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

User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks.

User fys has been abusive towards me:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

So I left him a warning using the standard template.

He removed it [4] saying "revert new user test". I made it clear it was not a test "rv deletion of warning re multiple personal attacks by this user on me. User has been told not to make personal attacks, and knows perfectly well this is not a 'new user test'".

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

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

That's not what it says here [5]. While some people on the talk page argue that users should be able to remove warnings immediately, as to remove them they must have read and hopefully understood them, in doing so saying "revert new user test" and "(fmt)" doesn't demonstrate good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

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

I'm not saying he shouldn't remove it, I'm saying that when a user removes a warning by saying "revert new user test", it is quite reasonable to add it back saying "it was not a test". He can remove whatever he like, but in saying revert test and "fmt", he is showing a deliberate deceit which does his cause no favours. Nssdfdsfds

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • It appears he's trying to fix things by removing his edits about calling the other user an idiot [6], so hopefully things have calmed down. Cowman109^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless he's actually apologizing, that's not fixing things, that's covering his tracks. His last edit indicates that his sense of self-righteousness remains intact. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

See also [7] with its rude edit summary, and [8], vexatious use of a standard template warning on an established editor, which by common consent is rude and provocative. I think Fys is often a good editor but is very very combative and his reaction to any challenge is frequently rude and obnoxious. He's a political activist and a Usenet veteran so this is pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think JzG ought to remove himself from this debate–I have a hard time seeing how this addition [9] merits the use of rollback. I also don't see how it's appropriate to bring up past sanctions against Fys as a justification of one's own behaviour–as we all ought to know by now, items in a block log do not speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make up. Also, I definitely think from [10] that Fys should use more moderate language, as a lot of his edit summaries seem to be provocative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

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

This is a content dispute (and one, I might add, that JzG has involved himself). If the worst thing here is Fys calling someone an "idiot" (probably over this edit [11]), then I daresay contributors in this thread have said a good deal worse. Our focus ought to be on the article, which actually has on an active talk page. This doesn't require administrative attention, and I'm shocked that people above are seriously calling for a community ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal attacks in edit summaries in the last 50 edits today: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Many many users have been blocked for much less. What is it going to take for you to be civil? Viridae^Talk 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect, I think it's rather silly to claim everything you've written is NPOV. Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [18] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neturality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective han overt bias. Of course everyone will do this, nobody is without opinions and bias, and to claim that you are an impartial observer, infallible and completely without bias is just silly. This is consistent with other recent edits of yours to the effect that you are always right, and doesnt' do you any favours. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

is notable enough to include in the article on Anne Milton, it escalated into this. This escalation took, by my count, NINE acts of abusive and/or arrogant behaviour against me by Fys. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] And this despite my requests to the contrary. I can't help thinking that it could have been stopped long before this. Nssdfdsfds 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

My last contribution yesterday before 4 PM, and then JzG and others come back several times later to jump all over my reputation and then accuse me of "flogging a dead horse" when I did not respond. This is unacceptable. What exactly is the 'horse' in question? Does JzG think it is fair for him and his allies to issue constant insults against me, including unworthy suggestions which have no supporting evidence, and then object that I have no right to disagree? JzG is unworthy of being an administrator and should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I somehow see this ending in an ArbCom.--Isotope23 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not participate but would welcome an ArbCom hearing which resulted in desysopping JzG. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I may say this, though: if JzG undertakes never again to make the claim that my wish to see the Tim Ireland blog mentioned in Anne Milton is derived from my own point of view on her politics, and agrees that I have not been sanctioned for point of view editing, then I will let the matter drop so far as he is concerned (and he need not apologise for having done so in the past). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That blog is in no way a reliable source. It should be removed from the article.--Isotope23 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the blog as a source and all of the information sourced from the blog. Someguysblog is never an acceptable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been added back now by Fys and Catchpole, who reverted it saying 'rv attempts to whitewash criticism of Milton behind hysterical "attack blog" assertions'. This doesn't seem to be according with policy. See also the talk page.Nssdfdsfds 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, Hipocrite, blogs can be used as a source, like any self-published site. According to WP:V, Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. I don't know what kind of blog this was, but it's just not accurate to say blogs are not usable as sources 100% of the time. Jeffpw 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not in there as a source, as would be fairly clear if you knew the background. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Someguysblog is not the blog of a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." If they were, they wouldn't be "Someguy." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mighty generous offer there: "If he will promise to surrender unconditionally, I promise to accept his surrender unconditionally also." --Calton | Talk 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh do come off it. I'm merely asking that he stop making unfounded allegations which he has never substantiated. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is a problem with Fys's editing, then aren't the remedies from this ArbCom case still applicable (specifically, article probation - "Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Fys from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing... Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations.")? If this does not help, perhaps ArbCom would be willing to consider extenting the existing sanctions (with or without a new case)? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would 'any page' include this one? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not article probation (article probation applies to articles) but a one year ordinary probation which expires in August. Please note the "for reasonable cause". Please note that it's been accepted that I can remove warnings from my userpage (which I note JzG does all the time). If JzG would accept the very reasonable offer made above, which merely asks him not to make unfounded accusations (something he should not be doing anyway) then this would be a big pile of nothing and everyone could go away. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, these issues would not blow up to such a degree if you would ever accept that you are wrong. Renoving warnings is accepted yes, but in doing so saying "new user test" and "fmt" was wrong. Perhaps I should have added a Wrongsummary3 template as well. :-) Nssdfdsfds 11:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Or everyone could just go away, and you could take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to go to dispute resolution. I have raised this issue with JzG many times but he removes anything I ask him on his talk page. An RfC is not possible unless two users are involved and I don't see him waiving his privilege. And I am definitely not going to Arbitration as the whole process is unacceptable. So what should I do to stop JzG making unfounded allegations? Because, let me make it absolutely clear, a great deal of my irritation with him (which may come across as disruption) is because of his continual unwarranted accusations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom and ALoan... I would say 'any page' could indeed include this one, but perhaps that might not be the most productive thing to do. What I am seeing is a pattern of contentious behaviour from an editor that has been warned before and perhaps some community sanctioning is in order here... what would be the list of pages that we'd want to restrict this behaviour on? Do we really need ArbCom to sanction? Or could previously uninvolved admins just take care of this on their own? ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could make a list of pages and ban him from them under the existing remedy for disruptive incivility. But I'm not sure a focus on particular pages is what we need. The problem seems to be a pattern of behavior with other editors: unwillingness to be civil with people who disagree with him, to the point of interfering with his and others' work. As a disclaimer, while I don't follow these pages I have blocked Fys in the past, and he has called me an idiot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What in fact happened, a year ago this week, was that you blocked me for a totally fictitious 3RR violation. As I understand it no-one now believes that that block was justified. It did, however, lead indirectly to my desysopping when I self un-blocked at 1 AM: I was just about to finish an edit that had taken me an hour to work on. Just for the sake of full disclosure. I mean what I say about JzG accepting the deal proposed above, and that would be far, far simpler than anything anyone else has proposed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's *still* abusing me. (see bottom here: Talk:Anne Milton). Nssdfdsfds 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Thats enough, Fys has had huge amounts of leeway in this matter despite repeated and continuing personal incidents. This last personal attack (reported above) tips the balance that should have been tipped some time ago, and Fys has earnt himself a 31 hour block. However, I am at work and will hardly be on here so can someone keep an eye on his talk page for the unblock ntoice that will surely be coming. Viridae^Talk 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking by PageantUpdater

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

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

With these last four edits:

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

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

• Mary Conley - 13 afd nomination
• David Conley, Jr. - 22 afd nomination

Additionally, the nomination of these pages for deletion looks like a violation of WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_13#Amazing_Race_Contestants

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conley Jr.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Conley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Denk‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Bentley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Holliday

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

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

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

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

I think that she did good work. It's not as though it was the other way around, like I've been the target of some kind of charm campaign. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The latest is that I noticed that Evrik had wikilinked some names in the Amazing Race episode articles which I reverted because I couldn't see the point of having redlinks. In my final revert I noted that that these articles, if created, would fail on notability. My edits were reverted, the articles were created, and I nominated them for deletion. Evrik then removed the afd tag on one of the articles [28] which I replaced. Creating the afds and my reverts to the episode articles has led to me being accused of wikistalking - which is ludicrous. The articles were all on my watchlist prior and had any other editor tried the same thing I would have reverted and dealt with it in the same fashion.

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

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

My side of the story (part 2): Ok back home now. Not going to add a whole lot right now but to say that I am frustrated by the accusation that by not immediately dealing with other Amazing Race related images at the time I removed one from Kandice Pelletier I have somehow acted in bad faith. To be honest at the time I didn't care a hoot about any other articles or images, but only the one in the article I was dealing with at the time (Pelletier's). When I was challenged on this I decided to go and have a look at the others, which I edited in a way I felt was appropriate, tagging some [29], moving those I thought were okay under the fair use guidles to appropriate places in articles [30] [31] and nominating whole articles for deletion because I did not think they complied with the notability policy[32]. Yet Evrik still accuses me of singling the one article out. As outlined above when I finished up dealing with the images some of my edits were reverted.

I admit that I have been mildly rude to Evrik on one occasion this afternoon when I just couldn't stomach this any longer (see [33] [34]) but I feel that it is I who is being persecuted here, not Evrik. I have been transparent and open throughout the whole ordeal and quite frankly I am sick of it, as I indicated to him here -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• While I agree about the editing, as evidenced by the back and forth prior to Feb 12, the fact is, that PageantUpdater has a pattern of nominating articles and images for deletion to make a point, and it is this that is abusive. -evrik ^(talk) 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik you are violating WP:POINT by the creation of those stubs, if you keep on creating more stubs I will block you Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• In Evrik's defense (and I may not be objective), PageantUpdater had never edited the four articles she initially reverted (until Evrik did) she then revertd him in the name of Wiki Quality. It seems to me that she must have been monitoring what he was editing and then edited right after him. This is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. PageantUpdater seems to have caused by this whole mess and Evrik has merely defended himself. --South Philly 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • South Philly I would respectfully request that you be more careful when making accusations such as this and actually look at the facts. Such as these: edit to Amazing Race 5 01:35, 25 March 2006 , edit to Amazing Race 10 00:53, 24 July 2006. And although I'm 99.9% sure that TAR 3 and TAR 11 were already in my watchlist, surely when you notice random wikilinks being added to Amazing Race episode articles it is only natural to check some of the others? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User creating "policies"

WWWUser (talk · contribs) is creating pages in the Wikipedia namespace in an apparent attempt to introduce new policies that already exist (see Wikipedia:Don't Sign Articles). I've redirected them to the appropriate, and already existing, policy/guideline. They all seem to be in good faith, but I'm not sure what to think, so I'm posting here. John Reaves (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a good-faith contributor who wants to edit something. Maybe giving him a hammer (ie., a list of articles) might help him bang a few nails and turn into a good editor. Yuser31415 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Yuser31415 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for the "good faith" theory; I think it's time to pull the plug on this person: Wikipedia:AWB Hacked!. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would classify that page as bad faith. Misguided, sure. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. But promoting a hacked version of AWB right after creating an account doesn't seem like something the typical new user would do, though. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor is creating a bunch of weird policy pages. It's possible that he edited under an IP before this, or just picked things up, though. He may have been frustrated at not being able to use AWB yet. I don't know. He also wasn't warned about why said Hacked AWB page was deleted. All of that said, the edit warring over this silliness is probably enough to warrant the block he's received. And yes, I realize I am blabbering. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin unblock review

Now he wants unblocked. I (not an admin) declined his previous unblock request (see his talk page history). Please consider this when reviewing. Cheers, Yuser31415 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... I thought only admins were allowed to review unblock requests. Heimstern Läufer 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, but didn't see anything that said only admins could review UBRs =(. Yuser31415 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Yuser, on WP:BP, everything under "unblocking" is a subcategory of "Instructions for Administrators". I don't think you should be replying to blocking instructions if you are not an admin. Not only is it overstepping your authority, but it gives a false impression to a blocked user, who thinks their block has actually been reviewed by someone with authority to do something ahout it. This presents the possibility that they will not return to Wikipedia, thinking they are permanently blocked. Jeffpw 08:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also WP:IAR. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, Ryulong. Are you saying deceiving another editor simply because they are a vandal is improving and maintaining Wikipedia, and thus allowable under WP:IAR? While it is perhaps a pragmatic solution to a problem, it seems unethical to me. I would hope that administrators and those who aspire to adminship would hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Jeffpw 08:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If a job doesn't require admin tools, then it isn't an admin-only job. Denial of unblock requests requires no pressing of the shiny buttons. It is possible for non-admins to abuse the template; but then it is possible for admins to do so. In either case, a quiet word on a talk page solves it (or if not, it can go upwards). Adminship really is No Big Deal^TM - it's just a couple of extra buttons the community (s)elects people to have. It doesn't give the user of the buttons any more or or any less "authority" than someone without them. Yuser31415 should continue to do this thankless job if s/he wants to. 〈REDVEЯS〉 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Redvers, on the concept of adminship being no big deal (I certainly wouldn't want it), I disagree with you on this particular issue. Since unblocking somebody is an administrative action, it can logically be inferred that denying a request to unblock is something that also should be handled by admins. Further, though Yuser stated in his/her edit summary that s/he was not an admin, s/he did not do so in the user page, nor did s/he disabuse WWWUser of that false perception that an admin had reviewed the block (review the relevant talk page to confirm that WWWuser thought s/he was interacting with an admin). I feel Yuser has acted above his/her authority in this instance and others, and have left a message on his/her talk page to that effect. Jeffpw 10:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins can do things like close obvious speedy keep AfDs or deny obviously bad unblock requests. They should just expect to catch more flak if they make a mistake. However, boldness should be encouraged: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and administrators are just users with a couple of extra buttons. Kusma (討論) 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, Kusma, and closing Afds by non-admins (in some cases) is defined in policy (Yuser seems confused about that, too, but that's another kettle of fish). It is not defined in policy that non-admins can deny unblock requests. In fact, as I pointed out above, it seems from policy that it is supposed to be done by admins. Ryulong said that WP:IAR applied in this case, and has not yet responded to my request for clarification of how that could apply to a breach of ethics (as I see this situation). Jeffpw 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then somebody should change the template that says an Administrator has reviewed the block. And I would hope the reviewing administrator was not involved in the original edits that led to the block. I do think that only admins should be "officially" reviewing unblock requests; they've got the bits because the community trusts their judgment. Nothing against Yuser31415, but the same cannot be said for the gazillion other editors around here. Risker 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Risker. In the template section for "unblock review", the note is actually addressed to administrators: Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following: {{unblock reviewed}. This seems to make it pretty clear that unblock reviews are to be carried out only by admins. Jeffpw 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: Ryulong's citing IAR only because he used to do it himself when he wasn't an admin. Many people have raised it as a problem, but he always continued to do it. I believe this was brought up at a couple of his RFAs. – Chacor 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, is there a general issue with non-administrators declining frivolous unblock requests or is there an objection to the way Yuser31415 handled this particular request? I realise the genetic enhancements and nano-implants conferred by a successful RFA make administrators much more qualified for this kind of work, but—with the blocked user being already blocked—I don’t see a qualitative difference when answering an unblock request in the negative (assuming, of course, that this is done responsibly and after careful review of all relevant policies), until the user talk page needs protection. (Regarding the template verbiage, if it really matters, I’d just subst the template and edit it.) —xyzzy_n 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a fuss I've caused :). Well, I personally have no objection to responsible, reasonable community members using their best judgement and helping reduce the administrative backlog. Yuser31415 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's worth pointing out that the "not a big deal" phrase works both ways. If adminship's not a big deal, than obviously we're not asking too much to get the community to entrust you with the tools before one starts taking responsibility for making decisions related to who is allowed to edit here. Jkelly 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was definitely inappropriate for a non-admin to give another user the impression that an admin had reviewed the block. While Yuser is enthusiastic about wanting to perform many of these duties, the truth is the community has not entrusted him with that power. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, adminship is certainly not "power", it is a responsibility. I respectfully disagree with both of you, but will attempt to refrain from reviewing unblock requests before I become an admin. If you want to continue this discussion it would probably be more appropriate at either WP:AN or WP:VP/P (this is not really an "incident" that requires administrator attention). Yuser31415 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I approve of non-admins reviewing unblock requests. This is a wiki. It's not like said non-admin can protect the users talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see an issue, as above we encourage people to deal with most things which don't require the admin buttons, I can't see how this is much different. Pass RFA one day doesn't magically improve the quality (or lack of) your judgment (I assure you). As a non-admin who someday runs for adminship doing such things is "risky", unless it's a very clear cut request they are likely to get picked up on it at and RFA particularly in the case of a good contributor who may feel hard done by and needs to attach that to the RFA process. An editor with a declined request can always add another unblock template, email the mailing list and so on. --pgk 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins issue final warning templates to vandals, why can't we decline unblocks as well? Corvus cornix 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider non-admins processing unblocks to be similar to non-admins closing deletion discussions or non-bureaucrats closing RfAs, which is to say it generally shouldn't be done. There are some exceptions, for example, non-admins can generally close bad-faith AfD nominations, likewise, I wouldn't have a problem with a non-admin declining an unblock request where the reason given was "FUCK OFF" (language used for illustrative purposes, not because I approve of it). But otherwise I don't think non-admins ought to review unblock requests. Heimstern Läufer 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This maybe off topic, but I don't recall any rules against "non-admins closing deletion discussions or non-bureaucrats closing RfAs". There's no reason to say it generally shouldn't be done. PeaceNT 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peace, non-admins may close deletion discussions only in very narrowly defined situations, the policy of which is spelled out here. That is for much the same reason as Ju66l3r states below: often they cannot take the appropriate follow through action. Also, if a non-admin reviews a block, then in theory no other admin will be reviewing, if the blocked user does not place another block request on their talk page. That just seems unfair, in my opinion, and not very transparent. Jeffpw 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It generally is not done, but if done, should be done sparingly and with caution. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I can see is that if an unblock review were done by a non-admin user and the decision was to unblock, then they'd have no ability to perform the necessary changes to make that happen and the same for closing an AfD that resulted in a Delete decision. For that reason, I don't see why it would be appropriate for the opposite decision to be reasonable just because the outcome is possible to complete for a non-admin. In other words, before these decisions (like unblock review or AfD closure) has been made by the user, they can not effect all of the possible outcomes. For that reason, they should leave the procedure for someone who can effect the decision once it has been made, regardless the outcome. Otherwise, the implicit result would seem to be that a non-admin user could review an unblock request and find it to be reasonable and respond as such...then make a request that an admin follow through on their decision. This would be unreasonable since if an admin is going to use their given bit, then they should be the one to have decided if the right course of action is to employ the mop they've been given, not someone else's. It is a trust given to them and not the other person. It should be an admin's choice not to unblock someone after their review of the situation in a "could have, but chose not to" and not a "chose not to, and it's okay because I couldn't have even if I wanted to". Just my two bits on the question of non-admin users acting on situations that might need adminship to resolve. ju66l3r 07:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons why non-admins shouldn't review unblock requests. 1, they're not being asked. When a user submits an unblock request, they're specifically asking an admin (presumabely). 2, a non-admin can't unblock, so why would it make sense to have them refuse the request? VxP 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User maintaining page of personal attack in user space

Please have a look at a page maintained by Elizmr (talk · contribs) in his/her userspace. The page is a series of quotations taken out of context from heated discussions that I have been involved with (the content dispute at issue is currently under mediation). The quotes are taken completely out of their contexts in order to portray me as some kind of abusive editor while censoring the comments of the other editors I was responding to (Admins User:Durova and User:CSTAR, among others, are familiar with the context of the disputes). The user has already used the page to make a point on my talk page. I think the page is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:LIBEL, and WP:Harassment, perhaps among other policies. csloat 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a {{db-attack}} tag on it. Yuser31415 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to your past over-enthusiasm in this area, I ask that you refrain from editing other user's namespace. This is not a clear cut policy issue. - WeniWidiWiki 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I maintain that this page does not meet the standard of WP:CSD and that Yuser31415 is acting unilaterally without consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is really up to the admin who decides to review this.--Isotope23 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that WWW removed my previous comment. The problem was that I once removed attacks against IPs from his userpage, and he is upset about that. However, this page does meet CSD G10. I would politely request that WWW show why the page does not meet that requirement. Yuser31415 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem - a rampant over eager effort to get patted on the head for "laying the smack down" on editors and then throwing policy jargon and acronyms around to justify his actions. Archiving discussions on ANI, "slapping templates", ending AfD's prematurely contra policy... - WeniWidiWiki 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks more like evidence gathering in preparation for a mediation/RFC/RFArB than an attack page. Especially since the user is not disparaging anyone; it is a list of someone else's statements. I have unspeedied it. -- Avi 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not. We are already in mediation, and the user has cited none of this so-called "evidence." The quotes are all out of context, without links so that the original context cannot easily be consulted. They are also all months old - one of them over a year old. The user has used the page once in a conversation with someone else on my talk page, and the user used the page to disparage me during the conversation, not to start mediation. If s/he wants to engage in another mediation, some indication of what dispute we are mediating would be a good idea. As it is, the only purpose of this page seems to be to disparage me. csloat 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - [35]. Yuser31415 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article while speedy deleting attack pages. To me this clearly appeared as an inappropriate use of userspace, so I have deleted it. I welcome other admins to review and comment. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The user would be strongly advised to keep links to diffs where the comments were made, or at links to the appropriate section of a permalinked version of the page. Isolated, incomplete quotes taken out of context are at best useless and at worst deceptive for use in an Arbitration case. Keeping links back to the original quotes and context would also defuse any criticism that the page could be interpreted as a misleading smear job. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• People should really be able to clip evidence in user space, if that's their inclination, but the "evidence" will be altogether worthless as a series of quotes instead of a series of diffs. In other words, it may be fostering an atmosphere of wiki-lawyering and hostility to keep such "evidence" pages, but in the particular instance the "evidence" would have been all but worthless anyway. In either instance, though, I thoroughly disagree with calling it an "attack page," if it's an evidence page. Those sorts of things are usually more for intimidation than an attack. Geogre 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) there is no evidence that it is an evidence page. All the quotes were too old to be relevant to any current dispute, and the only time the user cited the page was to personally attack. It was never cited as evidence for any dispute. (2) How do you distinguish between intimidation and attack? Certainly neither should be permitted under wikipedia policy, right? csloat 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis sock to block

Grarg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of of the banned vandal JarlaxleArtemis (see WP:JARLAXLE). His edits fit the pattern of JarlaxleArtemis's latest behaviour, namely, posting what he believes to be personal information about me,[36] and mass addition or removal of template notices almost exclusively on articles which I've created.[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] Please block. —Psychonaut 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another sock has just been created, and has made the exact same edits to the exact same articles: Grackelstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Should be blocked as well. —Psychonaut 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis I guess. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection from anon users at Jun Choi

In the past few months, various anonymous users have been editing article Jun Choi, inserting unreferenced and politically slanted information. Jun Choi is the mayor of a large municipality in New Jersey, and I suspect (given the politics of New Jersey [62]) that people on his payroll are carrying out this vandalism, as all of the edits by the anonymous users have inserted information that is absurdly complimentary of Choi. I suggest that anonymous users be blocked from editing that article. Jolb 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep it on your watchlist. There is nowhere near enough vandalism to warrant semiprotection. Viridae^Talk 01:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been more vandalism today, three times an anonymous user has reverted the article to the vanity and slanted information. Now it's crossed the line into a 3RV issue. Jolb 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the contributions page for 63.211.67.127 [63] shows 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. Jolb 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

+tag spammer

• Ensyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User just showed up at Wikipedia and is posting only +tags for citations and deletions, for articles that often do have one or several citations. In addition, on the Bully Kutta article the editor deleted valid citations and then posted a +tag requesting references. pls advise this user to stop it. Thanks Headphonos 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Headphonos

• Headphonos, the one who is vandalizing is you. You are removing well intentioned tags to articles that do not have any reliable, verifiable resources. You are not discussing articles on talk pages. You post uncivil remarks about other users. You attempt to enforce ownership of the articles you care about, without improving them when other interested parties have questions or concerns. Please re-read the note I posted on your talk page titled Could be construed as vandalism ... (or this if my note is deleted/removed from the talk page). I would list more examples, but, perhaps this time, you are in luck that I am also getting ready to go out of town and cannot justify taking the time to reveal your obvious inability to work with others. Thankfully, anyone reading this and taking an interest will probably be able to quickly find just what I am talking about by looking at your user contributions list. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relevant supporting evidence includes ... failure to work with others (also see two preceding threads on this same article talk page); removing article tags placed by others; more tag removal & inability to see that molosserdogs.com is not a reliable, unbiased reference but a special interest forum; more discussion @ Headphonos not working with others; more tag removal; yet more; uncivil comments and labeling of editor/admin tag placement as stalking; still more tag removal; personal (unfounded) attacks; reporting others for vandalism rather than addressing issues in articles; typical edit summary; etc. (This is just a sampling from the last month.) Keesiewonder ^talk 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging appears to have been in good faith -- external links are not the same as references, and, prior to today's edits by User:Chrislk02, the article appears to have had no listed references. Maybe communication could've been a little better, but I note there's discussion on the article's talk page about it, as well as requests to your (Headphonos') own talk page to provide reliable sources. Perhaps I'm not clear on what your complaint is, but User:Ensyc appears to me to be acting in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shimeru 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

• Hi there, I am a recently new Wiki Editor. I made a page about someone I belieive to be notable, with the hopes that others would come to work on it too. A lot of craziness happened, by my concern is over user Jeffrey_O._Gustafsone. Please look at his talk/discussion history in relation to me, Ebony Anpu, and Ebony's AfD page. It appears he is spreading propaganda. On one post he will write, no vote, then list many reasons why one should delete the page. This seems dishonest. Then he took out some observtions I made, calling them slander, and threatened me. Then he turned right around and insulted me, after tellnig me not to. I do not know what is going on, but it obvious by his postings that is is taking a serious stand on an issue then denying it. Also, he has just been totally rude to me. If he treats other new editors like this, I am saddened. Captain Barrett 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. Jkelly 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two relevant discussions already on this board that may help for background: #Review request and #Need another admin to have a chat with a user. WjBscribe 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange. #Review request was deleted and noted as "Shadowbot malfunction". See ANI history. Captain Barrett 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• WJBscribe has corrected the link. Thanks! :) Captain Barrett 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More Jeffrey O. Gustafson

After further research I have discovered several things about Jeff's editings:

• 1. J was the one who AfD, after it had run its course with appearence of "keep" (Ebony Anpu).
• 2. J moves this paragraph for no stated reason
• 3. J removes 2 things this and this from AfD: Ebony Anpu
• 4. J removes the "living relatives" tag .Captain Barrett 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• 5. J removes space between __separate_ comments, One, Two times (in order to subvert?) calls it mild rf.

:*6. J, re-writing something user:DGG said, calls it "milf rf" (strike)Captain Barrett 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• 7. J removes 2 user comments, Jarbarf AND Mine, calls it:"move yet more procedural stuff to talk" - but _doesn't.Captain Barrett 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• 8. J moves my comment on reopened AfD. Captain Barrett 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• 9. "there are some new individuals who clearly don't quite get what is going on" j Keeps reinserting attacks, despite repeated removal. Captain Barrett 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• 10."Revision as of 01:29, 14 February 2007Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Revert. First, all comments below the red line. Second, AfD discussions are not required to be neutral - articles are.)" - removes more comments by me on AfD (reinserted by _other_ editor).
• 11. Current revision (13:27, 14 February 2007) Jeffrey O. Gustafson- removes picture again!
• 12."though I'm looking into your latest ANI report.--Isotope23" -- apparently this is not the first time Jeff has been on ANI.
• 13."13:44, 14 February 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson" Jeff removes picture _again_ ,gives no reason, then Admin protects account so that I cannot re-add. Now I cannot change page to assist in AfD at all.Captain Barrett 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• 14. I write an entire section on the AfD about Notability, in order to give people a place to debate the topic and J changes "Notability" from a subject header, to part of my comment.Captain Barrett 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• 15. Removes subject header Dirty Tricks" which I made to discuss W:OP abuse, calls it "personal attacks".Captain Barrett 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• 16. J removes "PS" header tag I I wrote Captain Barrett 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• please look into Jeff's recent edit history _closely_, re: Afd:Ebony Anpu.Captain Barrett 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• user:Adrian Talk page also has some information related to this case. Captain Barrett 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Could you post Diffs for the above "discoveries"? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I could, but that would take up a lot of space and further confuse the matter. I will see if I can find some representative samples though. 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To save space, you could use the above text and add in in this fashion. [http://www.urlhere texthere] . I believe this would further clarify the matter allowing us to easily see the edits in question. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Navou, there is no need to have Captain Barrett dig out individual difs. Simply go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, the associated talk page, the article, and the previous AfD, and look for my contributions therein. He's essentially complaining about all of them. Feel free to review my actions - I have been exceptionally open about my conduct with this AfD and this particular user, asking for second opinions from other admins in not one, but two, separate AN/I threads, not including here as well. I have nothing to hide. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GShoichi (talk · contribs)

This user has twice attempted to remove an archived debate from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 27. (diffs: [64], [65]). I reverted the most recent instance and left a message on their talk page; however, I realized that the debate was initiated by a user GageShoichi (talk · contribs), and they tried the same thing back when the debate was open [66]. Clearly this is the same person, and they abandoned their original account after being warned for this first blanking. Should anything else be done at this point, or should we wait and see if they try again? WarpstarRider 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the new account for violating the warning issued on the old one. Yes, they're clearly the same person. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Christina Ricci and Scary Movies

Probably just a heads-up at the moment but a roaming IP editor keeps editing Scary Movie and all sequels asserting Ricci appears in each film. I've reverted all four movie pages several times each, as have a couple of other editors. This includes the Ricci page where the editor includes the Scary Movie series in her filmography. Not quite time for a semi-protect but just wanted to get some more watchful eyes on the pages. Thanks, y'all. The Rambling Man 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor update, all pages were edited again tonight around 18:00 (UTC) to re-incorporate fake info. I've reverted. If this vandalism continues once a day from two separate IP addresses, I guess it'll never technically break 3RR. Any advice, semi protection? The Rambling Man 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to violate 3RR to be blockable vandalism. Corvus cornix 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that. I've warned the user that persistent insertion of false information constitutes vandalism. I just wanted a few other people to be aware of the background. The Rambling Man 07:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - personal attacks and incivility

Can an admin please look at WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's received two warnings regarding civility and personal attacks, but has responded with more incivility and personal attacks. Please take a look and warn/block. I also do not appreciate his dictating me to stay away from Portal:Current events. Major WP:OWN problem he has, and he needs to learn it or be shown the door imo, especially with such a hostile attitude. – Chacor 10:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my supposed "personal attack" on him? Telling him to read WP:OWN. If that was a personal attack far too many people would be blocked presently. – Chacor 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to be nice. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at his (rather uncivil) "olive branch": "i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar)", "If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs", and best of all "If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one)."

I see no reason why after being told to be civil he veils it in an "apology". Can someone please do the necessary? – Chacor 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please look at his further uncivil comments to Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and Capitalistroadster. Seriously, should we be condoning this? – Chacor 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside/FYI - he blanked his talk page after Sir Nick's warning. – Chacor 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another selective blanking. Can an admin please have a look? – Chacor 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been made aware that Teke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked one weekthree days. – Chacor 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre category modifications

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been modifying category listings en masse to an extreme degree, changing normal numbers to a funky font. I'm going to start rolling back his/her contributions, and I'm going to very temporarily block him/her. They should probably remain blocked for username problems, but I won't pursue that; my focus here is on the bizarre cat changes. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, there are thousands and thousands of these modifications and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the user is using that bizarre font. They are obviously grouping categories by year, but the font is not appropriate and will throw off other grouping attempts - example dif. Before I continue rolling back, someone else ought to take a look at this, because I'm having trouble interpreting this user's intent and they aren't replying. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the intent is to get the sort keys in order (e.g. 1200 sorts as between 150 and 250, since the keys are alphabetical rather than numeric). That said, such a hack is causing more confusion than actual benefit. >Radiant< 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's really something that should be filed as a bug rather than using "⒚ Hundreds" instead of "1900's." I guess I am going to continue rolling back, but I'll need a bit of help - there are thousands... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be solved much easier by prefixing zeros to the sortkeys for entries with less than four digits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten through the first 1500. I could really use some help with this, or, better yet, a BOT. There has got to be a bot for something like this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a request for a bot to do this at WP:BOTREQ. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

With multiple edits per minute, I suspect Γνώθι Σεαυτόν (talk · contribs) may be using a unapproved script/bot. --Edokter (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a way for me to up my edit count hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, I didn't even think of that. I am now above 10,000 edits. Huh. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

hehe human power finished before the bot could get there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That was fun! - Aksi_great (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Is there any chance of having the decision reversed? Some of the catagories have 1000+ entries in them and are only index by 0. 1. & 2. making them kind of ugly. Having them index in Hundreds of years eg 0. 1. 2. 3. ... 18. 19. 20. works really well, looks great and uses the standard font.

An example index:

Years: ←2000 BCE 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. ←0. BC/​AD→ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 2000 CE→

Other benefits include not having to manually create 10 new subcatagories for when the Main catagory gets over populated with 0. 1. & 2. (Instead add a 0. ... 19. 20. index into just on main Category)

FAQ:

• Q: Why didn't I get permission from wikipedia management to do the changes? - A: Basically I have been working on this slowly for 2 months of evenings. One group Catagory at a time. The results seemed OK and there was no negative feed back during this time about the improved ordering.
• Q: Γνώθι Σεαυτόν
• Q: How did I do it? A: Key binding in emacs.

Additionally: The latest release of mediawiki has some other additional and useful features. For example the {{#switch|||}} expression that would really help reduce the overhead of breaking year categories into hundreds of years. Where should I lead a discussion on this?

Request: Can you guy please put my 8 weeks of efforts back in place. The changes were not doing any harm, they even had real benefits. Could I at least unrevert one Category as an example for the purposes of discussion and some kind of voting? And move forward based on the outcome of the discussion?

Cheers Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why all these changes had to be rolled back before we had a proper discussion on the matter. I first noticed the changes to category sorting of years a few weeks ago, and thought it was an interesting and innovative approach. I don't see the harm in it, and I do see some benefit. Γνώθι Σεαυτόν should have raised the idea in advance, perhaps at Village pump (proposals), but that is no reason to undo all the work without first getting a consensus. I support the idea of restoring these changes to one category so editors can see the result to discuss it.-gadfium 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I vote keep, i.e. undo the reverts. Splitting years into hundreds of years was a real asset and I'd happily reapply the improvements myself. (However I'd probably wouldn't use emacs:-) . Fri666 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undo reverts, but I ask that ISO-8859 or any other standard western character set be used instead of unicode. This is the English Wikipedia after all. --Edokter (Talk) 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Technical note: I don't see how this could be achieved this elegantly with characters from the ISO-8859 range. After all, the whole point of Gnothi Seauton's invention was to have single characters that signify "19", "18", "17", etc., because when sorting on the standard Ascii number representations, index entries would exist only for "0", "1", and "2", one per millenium. And what about "the English Wikipedia"? We use Unicode all the time, the whole site is in Unicode. -- by the way, I must admit I only now understood what the whole thing was about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to Γνώθι Σεαυτόν's intent, its an exceptionally good idea and a nifty work-around. But there are other means to achieve this goal. First, has anyone filed a bug with our developers about this? A MediaWiki fix would go much, much further than having to plug unicode into hundreds of thousands of category sortkeys. Nor am I opposed to the use of unicode provided there is broad community support for the idea - if there is, however, we should keep in mind that widespread adoption of such a standard would be glacial at best, in part because of the inherent difficulties with unicode (most of the time, I still don't "get it" and I'll be dammed to memorize which string of %!?_ equals what number or symbol). However, we should not revert the revert as yet, despite Γνώθι Σεαυτόν's extraordinary level of effort put into it - there should be community consensus for it, or a developmental fix for it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrator vandalizing Wikipedia using a sockpuppet

The sockpuppet account is Zazzazzaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); in his unblock request he claims that he has multiple other accounts, including an administrator. (See his talk page.) I have made a checkuser request to discover them. - Mike Rosoft 14:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe that he is an administrator? It looks like ordinary vandalism, I don't see the need for a checkuser here. Kusma (討論) 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a duck. Did you believe me? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a vandal says that "one of there other accounts is an administrator", I always believe them (</sarcasm>). I've protected the talk page due to unblock template abuse. Proto::► 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Quack HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can someone block HighInBC for being a duck that pretends to be an administrator? Kusma (討論) 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I am an administrator who pretends to be a dog; do I get blocked too? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  HighINBC never claimed he wasn't an admin, he merely gave evidence that he was a duck. I for one see no reason why ducks shouldn't be allowed to be admins and resent this specist, anthrocentric bias that Wikipedia somehow sees humans as more capable of being admins. I call upon Jimbo to remove this human cabal that is hijacking this project and imposing their own pro-homo sapiens viewpoints. JoshuaZ 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • • I would but it's not in the blocking policy :-( Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Meh. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if somebody calls the police that there's a bomb in a building, the police must search it, just in case it was there. But we don't use checkuser "just in case we catch something" . Okay, I have ridiculed myself enough ... - Mike Rosoft 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the understanding that the police will ask the staff of the building to search it as they are ones who might know if something is out of place, although there is a central point for intelligence on this sort of thing, the police don't have to search. And in a fight between duck-admin and an alien-admin, my money's on the duck, against dog admins, I'd need to know how big the dog is.--Alf ^melmac 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why dogs and ducks can't be admins. >Radiant< 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In cyberspace, nobody knows you're a doguck. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spambot

I've blocked the range 89.20.97.0/24 for 24 hours, following a rather annoying spambot attack from this IP address. I added the links to Shadowbot's spam blacklist, which failed to deter the spambot. Prior to this, Luna Santin had blocked the range for six hours. I've seen the spambot on this range before; it might return.

Example diffs:

[67] [68]

Shadow1 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I blocked it last night, was hoping that'd be the end of it. It only seems to be coming from inside that /24 -- WHOIS says it's registered to some group in Russia I've never heard of, and I wasn't able to find any other on-top edits from the entire range. If it's a persistent problem, this may be worth longer blocks. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil on Hate Group article

User:BabyDweezil has violated the Wikipedia:3RR rule for making three reversions to the Hate group page, in order to remove an entry added by multiple Wikipedia editors. Consequently, he is blocked from editing for 24 hours. --Modemac 15:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Modemac has acknowledged that this block was in error and the block has been lifted. BabyDweezil 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven112233 still blanking pages

User:Steven112233 is still blanking pages despite warnings on his/her talk page. --Kmsiever 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kmsiever 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Fadix and User:Nareklm

Dear Admins, I asked for attention to user Nareklm's activity earlier due to attacks. Yet the attacks are continuing now with coordination between two users. Please, look at these links [[69]] and [[70]]. Especially the first one, which is a coordination of personal attack. This kind of behavior seems to be openly hostile towards several users. Thanks. Atabek 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

School blocks

Due to a recent string of vandalism from 216.157.200.35 (talk · contribs), I have placed that IP on a six-month block, using {{schoolblock}} as the block reason. After blocking this IP, I contacted an East Lansing network administrator about the incident, who replied and gave me the IP of another proxy used by East Lansing, 216.157.200.254 (talk · contribs). The administrator said that this second IP does not have logging capabilities, so that any vandalism coming from this IP could not be traced to a student. In light of this information, I've indefinitely blocked the second IP. Just letting some people know; I'm a new administrator, and, while I think this was the right course of action, I would appreciate any opinions on it. Shadow1 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that blocking the other IP was a good call, especially as you have confirmation from the school's network administrator. The IP's contributions are consistent with school vandalism coming from East Lansing, as well. I support the block, and good on you for seeking an external opinion! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"

I put my userpage up for deletion yesterday, just like I had asked for its deletion previously.

Instead, "The Epopt" came and deliberately put an insulting harassment sign that another user had been using to harass me, then left a lying message about me.

I protest this harassment and request that my page be put back the way I like it, I need no "user page", my talk page is perfectly fine as is. I have stayed out of wikipedia longer than the block was in place and despite being harassed by a bad faith user earlier I am working hard to help within the bounds of the rules. RunedChozo 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a lengthy block record for a pattern of incivility, edit warring, and block evasion.

The 'harassment' sign that RunedChozo is complaining about is a notice that he has operated sockpuppets. While I don't think we should be using these banners as a 'scarlet letter' for editors who haven't gotten themselves permanently banned, RunedChozo is certainly not the aggrieved innocent that he's painting himself as here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look. I stayed out long past the bad faith and unsupported by the rules "block" that was placed in bad faith on my account. I've put up with lies and harassment behavior, and no I've never used "sockpuppets" despite what the liars say. I want one thing, to make this a better encyclopedia. You can look at my contributions since my return, I'm staying in the rules and have every intention of doing so. But if you want to call me names, fine. Go ahead. I really can't stop you. That seems to be what wikipedia is for to you people, beating up on anyone who comes in good faith to make a better encyclopedia so you can feel powerful.RunedChozo 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way are your actions, such as here and here making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? ChazBeckett 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was mad at being harassed and insulted. I sent emails. I don't know what "spams" these two are talking about, because the only emails I ever sent were to the wikipedia mailing list. As for the "block log", that's a joke of how the wikipedia system is messed up, a bunch of Muslim POV writers have admin rights and decided to harass me, and Asterion near as I can tell was a friend of someone else who wanted to get me. I'm not going near any of them, and I've already served warning to some of the writers on a page that's nothing but propaganda that I'll be suggesting corrections but I want their promise first that they won't make an edit war again like they did last time. If they won't make that promise, I won't bother with anything other than keeping the disputed and unencyclopedic tags on that page, because that is what it is, completely disputed and unencyclopedic. I have NO desire, repeat NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER, to get into a major conflict with anyone, because I've already seen how the administrators here will just use that as a tool to beat someone up for their own sick amusement. RunedChozo 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself. -- Steel 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel has now placed the insult back on my user page and locked the page down. I protest this harassment. This has no basis except to insult and harass me. RunedChozo 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It does seem rather bad to say such a thing on a talk page. I could go to a random user and accuse them of spamming me - and this would cause ire. On the other hand, RunedChozo, chill...

Since User:Timwi has not released his email on his userpage, it has possibly been sent through Special:Emailuser (but would it be legal to check?). x42bn6 Talk 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The email was not sent through the emailuser thing. The only emails I have sent were through the wikipedia mailing list. I still protest the obvious harassment behavior from "The Epopt" that Steel has now done as well. RunedChozo 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then cool it. If you are being wrongly harassed, this page is the correct place to raise it. But until then, take a deep breath. It doesn't make your case any stronger by blowing a fuse. x42bn6 Talk 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When I report it and the first thing back is more harassment, and the second thing back is more harassment from someone I'm now sure is one of Epopt's friends, what else am I supposed to think? Regardless, I'm going to stay within the rules, even if Epopt and Steel feel like breaking them and harassing me. RunedChozo 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you got blocked, it's because you did a bad thing. Abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks are usually considered bad things. Rather than wasting space here at ANI I courteously recommend amending your behaviour so that it becomes amenable to the community. In this manner, you will not be blocked again. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used sockpuppets, those are vicious lies. As for "Personal attacks", equal things were said to me, but I'm the only one they went after because they get off on beating people up. I'm already amending what I can, I'm editing in good faith as before but I refuse to get into any more disputes on any content page and am keeping to that. You can look at my edits after my return and see for yourself. RunedChozo 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• please do look at his contribs since he returned, as i believe he has been behaving in a rather disruptive manner. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, demanding that you promise not to edit war before I participate in an article is SOOOO disruptive... gee, is there a reason you refuse to promise to FOLLOW THE RULES? Gee I wonder. RunedChozo 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an exercise: Take a look at what you've written in this section. Assume that someone is completely unaware of any of your actions outside of this page. Do you think what you've written reflects well on you? Do you believe that you're likely to persuade others? Have you conducted yourself in a civil and courteous manner? ChazBeckett 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this shows me pretty much why I'm being beat up so much, they all want to suck up to a powerful jerk who gets his rocks off harassing people. RunedChozo 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is imperitive that everyone read the above presented diff and consider what utility it provided the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Still following me, thought I got rid of that homing tracker by now? Damn you batman!!! --NuclearZer0 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now. I've nominated a terrible article for deletion as per policy, and that's that. I'm taking a break as was suggested. RunedChozo 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't look like you're done at all. you've simply resumed your uncivil remarks again ([71][72]). ITAQALLAH 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had my lunch. Back off. You're the one who is openly refusing a simple request that you promise to follow the rules. I wonder why you might refuse such a simple request? Are you opposed to following the rules? Do you, like last time, feel that you and your Guild are above the rules because you have admins as members? I wonder why it is that you cannot simply promise to follow the rules, as I have done. RunedChozo 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you are demanding other editors to make "promises" to you that they won't violate policy, else you won't co-operate with them. that is tragically ironic, and as such i see little value in making any 'promises' to you. you have already broken your 'promise' to abide by wikipedia policy, several times already, yet demand that other editors play along in this charade. if you cannot edit without issuing ultimatums to other editors, you may wish to reconsider your role here. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have already promised to follow the rules. If you are not willing to do the same, since you started edit wars in the past, then I am unwilling to work with you, because all you are showing is your intent to cause an edit war, something I am unwilling to be involved in. I am stating this as fact, because I am not going to give you any chance to start some big problem, much though I know you want to do so. You want to lie and claim I broke the rules? Be my guest. RunedChozo 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo blocked

Continued personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and accusations of harassment and admin abuse have gotten RunedChozo blocked for 10 days. I suggest we lengthen it to indef. Opinions? -- Steel 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that sockmaster notices should be forced onto a user's user page if they object - in the same way that if a warning is placed on their talk page, they are allowed to remove them. It's a form of scarlet-letter harassment. That being said, Chozo was being a jerk to Itaqallah (one of the more mild-mannered editors on Wikipedia) after coming back from numerous blocks for similar stuff, so I support an indef. - Merzbow 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold with the indefblock due to Chozo's actions on his talk page. -- Steel 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion while looking at CAT:RFU. I have no qualms with an indefinite block (and I would have declined the unblock request had you not beaten me to it) as long as indefinite does not mean de facto permanent. In other words, if, at some point, this user expresses a commitment to civil behavior, I think that at that future time, an unblock should be be considered. --BigDT 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not care for the block one way or another. I just find it odd that part of their out burst was brought on by the "scarlet letter" that was being forced onto their page. They were not behaving perfectly, but above border, until that point. If the scarlet letter set them off, then they were prodded and it should be noted. Is there a set policy regarding sockpuppet notices or notices on pages of those who have been allowed to once again edit? Feel free to point out if I am missing anything as I mainly been reading happenings here. --NuclearZer0 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've locked the userpage, the talkpage, you yourself (Steel) were one of the complained-about admins. This looks like YOU taking out some frustration on someone and deliberately trying to drive them into a reaction.

The fact that you (Steel) now went back and removed the unblock request, too? Shame on you.

BigDT, how is the user supposed to "come back" later and express a commitment to "civil behavior" when all he's received from the Wikipedia community is incivil behavior and scarlet letter harassment, and when the talk page any everything else are locked? Merzbow complains he was "being a jerk to Itaqallah" and claims Itaqallah is "one of the more mild-mannered" editors, which isn't the case; the two are obviously antagonistic toward each other and Itaqallah's been involved in any number of edit wars. RunedChozo at least kept it out of article space, leaving it to a not-unreasonable demand that Itaqallah promise not to edit war on the page. I'll make a note that rather than simply saying "sure, I promise not to edit war", Itaqallah took it on himself to say some mean things about RunedChozo.

Nuclear, it's obvious this was a campaign to attack RunedChozo - for speaking up here against The Epopt (arbcom/cabal member), for speaking up on the slashdotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing's talk page. This thing stinks like yesterday's fish catch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.200 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

• note: refer to 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is a confirmed sock of RunedChozo as shown by checkuser Dmcdevit (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo). ITAQALLAH 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused reading all this, I've only seen RunedChozo's edits on the PSP page and I thought they were fine. Why would you go around trying to piss someone off? PSPMario 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A little worried here. Not only did we not investigate User:RunedChozo's complaint fully, we incriminated him before this happened. Isn't it a legitimate complaint if someone complains about me telling them to stop spamming them on their talk page? If I didn't spam, I have nothing to worry about; and if I did, then why raise it here and risk incriminating myself?

The indef block is a different matter - but I was kind of hoping that when a user raises a complaint, he doesn't get blocked for it.  :-/

I don't want to cause any problems, but... I am kind of worried. x42bn6 Talk 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for raising a complaint. He was blocked for personal attacks and grossly uncivil behavior. He was, by far, a net negative to the project and a lengthy block was fully justified. ChazBeckett 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not directly - but indirectly. He rose a complaint and instead of his complaint being looked at, he was blocked for something slightly unrelated. x42bn6 Talk 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I looked back on this and it looks like someone's deleting comments from this discussion, that's not right. It looks like you all were being just as incivil towards runedchozo.PSPMario 13:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Morikami Park

Mokumbear (talk · contribs), an SPA, has been trying to use Morikami Park and Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens as a soapbox. His latest attempt includes citing a blog page (which I suspect he created himself). Now a second user with very little history, Stephenjayburns (talk · contribs), has entered the discussion, repeating some of Mokumbear's arguments (compare Mokunbear's edit with Stephenjayburns'. An anon 63.167.237.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added to the article an image uploaded by Stephenjayburns (another anon, apparantly unrelated, removed the image). I think Mokumbear and Stephenjayburns have a sockpuppet relationship, and I think they are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. As I have been involvied with both articles for a while, I need an outside opinion on this situation. -- Donald Albury 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this?

I was going through some stuff I deleted a while back and found this page (per an image I deleted): User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. I'm not so sure this is the best use of a user sub-page as we are not a webhost for images. Still, I'm not going to delete this guy's subpage without some comment here. Perhaps an MfD?--Isotope23 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem with the page. If you are concerned about the images having no encyclopedic use, you could talk to Space Cadet and ask him whether he could delete all but a reasonable number for his userpage. As we don't permanently delete images, there won't be much point in it, though (it won't even save hard disk space). Kusma (討論) 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG has a summary, "self made for a very close friend" - and as far as I have seen on WP:NOT, we are not a free webhost... x42bn6 Talk 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to hassle him about it. Admittedly, I don't particularly like user sub-pages that have no real value to the project, but your point about disk space is valid. I'd be the first to admit my bias against MySpace-ification on userpages.--Isotope23 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Hi,

• Edit summeries entered by users should confirm with their edits. If they are not, can I revert it regardless of 3RR? Examples: [73] (User:Khoikhoi is an Adminstrator!!! and not the first time ), or [74].

• My comments in the talk page of User:Mardavich are continuesly being removed by this user himself [75] and the same adminstrator above [76]. User:Mardavich has provided multiple sources to prove the persian ethnicity of Muhammad al-Fazari, some of these sources (till now 3) didn't mention anything about his ethnicity [77], i.e. he was lying. IMO, this is the most serious crime you could commit in Wikipedia, because its very difficult to know that. Notice also thatI am not the only user to accuse you him of doing this unhonorable act [78], of course this users comment was also removed by him.He does that to keep his talk page "clean". Therefore, I insist that my comment stayes in his talk page so that others can see this too. Here in Wikipedia you can get blocked by the simplest things that you can imagine, and this guy goes around posting false sources in wikipedia by reputable authors, all this without even a warning? Just imagine you were you a famous author, and someone writes something very stupid and the citation is your book, although you never wrote it? How would you feel? BTW, can this author legally sue this user? Jidan 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Page protected over the edit war. Please discuss on the talk page. I note that Khoikhoi did remove Al-Fazari from the list (so his edit summary was at least partially correct), but he also removed Ibn Farnas and Ibn Yunus. I'm not sure what this means, but I suppose it's simple oversight on his part. No, incorrect edit summaries do not entitle you to revert more than usual. Yes, intentionally misleading edit summaries is disruptive (and thus, blockable), but I do not see anything intentionally misleading here. >Radiant< 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a simple revert with an edit summary that is precisely as misleading as the one preceding it, which claimed to add only Al-Fazari but did more. Complaining about the edit summary is WP:KETTLE here. Kusma (討論) 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. But, what about citing false sources? I posted the proof above. What will make him stop doing that? Notice that the authors repution is at stake here. And can someone plz tell user:Mardavich not remove comments posted by other users. Jidan 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:Jidan has been haresseing me and making false accusations in an apparent attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. I quoted two of the sources on talk page of that article [79], and moved/corrected the references accordingly.[80] This is not the first time that User:Jidan has behaved in such disruptive fashion, he has a history of sock puppetry [81], ban evasion and numerous 3RR violations [82]. As recently as this week, he has viloated various Wikiedpia rules such as WP:AGF : "we can't assume good faith regarding the rest of sources, therefore we can simply revert him" [83] "Welcome to Iranipedia!" [84], WP:NPA : "Your credibilty will suffer a lot, and then you can start searching for a new user name...Again" [85], "BTW, please don't listen to what User:Mardavich tells you. If it was the truth, then you should ask yourself why he tells you this secretly through E-mail instead of using the talk page." [86], and most important of all, User:Jidan has been edit-waring on List of Arab scientists and scholars [87] against the consensus, and after he was explicitly asked by an admin and arbitrator to stop edit-waring on that particular page or he'd be blocked [88] (since that explicit warning, User:Jidan has reverted that page at least a dozen times). --Mardavich 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for following policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Is adding {{unreferenced|date=February 2007}} to articles which do not have references considered a bad thing?--Grargar 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not generally, no, but if you're talking about a block, tell us what account you're talking about so we can tell what happened here. Friday (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Contest your block on the talkpage of the account that was blocked, not by creating WP:SOCKS to edit here.--Isotope23 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go... User:Grarg, blocked as a sock of User:JarlaxleArtemis. I will say though that he has a point, none of those articles are referenced...--Isotope23 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isotope. If he is a sock of a banned user, then he should be blocked, but his proper tagging of unreferenced articles with the {{unreferenced}} tag should not have been reverted. TacoDeposit 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well per WP:DENY, if it is this user there is a reason to revert, but it is a good list to go through and source or tag the articles.--Isotope23 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I.P. user 66.183.199.29

This user is repeatedly deleting a legitimate statement in the intro/summary for Homeschooling with no explanation. I have tried to get this user to respond on the talk page and in the edit summary, but have gotten no response. The statement in question is drawn from referenced material in the article. Darentig 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a warning to the IP's talk page. Some editors may not respond to or notice edit summaries & article talk sections, but it's tougher to ignore the new messages banner. --Onorem 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Thag you very buch." –Bilbo Baggins Darentig 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot malfuntion

Please note after I reverted vandalism to the James Simmons page, Shadowbot auto-reverted my change and left me a message on my talk page in error Cheers Weggie 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It did so because your revert included adding back a link to a members.tripod.com site, which is on the bot's blacklist. Trebor 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to check this. Shadowbot isn't supposed to revert anti-vandalism efforts. Shadow1 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:KlansmenKKK

Don't know if this is the right place to report this, but maybe an admin had better check this out. --Folantin 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Already been blocked. However, in the future, username concerns usually go to WP:RFCN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For something this obviously unacceptable, I'd use WP:AIV. Grandmasterka 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User User:Sheryn Mae

User Sheryn mae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose name sounds too similar to the given name of Philippine singer Sheryn Regis, has made unhelpful edits on a single day. I reverted the article to its last good version and, since another unhelpful edit was made to the article even after a level-three warning was issued on the talk page, issued a level-four warning. I leave it up to the admins to deal with this user. Interestingly, this user reminds me of another user account (User:Rachelle Ann Go, who made similar unhelpful edits to the article of another Filipino singer (you guessed it...Rachelle Ann Go); this user is now indefinitely blocked. I won't be surprised if User:Sheryn Mae and User:Rachelle Ann Go would be related somehow. --- Tito Pao 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Come on folks, you know better than to feed the trolls. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected title request

Please make George W. Bush into a protected title - it needs to become one. Keep the talk page, but protect the article from being re-created. The Game (game) and Angry Nintendo Nerd are more notable than George W. Bush. No need for the George W. Bush article. By the way, this was proposed by a group of users here. --Gabrielle-heddwalls1 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is protected... What do you mean? You mean delete it? Don't be ridiculous. You're talking absolute nonsense if you think George W. Bush isn't notable. --Deskana (request backup) 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this comment is the user's only edit, I'd say yes, the user is talking nonsense. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the user is suggesting that George W. Bush be deleted and protected at Wikipedia:Protected titles. This appears to be both a Bush slam and a complaint about the deletion/protection of The Game (game) and Angry Nintendo Nerd. —David Levy 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Fys Blocked

See above. Viridae^Talk 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam link, possibly to child porn

Just a heads-up - I just found a spam link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny&diff=prev&oldid=107067679) added to the disambig page at Jenny, with a misleading edit summary. The target includes a few porn links, but I got the impression from the text it was child porn. That IP only made that one edit, but it's possible that the link was added elsewhere under other IPs. |Mr. Darcy talk 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No child porn fortunately (yes, I looked). I trust the IP is blocked and the domain added to the link blacklist? --Edokter (Talk) 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP, since the edit was made four days ago. I have to admit I don't know where the blacklist lives. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist x42bn6 Talk 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so anyone can report. Shouldn't there be a link in the help pages somewhere? --Edokter (Talk) 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned (at Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming with bots) but under a bot-only heading. Also, the blacklist is for spammed links only - it doesn't censor things that are illegal (in fact, I think the Foundation may be able to get into trouble if they put, say, a child pornography link into the blacklist because, ironically, it makes it available to the public). Such things are probably best Oversighted. x42bn6 Talk 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban evasion by starwars1955

Per this discussion, user UCLA2007 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet continuing to make edits - please block. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

INDEF'D! Oh, and if anyone had doubts about his ban, this edit should help you sleep at night. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PSUMark just suggested on my talk page that we look at an IP range block. I haven't done one of those before, so I thought I should post it here to see if anyone had suggestions on duration. Starwars1955 appears to have always edited from IPs in the 4.245.120/121.x range. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would obviously support such a ban, if it also prevented those IPs from creating accounts. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, over the past two months Starwars1955 has been associated with edits from the following IP addresses and probably more:

Those are just the addresses that have edited Brett Favre and WP:CN - I'd wager that additional IPs from that range have also been responsible for removing comments and discussion over this issue on the talk pages of the user's various identities. I'll provide specific diffs if necessary, but I think a very quick glance at the contribs will be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Would a six-month to a year block on these IP addresses work? A lengthy ban like that might work to end the sockpuppeting. Acalamari 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those IPs have been used more than once, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've used dozens of other similar IPs while logged in under their multiple personalities. If you're talking about a range block of 4.245.120.* and 4.245.121.*, then I think that length of a block would be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PSUMark2006's analysis of the IP addresses is correct. Oh, and MrDarcy - that incest edit gave me a chuckle. Thanks. =) –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, I added/sorted some additional IPs from that range that had edited talk pages of the socks. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My question here is whether any other user has edited from an address in the 4.245.120-121.* range, to make sure we're not trapping innocent users. Also, I wouldn't start with a six-month block - I think that's a very long time to block an IP range, even if it's only 512 addresses. Maybe we can start with a month or so (if that's acceptable for a range-block) and see what happens. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to differ: Starwars1955 has caused so many problems, especially for you, King Bee, and Aviper2k7. Not only that, but he has created more sockpuppets than any other user I've encountered. He has used multiple personal attacks, and blanked his talk page several times. He has evaded his ban, and continued to vandalize and attack. A six-month block would ensure this doesn't happen for that length of time. After the block, we'll see what happens then. Acalamari 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Throwing in my 2cents here, being a nuetral editor and looking at all the evidence, i think a 6month block is needed. If not this user will continue to vandalize pages and cause many editors much stress. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for a rangeblock on 4.245.120.0/24 and 4.245.121.0/24. To find out if it is safe to block these ranges, post the question in the IP Check section of WP:RFCU. Thatcher131 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to suggest that. It is a Level3 IP range and possibly there are non-Favre obsessed fans out there who may possibly be editing, but if not I would say a 3-6 month range block isn't out of the question based on this guy's behavior and the fact that I've noticed him employing some more "advanced" trolling techniques lately. Time to nip this in the bud if we can.--Isotope23 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a request for IP check here. My first one, so let me know if I did anything wrong. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at it. May as well consider 4.245.122.0/24 also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the registered users are showing up under that range, I'd be in favor of that. We didn't discuss it previously because none of the user's anon edits came within that range. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser request is complete. jpgordon identified 25 other usernames that are likely socks (because they are variations on multiple editors including myself, aviper, acalamari, and isotope). Recommend rangeblocking 4.245.120.0/24, 4.245.121.0/24, and 4.245.122.0/24. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All three range-blocks enacted. That is some list of socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Aren't you wishing you had your very own starwars1955 sockpuppet imitator? :-) Thanks for your help in getting that block in place. Hopefully it'll do some good. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked both 4.425.120.0/24 and 4.425.121.0/24 for on-top contribs, and few minutes ago, and found only these: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. Looks like these ranges are currently used by -- at most -- two people. Some of these edits to comics-related pages stand out from the rest, but I'm not familiar enough with the user in question to know for sure whether those are made by the same person. Whatever the case, it doesn't seem like there will be very much (if any) collateral damage involved in a range block. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that only a checkuser can determine if there are any other legit registered users in that range. For example, there are no IP posts from my current address. Jp seems to be good with the rangeblocks, though. Thatcher131 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More threats of physical violence

A few days back I had complained that User:AlamSrinivas had made death threats in the hindi language on my page for which the admins rightly banned him completely. Now he is back in another avatar User:AlamSrini1 and is making threats on my talk page again, this time in english - "This blocking thing is a joke - I already found your address and it is being discussed how to destroy you... will watch u scream and enjoy, MJ!!! Can't wait to thrash you with my belt !!".

All this is because of my edits of the IIPM page which he keeps whitewashing. IIPM is an unaccredited diploma mill in India which has been involved in many controversies. Alam, and others like User:iipmstudent9 (who incidentally has made legal threats to me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Filing_a_police_complaint and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Bullshit.21_Cheats.21)

These are people from IIPM intent on whitewashing the page, wanting to remove trace of any controversy, and making it seem like an advertisement for the diploma mill.

Apart from requesting another block on the two users, in the light of continuous physical threats to me, I would also request that you put a full-edit-lock on the page or these people will keep whitewashing the page by threatening opposing viewpoints away. Makrandjoshi 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Both will be indefinitely blocked. One for physical threats and the other for legal threats.--Jersey Devil 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. However I fear that they will create another ID and come back like Alam did. I am not sure if IP-blocking would work either. Please also put an edit-lock on the page. Makrandjoshi 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User going around removing every single "the late" expression (as it applies to dead people) in sight

User:Booshakla is going around, and removing every single iteration of the expression "the late" he finds in Wikipedia to describe people who have passed away, to the annoyance of editors on several pages. Please see his contribution list here, which pretty much speaks for itself: [100]. He's been getting in 3RR trouble at least over the PETA article that I know of. Can someone explain to him that his crusade is needless and in many cases unwelcome, and that he should at least stop long enough to get proper feedback on his deletions? Thanks!--Ramdrake 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes are that way and 3RR violations should be reported over there. But I will admit that I think using "the late" in and article is just bad form. --Farix (Talk) 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's something for a magazine, not an encyclopedia. Write as if you're writing for posterity, not for today. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at Booshakia's contributes to PETA and while he does skirts close to violating WP:3RR, he still didn't go over the line to fill out a report at WP:AN/3RR. I would insist that you both continue to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid where a discussion over the phrase is already in progress and not engage in a further edit war on PETA or any other article. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, not everybody is going to know what "the late" means in that context. Instances of this phrase should be replaced with clearer language, and maybe sparingly, as the person's death might not be relevant to the text in which their name is mentioned in brief passing (no pun intended). — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry if I've caused any problems, I was just trying to help improve the articles. I've made a lengthy statement at the PETA page (which I still hope will be improved/trimmed) about why "the late" should not be added, so I won't say much here. I guess this hasn't been an issue tackled here on a wide-scale (although at WP:PW, we did make a conscious effort to remove that phrase from wrestlers). Hopefully, something can be made concrete soon and we can know what to do. Thanks for all the input.Booshakla 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see [101] for the diff. Please see [102] for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article ([103]), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts [104], and discussion [105]), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts [106])

He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits [107], and the discussion [108]). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is [109].

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" [110]. Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit [111]).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" [112].

On the [Khatami] article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits [113]).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See [114], [115], [116], and [117]. Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• I have had a lot of trouble with Patchouli's edits just recently, so I'll be adding my findings as I go along. For one, see Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link. Very misleading to link to a terrorist opposition group's claims as simply "some background." The Behnam 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, note this series of revert warring. Someone removed an undue weight POV issue about some magazine's opinion of Ali Khamenei (see [118] for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126] (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),[127], [128], [129], [130], [131] is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here [132] when justifying his edits to another user. The Behnam 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A POV re-introduction without any regard for the discussion on talk page [133]. The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem [134], with edit warring [135], [136], [137]. The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli is a very interesting person: His edits does hit one's raw nerves! I used to improve his edits on Iran related topics, but he has accused me of being a spy:

• "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"[138]
• And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:

"Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Wikipedia in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Wikipedia."[139]

But on the plus side, his edits has helped me to campaign for filtering Wikipedia in Iran :-) --Gerash77 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Abbw254 (still adding external links despite warning)

This editor: Abbw254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned up to spam4, but continues to add external links to the same web site. Where should this be reported for administrator intervention? --Comaze 03:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV. Picaroon 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

stalking/mild personal attacks by User:Webrats (contributions)

I reverted a large amount of what I perceived as linkspam by User:Webrats and I am now facing attacks of my edit history on my talk page and mild stalking in the form of this user's participation in the speedy deletion I recommended for Threepipe. I believe that this user is a linkspammer. See also the discussion on his talk page, where he has been warned by other editors about linkspam. Further, he has also created an inappropriate offensive article and removed the speedy delete tag from it as well. I am willing to concede that I am wrong about Threepipe, and that I am wrong about his external links, but I know abuse when I see it. MKoltnow 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's username and the numerous webrats links that he/she is adding, it sure looks like external link spamming to me. The editor was warned many months ago and responded contentiously. He/she disputes the interpretation of his adding of multiple links as link spamming. In less than 2 hours, more than 10 articles have had webrats links added. I've temporarily (24 hours) blocked Webrats for spamming. I've don't have time to review and revert edits now. Admins, please review. — ERcheck (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention and will interpret this decision as a go-ahead to re-remove the linkspam I removed already (all of which was reverted by the spammer). MKoltnow 04:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Threat in Andrew Geiger

Geigerrulesbig put the following hidden (i.e., visible only when you edit the page, not visible on the page itself) language at the end of the second paragraph of Andrew Geiger

If you fuck with this page, I will find you, and you will die a terrible death. I will slowly carve the letter G into your chest. I will then make a slit in your belly so that I may pull your intestines out and strangle you with them. I look forward to it.

I recommended for speedy deletion under db-bio, but shouldn't something be done about the threat language? --Proofreader J-Man 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedied as a vanity page. We get hundreds of these, though this one was a bit nastier than usual. You left the right warning for him. Antandrus (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am incorrect, but I believed we blocked users indefinitely for making death threats. Yuser31415 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. -- Avi 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Yuser31415 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block needed

This guy needs an indefinite block. WAS 4.250 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He hadn't recieved a final warning yet (I gave him a {{subst:bv}}). If he vandalizes again, report him to AIV. Cheers :). Yuser31415 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by CSCWEM — Lost^(talk) 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:P. Yuser31415 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

125.164.161.204 and 125.164.161.33

It all began when I severely warned 125.164.161.204 earlier today for blanking text of Wikipedia articles and creating categories that do not exist usually over a category that does, which also constituted to removing a link or section of an article without any apparent reason. It took me quite a while to revert all of the unconstructive edits of 125.164.161.204 using popups. About half an hour ago, I noticed that 125.164.161.33 began doing almost the exact same mistakes as the former which lead me to believe that it was the same anon. IP user. Again, I had to take up about half an hour (maybe less) to revert almost the exact same edits as the first IP did. I wasn't exactly sure what to do afterwards, so the tagged the second IP as a possible sock of 125.164.161.204. Perhaps using CheckUser would be best here, but I'm so exhausted (and its 3 am in the morning in Florida now) I suggest an immediate one week block for each IP until I could get a CheckUser going first thing when I log on Wikipedia in the morning. I apologize for not showing any links of proof because if I were to do that now, I wouldn't finish in a long while. But, if you were to look at each one's contributions and compare them, you'll find that they're about exactly the same, here's 125.164.161.204 and 125.164.161.33. I hope this was enough evidence to get these anonymous IPs blocked for about a week or two, maybe two seems better here. Really, its not fun doing this reverting for half an hour. IP addresses shouldn't even edit the encyclopedia anymore (unless they create an account) since they're the ones that usually disrupt Wikipedia... Power level (Dragon Ball) 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't required here, as all the relevant info is in IP addresses. I'd recommend a soft block (anon only) for the two IP addresses and any other address in the 125.164.161.* block involved in similar activity. Eli Falk 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

195.194.74.75 actively vandalizing

Is continuing to vandalize numerous pages, including the Featured Article Chasingsol 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 5h by El C. In future, use WP:AIV. Thanks for your help. yandman 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical request

I received a rather technical request for assistance here. Could someone more knowledgeable than I try to fix it, or, failing that, tell me how it's done? yandman 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Duja► 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User reported at WP:COI/N has vandalized my talk page with personal attacks

Following my detailed report at WP:COI/N, Dr. George Cruikshank, also blatantly known as User:Gene Poole (compare his photos at his site and the one at his user page, not mentioning his whole history of contributions), has recently vandalized my talk page with a spurios warning that shows incivility, personal attacks, unsupported accusation of eccentric opinions (????) and edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, multiple sockpuppet abuse and wikilawyering. The user has a long term story of similar harrassment towards other users, and has been once temporarily blocked. Please advice.Dr. Who 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a {{uw-npa2}} warning on his talk page. Hopefully this will put a stop to it. PeaceNT 11:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like so, but if the doesn't stop contributing to such articles strictly related to his business(es), he should be indefinitely blocked, or blocked each time he attempts to edit articles relevant to his business.Dr. Who 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm have no authority over blocking, and as I see it, the case isn't serious enough to get an editor indefinitely blocked. Please use dispute resolution PeaceNT 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of dispute resolutions only, his general behaviour and his userpage are blatant violation of many Wikipedia policy.Dr. Who 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How does his user page violate every Wikipedia policy? PeaceNT 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm rephrasing, I meant: his userpage violates mostly WP:COI, his general behavior is often in serious conflict with many WP policies.Dr. Who 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind that i re-edited, :). Dr. Who 13:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

Wondering what to do about this editor: he seems to be behaving unacceptably. He keeps making bad-faith accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, and harassment, which he claims to come from experienced editors.

Bad-faith: [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]

Incivility and lack of calm: [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]

And that is all from the last 5 days. Nor is it all of it.

He also has a history of incivility, POV and attitude problems: [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

I would note that this editor has been registered since last May, and has a consistent and predominant range of edits which are of the same style as those above.

I admit freely that I, and a number of other editors are in content dispute with him on the discussion page for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That is not the issue here. If that particular issue can be solved by talking, it will be, and if it can't, more appropriate action (e.g. mediation) will be taken. I certainly don't want to prevent de Fanel from contributing there (although he wants to prevent others from editing, having threatened to prolong the edit-lock for the next five months [179]). But his attitude makes him impossible to work with, and is profoundly unhelpful to wikipedia. I want an admin to take notice, and to persuade him - either with words or actions - to behave appropriately. No more than that. I don't care if he sticks around. But his attitude and behaviour are intolerable. Michaelsanders 12:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? PeaceNT 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above link takes me to the reference desk - do you mean WP:DR? Michaelsanders 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, it was merely a typo ;) PeaceNT 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be appropriate - he's been making accusations against a number of editors, and the main issue is his behaviour and attitude, rather than the content dispute. The problem is not, 'can the dispute be resolved?', but, 'can this editor be persuaded to behave appropriately?'. Michaelsanders 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:216.135.28.176 "scouting" users to come to another wiki

216.135.28.176 (talk · contribs) (see contributions) has put 4 messages on 4 user talk pages, usually to people who have been subject to warnings or people who disagree with some of Wikipedia's principles or guidelines. They all link to what I suppose is his own wiki. Is this appropriate? x42bn6 Talk 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He's spamming, but it is inconsequential.--Doc^g 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

article re re recreation

Sai keet has already been deleted 3 times under A7 but User:Abdulrahmanmalaysia is keeping recreating it, could someone salt the earth? :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

A specific editor has been insisting on inserting original research "conspiracy theory" type information to Fox News Channel. He has been told several times by several editors why this information is not appropriate for inclusion, however he has repeatedly inserted it (ignoring 3RR). Can we get a temp block? Thanks.

• Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Benjiwolf (talk · contribs)

/Blaxthos 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CroDome

Can someone please deal with CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an aggresive pusher of The Truth™? Being a Serb Genocidal admin ostensibly involved in an edit dispute, I'm reluctant pressing the buttons myself. Duja► 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)