. This is most likely due to my nominating James Stunt for deletion and the subsequent IP and user vote problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt. Can someone take a look and evaluate. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet used for wikistalking, and all edits rolled back. Hesperian 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak's behavior

I'm sick of this. Consensus was reached about removing the Russian name of Podilsko-Voskresenska Line from the article (see hist). Then Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) showed up and decided to add Russian without discussion (diff). He only started discussing it after he was reverted. However, consensus on his version was not reached and he kept reverting back to his version. I had the article protected, and started a MedCab case about it. The user, not waiting for consensus to be reached at MedCab, decides to add Russian yet again (diff). Now I don't know, he's starting another edit war. Maybe the article needs to be protected, but I'm also sick of that user's behavior. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has a history of WP:3RR violations. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking hereI wonder why the position of one user (Akhristov's) is considered consensus. Another user (dima) wrote he [doesn't] mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both. Alæxis_¿question? 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My point there was that Kuban kazak was free to discuss it on the talk page, he chose not to. He only discussed it after he got reverted. I believe it could have been considered consensus since DDima and I were the only editors to the article at that time. If it was Kuban kazak's edit I would have been discussing originally, I'd wait for his input. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping. P.S. The last time I visited Kiev I heard Russian spoken as often as in Moscow. I can't see a reason for discriminating against one of the languages of this bilingual city. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the language issue, go to MedCab. I am talking about behavior here, starting a revert war while a discussion is going on is unacceptable, especially editing towards a disputed revision. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you should move your request to WP:RFP. I would support protection until the dispute is resolved. The matter does appear to be trivial, however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not move this discussion over there. I will, however, add a request for protection. This conversation stays here, it is about a user's behavior. I don't see others revert warring on that article while the MedCab discussion is taking place. Especially people who are involved in the MedCab case. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion for relevant information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#Repeated purging of text. Also I don't like the fact that another edit war is on the verge of breaking out right after the article became unprotected. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see who actually reverted first [79], not just the lead, but numerous factual corrections and grammatical mistakes (the so called low quality edits in the summary). Can I just also add that Akhristov actually left the medcab to find consensus, yet that did not prevent him from a total revert. Why should I not report this as a blatant violation of WP:HAR? After all I have the right for my work not to be reverted senselessly. --Kuban Cossack 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that a "consensus was reached", when the issue is still under mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line? -- Petri Krohn 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik

Tajik (talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [80] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [81] Despite that and numerous blocked sock accounts and IPs, some of which are recorded here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other articles by using anonymous IP 82.83.137.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Urgent attention of the administrators is required. Grandmaster 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP was recently blocked for 3RR and edit warring, for 24 hours.[82] Vassyana 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was not aware of that. But I'm sure this IP will be back to edit warring once the block expires. Please watch it. Thanks. Grandmaster 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tajik is back with another IP 82.83.155.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and he confirms on talk page that it is him: [83] Grandmaster 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth_seeker_69

Truth seeker 69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be all that one would expect form a user with that name. I have blocked this account, primarily for the creation of Joel Stuart Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a blatant POV fork of Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Joel Hayward maybe? Viridae^Talk 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Korp! Estonia on wheels

The Bronze Soldier controversy brought along a wave of new users from Estonia. Some of these are single-purpose-accounts, with an aim of waging the Russian-Estonian propaganda war on Wikipedia. This new community has a ringleader, User:Digwuren, who's contributions are limited to tendentious editing, disruptive editing, trolling and personal attacks. I cannot consider him a member of the Wikipedia community in good faith.

For the last two month I have been the largest foreign contributor (I am Finnish) to Estonia related articles. During this time I have created 11 new Estonia related articles (one in DYK) and significantly contributed to one In-the-News article. For my contributions I have been under constant attack by the ringleader and his puppets. Most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes.

The only solution I see, is that the ringleader is indefinitely blocked for total disregard of WP:NPOV, or given a community ban. I have been advised, that this issue will have to go to ArbCom, for this I have been collecting evidence.

From the talk pages, it will be extremely difficult to see which side is the vandal and POV-pusher. Digwuren has an excellent command of the English language. In his comments he manages to convey an impression of honesty. To understand the issue, one has to look deep into each party's edit histories. It will be easy to see, that Digwuren has contributed absolutely nothing of permanent value to Wikipedia. He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect. Worst of all, he has utterly failed to accept and understand Wikipedia's basic principle of neutral point of view.

After I first announced my intentions by asking for advise from User:Neil, Digwuren and his group of "volunteers" have been preparing to counterattack, by filing a WP:RFC/U against me. I find this action to be yet an other indication of bad faith. My edit history is clean from most, if not all wrongdoing. I have not reverted any of Digwuren's original contributions. In the "edit wars" I have defended my own edits from what I see as disruption and POV-pushing by him and his followers.

I interrupt this tirade to point out that Petri Krohn is lying about the timeline. The WP:RFC/U was first mentioned in [84], more than eight hours before this "asking for advice": [85]. I'm calling it a lie this boldly because this first mention happened on Petri Krohn's very own user talk page; in all reasonability, he must have known it.

Now, in a theatrical manner, I ask you: who is the one of bad faith? Digwuren 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I come here to ask for advice. Does this issue need to go to ArbCom? Do we have to wait for Digwuren to file his WP:RFC/U. Will some rouge admin just block him indefinitely? More important, if he is indefinitely blocked, is there some administrator around that would revert the decision? -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Why the title? The Korp! or korporatsioon are Estonian student nations, the most famous of these is Korp! Sakala. The Estonians in this dispute are most, if not all, classmates at the University of Tartu, as evident in this checkuser request. -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This dellusion is becoming anoying... Prove it or stop it!--Alexia Death 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to repeat it here. Digwuren is obviously not a single-purpose account. He has created at least Kukly (not very insightful stub as of now, but really necessary), June deportation, March deportation, tagged articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia, wikified internal links etc. Yes, there are some problems with edit-warring, but obviously, one cannot be engaged in edit-warring by oneself. Another party is needed. The behavior of Petri during the last two months looks like harassment. Could you both please stop? Blaming people for their place of study is something. Colchicum 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos! This shows real improvement. All three articles are created in the last four days. Two of them clearly serve his single purpose. On the balace of things, they hardly change the picture. -- Petri Krohn 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change a picture in your mind, but I don't understand why the Wikipedia community should bother with it. The accusations He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect are clearly false, the rest of the story has also very limited credibility. Petri, you are a good editor (at least when it doesn't concern Soviet-East European relationships), but I don't appreciate your efforts to eliminate the Estonian community from en-Wiki. POV policy requires different significant points of view to be represented rather than the only "true" one. Colchicum 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will change that to He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect before June 15. I have not been stalking, like he is. -- Petri Krohn 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bothering to verify your facts before making claims is not stalking. And since when there is a deadline on how long can someone be a member before creating a new article?--Alexia Death 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would classify this as harrasment based on nationality: As far as I know, none of the accused have never even seen eachother, and only relation between them is estonian nationality. Although you have contributed a lot to Estonian related articles, most of the edits are heavily biased Soviet POV. I do also agree that editwars is not a solution, but your smart manipulations are hard to fight on legal grounds aswell, specially counting the fact that you refuse of any normal cooperation and throw baseless accusations of trolling and puppetry instead. Suva 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like an attempt to get opposition banned before "S*it hits the fan"... First on Alex Bakharevs and Neils talkpages and now here. I hope the admin making a decision on this takes a deep hard look into the matters before making a decision. Just a note tho. The RFC/U is not a retaliation for anything. It just has become inevitable at this point. Even without Digwurren(should sanity be having a day off), it is going to happen.--Alexia Death 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would point out that the mass scale evidence-gathering associated with the RFC/U -- incidentally, a reason why filing it is not a matter of a single day but may take as long as a whole week -- makes it waaaay easy to map, and at times, even predict Petri Krohn's actions. For example, as Alexia Death points out here, this complaint here on WP:AN/I belongs to the rubric of clear pattern to try to avoid responsibility. It is not the first one, either; Petri Krohn has previously complained here. (Be sure to also check out the following, currently archived, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.) Digwuren 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to distance myself a bit during last few days, but it seems to be inevitable that I must get involved again.

While Digwuren has not been perhaps a paragon of a perfect Wikipedian, he has not done anything that would require blocking. In many cases he has just reacted to Petri's edits and edit summaries - that seem to be inserted in many cases just to provoke or insult other editors. My own first contact with Petri was when he reverted my removal of unsourced (and incorrect) claim here with edit summary reverted drive-by deletionist with POV agenda. Until lately - undoubtedly because of the upcoming WP:RFC/U - his edit summaries were often like Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.

Current claim of Korp! Estonia on wheels is clearly meant to intimidate his opponents - and get rid of Digwuren. Like it has been repeatedly shown, we are not sockpuppets, we do not know each other and do not communicate outside of Wikipedia (I did have one email from Digwuren while he was blocked, but I replied on his talk page - exactly because I wanted to avoid basis all such accusations). We are not from same class/university course (whole claim is silly - I finished biology, as far as I know, Digwuren and Alexia IT, but on different years. Suva is a musician, I think 3 Lövi has something to do with law and I suspect Erik Jesse is still in the university, studying law or philosophy. I have no idea about Staberinde).

To summarize this, accusations are clearly baseless and only meant to intimidate and hide Petri's own misjudgments.

DLX 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets look at facts for a moment. Petri is currently trying to push for block of Digwuren but also tries to get some admin to do it without Arbcom. Reason is simple, in ArbCom Petri's open racism aganist Estonians would be unavoidably be part of discussion. Also he would be actualy required to prove his numerous accusations(of course I do not deny that some of them may have some truth in them, but from my personal experience, Petri seems to be make quite serious accusations oftenly with practically non-existant evidence). I say, if Petri wants Arbcom, go for it.--Staberinde 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've actually said it before, prety please make this ArbCom happen, This sword tangling over someones head is nerve wrecking and starts to look more and more like intimidation.--Alexia Death 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent view

I have nothing to do with any of these articles. User:Petri Krohn has a high edit count, and a long history of constructive editing. I think Alexia Death deserves a 24 block for this rude comment posted above. User:Digwuren has a checkered history, at best, and should worry about himself before worrying about other users. This isn't the place to litigate a content dispute. Come here with specific complaints about user conduct and show diffs, and please don't make long winded arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My jaw dropped when I read this... I cant believe it. Ive been called a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet and a national extremist by this user without any finger pointing directed at him and now I'm being rude by simply stating that this constant and persistent claim is WRONG?--Alexia Death 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should apologize for calling the other editor insane. Feel free to refute him as strongly as you like, but maintain civility or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delusion does NOT imply insanity by default. I feel that I have nothing to apologize for.--Alexia Death 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when has delusion been a banned word? Is saying that one is mistaking also an insult? The text above is indeed a long-time belief of Petri (repeated twice today in different places). Claiming that it is false is not a crime, regardless of its holder's edit count. Colchicum 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As to checkered history, both contributors have experienced blocks for edit-warring, no reason for preferences here.Colchicum 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One block versus 21,000 edits over 23 months is very different from two blocks against 2500 edits in two months, and calling somebody insane is out of bounds. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And fame is everything? Old timers cant make mistakes? Cant have profusely false beliefs and biases?--Alexia Death 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in the complaint, you can take a look at this. I think this is way too much for a RfC, indeed, it would even make for an Arbitration, due to seriousness of the issues.
And please do note, that someone's high edit count is not a justification for misbehaviour. E.J. 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[86] - this is just to give you the idea of the dispute. Colchicum 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The complaint is not a good example of an investigation. There's no chance of this going to arbitration, in my opinion, because it's a simple content dispute. Arbcom generally doesn't hear content disputes. If you want help with investigations, leave a message on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Having seen your way of responding to complaints here (e.g removing others' comments), I doubt if any of us would need your 'help' with investigations (an offer which in itself is most kind of course).E.J. 14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

E.J. - that was a simple edit conflict, not an intentional deletion. I was copying my comments from the lower box to the top box and accidentally womped something. Your response is a fine example of tenditious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did write something in some of these articles. As far as the Bronze Soldier is concerned, any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text (which is relevant, since the last "German" defenders of Estonia were in fact an SS Walloonia detachment (check Leon Degrelle, he was a fascist), and among the defenders of the Narva there were SS regiments composed of fascists from Flanders, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries) was summarily reverted within minutes. On Lydia Koidula I not only tried to keep Livonia as part of the denomination of her birth place (which is in fact a compromise already, some people would argue that according to wiki conventions we should say that she was born in Russia) but tried to improve the general makeup of the text. I quickly noticed that a whole bunch of editors devoted much more energy to keeping out this one mention of Livonia than to the pertinent question whether about half of the second paragraph refers to Koidula or to Kreuzwald. But of course, I am still naive enough to believe that this is an encyclopedia, and not a repository of political pamphlets.--Pan Gerwazy 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve the community ban of Digwuren on account of his mind-boggling history of disruption, revert-warring, and trolling that destabilize a large segment of Wikipedia.[87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95][96] [97] [98] His meatpuppets (Alexia Death, DLX, Staberinde, Suva) should be placed on one-revert parole. Martintg, 3 Löwi and Colchicum should be cautioned and their activities closely scrutinized, as they routinely lend their support to disruption and trolling on the part of the Tartu accounts. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any proofs for the accusations? If there is no specific piece of evidence, Ghirlandajo as an involved party should be subject to scrutiny as well. Colchicum 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the diffs of Digwuren you have just provided? Content dispute mostly. In one case you erased a comment by Digwuren on Alexia Death's talk page and Digwuren reverted it. I understand that you feel disrupted, but let's stop this.Colchicum 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to give the people sense of your involvement, Talk:Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia#Fraudulent edits. Colchicum 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The root cause of the problem is Petri Krohn. Despite his otherwise high edit count, he still regularly manages to insult Estonia and Estonians (see, just, e.g., this accusation of "terrorism" [99]. Put it simply, without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" (and, of course, there have not been any, and will never be nowhere near the same amount of insults flying the other way against "leftist pro-Soviet Finns"). Just my 2 cents, and please save your time by not accusing me of being one of Digwuren's meatpuppets. Cheers, --3 Löwi 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" I disagree. Digwuren started edit war on Monument of Lihula, repeatedly deleting referenced materials and denying link between Holocaust Denial and building monuments to Nazi collaborators and got 48 hr. ban for 3RR violation. After that he responded on comment about very POV error made in the source he provided with personal attack. RJ CG 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the Estonian Wiki-editors and real life Estonians I know support or openly engage in Holocaust denial. Nobody has built any monuments in Estonia to commemorate collaboration with the Nazis. Insinuating so is not only blatantly wrong, but also extremely (and personally) offensive. What you, RJ CG, are doing (see above) is the same kind of offensive word play which Digwuren, perhaps a bit less diplomatically and a bit more painfully, reacted to in the first place. By saying this, I have no intention to insult you or anyone. However, I am not, and the other Estonian and Estophile editors also are not, obligated to prove over and over again something that is rather obvious: we do not support Holocaust denial and we do not see collaboration with the Nazis as something deserving monuments. Over and out, --3 Löwi 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to familiarize yourself with Monument of Lihula page, it's edit history and talk page before chiming in. There was never any wholesale accusation of Estonians in Nazi sympaties or Holocaust denialism. There was, however, referenced data about Mayor being Holocaust denier (he actually published book about it). Memorial honoured those who fought in the army of Nazi Germany or the Waffen SS, this was never disputed in any of reference materials too (materials include article from Estonian newspaper translated by Digwuren). In any European country those who fought in the German Army or the Waffen SS are called collaborators, even if they had very valid reasons to do it. Digwuren started edit war trying to deny links of Holocaust denial and building monument to Nazi collaborators, even if both acts are from the same person. RJ CG 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion of Petri Krohn and Ghirla. I am also independant and arrived while surfing at a heavily biased page about an Estonian politician. An attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren. See [100]. I don't approve indefinite community bans, but a year is ok. Otto 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla just managed to accuse 7 different editors(not counting Digwuren). I expect that accusations aganist me(meatpuppetry) are proved somehow, and I assume other editors who were called meatpuppets or were accused in disruption and trolling also have similar expectations. Also as I was accused by ghirla I think some of his own comments(all breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks) are appropriate here: campaign of persecution organized by a group of well-known extremist editors whose activities are coordinated from Estonian Wikipedia, group of Estonian extremist editors, including yourself, gang of trolls, Statements in support for extremist editors, a troll-free territory. I think this helps to understand "neutrality" of this user.--Staberinde 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that I can tell a troll from a reasonable user. You won't find many wikipedians who exposed more trolls than I did. I am also the only user holding this humorous award :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care about your assurances. When someone accuses me in meatpuppetry and demands some kind of sanctions I expect them to put some serious evidence on table. Oh, and I also can tell Stalinist-POV-pusher from reasonable user, still for some reason I do not make any personal attacks on them.--Staberinde 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages

I'm afraid this matter is too complex to evaluate fully without spending a lot of time looking through page histories, but I tend to trust Ghirla's judgement. He might be casting his troll net a bit too widely, but there's definitely some objectionable coordination of POV editing going on here. As an example we might look at the contributions to User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn; if that page does not result in an actual user conduct RfC in short order, I suggest that it be deleted as an attack page, because right now it seems like a forum for a group of editors to complain about Petri Krohn. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It will result in RFC/U within this day.--Alexia Death 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The page is a preparation of a WP:RFC/U case. The actual page of the case is already up; I'm expecting to consider it complete and ripe for listing in the appropriate list by around midnight local time, or around 21:00 UTC tonight. There's less than two hours left to that time. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been done: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn. Digwuren 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About attack pages, I suggest Akhilleus to check User:Petri Krohn/Evidence that has been up since 25 may and was blanked only at yesterday(earlier version [101]).--Staberinde 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable behavior on the part of another user should never be used to justify one's own. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedents tend to influence what is considered appropriate and what not. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes your page objectionable is not that it exist, nor its format, but that it clearly was created in bad faith in order to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does not exist for creating disruption. It exists for preventing it. This page is preparation for dispute resolution.--Alexia Death 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but if User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn is turned to RfC soon(unlike Petri's own evidence page which has been up for long time) then I don't see any serious reason to complaine.--Staberinde 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Observations

Has anyone noticed that this incident is totally devoid of evidence? This case seems to be yet another phase in Petri Krohn's ongoing vendetta against a group of editors for no other reason than they happen to be ethnic Estonian, as tellingly revealed in the title of the case "Korp! Estonia". First he attempted to get this whole group perma blocked as sock puppets, that failed, now this. In my view, this is harrassment bordering on ethnic vilification. I say this because I have been closely involved in edit disputes with Petri Krohn as much as these other editors, often siding with these editors against Petri, yet I don't seem to be a part of Petri's complaints. The only difference between me and the others is that I am Australian, while the others are Estonian. In my view, if Petri had a real case, he could have brought it against an individual, however this case is rather sordid example of ethnic vilification. What next? A case called Korp! Jew ? Martintg 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

sock of banned User:Arthur Ellis needs blocking

• User:Arthur Ellis is under community ban. See also partial log of blocks.
• Typically he creates throw-away socks to use until they are blocked and then use the next. For his socks, see here and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis.
• His attention is focussed on two pages: Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella, who once had a legal dispute over libelous statements of Bourrie's that Kinsella sued (or threatened to sue) over. Ellis' socks often try to insert links to a blog attacking Kinsella (see [102]) or insert negative material (some of which was the subject of the threatened lawsuit) into the Kinsella article [103]). (There are serious BLP concerns with this material.)
• He will also attack or harass editors who revert him (e.g. [104]).
• If a few admins can watch these pages, revert, and block, it would be greatly helpful. Eventually, I suspect, he'll get bored and move on. Bucketsofg 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar case pertaining to Falun Gong with User:Samuel Luo socks.. What has been decided is to follow WP:DENY. Revert, notify an adminstrator by putting the suspected sock in the proper category, and then it's blocked. No recignition anymore whatsoever. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not anyone's sock. I am concerned about errors in the Kinsella article and rerverted to a properly-sourced entry. Bucketsofg is a friend and political colleague of kinsella who has a vested interest in keeping an inaccurate entry. Nortel Survivor 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD G4 opinions please

Y Done This Image:Dorus-1-.jpg was again delete on the 16th June because the licensing of PD-old wasnt possible diff, after being tagged on the 8th June. Checking the logs it was also deleted on 2nd June after a series of challenges to licensing starting on the 17th April.

In this case could WP:CSD#G4 actually be applied or does it again need to be listed for 7 days. In each instance the uploader has been the same editor. Gnangarra 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

G4, people think if they copy something they can release it as PD, but not so. He needs to demonstrate that the artist died X years ago to make it public domain. Owning a painting necessarily does not mean you own the rights to it. ^(H) 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper image

The problem is this picture and the comment under it. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been involved in a series of disputes and edit wars with several editors, and has [in my oppinion at least] vandalized several articles. A couple messages have been exchanged (by 3 people who question whether formal action should be taken next time User:Anonimu vandalizes) in the talk page of the latest article he kept vandalizing, Fântâna Albă massacre (the article is now pretected). I suspect that as a result of this open exchanges of oppinion, the user Anonimu has placed this photo and the comment underneath it.

Why is this image and comment offensive and inappropriate: Anonimu uses explicite Nazi symbols and symbols of a pro-fascist Romanian party during 1930s (green shirt, and the three-bars-by-three-bars cross) to imply that the people who want formal action against Anonimu's behavior in WP would be pro-fascist and Holocaust deniars. It is a disguised form of personal attack, especially offensive since the users that seek Anonimu to stop bad behavior are anti-fascist, and have contributed in WP in particular to telling the truth about the Holocaust, in both its size and horibility. Anonimu has been told many times that although some users have anti-communist views, while he is openly communist, his personal political views are not a problem for dialog with other users, and only the content of the edit can theoretically be, and if the later is a case, only the content of the edit can and must be judged, not the declarative political views, whatever extreme they could be.

Requested action: the user should remove the image and the comment from his user page, and should be warned that such actions on his part constitue a serios breach of civilized behavior on WP. :Dc76 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In essence, Anonimu is trying to convey the idea that whoever disagrees with him does it because he's a proud Communist, and is thus a Nazi-minded bully. This is only one -- so far, the most pictographic -- episode of a long series of accusations of Nazi-mindedness.

Everybody knows the long series of Nazi crimes. Anonimu's attempts to compare his editorial opponents with genocidal mass murderers over disagreements over tagging are extremely inappropriate, and lead towards hostile editing environment. Under WP:CIV, I support the request to remove this image, and express my general condemnation of throwing lightly around accusations of Nazism. Digwuren

I concur. I will delete the picture and give the user a warning. Sasquatch t|c 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Frequent Vandalism

Someone from IP 81.137.221.153 has engaged in ongoing vandalism for several months and has received warnings from bots and users alike.

I warned the user. If he/she continues to cause trouble, please notify WP:AIV. YechielMan 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but nonsense, WHOIS doesn't suggest it's shared, and it all looks similar enough that I might venture it's the same person, anyway. Either way, it's a drain on resources better spent elsewhere; blocked. If anybody disagrees, feel free to let me know or release the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian football clubs

All of the articles in Category:Slovenian football clubs are being hit by vandals, both anons and registered. Since I have no clue as to which of the seemingly nonsensical edits may or may not be true, could somebody with some knowledge take a look, or are we going to have to semi-protect all of the articles in the category? Corvus cornix 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From the ones I've investigated it looks like they were all nonsense. Oldelpaso 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

JDG (talk · contribs) has been harassing editors with a talk page message informing them that a bot will be collecting their names for "re-education": [105], [106], [107]. —Angr 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning to which he responded with this. Some neutral third-party admin input would be welcome. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, that is pretty bizarre. If they want to keep a hit list, they can do so just fine, off-wiki. Their current method seems to serve mainly to agitate other users, and should probably stop. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block per WP:USERNAME - too similar to User:JzG (indeed, I was wondering why the fuck Guy would be doing that). Will ^(talk) 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, he's been around since 2002 - I don't think a username block would be appropriate. Actions do seem rather POINTy, though. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I really need to check the contribs first. But still, give him a slap on the wrist for those notices, it's just not on. Will ^(talk) 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is so-oo out of control. This is what we feared in mid `03 during the debate that created the Admin position-- that we'd get a bunch of people who hung around all day looking for petty ways to use their petty powers. Especially ways to simply shut people up, as you are doing to me, under the guise of policy. And I actually voted to go ahead and create you! (smacks head, twice) JDG 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a "cease and desist" order seems a bit harsh, but they have a point. What is that "deletionist ahoy" message supposed to tell people?--Atlan (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

V Tech shooter vandal

I just stumbled across this, and thought it worth bringing to admin attentions. Clearly, this IP is shared, so a block on it isn't worthwhile, but the vandal is, and the image should probably be watched/deleted. The vandal is adding pictures of the Virginia tech shooter wielding a hammer to multiple articles. I've got little doubt the vandal will return, so we should probably be aware. ThuranX 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. See if they come back. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

IP resolves to a company in Calgary, AB... You'd think someone working for a chemical company would have better things to do with their time, eh? Point being though that I don't think IP blocks would be as problematic as if this were from an ISP pool so dealing with this by blocking should still be on the table (obviously not for the previous stuff, but going forward).--Isotope23 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I figured a block would be pointless, but maybe someone will notice it. Too bad we can't contact them and be like 'hey, WTFBBQ?' ThuranX 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott

ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We tried assuming good faith, his next action was to start trolling other people's talk pages, and to remove a strong suggestion that he not do that as trolling by me. He can go back in the sin bin. We unblocked him because part of the problem was his bad reaction to being trolled. Same with Jeff Merkey. Difference: Merkey is acting like an adult, ColScott is acting like an idiot. Maybe he is one, maybe not, I can't be bothered to mop up after him while we find out. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I endorse the block. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good action, SqueakBox 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I understand what Cary was trying to do here with the unblock, but my very brief interaction with this individual would seem to suggest to me that he isn't here to better the project. If he wants to stir the pot, let him do it on his own dime.--Isotope23 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. ColScott's comments range in tone from inappropriately hostile to outright threatening, and do nothing but damage to the project.Proabivouac 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should see the email he sent me a while back; he's the soul of politeness here compared to the off-wiki communication I received from him prior to his first block.--Isotope23 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore - second albums

JackLumber (talk · contribs) is making many edits to articles about musicians, changing references to "second album" to "sophomore album", based on a bogus justification of British usage and ignoring appeals on his talk page to desist. From his comment, this seems to be a response to some perceived slight or dispute in the past, so may be POINT. Andy Mabbett 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga started it all---he engaged on a crusade to wipe the word sophomore out of Wikipedia.[108] I just reverted to the *original versions*. A lot of those "sophomores" were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, Latin American, and even English editors; they used the word quite naturally, so why change? I didn't, however, revert to sophomore where it wasn't appropriate, that is, in articles on British, Irish, Australian, South African, etc. musicians. U.S.-related articles should use American English; sophomore is idiomatic and ubiquitous in music jargon. The English lexicon is made up of 500,000 words; you can't possibly know them all. UK-related articles are filled with Briticisms---and I'm plenty happy with it. This is not simple.wikipedia.org. Furthermore, Violetriga doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. Here, he substituted the British term petrol station for the region-free filling station. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of "sophomore" is discouraged as it's a peculiarly american term, and wikipedia is written to be of use to as wide a range of english speaking users as possible. This is especially true when considering those who for which english is not their first language. "Second" is much more widely used and comprehendable than the more esoteric "sophomore". exolon 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. Sophomore is narrowly American in usage, and may not even be understood elsewhere. It is also rather pretentious; as Djbrianuk says above, "second" is readily understood by anyone, worldwide, and so to be preferred. --John 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree - Second album is more accessible to a world audience than Sophomore. --Fredrick day 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK there are literally 100s of those edits performed today by this single edit - if we agree that Second is more suitable for our audience is there a quicker way than manual revert? --Fredrick day 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin can "rollback" the edits if he/she wants to. Any takers? exolon 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm British, and I had to look up the word sophomore when I saw those edits. It meant nothing to me. It reminded me of American universities. --Deskana (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul

I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems this is an escalation of the conflict between this user and User:Anonimu over some Romanian pages relating to the communist presence there. However, this seems more or less like a death threat (if not some sort of strange alegory involving the murder? strongly directed towards the above user in any case). I'm tempted to give a block for about a week. Just wanted thoughts and/or clarification on what the hell this is all about. Sasquatch t|c 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll issue an explanation here. If you read the context in which the above was written, you'll clearly see it was part of a story that bore no relation to reality, was pure fantasy (a nuclear-armed rowboat?), and expressed no actual desire to murder anyone. Of course, such writing has no relation to the business of Wikipedia and I promise, no questions asked, to cease writing further installments of this adventure. I apologise for any breach of policy that has been committed. But please let's not allow Anonimu to obscure the difference between a fictional attack in an outrageously bad story and the many actual attacks he has made on me. Biruitorul 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's all just a joke until somebody gets hurt. And if it was meant only as fiction, why is my username explicitly mentioned as the name of the one getting stabbed? "Anonimu" is not an English name and it's not even a Romanian one (and i doubt it's used as a name in any language) so it couldn't have come from nowhereAnonimu 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the story, the names of all the characters are those of Wikipedians, but nobody is going to get hurt here. The story is an outrageous fiction, it was never meant to be taken seriously (nuclear rowboats?) (and its target audience, K. Lastochka, I'm sure did not). However, I have agreed to cease writing and I apologise for any violations I have committed. But yes, to those who have eyes to see, it is fiction, but your many attacks against me are not. Biruitorul 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of this and your promise to not do this again, I'll just issue a harsh warning. However, do not take this lightly. Fiction or not, you referred to a specific editor and it most definitely was a serious personal attack. Both sides on these romanian issues need to cease the ad hominen attacks and resolve your conflicts otherwise. I would start off by both of you apologizing for any offense you may have cause the other sides as I can see much to apologize for. Sasquatch t|c 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

safavid dynasty page vandlaised by suspected sock user:Tajik

There is heavy edit war on Safavid Dynasty launched by anonim IP 82.83.155.124 which is suspected sock of banned user:Tajik. Anyway, there are several rv's done by him during today .--Dacy69 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JupyMelon

I'd like to bring this user attention. Even though this user has made only a few contributions so far, all of them have been made to a hoax article called Skipper: The Great One. Why am I reporting this user now? Well because Skipper: The Great One seems to fit the pattern and format of the many hoaxes created by User:Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets. It mentions Robert Cait, a person which was mentioned in some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes (User:Poppapop, a Danny Daniel sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser, edited Robert Cait). It also mentions a parody of Code Lyoko. The final point I want to bring up is JupyMelon's username. If you compare that username to the the sockpuppet usernames listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you can see that they are similar, especially when you compare it to User:Jugglemuggler. Anyways, do not block this user unless I find more evidence that this user may be a likely sockpuppet, which will be when JupyMelon makes more edits. I just wanted admins to be aware of this user. Pants^(T) 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

Can someone please take into consideration Ned Scott's editing of Wikipedia? I noticed that another editor is complaining about him above, I don't know the substance of that issue. I can say that he's been reverting work without going to talk. Perhaps a warning from an uninvolved admin might help here? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandal

IP 71.107.145.200 keeps blanking their talk page and spamming others talk pages. Link User talk:71.107.145.200 Hmrox 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review of MagicalPhats

MagicalPhats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been blocked by myself for a week. He was blocked yesterday (also by me) due to vandalism after a final warning. The user claimed he was just making test edits and another admin unblocked him after MagicalPhats promised to only edit in his own user space. He did this and created a bunch of user subpages that consisted of a bunch of redirects (1 redirected to 2 which redirected to 3, etc.). Another user tagged these for speedy deletion today (since they were popping up on a list of active double redirects I presume). MagicalPhats went on to blank the user's user page and replaced it with a "Please don't edit other people's pages" message (see this edit). I then blocked him, reinstating the orignial 48 hour block I had put in yesterday. After some personal attacks against me and a warning about those attacks by me, he was disruptive again so I extended it to a week. In response to that he added this to his talk page.

I haven't locked his talk page or anything, but could some other admins review this and weigh in to make sure I was acting appropriately and not "biting the noobs"? Thanks, Metros 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)