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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

Fys chose to respond without an unblock notice, but rather with more direct commentary, and I see you responded in turn. I hope the block, which I support, gives Fys a chance to reflect on how to more positively contribute in future, and I hope you don't get too drawn into sparring over the block with Fys as your reasoning is sound in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I see no point in further sparring with Fys, he is quite obviously just "spoiling for a fight". Thanks for the support. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More Abuse

Didn't take long: [28] Please see his other contribs for context. Nssdfdsfds 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an edit of yours. Bit of a stretch for me to have inserted personal abuse into something you typed, isn't it? Or have I acquired mysterious Svengali-like qualities all of a sudden? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is the bit right above where I responded. I highlighted my response because although accusing people of lying is unnacceptable anyway, I included my response to make clear what the problem was and to refute your accusations. Incidentally, you do also appear to be advancing similar insults to the ones I reported you for last time, and even since I reported this here. Your edit summary here: [29] is abusive. Nssdfdsfds 21:05, 16 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 [30] 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 [31], moving those I thought were okay under the fair use guidles to appropriate places in articles [32] [33] and nominating whole articles for deletion because I did not think they complied with the notability policy[34]. 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 [35] [36]) 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)

This is really scary

Not only has PU started another edit war, on an article I started today, but now I find that she is keeping a diary [[User:PageantUpdater/Evrik conflict]] --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that, Evrik, and it seems a rational response by someone who feels she is being harassed. Document document document--you never know when you'll need the stuff in a hurry. Jeffpw 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik, considering the (false) accusations you have made against me and your persecution and harassment of me, this was, as Jeff put it, a rational response, not to mention stress relief. It was particularly warranted because you were claiming things were done in an order that they were not, and seem to ignore the fact that I did in fact deal with the articles in Category: Amazing Race contestants. The page is far from complete but I will continue to work on it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PageantUpdater is keeping a journal on the issue in userspace, you're in essence documenting the conflict here. How is one inappropriate if the other is not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not normally that detail oriented. I find it disconcerting that someone is tracking me that closely. --evrik ^(talk) 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am also tracking my own edits and those of other editors related to the conflict. You are at the heart of it, but are not the only one who's edits are being documented. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She's keeping ajournal of the whole interaction. As I said, I think it's perfectly justified. If this ever goes to arbitration, all of her prep work is done and ready to submit. It's what's recommended during employment conflicts, and I think it's perfectly appropriate here. Jeffpw 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just a comment from an outsider's view. Should this go to requests for comment first, and maybe arbitration later, if there's a need for it?? Keeping documentation on conflicts seems appropriate as evidence, and Jeffpw's point above says it all.

--sunstar net^talk 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I plan to take it to RFC (unless Evrik gets in first) but have been busy at work all week, carrying on this mess has been hard enough and I don't have the time or "headspace" needed to plan the RFC nom. I plan to do it tonight or tomorrow. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Let her bring it to an RFC. The fact is that she took a dispute over the content of one page and one image and expanded it - stalking me and harassing me. She repeatedly found articles that I was editing and started reverting me, even on an article that was brand new. While it may be good to document a dispute - her current obsession is unhealthy and scary. --evrik ^(talk) 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to give you a reality check, evrik, I fail to see what you are seeing, and your words here are bordering on WP:NPA violation. Jeffpw 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have started an RFC in relation to Evrik's conduct. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:19, 17 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,[37] and mass addition or removal of template notices almost exclusively on articles which I've created.[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] 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)

And yet again: SourcerRef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Psychonaut 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, again. -Will Beback · † · 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet again: CiteSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (crossposted to WP:AIV) —Psychonaut 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And done, yet again. --Coredesat 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#User:JarlaxleArtemis.[63] —Psychonaut 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has discovered the following four additional sockpuppets, which should be blocked as well:

1. NotoSVG (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Grargarar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Grargar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–Psychonaut 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All of those are now blocked, though Grargar had been blocked since the 14th. --Coredesat 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet is vandalizing WP:LTA and WP:ANI pages: Nobelja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block. —Psychonaut 16:32, 17 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)

• I want to thank the captain for getting those diffs, I know it took time, it was helpful. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. If there is any other way I can be of assistance, just let me know. Thank you for the info about how to add links :) Captain Barrett 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see Jeffs point, it appears valid. I see CPT's point, it appears valid. At first glance, and assuming good faith edits on both parties; However, it appears that there was good deal of latitude in what occurred. Everyone is different, I might have re listed the debate with the previous discussion included. And I only refactor formatting errors or outright egregious personal attacks with caution. But this is only my behavior, everyone is different. I think perhaps the perception is different from the intent intent in this case. Perhaps we chock this one up to good experience and move on? I would suggest caution in the future. I would also suggest Jeff recuse from this AFD, ultimately it is Jeffs call as far as recuse. If I have missed something in this, please call me on it. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I recused myself from it from the beginning: right at the top I say "No Vote." I'm only babysitting it to keep the same crap that bogged down the first one, plus all this new crap, from happening here. Obviously I won't close it, that goes without saying. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But after that you said many things like "This Page is Not Notable," that indicate you were taking a position. Captain Barrett 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Learn how to read: I say, "...here are the issues addressed by the anons..." the issues being that they felt the subject was non-notable, among other things, and that that was "valid reasons to initiate an AfD." You see an irrational conspiracy where there simply is none. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• No argument there. I do think it is correct to express the opinions of the Anons. However, you did not express the opinions of those non-anon editors who gave reasons to "Keep." Expressing only one side is a bias. I'm sure you meant well. Maybe you just didn't read the AfD close enough. Whatever the case, this is how it looks to me. Captain Barrett 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is the solution? Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• My two cents is this. Because this thing has been so mucked up, there seems to be only one fair thing to do: Leave the page up, for say, two months. Give time for data to be reassembled, rephrased, etc. Then, when everone is cooler, submit it for a final AfD. I have not been able to work on the page since J protected it. I have had no fair chance to make it better and neither has anyone else. Both AfDs are totally tainted, for different reasons. To delete now only gives in to the vandals. Proving that they can force a page down through manipulation. That's all I can think of, but I am very new to all this and will accept whatever the experienced admins think is appropriate. Captain Barrett 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First, we don't work like that. Second, all the individuals who voted delete on the AfD are not vandals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think closing the original AFD is going to be possible. If you can agree not to include that image, I think we can have it unprotected so that you can attempt to address the issues and improve the article before AFD closure. Thoughts? Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know if this may be related :"Also, it is becoming clear that NSLE is a member of a powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique that also definitely includes members Ambi, William M Connolly, and Ral315, and possibly many others as well, such as Joke137, Ems57fcva, Todfox, and Jeffrey O Gustafson. A user conduct RfC would also provide more evidence to implicate such wikiclique members, as NSLE's policy violations are so extreme and cut-and-dry that no honest user could possibly discount them." Captain Barrett 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique, I can say that like myself, Jeffrey O. Gustafson only appeared there because he took some action that SEWilco didn't like- for example, I was one of the admins who blocked SEWilco from commenting on the actions of another user that he was harassing. Trust me, neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor myself have any significant influence :) Ral315 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shh! You'll ruin my image! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I still do not understand why I may not use a picture of him? I have tried 2 different versions, both with permission. What needs to be done to prove that the use of these pictures is completely legal?Captain Barrett 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could edit the article to bring it out of AFD and worry about the photo inclusion later? Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly could, however Wiki is built around collaberation. Charles Reese went by many different names. The photo is _vital_ so that people who know him by other names can make connections and contribute to his article. So far it looks like i am the only one working on the page, while Jeff and his confederates are working at undoing or attacking every addition I make. Captain Barrett 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, neither I nor my, uh, confederates, whoever they are, have made any edits at all to the Ebony Anpu article aside from removing images in violation of policy. If "we" wanted to "undo every addition" you make, there would be no article there and you wouldn't be allowed to stand here yelling at the walls about how there is this giant conspiracy against you. For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears the page protection is centered around the inclusion of that image. For now, if you find sources to satisfy the discussion of that AFD, you can use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested unprotection under the reasoning that the protecting admin appears to be involved in the image dispute and the reasoning that you wish to improve the article before closure of the AFD. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very, very much. I am not adverse to this idea and since it has still not been explained to me exactly why I cannot post the picture, I can live with re-writing the article to attempt to better meet AfD standards for inclusion (I say better because I have already explained in multiple places why this article _already_ meets the standards). However the procedural damage is already done. No amount of work that I do now will change all the "Delete" votes that were put on the 2nd (and current) AfD due largely (my opinion) to the machinations of Jeffrey. It is too late to get objective opinions. I can try my best to fix it up, but it goes without saying that Jeffrey should recuse himself. It should be obvious to anyone fallowing all this that he has taken a deep and personal interest in this AfD, for reasons unknown. As a side note, Jeffrey is the only one here who has brought up conspiracy. I just provided a link to a former editor who was doing research in that area regarding Jeffrey. Cheers. Captain Barrett 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Big Comment Jeffrey has just Deleted Ebony Anpu and protected so noone may work on it. Captain Barrett 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would think that after being being asked to recuse himself from this AfD, he would have _at least_ have let another Admin close the AfD. This seems to be in very poor taste. Captain Barrett 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears Coredesat (talk · contribs) has closed the AFD. I would suggest perhaps WP:DRV Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat deleted the article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson just protected it to prevent recreation [64]. WjBscribe 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when I don't know the whole story behind an article before closing an AFD on it. The AFD itself had no issues, as far as I could tell. Feel free to DRV or file a request for unprotection on WP:RFPP. --Coredesat 01:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the fact you knew nothing of the surrouding dispute makes you especially suitable to close the AfD? The whole point is to have an impartial admin weigh the concensus, which you did. If, as Captain Barrett thought, Jeffrey O. Gustafson had closed the AfD and deleted the article, that would have been improper. Captain Barrett presumably thought this because he looked at the edit history of the deleted page and not the log. If he wants he can take it to WP:DRV (though I doubt he'll have much success), otherwise hopefully everyone can move on... WjBscribe 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, never mind. --Coredesat 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this shit

Uh, you did nothing wrong, Coredesat, because it was a valid AfD with overwhelming community consensus to delete based on actual honest to goodness policy (which is painfully clear to see). Despite days of being told the references were decidedly shoddy by everyone, the editor refused to modify them, and he only wanted unprotection to add repeatedly deleted/reverted images of questionable copyright. There was absolutely nothing he could have written to establish notability of an individual for which he refused to provide third party evidence. And the average person could see from a casual google search of less than 500 hits that it wasn't an issue of writabilty but blatant notability. The editor has been repeatedly told about our policies for inclusion, and instead of respecting our community norms, or listening to almost every single editor he has encountered including multiple admins, he actually suggests that instead of following basic established policy, we just ignore the AfD and just leave the page up for a month or two. There is a point where we assume good faith and help the noob and there is a point where we see them for trolling and soapboxing. This was never about contributing to our project but about spouting some cult weirdo soapboxing crap about an individual that may never have existed and yelling on the top of their lungs when we caught it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this and I cannot see anything wrong with the actions of either Admin - JOG's restart of the AFD was sensible as was Coredesat's hitting the delete button. --Fredrick day 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One option might be to userfy the article. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How RunedChozo was and should be handled

First, I did read the sockpuppet log on runedchozo and basically what it says is that RunedChozo edits with an IP that comes from the University of Houston, so saying that other users using that IP are him is pretty hard. There doesn't seem to be away to confirm that RunedChozo is a sockpuppet through IP.

And Itaqallah, the note pointing out that someone had responded to the discussion on blocking RunedChozo with a similar IP. RunedChozo was severely less calm and level headed about this then the user who made that comment. So either RunedChozo really calmed down and completely changed how he was writing, or it's someone else. Either way, the comments are valid. I fail to see how this user can come back with a locked userpage and talk page, and the investigation that the user submitted seems to have come to a halt--the speedy deletion request has been reverted and the sockpuppet notice is back up. The page obviously can't be deleted while the user is indef banned, but this seems to be a problem with user and I understand why. This user may not be the best behaved, but this user also has legitimate complaints and attempted to go about handling them properly, and wasn't treated neutrally. This user doesn't respond to conflict well, but the user was also provoked, in what the user probably sees as an ongoing thing.

I'm very disappointed in the administrators who continued to put the sockpuppet notice back when this issue had been raised here. A user came here asking for assistance, and this somehow got turned into an investigation of the user and the user's behavoir, becuase the user got upset when instead of responding to the query here or providing help, the "offending" warning was placed back on the user page and a user was kept from editing his own page. The discussion here then lapsed into a he said/she said about the users's previous and current behavoir which was really a completely separate issue. The past behavoir is kinda irrelevant, and if people are having a seperate problem with the user, they should post something seperate here or warn the user on his talk page. Not take over the user's complain and keep him from being helped.

Keeping the sockpuppet notice up on the user's page now is just rubbing salt in. The user wasn't banned for sockpuppetry this time, and user's aren't supposed to be forced to keep these notices on their user pages, so this notice should be deleted. Also, the user needs to be given some place to edit--the talk page if the user page is too volatile an issue, so that the user can express interest in coming back to Wikipedia.

I am more than disappointed in the way this has been handled. Miss Mondegreen 12:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted above and will repost here since it seems this discussion should not have been closed. If someone is complaining about the scarlet letter, I would think the proper response would have been to just cite the policy, or at least that would have been a better way then what was undertaken. I think this leaves me with some questions:

1. Are users allowed to remove sockpuppet notices if they are being allowed to edit again? This is not a question of opinion, I am asking if there is policy on this.
2. If the user is being allowed to edit after X behavior, at what point is there past behavior left in the past?
3. Is it standard practice to negate a complaint, with another complaint? Am I allowed to be harrassed by Joe, if I vandalized a page last week?

I was under the impression that most warnings and notices on user space could be removed, especially since for admins there is a log of the block, so admins can see relevant information and so can anyone else who looks at the block log. What is the purpose of keeping a notice on the users page? I think the whole situation could have been handled better and I think poking and prodding users who are upset is not the route. Wikipedia is not paper seems like a good example, had the user written 10 times asking for help, who does that hurt? The page goes up 3 kilobytes? I would think that instead of telling the user to calm down, which didnt work after the 2nd time, those responding would have recognized the user felt help was needed quickly. Not that they had to jump, but telling him to relax a third and fourth time, then posting WP:COOL, was not going to result in a cool headed user. This seems to be more of a failure or relating and apathy, then anything else. I hope someone can actually answer the questions above, if there is no policy regarding the sockpuppet notice, then I think we should pull a rollback and forgive the outbursts them stemmed from a mistake and let the user edit again and everyone just walk away and forget. --NuclearZer0 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being much too nice to this user. Speaking as an outside observer that's not been involved in any of his arguments or fights (but someone who HAS been noting his behavior), your suggestion, especially the part about "letting the user edit again and everyone just walking away and forgetting", doesn't seem in the best interests of the project at all. Besides that, I think he IS editing again under the PSPMario sockpuppet, given that all that user's edits have identically picked up just where RunedChozo left off. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it disruptive editing? I think if its not, it just goes to show further that they are a useful member of this project and can edit civily. I really do not see why people rather chase down sockpuppets, until they turn into vandals, then chase down vandals. Would some then be satisfied since they can say "I was right all along", knew he was a vandal ... Driving people to the point where they have an outburst and then bannig them for it, makes little sense. We have had admins curse eachother out here on this very page, we do not drop the ban hammer because its understood sometimes we as human need a release and a moment to cool. Again, I never said the editor was perfect, but as mentioned above, coming here because they feel they are being harrassed, and then being investigated, is not normal. I will point out though that I am partially not surprised, as taken from my comment above that disagreeing with a current/former Arbcom member will only end badly. Which no surprised, it did. --NuclearZer0 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a grudge against PSPMario, though I cannot fathom the reasoning. You characterize RunedChozo as driving off an "fantastic editor" ZakuSage in the other discussion below, yet ZakuSage left right after being caught wikistalking, which doesn't speak very well for your friends, but does speak to the fact that RunedChozo had a legitimate complaint about being systematically harassed by people. You and Trebor in the discussion below utterly dismiss a good-faith question brought by PSPMario, and instead are trying to have him brought up on charges of being a sockpuppet. This seems to be very typical on WP:ANI, one party brings a question or concern and instantly are attacked for bringing it to someone's attention.

The only places PSPMario has edited appear to be the PS3 and PSP pages, and no controversy exists about those edits. The number of people here who are willing to make ad hominem attacks and very incivilly try to game the rules against other editors rather than civilly discussing matters is breathtaking. CountPointercount 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of time guys. I'd never think twice after indef blocking someone w/ an extensive blocklog (especially, especially and especially for incivility and personal attacks issues). RunedChozo has been incivil to everyone whom they disagree w/. This trend was never limited to a set or group of articles but far beyond that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You may think so, but others disagree. Trying to stifle debate is, additionally, a very rude thing to do. CountPointercount 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First i'd say Welcome to Wikipedia. Second, please assume good faith and never accuse people of stifling debates especially when they'd talk about facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing for a long while, even though I just decided to get an account, but thanks for the welcome. As for your words, if they weren't intended to stifle the debate, then I wonder what "this is a waste of time" means? CountPointercount 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read my first comment carefully, review the blocklog of RunedChozo carefully (blocked a dozen of times by several admins since a relatively short period- since November 9, 2006) and the conflits they've been into w/ a dozen of contributors than you'd agree that it is a waste of time especially that the main discussion was closed above this section. If some people think that users such RC are not be indef blocked, than who would be? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suspicions that CountPointercount and PSPMario are sockpuppets of RunedChozo, explained in the thread here. Could you take a look? Trebor 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users agree that closing the debate was improper, first of all.

Second of all, that the incidents involving RunedChozo involve deliberate provocation from other involved users. I prefer to think that most people on Wikipedia can be rehabilitated, especially if they have made good edits, and RunedChozo has obviously made good edits, edits that have been replaced and supported by multiple other users as well. If you cannot see this, then I must wonder if you may have some ulterior motive for trying to close off this debate.

I must also question your logic of "a dozen" blocks, as reading the log, there are multiple times where administrators appear to be playing games, lengthening/de-lengthening blocks, and you are trying to read each alteration as a "new" block. Plus, we have the additional problem of administrators who are deliberately using lengthened blocks as a method of provocation.

If you say that you think the indef is justified that's one thing, but as I noted about another user below who was mischaracterizing things, you appear to be deliberately trying to paint this user as an evil and vile person, and that is simply not supported by the record.

Additionally, the continued trying to tar and feather anyone who disagrees, such as Ex-Nintendo and Trebor are doing, is most distressing. It is hardly a fair proceeding when they are using these tactics and trying to kill the messenger. CountPointercount 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• considering RunedChozo's tendency to engage in extensive puppetry, PSPMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/CountPointercount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s rushing to the scene to provide the ruse of a concerned third party (CPc appears on this page defending RunedChozo 30 mins after creating his account, PSPMario was an account created and active during RunedChozo's week block, editing on the same article as RunedChozo, then reappearing on this page when RunedChozo was again blocked), and the checkuser case, it seems that both of these accounts are indeed sockpuppets of RunedChozo. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You really should pay attention to people's edits. You aren't blameless in these events by any means. CountPointercount 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop using apocalyptic words such as stifling debates, tactics, kill the messenger and evil, etc...? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking of what I see. If these tactics weren't being used, I wouldn't have to point them out. CountPointercount 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Trebor's constant attacks below, it is hard to assume "good faith" when the goal is obviously not a civil discussion, but to get people banned for disagreeing with them. CountPointercount 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor, it all makes sense now. Both PSPMario and CountPointercount were determined that yes, they are sockpuppets of RunedChozo. Accusations of "killing the messenger" aside, what I see (and what I have commented on) is this: a user with an extremely long history of very, very bad behavior and a large blocklist (VALID blocks, I might add, not "playing games"), and two brand-new users who pop out of nowhere to support this user who have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's workings. I'm disinclined to believe that CountPointercount is simply some previous IP-user who just coincidentally happened to pop out of nowhere to suddenly begin to give his unerring support to RunedChozo at the exact same time that PSPMario did. The fact that a checkuser came back with a positive confirms my suspicions. Bear in mind that I've not gotten myself involved in any of the edit conflicts that RunedChozo has participated in- I'm only stating what the record shows. Even the quickest check of RunedChozo's history shows that each and every block of his is valid, starting all the way back with his actions in November of 2006. I'm not being mean about this, I'm just stating what clearly is fact- RunedChozo has a very, very long history, starting from the very beginning of his Wikipedia editing, of ignoring the most basic rules that are in place here. He even got into a fight with Aecis, who is in my opinion a very level-headed and rational person. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I should examine the characterizations you're making, since you go to all that trouble.

1. Let's see, a "fight" with Aecis? It looks like a disagreement, but no more, according to the talk page record here.
2. I didn't question the validity of most of the blocks, but the number of them which FAyssalF quotes is both wrong and misleading. Blocks which are the result of an administrator tweaking the timing should not be "counted" twice.
3. There is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia in which administrators take a user who is in a conflict, block them, and then use harshly worded unblock requests as an excuse to be punitive and block longer. This is not good because it directly contradicts Wikipedia's policies that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, because it is itself incivil conduct on the part of the administrators, and because it is equivalent to throwing gasoline on a fire: it does absolutely nothing to calm the situation down.
4. My support is not "unerring", but I make no bones about the fact that I believe administrator conduct in this case has been woefully inadequate, if not unprofessional, incivil, and detrimental to the encyclopedia.

1. As to edits, you can look at my edit history and judge for yourself. I have no relation to those articles; indeed, I usually just wander around with the Random Article button trying to do cleanup to articles that need some small edits or grammatical fixes. What I have a problem with is administrator misbehavior and the tactic by which you and others are trying to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with you. Someone earlier mentions "Scarlet Letter" harassment, and I think this is a very good description of what you are trying to do. It is incivil behavior on your part and serves no purpose to improve the encyclopedia, because if the edits were bad they would be reverted, and if the edits are good then who cares where they came from? I am sure that PSPMario, if a checkuser on the other two came back negative, would be more than happy to apologize to the two, but you're not giving them the chance, you're calling for their head on a platter which isn't exactly fair given that they appear not to be logged in to defend themselves at the moment. CountPointercount 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please could an admin review this; there's strong evidence of sockpuppeting. Trebor 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As my final statement on this, I've stated my observations regarding this matter Trebor- and anyone can check the edit history to note- despite my being labeled as a "messenger killer", a "tar and featherer" and other dramatic derogatory attempts to sully my character, I have refrained from doing the same. RunedChozo and all his various and sundry socks are free to attack me, to call me "incivil" for stating my observations as such. To call him some sort of derogatory name would certainly be incivil, but that I have not done. Stating the facts as I see them- that I have done. In the end, we have what we have- a user with an extensive history of rule-violation that stems back from the very days he created his accounts, a plethora of proven sockpuppet accounts and a headache for any and all administrators that have to clean up this mess. I wash my hands of it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've in bad faith continued to try to claim I'm a sockpuppet, and you've not bothered to address any of the questions and concerns I raised; your whole goal seems to be to try to get people banned. I consider that "killing the messenger", yes. CountPointercount 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean that everyone should ignore the blatant sockpuppet of a blocked user. It's the height of hypocrisy to complain about the tactics used by others and then abuse the system to avoid the consequences of your actions (i.e. being blocked). Please, give it up, RunedChozo. ChazBeckett 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "blatant" nothing, please stop trying to kill the messenger. You can see my edit history for yourself. I have no relation to any of the pages these others edit on, and my only point here is that there has been bad behavior, a point to which multiple other users agree. Calling me "RunedChozo" does not make it so, nor does fudging CU evidence. CountPointercount 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no fudged CU evidence. It came back with a result of "likely"; that, combined with your very new account, sudden interest in this particular case and large amount of background knowledge of the matter is a very strong sign that your are a sockpuppet of RunedChozo. Same for User:PSPMario. Attempting to disguise yourself by making numerous minor edits to random articles does not discount any of that evidence. Trebor 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at your edit history? Are you sure you want people doing that? That's some pretty damning evidence there.

• You created your account less than four hours ago, yet have commented extensively on a user that was blocked yesterday,
• Within 25 minutes of account creation you began commenting on RunedChozo in several different locations.
• Nearly a third of all of your edits have dealt with RunedChozo.

Saying your are not RunedChozo, when you quite clearly are is rather silly. ChazBeckett 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP! You dont really have to, but I would like it if the persons points were addressed instead of crying puppet. There was points I made and the editor above me did as well that seem to be ignored because an editor may or may not be a sockpuppet. I never understood the idea that someone who wants to contribute so badly that they would go get another IP, is a bad thing. They are asking for the ability to edit this encyclopedia. Many people go through Arbcom hearings and are put on probation, why not just enact a probation of sorts and give him an admin that will make sure he doesnt cross the line, but also that he is not baited or harrassed. Also again, banned editors can comment on Arbcom hearings so I do not see why they cannot defend themselves here. And please the back and forth AGF'ing and the like is making everyone look less then mature. Can we stop the back and forth and have a discussion? --NuclearZer0 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing about sockpuppets is that they'd never be discovered if they didn't immediately revert to the behavior that got them blocked in the first place. If RunedChozo had created a sockpuppet that simply went about his merry way editing the encyclopedia, he never would have been spotted. Instead he chose to continue the ruckus that got him blocked. ChazBeckett 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. CountPointercount has now been blocked. Trebor 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I think the points went completely ignored. He wants to edit the encyclopedia, keep blocking him and he will keep cycling his IP and making new accounts and eventually just become a vandal as opposed to someone who had a complaint. It seems some people are perfectly happy with perpetuating the cycle of vandals. If he wants to edit, let him, put him on probation. The truth is if he wanted to just vandalize and curse people out, he would not be here fighting for his ability to edit, he would be out vandalizing since he can obviously get around blocks easily. Does noone recognize the painfully obvious? --NuclearZer0 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As said above...If he only wanted to edit, he could have and very likely would have gotten away with it. If CountPointercount was truly RC, then he chose to come back to this page and start up the argument again. I think that is also painfully obvious. I don't agree with hunting after sockpuppets that are only making positive contributions to Wikipedia, but then again...that doesn't seem to happen very often...at least not that we know of, and that's kind of the whole point. --Onorem 18:15, 16 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.

Stop archiving! in re RunedChozo

ref: I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"
ref: RunedChozo Blocked

I returned less than 24 hours after posting a comment, see above (permlink), and the discussion has already been archived. That's a problem. I consider myself fairly active and I come to Wikipedia at least once a day, so to have a discussion I started, archived before I got a chance to come back and see what people said in response to my complaint is completely unacceptable.

Even worse, I didn't get a response to my complaint. Please consider this my opening a complaint on this board. I'd like a response from the people involved in the incident, and a comment on what will happen.

I don't know much about RunedChozo's past behavoir. But, after reading everything on this page I am under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most warnings and notices on user space can be removed, and that's effictively, the response that RunedChozo got here--except that while people here were SAYING that, there were also reverting his edits to his user page to keep warning there and protecting his userpage so that he couldn't edit it. Those are some pretty conflicting signals to send.

If in fact users are not allowed to take warnings off there user spaces, then all administrators had to do, was make that clear to RunedChozo here. They didn't need to go and revert edits on his userspace--they could have waited for him to and if he didn't move from there, and they didn't need to protect his userspace. These actions were hostile and provoctive, especially since that wasn't the information he was being given here. Administrators knew that there was something going on here, they came from this incident report and went to his userpage and took action, and did so without leaving clarifiying messages as to policy. There were a lot of messages about the user, and the user's behavoir on several other issues, but nothing about what the user actually brought up.

This user's user page and discussion page are still blocked, and the sockpuppet warning the user was trying to get removed is still on the userpage. These discussions have been archived riduclously quickly and I haven't gotten a response to any of my concerns. I'd like to know exactly what the policy is about the removal of warnings on userpages and I'd like a response about the action take on the userpage that was provocative and contradictory to the messages that the user was getting here. I'd also like to know what administrators plan to do about the locked status of the userpages and the sockpuppet warning on the userpage, and why all of these discussions have been archived so quickly.

Please do NOT prematurely archive this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, consider this comment my filing an incident report in response to what I consider the overall gross mishandling of this situation and I'd like a reasonable opportunity to respond. Everyone else, please don't turn this into another fight over whether or not RunedChozo is or is not a ______. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is done automatically by a bot when no discussion has taken place for 24 hours, correct? Issues on this board aren't meant to drag out for weeks and weeks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last two "archives" done on sections concerning RunedChozo were done by editors, not bots. --Onorem 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch that because only two bot-archived incidents were linked up at the top. But my below point still stands on solid ground :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the place for a formal "incident report". As you can see if you'll read the header, this is not the Wikipedia complaints department and this page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but, I am concerned that neither RunedChozo nor Miss Mondegreen have received direct answers. RunedChozo did not handle the situation well, and perhaps this user has been disruptive in the past, however, I believe this user came here with a legitimate concern and was provoked into crossing the line. RunedChozo was perhaps not the best editor to try and make this point, but the question still has not been adequately answered. So, I will ask one more time: Must a user leave a Sockpuppet Master warning up after they have returned from their block? Yes or No?--DSRH | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share this view. I don't have an opinion on the block because that is for sysops to decide on, but the user did come with a complaint and I was hoping that it would have been looked into first. If he had spammed, then he would be stupid to come here with a report which could well incriminate himself. If he had not, then this was the correct place to come to. Unfortunately, due to his past behaviour, the discussion got nowhere - and now he has one more excuse to complain. x42bn6 Talk 16:40, 17 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 [65] for the diff. Please see [66] for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article ([67]), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts [68], and discussion [69]), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts [70])

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 [71], and the discussion [72]). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is [73].

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" [74]. 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 [75]).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" [76].

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 [77]).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See [78], [79], [80], and [81]. 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 [82] for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),[91], [92], [93], [94], [95] is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here [96] 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 [97]. The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem [98], with edit warring [99], [100], [101]. The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A 'Patchoulic' article [102], combining some editorials with OR to make negative assertions about those demonstrations. Perhaps a workable article, but Patchouli's style does not involve neutral writing and presentation. The Behnam 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added a link to a strongly anti-Islam website [103], on the Religion of Peace article, which talks about the use of "religion of peace" to describe Islam. Adding a link to a very biased website in the article body, as its own section, is very POV. Afterwards added an external link in addition [104], so nothing was even slightly improved. I can't help but consider the possibility that it is misleading to say "Official Website of Religion of Peace" in the article where Islam is being discussed as a "religion of peace." In any case, the entire addition of that website to the mix was rather POV. The Behnam 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Further POV & OR together [105]... in general, Patchouli's edits at Mutaween page [106]. The Behnam 10:33, 16 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"[107]
• 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."[108]

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)

I am also one of the editors that has had to deal with Patchouli's sneaky POV pushing attempts. This is definitely a pattern of behaviour that he has on all articles related to the middle east. I am asking for your help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses and his sabotage of wikipedia middle-east related articles. Please take the time to read the following links for information about his history of misconduct. I now feel that there's no reasonable chance to reach a resolution with him and therefore I'm seeking to present his case at the ArbCom or an RfC for user conduct. Please see User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing - Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits - User_talk:LittleDan#hello - User_talk:Alex9891#Khatami's reform protection Barnetj 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written about Patchouli many times before, and I don't want to repeat myself. He is not a good contributor and, in my opinion, should be banned. LittleDan^talk 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated whenever I see AN/I reports like this. One side, Patchouli, is vehemently ANTI-Iran, but then I see the other side, or a faction thereof, like Gerash77, who seems to have a long history of agitating against WIkipedia and actioning for it's censorship in Iran. I wind up feeling like if we deal with only the one issue brought to AN/I, but ignore the revealed OTHER problems, we're really not much better off, and possibly worse off. Can we address Gerash77's actions against what he calls a 'patchopedia', and brags of helping to censor it on his User Talk? [109] ThuranX 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at a different ANI. This particular ANI is about Patchouli's POV & OR editing, as well as unwillingness to compromise with a number of different editors. I don't think these different editors comprise some sort of anti-WP "faction;" the whole reason that Agha Nader started this and others, including myself, contributed is because Patchouli's disruptive edits are hindering the project. So I think it is unfair to characterize all of us as an anti-WP group just because one member of this group claims he convinced the IRI to filter WP. Anyway, this ANI hasn't really gone anywhere significant, and we are thinking about moving to an RFC or ArbCom. Most of the people who have had these unpleasant experiences with Patchouli consider ArbCom the best choice, including editors who haven't posted here (saving for ArbCom), so I intend to apply for ArbCom once I finally figure out the confusing process. The Behnam 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

more webcomics stuff

An individual claims to use unfair means in order to get a webcomic article deleted:

http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia

Geni 14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the socks mentioned in the article

Salby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Incredulous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Banalzebub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hammerabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LKeith30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repromancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Expiwikist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Floxman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YothSog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.27.212.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s not so great that nobody (myself included; I participated quite a bit in the AFD) noticed this and quite a reminder to pay more attention to both sides of an AFD in the future. Does anyone see the need for DRV? (The article didn’t have much potential, but given the circumstances, the deletion was not necessarily within the usual process.) —xyzzy_n 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If admins did not view AfD as a vote, this sort of activity would bear no weight. Kyaa the Catlord 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I never viewed the AfD as a vote. I applied common sense and policy. The artile explicitly failed WP:N. Take it to WP:DRV if you dispute this. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't addressed at you in particular. Just a general comment, gomen for any misinterpretted aggro-ness. Kyaa the Catlord 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV discussion has been initiated, someone needs to fix it though – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15#Starslip Crisis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Based on the admission, does anyone have a big problem with a sock-block?--Isotope23 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Worse yet, the author says he spent time fixing "punctuation outside of quotation marks", which is just wrong. Αργυριου (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it wrong? The author says "even I couldn’t resist fixing punctuation outside of quotation marks and errant apostrophes." - surely this is the kind of minor edit that very many people make very often, and is to be welcomed? DanBeale 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS, punctuation should be outside quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Doing otherwise is… just wrong. —xyzzy_n 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood the author to be saying that he was fixing punctuation that was not part of quoted text. DanBeale 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a RFCU. Do I have to add it to pending myself or is there a bot to do that, it's not clear from the instructions and I don't want to mess it up --Random832(tc) 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if this is true (as checkuser will hopefully determine), textbook WP:POINT. --Random832(tc) 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

oh CRAP. I didn't read correctly. I've crossed out your line in the CU, but it's still listed under your name. What should I do? --Random832(tc) 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Someone fixed it. Anyway, it was confirmed. --Random832(tc) 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked quite a few as SPA trolls and I blocked the rest as confirmed WP:SOCKS.--Isotope23 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked all the other contributions, none of these contributed to any other AFDs. Sigh. GRBerry 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll point out the user does in fact believe the webcomic is non-notable: "Starslip Crisis honestly isn’t notable." He was trying to point out that he could get it deleted for spurious reasons, but he did believe there were valid reasons to delete it.

Also, I have a hard time thinking of any way he could have argued this without trying it. I think we all know that for someone to merely say his criticism would not be nearly as effective. Ken Arromdee 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting case-study and he makes some good points: Don't look to wikipedia for personal validation. Just block the socks, re-do the AFD and carry on with no hard feelings. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak resuming disruptive activity

Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly blocked, most recently on 21 January for "disruption, revert-warring, trolling, [and] incivility". Immediately following the expiration of this latest block, he returned to much of the same behaviour:

• continued POV edit warring and revert warring (against the established community consensus) on Srebrenica massacre [110][111][112][113][114][115]

• continued POV edit warring on Serbophobia [116][117][118]. (He had previously tried to have the article deleted, and tampered with other users' votes. Here he tried to move and retitle the article.)

• making comments or judgments about editors and their contributions on the basis of what he believes to be the editors' ethnicities, or imputing anti-Bosniak sentiment to other editors [119][120][121]. This includes posting WP:ANI complaints against "Indian" administrators who blocked a user for 3RR and personal attacks [122][123][124][125][126].

• canvassing for votes from partisan editors, and instructing them on how to vote [127][128][129][130][131][132]

Other questionable behaviour which may or may not be made in bad faith or constitute policy violations:

• allegedly improper use of a "you have new messages"-style box (see User talk:Bosniak#Improper use of "You have new messages" box; now under discussion on the Village Pump and elsewhere)

• possible WP:POINT violation with his creation of the neologistic Bosniak Canadian (AfD)—he had previously created neologism-based articles, such as Bosniakophobia (AfD), out of indignance towards Serbophobia.

• advising other users not to heed warnings unless they come from an administrator [133]

I won't propose any specific remedy as I've been the occasional target of this user's edit warring and personal attacks. However, I would like the community to consider how to deal with this problem. —Psychonaut 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried RfC? Take him to ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider that option if the consensus here is that the above-noted behaviour doesn't warrant another (longer) block. There's no point in bothering the already-overworked ArbCom if it's simply a matter of enforcing existing policies. —Psychonaut 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who first noted the "message box" issue, I believe that it may not warrant consideration in regards to this matter. When I became aware of the box on Bosniak's pages, I asked him to adjust it and he did so quickly and without complaint. The discussion on Village Pump was not initiated on the basis of his actions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, he started (slowly) being more constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, and regarding the accusations re "Indian administrators", he acted as a proxy for 2-week blocked User talk:Emir Arven, who has an enormous cabal against him. And, yes, he does hold a grudge against Psychonaut (I did exchange few, mostly friendly, e-mails with Bosniak ). I'm not saying he's a model wikipedian, but I believe that he's corrigible. Alas, there is a lot of WP:ABF on all sides in the wider conflict. Balkans, y'know. Duja► 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was becoming more polite and constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre. However, at the same time he was continuing his edit warring on the article proper. —Psychonaut 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come here from Bosniak's Talk page where I found out this was going on. I'm not going to speak for or against him though some of the people whose names I've seen here know very well on which side of the fence I stand. I was told to "watch my conduct" when I gave up the struggle to remain "civil" in the wake of yet another onslaught at the article by people whose good faith I doubt - and even if I'm banned for saying that it's what I believe. Editing and administration have moved the article towards a position where people who have worked very hard in the past to assert the truth of what happened at Srebrenica in the face of overt mistruth and more subtle manipulation have become increasingly upset and less happy about pseudo-objective discussions and actions that those familiar with the situation at the article recognise as wilfully provocative. The specific reason why I'm intervening here is that I'm angry to see a reference to "POV edit warring and revert warring (against the established community consensus) on Srebrenica massacre". This so-called "established consensus" is just the new status quo that has emerged in the wake of this stepping up of the campaign of revision. What is referred to now as "POV edit warring and revert warring" has often consisted of attempts to restore parts of the article to a former "consensus" (if that word is ever appropriate to the article given the concerns and motives of the participants), that existed before the onset of the recent campaign spearheaded by a complicated and controversial character who I still believe whatever else is said has not been subject to the same restraints as other people. Bosniak, myself and Emir Arven have attempted to stem this tide of change at the article. I maintain we were justified not just in terms of ensuring a reasonably true account of what actually happened but also in terms ultimately of defending the credibility of the article. Personally I've found this a pretty disillusioning experience and I can't say that I'm bothered any more by the threat of sanctions here. I'm still very angry so I'd better not say any more, not because I'm concerned by what the administrators here might now threaten me with but because I'm unhappy enough already at having let myself get provoked into losing my calm. People here have deleted me in the past and may well do so now, but at least I've had my say and unencyclopaedic as it may be to say so at least I don't feel that Bosniak, Emir Arven or I have betrayed our duty to the truth. --Opbeith 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi friends. I was invited to come and state my side. Psychonaut was blocked in the past for disruptive behavior. He has been reverting Srebrenica Massacre constantly. There is no established principle with regards to disputed terms @ Srebrenica Massacre article. Disputed terms include: "alternative views", "controversial views", "revisionist views", and more recently "dissenting views". We are attempting to improve the article, but disruptive users are constantly reverting article to their Point of Views which is (I believe) wrong. User Psychonaut does not assume faith. This is probably 10th or 11th time that he is complaining against me. He seems to side with revisionist views @ Srebrenica Massacre, and he wants to get rid off me and other progressive editors who want to improve the article as opposed to constantly disrupt it. User Psychonaut is using old tactics by pointing out to my old edits, etc. Administrators should take notice that he is not assuming good faith and that he is constantly complaining. He treats wikipedia as his own personal page and he is complaining against people who he does not agree with. As you can see from my contributions, I have slowed down my editing at Srebrenica Massacre article and even compromised with disruptive editors (Osli73) that we should not focus on Gen. MacKenzie, as he is not a central player in the massacre (you can read this at Srebrenica Massacre discussion page). I call upon administrators to stop Psychonaut from his fully biased approach, constant complaints, and him not assuming good faith when it comes to users he does not agree with. As I said -- Srebrenica Massacre article is slowly, but steadily becoming improved. We are using compromise and good faith as the best approach to improve the article. Things are getting better and by working together, we can achieve much better results. Thank you for your time, and I wish you peaceful day friends. All the best, and assume good faith at all times.

Update: User Psychonaut does have a grudge against me and I don't appreciate his constant complaints, constant reverts (he is starting edit wars and reverting "revisionist" to 'whatever term he sees appropriate', even though there is no concensus which term to use). His goal is to achieve "moral equivalency" with respect to the Srebrenica Genocide article (which is wrong and biased). I would like to thank user (admin) Ckatz, user Duja and user Opbeith for their opinions. Psychonaut should learn to assume faith and stop using old tricks and old edits as an evil tool to block me. He is starting revert wars, he reverts my good faith contributions, and then he comes here and complains against me. Unfortunately, user Psychonaut is not constructive. Don't fall for his tricks. This is not his first time. Bosniak 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Update 2: It is not legitimate to describe anything as an "alternative" view when it's been contradicted by legal findings (that was the relevance of the MacKenzie discussions), and that's exactly what user Psychonaut does with his constant disruptive behavior, edit wars, and reverts. He is trying to maintain and enforce his point of view in the face of interventions that the administrators have been very reluctant to respond to and he is making me appear the guilty / aggressive party because of the way the ground has been moved by other people's changes. Bosniak 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not sure what opinion of mine Bosniak is referring to, as I'm not involved in the AN/I. If it is in regards to my earlier note about Bosniak's user page message, please note that the comment should not be taken as a complaint against Psychonaut. It was merely to clarify what I thought could be an honest misunderstanding with regards to a very minor issue. (Oh, and while it's a nice compliment, I'm actually not an administrator - not sure where that came from.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To give some background on my involvement with the articles under discussion, I wish to point out that I have no interest in anything remotely related to the Balkans. Contrary to what Bosniak has stated in the past, I am not a Serb, and do not have a pro-Serb or genocide-denial agenda. I became involved in the articles rather accidentally, probably through an AfD or from tracking down vandalism in a related article. My only involvement in the Srebrenica massacre article has been minor formatting changes and attempting to defuse POV issues. I have no horse in this race, and in fact didn't even know about the Srebrenica massacre until I stumbled upon it on Wikipedia.

It is correct to say that I do not assume good faith for Bosniak, at least for certain incidents. For example, he states above that I have been blocked for disruptive behaviour, which he knows to be a lie as it was repeatedly explained to him that the blocks on my account were mistaken (and at any rate had nothing to do with the sort of behaviour he ascribes to me). He also has chosen not to read the diffs I posted, because they are not "old edits" as he falsely claims, but rather those made only after the expiry of his latest block.

With respect to breaching consensus, since the expiry of his block Bosniak has been the only editor on Srebrenica massacre to change the term "alternative views" to "revisionist views" or "genocide denial". To my knowledge no other editor has made such changes, but other editors (besides me) have reverted them. These events are at odds with Bosniak's characterization of this problem as my POV-pushing against the rest of the editors. —Psychonaut 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that Bosniak's edits to Srebrenica massacre are "against the established community consensus". The issue on whether to call it "alternative views" or something else was discussed here, but in my opinion no consensus was reached. For the rest, my opinion matches Duja's description (except that I'm not familiar with the situation surrounding Emir Arven). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was indeed a consensus regarding the section now titled "alternative views" since Bosniak was last blocked. The section was originally titled "Critical views", and the first paragraph referred to the views as "alternative views". It had remained as such for a long time. Bosniak then began editing the article, and repeatedly changed the title "Critical views" to "Genocide denial" or "Revisionist views". This was disputed and discussed on the talk page, as you indicated. [134] Bosniak was blocked on 21 January, and on 23 January I proposed that we title the section "Alternative views", since that was how the views were referred to in the section, and since no one (including Bosniak) had taken any issue with that description throughout the edit warring.[135] Throughout Bosniak's block, this proposal was followed, and no one changed the title of the section or disputed it on the talk page. I therefore considered the editors involved to have reached a consensus. However, immediately upon the expiry of Bosniak's block, he began changing the title of the section to "Revisionist views" or "Genocide denial" again. I am quite sure that he was the only editor to do so. Other editors, including me, reverted these changes. Again, I took this as evidence of a consensus. —Psychonaut 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"With respect to breaching consensus, since the expiry of his block Bosniak has been the only editor on Srebrenica massacre to change the term "alternative views" to "revisionist views" or "genocide denial". This statement gives a false impression of the existence of a consensus. After a simple exposition of the temporal relationship between MacKenzie's cited statement in July 2005 and the International Criminal Tribunal's (Krstic) finding in 2001 establishing the fact of genocide at Srebrenica and its confirmation by the Appeals Chamber in April 2004, I was obliged to continue arguing - with people who among other things maintained that the man in the street's understanding of genocide and hence MacKenzie's had equal validity with the wording of the Genocide Convention and the findings of the ICTY - that the "alternative" view being advanced here was in fact a denial of genocide. I did not go silent because there was consensus. I shut up after I was driven to exasperation by the constant refusal of other editors and administrators to accept this situation and their deletion of my comments and contributions. When I expressed my exasperation I was warned to mind my conduct and so I chose to keep silent. This was not the achievement of consensus, this was the outcome of a war of attrition. I don't think it is purely self-obsession that leads me to the view that there is a one-side enforcement of "discipline" at the Srebrenica Massacre article. --Opbeith 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"didn't even know about the Srebrenica massacre until I stumbled upon it on Wikipedia." Extraordinary. If so, this is an example of one of the inherent problems with Wikipedia. If administrators have no idea of important issues in the real world it must be very difficult for them to understand what is legitimate debate and what is illegitmate revisionism. --Opbeith 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think that places these editors in an excellent (i.e., neutral) position to assess articles' claims with respect to WP:NPOV, and also WP:N (to the extent that WP:N is to be assessed on objective criteria). —Psychonaut 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-consensus removal of joke banners

Main pages: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/UI spoofing and Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals) § Straw poll

This revival of the UI spoofing argument has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/UI_spoofing#Non-consensus_removal_of_joke_banners, seeing as it's not a request for admin intervention, but instead an argument between admins and whoever else might pass by. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So the discussion is taking place in three separate places now? Wonderful. Warning: incidentally, extreme caution is advised in clicking on the links in my own page banner. Bishzilla is waiting to give you a Swedish massage at the other end. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I count two. But even that's too many. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why again are we discussing this at all? Aren't there userboxes to delete or something? Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's that bout of stupid that's going around. -- Steel 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That does seem to happen every February...Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL? --Onorem 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but are you a fan or a fan? >Radiant< 09:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot about the most important fan. Hbdragon88 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A final salvo from Jefferson Anderson - request for uninvolved admin

Jefferson Anderson has apparently left Wikipedia, but the content of what he has left on his talk page and done on his user page violates quite a number of WP policies. His userpage now hosts a series of "what's wrong with WP and particular editors", which if not a borderline violation of SOAP, is pretty close to violating NPA, or may qualify as polemical content. Jefferson has also removed all negative comment made about his edits, and has left only those that, when taken as a whole, make him look like a martyr of sorts, unjustly hounded by Wikipedia users, when looking at other evidence clearly shows otherwise. The problem is, one has to look for that. I'd like to see the talk material restored, the new user page content cleared, and both pages protected. I'd also like to see the account locked to prevent further usage, frankly, because a currently banned user is a known "friend" of his. However, as a named party, I don't want to lend credence to the claims by rm'ing the material myself, putting it up for MfD, or doing anything else to it or with it. Could an uninvolved admin look at the user and talk pages and come to a decision? MSJapan 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that bad to me. He's whinging, and it's basically pointless, but there's no policies being broken, there's no personal attacks, there's no polemics. If you've been in a dispute with him, maybe you should just let it go. Proto ► 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As another named party (and one who has not had a dispute with him), I do have an issue with his subpage... User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence. Shouldn't an unfounded sockpuppet accusation be considered a personal attack? If he thinks I am a sock of someone else, he should have requested a checkuser to verify it. To place unverified "evidence" on his user page seems like an "attack" to me. Blueboar 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm...so stating and naming users as controlling articles without proof isn't a violation of WP:NPA? Particularly where the policy states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Jefferson claims that because we're Masons, we all know each other well (which is funny, considering Arbcom statemnts about himand his friends), and that we are controlling articles. He cites Jahbulon, which after we stopped his nonsense, was rewritten totally and is as decent as it is going to get.

As for "debating content and not contributors", we have unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry - he claims he was accused unjustly by particular users, yet leaves out that he has done the same thing (as noted by Blueboar). The same with the "meatpuppetry" accusations - he was accused unjustly, but we are actually doing it. Where is this "debating content and not contributors"? I'm not going to respond to it, but I shouldn't have to stand for it, either, especially from a disingenuous user who is distorting facts to make the perpetrator into the victim. Also, given that he was only here for just over 2 months (supposedly; I have doubts given his early contribs), how does he have any basis on which to comment on anything? This is more or less allowing WP and its users to be lambasted by anyone who decides they want to, baselessly. MSJapan 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAIL

Worldtraveller and WillowW have been blocked by Kirill Lokshin for WP:3RR on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing, a page originally written by Worldtraveller and then subsequently amended by various editors. He was concerned that the additions were obscuring the point of his essay, and deleted them several times.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not failing already exists for counterpoint and rebuttal - I think it is it is actually rather good as a piece of well-argued counter-thesis. Surely is makes sense to keep the pro and con separate, like Worldtraveller was trying to do? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, probably doesn't belong here. On a side note, perhaps WP:OWN would be of relevance in determining the propriety of the edits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Chairboy... this is why you userspace things if you don't want them edited mercilessly.--Isotope23 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free web-based encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Proto ► 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If they wanted to keep their essay their own they should have put it at User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing. Thatcher131 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the same reaction that userfication might be the best solution here. Personally, given the overall situation and the time that Worldtraveller has been editing here without apparent 3RR problems, I probably would have given a 3RR warning to him and his counterpart before blocking. He hasn't requested an unblock, though. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that no warning was given first to the two editors who have been excellent contributors; they were just blocked. MetsFan76 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocking both of them. Since the essay is now in userspace these blocks no long serve any purpose. JoshuaZ 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you JoshuaZ. You have renewed my faith in WP. MetsFan76 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the unblocks. (Although I hope Worldtravel's first edit isn't to move the essay back to WP space.) Newyorkbrad 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who "they" is above: I neither support nor oppose the view of the essay, I just think that it makes sense to allow essays to fairly present the point of view from which it was originally written, and the counterargument in another place, just like WP:NGR and W:WWIG. How to handle essays of this sort is a policy question which I think needs to be addressed.

I also think it would have been helpful for Worldtraveller and WillowW - two of the most active participants in the lively debate that sprang up on the talk page - to have been warned before they were both blocked.

Anyway, as Worldtraveller has now been unblocked, I have also removed an autoblock as requested by Worldtraveller on his talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Worldtraveller is unwilling to accept other input to the essay, leading to a very lame edit war, so it has been moved to his userspace. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop repeating this nonsense everywhere, JzG. I was unwilling to accept one user's attempt to rewrite the essay entirely to come to the opposite conclusion. That is all. Worldtraveller 13:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I would like to call for a resolution on the matter of User:LexiLynn. At the very least, he is a bully who adds nothing of value to wikipedia. At the most, I have reason to believe he is a sockpuppet of the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello, among others. He has made harrassing remarks on the topic of Stephanie Adams, as did JuliannaRoseMaurielllo. He has also made edits to the Jessica Lunsford page, as had either JuliannaRoseMauriello or WorkingHard, who I believe to be the same person anyway. He has also made libellous remarks about the user Cumberbund, as did WorkingHard. I'm sorry if this seems long and convoluted. It's hard to keep up with all his banned nicks. I believe a checkuser is in order. I am not an impartial observer as he has made libellous remarks about me as well, using an IP that is clearly not mine. I will submit to a checkuser test myself, to prove that point. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Ispy1981 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That might work except you have about 15 administrators on here that have been following your wikistalking off and on wikipedia over the last few days. While maybe you'll get an admin here caught off guard, you certainly won't impress any of the admins who have already done checksums with you and seen your sock puppets.

While it's nice to pretend to be innocent on wikipedia and throw around terms such as libelous and others, just remember this: It's not nice when a 37 year old man stalks a 10 year old girl, and 4 admins have already seen the court paperwork against you. Good luck! LexiLynn 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Implying that another user is a stalker/pedophile goes far beyond acceptable. One more comment like that and you WILL be looking at a long block. --InShaneee 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since LexiLynn thinks I'm Ispy1981 I also take great offense to the despicable attack charges. I'd like to see a link for this imaginary court paperwork or be contacted by an admin who puts any weight to these disgusting charges. What remains available for any admin or other Wikipedian is the ability to compare the edit histories of WorkingHard (banned by JimboWales), JuliannaRoseMauriello (also permanently banned), and LexiLynn to see the similarities. --InstaTornado 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

InstaTornado, I never said you were ISpy, please don't try and mislead admins on here. The admins I have been dealing in email with know exactly who you are, they know what is going on, and though some admins who don't know what is going on like InShaneee above, there are enough admins that do know. Some of them even have a copy of the police report. LexiLynn 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If any admin here says it is okay to post the court paperwork let me know on my talk page, it WILL be posted. I didn't want to break any "privacy" concerns Wikipedia would have, but just for fun, let me know and it will be up within hours. Any admin here doubting the paperwork can feel free to call themself and verify it. LexiLynn 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Court paperwork" about editors and allegations of this nature should not be posted on-wiki (much less should this be done "for fun"). Is there an administrator who is taking a close look at this entire situation? Newyorkbrad 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LexiLynn has contacted several admins requesting email correspondence, but until they respond here any information about said correspondence would rely on LexiLynn's word. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be the admin to address this because I have previously edited Jessica Lunsford which is one of the articles in question, but someone needs to be on top of this. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a burr in everyone's saddle ,but, could someone take a look at the user 65.184.20.38? Many of the same sort of threats as Lexi Lynn. Thanks.

Ispy1981 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit [136] by LexiLynn shows him correcting an edit by 65.184.20.38 so that he gets the credit. I think this is an admission by LexiLynn that he's also 65.184.20.38. --69.106.7.122 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Scythians

Editors eager to improve on the Scythians article have to face a group of supposedly Iranian nationalists with a malicious reverting behaviour. Arguments in Talk:Scythians ([1],[2],[3]) are ignored or defiled ad hominem. The most vocal opponent to any change is definitely Ali doostzadeh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Reasoning with him is rather useless since he does not listen and he limits the quality of his comments to repeating his repertoire of ridiculous accusations (like sockpuppetry, not being a scholar, teinted views). He doesn't bother WP:AGF, even though warned at third opinion. His bullying and disregard of respectful reasoning shows troll-like behaviour, as he attempts deliberate and intentional to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors by senseless reverting and edit warring and does not show any interest in the usual concerns of Wikipedians, being accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. Please stop this guy, so the edit protection to this unscientific and seriously flawed article can be lifted. Rokus01 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the above user does not want to mention what scholars agree upon. He believes that his opinion which has no scholarly support should count as hypothesis. This clearly violates OR. The user has shown his fair of bad language and personal attacks. Note the above user wanted to delete reference to Encyclopedia Britannica whereas Britannica did not contradict any of the sources I mentioned. Another administrator named DAB has totally taken my side on this issue. The above user quotes from a very non-scholarly site [www.turkicworld.org] where Sumerians, Scythians and every ancient person is considered a Turk. Also I believe the above user a sock-puppet of [137]. The reason is simple. We had a debate with the same user before on the topic. As soon as Rokus01 created his i.d, he refers to [www.turkicworld.prg] which is the site of barefact. I believe the admins should do a check on this. --alidoostzadeh 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A clear example of this users hypocrisy. He removes the Britannica link from Scythians and yet calls it source info here and puts it back in another article. [138]. Unfortunately this ideological users have a problem with Britannica 2007 and tens of other scholars who have clearly stated Scythian is Iranian. The user does not like the words of scholars so he tries to either dilute it or subvert it with phony words like unscientific , flawed..--alidoostzadeh 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me also mention that RFC was held in Scythians [139]. This user clearly thinks that wikipedia is a discussion board where he can put any sort of opinion even his own non-scholarly one. Also here is one more link where the user simply again inserted a Britannica link: [140]. Yet he wants to remove from Scythians when 14 other references besides Britannica were provided by published and world recognized scholars in the field. --alidoostzadeh 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please verify his "defense" carefully, because it will give valid information about his slander and pathological lies:

• Not any of my edits quote [www.turkicworld.org] and neither involve Sumerians
• Not any other people opposing his POV are my Sockpuppets
• "What scholars agree upon" obviously refer to some superficial synoptics given undue weight, but still mentioned (and as such not removed).
• Sourced nuance is not an opinion, even less OR. My patience to explain is overdue and has never been awarded by WP:AGF. In fact, WP:AGF was not his from the start
• My edit never removed Britannica and other tertiary sources from the references, I indeed moved those sources from footnotes giving undue weight to mere synoptics pleasing his POV, to the reference section.
• DAB actually agreed on my explicit quotes being valid and also agreed on a correction to his edit, all of which disruptively reverted by this user Ali doostzadeh.
• The Kurdish people article mentioned by Ali already depended heavily on Britannica to advocate their heroic deeds all over history, but "forgot" to quote Britannica considers the Kurdish ethnic origins to be uncertain. Such misleading quotes from tertiary sources will make any article unscientific and flawed, not only Scythians.

In the meanwhile Ali choose to extend his trolling on the Scythian subject by this revert. Again without supplying any sourced indication to sustain his POV about the Scythian linguistic evidence being abundant, or even conclusive. Wikipedia is not for nationalists writing about their dreamt reality. Even less for trolling nightmares. Rokus01 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact linguists classify Scythian as Iranian and too many sources have been brought in that article. That is why 14 scholars were quoted in the Scythian article. The user who is not a linguistic made very funny linguistic claims even claiming the scythian word anar (effeminate) is related to the word anus! This shows his seriousness with regards to comparative linguistics. The user had a problem with this statement since it did not fit his agenda and thus tried to water it down or remove it without providing absolutely no evidence. He does not have the necessary academic credentials to make judgements about Scythians. When I asked him to quote some serious scholars, he mentioned a site www.turkicworld.org which considers Sumerians as Turks and wanted to mention a book by unpublished nationalist tatar scholar claiming scythian is Turkish. And the user keeps repeating mere synoptics pleasing his POV whereas with Brtiannica, I have offered 14 other sources as well and the user has absolutely no right to remove it just to reference section. The user DAB also agrees with the scholarly viewpoint that Scythians were Iranian.[141]. Note the first comment from this user is about www.turkicworld.org a laughable website which claims Sumerian, Parthians and many other groups even portions of Slavs were Turks. We have asked this user instead of deleting or manipulating quotes, bring forward another scholarly (a scholar who is well known and published in peer-review journals with matters regarding to Scythians), but he failed to do so. Instead he wants to remove Britannica links. Note his explicit removal of Britannica here: [142], whereas in the above edits I just discussed, he inserted Britannica quotes. Thus this user when Britannica 2007 does not fit his agenda, removes it from wikipedia enteries and when it fits his agenda, inserts it. Note the level of hypocrasy we are dealing with. The user claims: Since this article pretends Wikipedia:Verifiability (V) and NPOV truth, and considering the amount of primary and secondary sources already drawn upon, all references to Britannica should be removed asap.[143]. And then removes Britannica from the link! At the same time he inserts Britannica links in to other wikipedia enteries!(see above). Unfortunately this is what happens when ideological users join wikipedia. The problem with this user is that he can not offer a single source from a reliable scholars published in peer reviewed journals claiming Scythians were something else. That is what me and user Dab asked for. But he faild to so and thus wants to remove Britannica 2007 and 14 other scholarly references and at the same time he inserts britannica in other links and then repeats his opinions as if they are facts. Again to be clear on the users varying viewpoint on wikipedia depending on what suits his POV just check his differing views on Britannica 2007 in word and action: [144][[145]]

[146]. I have no further comments and actually the discussion has nothing to do with noticeboard and incidents. -[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh]] 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you two realize this here page is not exactly the best venue to throw piques at each others?Circeus 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Further discussions can take place in Scythian. --alidoostzadeh 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, edit warring.

User:Top Gun who has a history of blocks and edit warring has recently been blocked for one week due to repeated copyright violations. [[147]] however it seems that he has decided to deliberately flaunt the block, using a Ip address confirmed by check user to be a sock of him[[148]] under it he has continued to reinsert the disputed content and engage in constant editwaring in direct defiance of administrators rullings [[149]]. Marshalbannana 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See [150] for a fairly clear example. —xyzzy_n 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see a sockpuppet

Users SynergyBlades and Bladestorm, both edited on PS3, both removed information that I think is relevant to the PS3 public reaction. I replaced what was removed from the last time I saw the article.

I do not know if they are the same but it is funny that their edits are all very similar and that they seem to be working together on the same article at exactly the same time many times. I think this is likely, their names are very similar as well.

The requests page said I should list this here, I can't really call it vandalism but if they are same person they were avoiding three revert by doing this. PSPMario 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry seems very unlikely: both SynergyBlades (talk · contribs) and Bladestorm (talk · contribs) have over 500 edits. However, it is possible that User:PSPMario is another sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:RunedChozo due to identical additions of info [151] [152] Trebor 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor I saw the info when last I looked at the page and I put it back when I saw it was missing. There is nothing wrong with that. I asked for a check because it seemed like I should when I looked at the history. PSPMario 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But they are acting in completely different ways. User:SynergyBlades oppose the addition of the information [153] [154] whereas User:Bladestorm reverted once because the information was poorly written but then can be seen improving the information you added. Your actions are far more suspect, however, as you are adding back the same information of indef-blocked User:RunedChozo, and show up at a discussion about him. I'd like an admin to have a look at this. Trebor 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RunedChozo was that bad, he added good information to the articles I've seen. All I did here was ask a question about something I saw that was suspicious and you're attacking me, that is not very good manners. PSPMario 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just pointing out similarities and asking an admin to take a look. Trebor 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the infractions RunedChozo committed while he was allowed to edit the project, and the fact that it was proven that he used multiple sockpuppets in the past in order to circumvent blocks, I really must note that if its even suspected that a RunedChozo sockpuppet has appeared that a checkuser should immediately be done. This user has done an immense amount of damage to the project- one result of which was the loss of a fantastic editor named ZakuSage. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. See what it turns up. Trebor 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're deliberately mischaracterizing things. I looked back in ZakuSage's talk history and he left after being caught wikistalking. This looks like an effort to tar and feather someone for raising questions.CountPointercount 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another user less than a half-hour old suddenly commenting on this. Trebor 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just got an account, but I've been editing for ages. You should see a therapist about that paranoia. CountPointercount 14:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to share the IP you were editing under then, so we can see your contributions? Trebor 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where was I at the time? Sometimes it's Starbucks, sometimes at home, sometimes anywhere I have wireless. I finally decided it was a good idea to take a username so that issue doesn't come up any more. CountPointercount 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added you to the RfCU to see what that brings up. If you are unrelated, my apologies. Trebor 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vengeful, are we? You seem to have quite an agenda here. CountPointercount 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any agenda or reason to be "vengeful". I find it odd that a couple of pretty new users would comment on this situation with such a degree of background knowledge and also in very similar ways (for instance, both you and PSPMario add comments unindented, rather than the usual progressive indenting used in discussions). The CU will hopefully confirm or deny this. If you are unrelated, there's no reason to worry. Trebor 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The CheckUser came back as "Likely"; given the other evidence, I request that an admin block User:PSPMario and User:CountPointercount as sockpuppets of indef-blocked User:RunedChozo. Thanks. Trebor 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "Likely" mean? When did we start using weasel words as the result of what should be a yes or no result? CountPointercount 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" means what it says; it is not always technically possible to definitely confirm these things. Trebor 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser should be a yes or no thing. "Likely" is a weasel word meaning "I have no evidence, but don't care enough to report the true result." If it could not be confirmed, then you can look at my edits and see for yourself. I have no stake in this beyond serious problems with a tendency of wikipedians to attack the messenger for bringing questions. CountPointercount 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, CheckUser is limited by technical restrictions. "Likely" means that the technical evidence suggests that you are the same person, but it's not certain. Combined with the similar editing patterns and arrival here with a very new account, I think there is enough evidence to conclude that you are sockpuppets, and repeat my request for an admin to take a look. Trebor 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously paid no attention to my edits, have you? CountPointercount 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking and blind reverting by Smeelgova

This editor has been incessantly stalking and blindly reverting my edits for a while now, depite repeated request that he stop. His edit warring is constant, but it tends to carry over into WP:STALK behavior as well. See [155] [156] [157] [158][159][160][161](reversing his attempt to restore to an earlier version with miseladeing explanation)(reverting clearly non WP:RD source)here acting in tandem with a team of POV edit warriors--led to article rotection(gain restoring non WP:RS that was ultimately removed)9characterizing removal of non WP:RS as "vandalism")(blind reversion of inappropriate links that were ultimately removed)waits a few days to restore absurdly inappropritae EL) These are just some of his reverts; he generally works together with others in a group of highly vociferous Scientology critics, most notable Tilman (I have been trying to balance the more overt biases in some of those articles--removing clearly non-WP:RS sources, fixing gross misquotes, etc). These editors usually filibuster with absurd explanations in summaries and talk pages (claiming, eg, clearly non WP:RS sourced material should be reverted because it is "properly suorced" is a common time wasting tactic). I have warned Smeelgova a number of times that I would report him, although i am disinclined to take actions of that sort unless extreme, and despite his groups campaign against me (which has included outright false and distorted complaints about me). Anyway, its getting silly, annoying and a bit creepy. BabyDweezil 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This clearly is not a case of wikistalking nor blind reverting (as you put it). Smeelgova has edited the subject matter in your diffs for a long time, and his edit summaries appear to be attempting to engage you in a discussion regarding your edits. However, I'd like to remind both of you about edit warring - and encourage you to following WP:1RR; if someone reverts your edits do not simply revert them - discuss the subject and attempt to reach middle ground Glen 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly the editor's own personal interpretation of my edits. I have many if not all of the related articles on my watchlist, and have for some time now. This entire rant above amounts to a vicious violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, especially the allegations that I work in tandem with other editors - which I do not. This is not new, as BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of personal attacks against other editors. The user has also made a habit of inappropriately utilizing the edit summary space for personal attacks as well - instead of attempting to resolve conflicts on article talk pages and at least try to come to a consensus. Smee 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see anything in the diffs you provided to show you being stalked or otherwise harassed by Smeelgova. I have edited controversial articles with Smeelgova in the past, and have found him to be both hard working and careful in his edits to maintain NPOV. Jeffpw 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think BabyDweezil ought to look at his own conduct - as this page history demonstrates, he has a record of edit warring and disruptive behaviour which on this occasion forced me to protect a page. I'd not encountered BD before this week but frankly, I haven't been impressed by his confrontational approach - he doesn't seem to have understood that Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative project. I note that he's already been cited and blocked for this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive163#Personal attacks and formal warnings and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive196#Text removal ban: BabyDweezil). It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to have taken the hint. -- ChrisO 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the subject matter at issue, I think we may be dealing with a sock puppet of a known abuser or banned user here. A number of users have been banned outright, or banned from Scientology-related articles specifically, because of similar conduct: repeated personal attacks and revert warring, followed by claiming persecution / stalking / bias by editors who have been working on the articles for months. --FOo 10:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that the case? If so, could you give examples of banned editors? I myself no longer edit Scientology, simply because the anti-cult activists, who have usurped that article (in your lingo: have been "working" very meticulously on propaganda pushing), will not allow for their spin being removed from an article. Fossa_?! 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No longer editing scientology articles? Then you must have been the victim of a hacker who emulated your modus operandi (delete first, talk later). [162]

Banned editors: AI, for example. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This complaint by BabyD strikes me as projection from a very aggressive editor. As ChrisO points out above, BabyD doesn't seem to have taken the hint of his recent blocks by myself for edit warring, incivility, and aggravated 3RR vio. Incidentally, Smeelgova was simultaneously reported to WP:AN3RR by User:Justanother, a supporter of BabyD, who produced the 3RR report by daintily picking out Smeelgova's reverts from the much more egregious sea of BabyD's. Smeelgova was found by another admin (as I didn't want to be making all the calls) not to have violated 3RR.[163]. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

My feeling is that BabyDweezil came to the Barbara Schwarz article less to improve it, more to enjoy arguing with the editors there. He made some rather scurillous arguments, like that a court document isn't a reliable source, or that there might be several Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to protect Fred Newman twice because of BabyDweezil's edit warring, and I can confirm that dealing with him is difficult: he seems unable to write neutrally, is very aggressive, and can be very insulting to other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw heck, Slim, and after all the nice things I've said about you... sniff :) But, to state the obvious--if there was an edit war precipitating the protection, obviously there were (at least) two sides in said war? Or lese you would have just sent me out to the cornfield and end of problem, no? So more acccurately then, I was in an edit war, yes, with other participants? BabyDweezil 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BD is spot on about the rampant abuse of [WP:RS] in many Scientology articles. Additionally his critics are exaggerating when they say that by voicing his concerns he is engaging in personal attacks. He is being railroaded in an attempt to get him banned by a group of editors that believe that the only rational POV RE: Scientology is a negative, mocking and hateful one. They defend this blatant anti-Scn POV (which, in fairness, they likely do not see.) by happily accepting as valid, heaps of cites from web pages maintained by Scientology hate groups. Anyone that tries to be bold and stand up to the bias gets gang tackled by the Scn despising editors here: witness the above piling on...It is an obvious and deliberate attempt to get him lynched.

Anyway, I think BD is a good editor who is exercising good faith and lots of courage in an attempt to combat the entrenched, deliberate and systemic bias against Scientology (which doesn't exist of course) - the net effect of which is that Wikipedia contains almost no accurate information about scientology in its scientology pages just inflammatory, mocking and hatefully exaggerated distortions.

Hang in there BD. There are those of us that agree with you. Don't get frustrated. And tone things down! The mob is incensed and hunting for a rope.---Slightlyright 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed real problems with the Scientology articles, just as there are with many other Wikipedia articles - poor sourcing and poor writing in particular. The problems do need to be dealt with. But the way to do that isn't to make the whole thing into a drama, edit warring, deleting content, making accusations against other editors and so on. People with strong views on any side of an issue edit Wikipedia all the time - all we ask is that they abide by the core rules of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, assume good faith and behave in a cooperative and non-confrontational way towards other editors. That's not so much to ask, is it? -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, Stop, enuf, I'm getting cramps laughing!!!

I hereby withdraw any complaint against the unfortunately accused Smeelgova--no official redress can match the entertainment derived from reading your responses! Don;t know which was most precious...maybe it was Wikishrink Bishonen's psychiatric diagnosis (hey, send me a Wiki-bill, and same appointment next week same time?)...or perhaps FOo's worries about possible (shudder) sock puppetry on my part (got any proof of that cowboy, or are unproven personal attacks your sole contribution to my request?)...or there's ChrisO, yet again failing to disclose that off-Wikipedia he is a tireless Scientology basher, yet sees fit to perform admin functions on a controversial Scientology related page and consistently side with fellow Scientology bashers in the ensuing discussion, including advocating using non-WP:RS's that suit the bashers POV...or maybe Tilman, whose honed his skills at character assassination over 25,000-odd usenet postings now taking aim at me...or the beleaguered Smeelgova, who, in the best spirit of WP:OWN, notes that he is not blindly reverting me, because he has been wathcing the articles all along, and doggone it, someone's trying to change them!!! Anyway, thanks for the fun, but I see someone's personal webpage being used as a RS--gotta run and "disrupt" Wikipedia again now! Cheers!! BabyDweezil 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Even more inappropriateness and violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, here: DIFF Smee 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • And by the way, this entire post by BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a serious violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and I don't speak for the other editors involved but I for one am highly offended at this inappropriate behaviour. Evidently certain individuals do not learn from multiple warnings. Smee 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Eeeek! help help!!! He's still stalking me, Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!! BabyDweezil 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, I am this close to blocking you from editing for a while. You need to cool down. Your starting to cause a disruption and it won't be tolorated. Please remain civil with any more posts you make here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite cool; however, the response to my posting on this board was laced with personal attacks, pseudo psychiatric diagnoses, false and distorted claims about my behavior, and (bs) allegations of sock puppetry. Is that how claims are evaluated? If its without merit, just say so. If I am going to be attacked instead, I will respond as I did. If you wish to join the chorus of those who wish to demonize me, feel free. BabyDweezil 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do, J.smith. During his time off maybe BD will take the time to study WP:NPOV and understand what it means. Plus, it will help give many editors a much-needed break from having to constantly revert his rather odd POV edits. -- Big Brother 1984 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Does BabyDweezil seem like a disruptive editor? I honestly have no interest in the validity of Scientology, and was actually looking into FOIA requests when I discovered Barbara Schwarz. Her FOIA related lawsuits and appeals number between 800-1200, many naming specific government employees as defendants. Ms. Schwarz is regretably now a prominant example of how far a pro se person can take a grievance against federal and state governments. The unique reality that drives her litigation is in part due to her views of and experiences with the CoS. It is also her association with the church that led to a violent de-programming attempt by Cyril Vosper, at the behest of her family. Ms. Schwarz has also had many ongoing fueds with groups like AHBL, and even Wikipedian editors on her article's talk page. Barbara Schwarz is an article which must be carefully written, and I believe it was before BabyDweezil began editing it. At first I thought BabyDweezil felt sorry for Ms. Schwarz and was defending her. Then BabyDweezil renamed a section of the article labelling her views as conspiracy theories, which is technically accurate but perjorative. I started to wonder if BabyDweezil's motivation was Scientology's image so I searched a few articles about the CoS and noticed BabyDweezil on some of the talk pages. As I have not been editing on those pages I will simply point to a few examples of BabyDweezil's disruptive behavior on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. BabyDweezil accuses another editor of COI, after a few editors and myself ask in what way the editor in question violated COI, BabyDweezil accuses the same editor of COI under a new section. Anynobody 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this report -- BabyDweezil is a highly disruptive editor. He seems to have a particular habit of using a tiny sliver of barely plausible concern for policy and loudly declaring that as justification for edits far beyond what is justified by his supposed source of concern. An excellent example is his action in regards to the following sentence and its reference:

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. CDC website, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?, Kyle B. Olson, Research Planning, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

What was BabyDweezil's claimed concern about this sentence? Simply the word "contradiction"; he purported to find it "original research" to note a contradiction between the police reports and other publicly given opinions that had been mentioned previously. Did he suggest any alternate phrasing that would avoid the statement of there being a "contradiction"? No -- he removed the entire sentence. Wikipedia needs editors who try to encourage and develop well-sourced text, not editors who look for excuses to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, as well as comments by editors and Administrators regarding this user's conduct, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Smee 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I was also involved in that one... I remember that I asked him several times what his exact argument was.

My feeling about him is that he edits more because he loves "fighting" with certain people (including me), and less because he wants to improve articles. He came on Barbara Schwarz without bothering to read the sources and inform himself about the topic, and immediately started his usual behaviour, and started arguments that had been discussed months ago already. When told this, his answer was "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!"

Despite being blocked several times, he still hasn't learned to adopt a more constructive modus operandi. --Tilman 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 3RR on List of groups referred to as cults. This seems to be a worrying trend. Glen 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is BabyDweezil's fourth block for 3RR and fifth block overall (discounting one erroneous block). I think we're getting to the point where we have to start asking what benefit we're getting from BD's continued involvement on Wikipedia. Given my own involvement in the issues being discussed I'm not going to propose a community ban, but I wouldn't oppose one either. -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck State College and copyrights

I have been having a very difficult time this evening dealing with a new user who keeps copying material from an external website and putting it into a Wikipedia article. The article in question is Bismarck State College. Bjork53 keeps taking material from this page at the College's website and pasting it into the Wikipedia article. I have reverted the inclusion of this material and have tried to explain to Bjork53 that we can't take material from external websites and paste it into articles on Wikipedia. Take a look at his talk page to see the comments I've left for him and then look at my talk page to see the comments he has left for me. I would not be trying to get an administrator to help me, but my warnings to Bjork53 don't seem to be doing the trick. I continue to preach to him that he can't take material directly from the schools website and he continues to do it anyways. Right now, the Bismarck State College article reads like an ad and is almost entirely ripped from the school's website. I will say that, while before it was a verbatim copy and paste, now he is changing a word here and there to make it be "in his own words". I think an administrator needs to at least look at the article and the website that it is copied from and perhaps leave a message on his talk page to let him now how important copyrights are on Wikipedia and that "in your own words" doesn't mean just changing a word here and there. The College's article clearly needs expansion, but Bjork53's method (copying from an external website, changing a few words, and then pasting into the article) isn't the way to do it and he needs to understand this. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have done an excellent job with this one on your own. Jkelly 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User: King_of_Hearts - Wikistalking and Personal Page Vandalism and Protection

User:King_of_Hearts protected my user page (and admitted to wiki-stalking me) because I wanted to BLANK my own, personal user-page. The user seems to have a complain against me removing homophobic hate speech from my user page. Please un-protect my user-page and allow me to blank it as necessary. The user has threatened that he/she is wikistalking me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see Wikistalking anywhere. I remember having to protect your page two weeks ago for the same reasons King of Hearts did tonight. There is no complaint against you removing anything from the user talk that belongs to the IP you use. I do not see any threats of Wikistalking at all, and was more than likely alerted to your actions through recent changes patrolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have no penchant for the truth. The user King of Hearts says he will "watch my edits for vanadlism" (slander in and of itself) AND he has blocked me blanking my own user page. Call it want you want, but it seems to be homophobic bullying from power-hungry editors. Guess NPOV is a pipe-dream because the only NPOV is the one you enforce on all others. Guess that means no rooms for the gays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not blocked as you are editting this page right now. There is no slander. There is no homophobic bullying, just something in your head. No one is paying any attention to the content of the user talk other than you. NPOV doesn't really apply to user talk pages. The page also does not belong to you but the Wikimedia Foundation. Please, also, sign your posts with only four tildes, not five.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking over your edits, the only one being homophobic is you, Mr. Anony. JuJube 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JBAK white supremacist abusive message on talk page

User:JBAK has made some decent contributions including starting the page Bophuthatswana coup relating to white right-wing in South Africa. This page is presented fairly neutrally (although the style needs work). He/she also edits anonymously. Claims to be working with User:Williamdevino who was banned indefinitely for an abusive edit in December, but their style overlaps heavily, so it's highly likely that they are the same person. Related anonymous IP addresses made these abusive edits targeting User:RevJohn. User:JBAK most recently made a highly racist edit to their own talk page. Incidentally they also recently moved their user page to 8298182 in article space with the comment that they didn't want anyone to view it, then deleted it. What action can be taken? Zaian 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just everyday racism, but incitement to murder people of Sub-Saharan African descent.[164]. Indef block recommended.Proabivouac 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely. That's a very shocking edit, and highly similar to the one that got the other editor you mentioned blocked indefinitely... This is weird though, because JBAK has a solid contribution history. Everyone else, please jump in and review... I think I'm going to bed soon. But I think this qualifies somewhat as a "death threat" and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior under any circumstances anyway. Grandmasterka 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, based on the severity of the comment, his editing through other accounts, and likely sockpuppetry (which is even more likely now). I've got no tolerance for shit like this myself. However, the edit almost makes it sound as though he wanted to be blocked, which might imply some sibling rivalry or something. That shouldn't be our problem, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given him a week's vacation, enough for him to see what happened and claim that the rogue edit was made by a retard who happened to come across a computer from which he hadn't logged out, or that he has some psychiatric disorder in which (for example) one personality is embarrassed by and apologizes for the behavior of the other personality. If that claim were made, I'd read it very sceptically; if such a thing happened again, I'd ban him permanently. One thing's for sure: the author of those comments (whether a child, a retard, or a mock-retard) isn't worth anyone's time. -- Hoary 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... But If that's the case, I'd rather have the real owner of the account come back whenever and have to say "OMG I'M SORRY" to get unblocked, personally. Grandmasterka 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a good unblock reasoning given, I would probably be okay with giving him one more shot. Along those lines (i.e. to inform him of {{unblock}}), I just sent a uw-block3; hopefully you don't mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the decision to indefinitely block.--Jersey Devil 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He has now left me this friendly message on my user talk using an anon IP User:82.2.84.255.Proabivouac 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block of that IP for personal attacks.--Jersey Devil 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ogoing block evasion and abusive behaviour

User:24.167.107.118 has been identified (see [165] and [166]) as User:Woodstock2010.

At 03:10, February 13, 2007, User:24.167.107.118 was blocked (48h) for "trolling" (block log). (S)he continued editing as User:Woodstock2010 until (s)he was identified (see links above), at which point that user was blocked (1wk) at 22:46, February 14, 2007 for block evasion and edit warring (see block log). User:24.167.107.118 continues to edit war (see contributions), and makes disruptive comments such as "its something that people like JAYJG or blue jay jay-z or whatever are JUST GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH." and "Don't apologize to these people. They ARE BIASED. ... You're right 100% and AVI is just insecure."

I'm not sure whether sprotection or blocking the IP is the best approach here, but would appreciate some assistance. Thanks, Jakew 10:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this user has also edited as ShitakiMan, who was blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry on January 9. Also, 24.26.237.251 has edits which are consistent with Woodstock2010's. --Onorem 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Jakew 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked permanently. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki vandalism?

It appears that some clever, helpful person has changed whatever bit of the MediaWiki stuff creates the icons at the top of the "Editing" page so that instead of the usual redirect icon we have a Nazi-era German flag. I don't know where this is stored. The redirect icon seems to be regularly tampered with, so an idiot-level explanation of how to undo this would be nice. Seems more likely that this will get a rapid response here than at VPT. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be ok now, I don't know what happened though. Proto ► 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you must be using IE or something. Still looks the same with Firefox2/MonoBook and Firefox2/Classic. IE6 shows the usual #R icon. It is en.wp specific; no prob on fr.wp. Paint me anti-wiki, but this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the UI widgets that anyone can edit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Go here - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png - and then hard refresh (press ALT and F5), see if that solves it. I found the applicable mediawiki page where those buttons are, and nobody's messed with it as best as I can tell. Proto ► 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, a few months ago we had an almost identical problem with it being replaced by a pornographic image and again it wasn't clear how it was done. JoshuaZ 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though like you I can't find anything here or on commons to show that this has been changed in a long time. It's disappeared several times recently. Weird shit happens I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hacking in article "Trail_of_Tears"

In the article Trail_of_Tears#Georgia_and_the_Cherokee_Nation, someone has inserted the text "FOOD RAWRS I AM UBER-733t AND I PWN U CUZ U R TEH UBER SUCK!!!!!" This text is not visible when I am logged in, and not visible in the edit window. --MaxMad 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Try logging out, viewing the article, and bypassing your cache. The article must have been vandalised and reverted, and your browser cache is still holding the vandalised version; bypassing your cache (Ctrl-F5 on IE and FireFox) will sort it out. --ais523 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another good way of getting around your cache (at least as far as seeing if it is your cache) is to go through the history, comparing diffs (find when the vandalism took place, and you can find if it was removed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal threats from anonymous IP

Hi, I have been persistently harassed by an anonymous user (I presume it is one and the same) using different IP addresses but all based on Sarajevo. Looking through just the most recent examples it is quite clear that they are all from the same same source (89.146...). Is it at all possible to block the entire source or must each IP address be blocked individiually? The IP addresses in question with examples of vandalism and/or threats are listed below:

• 89.146.156.34 [167]
• 89.146.133.82 [168]
• 89.146.148.169 [169]
• 89.146.128.58 [170]
• 89.146.136.242 [171]
• 89.146.145.110 [172][173]

I'd also like to have these two IP's blocked for personal threats (in Swedish):

• 84.217.8.46 [174][175]
• 84.217.12.148 [176]

Regards Osli73 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Per whois, the range is 89.146.128.0/18. Thatcher131 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I'm sorry, I don't completely understand your answer. Do you mean to say that the range of IPs is from 89.146.128.0... to 89.146.128.18... ? Regards Osli73 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

89.146.128.0/18 identifies the range of addresses between 89.146.128.0 and 89.146.191.255, about 16000 addresses. Whois indicates that this entire range is managed by the same ISP and so may be available to the user in question. Range 89.146.128.0/19 would cover 8000 addresses between 89.146.128.0 and 89.146.159.255, which seems to be his practical range (he hasn't used the high end, maybe those servers serve a different geogrpahic region, for example). If an admin thought the comments were serious enough to warrant blocking, those would be the appropriate ranges for a short-term anon-only rangeblock. I myself do not have the time to determine whether this is harassment or a legit content argument, but I offer the range info if another admin wants to block. Thatcher131 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly harassment or worse. However, a range block would probably cause a lot of collateral damage. A better way to stop the 89.146.xxx.xxx editor is semi-protecting Talk:Srebrenica massacre. However, seeing that this editor hasn't touched the page for half a week, I think it's better to wait and see whether s/he returns.

The edits by 84.217.xxx.xxx were all in December. We don't mete out blocks so long after the act. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an appropriate sequence of vandalism warnings

This message here has been prompted by the actions of User:James116, and the single warning this user got from User:SpuriousQ. James116 indulged in multiple incidents of vandalism today, and, although by the time SpuriousQ gave him a warning message on his talk page, he had carried out 4 such incidents, only one, non-specific warning was issued. I took some time to look at James116 contributuons today, and so could see that a total of 6 incidents of vandalism had occurred, including two after the warning given by SpuriousQ. If each incident had been separately logged and warned, the threshold for logging James116 at WP:AIV would certainly have been passed, and appropriate action could have been considered by the admins there. As it is, I feel an opportunity of prevention and stopping has been lost (until perhaps now), and a appropriate sequence of warnings has been "thwarted a little" (as I wrote in a message on SpuriousQ's talk page). I have, however, noticed that this failure to log each act of vandalism is very common and, in my opinion (though I'm only an editor) it subverts, almost certainly unintentionally, the means that are in place to combat persistent or "binge" vandals.

I've gone through and given James116 separate warnings for today's vandalism attempts (with the times at which they happened), but I thought it useful to raise this issue here, rather than log a report to WP:AIV, because of the mix-up over reporting that I think took place. This has meant that the vandalism is now more then two hours old (arguably not recent enough for action now to be taken). What is the recommended course of action? I know that flexibility should be allowed, but the amount of flexibility shown here has been, I argue, sub-optimal. Am I correct? What should be done about User:James116? Finally, it has made me think that perhaps a "cheat sheet" could be produced which gives a more clear sequence of actions editors might follow if they detect vandalism. This would only consist of guidelines, but it may be useful, and I wonder what the reactions would be to this? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, I noticed a vandalism from James116, checked his history and saw he had committed a few others since his most recent warning (he had two priors), so I gave him a final warning that he would be blocked if he vandalized again. There's no reason to issue separate retroactive warnings for each prior vandalism that went unnoticed; in fact it's just more confusing both to the user and anyone reviewing the talk page. I've already reported to AIV, since DDstretch informed me he vandalized twice after the final warning. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks or the summary. I personally find it most confusing to not have any indication of which vandalism attempts the warnings refer. It also makes it difficult to see whether any report to [[WP:AIV}} would result in action, because there, it advises that: "Editors: Before listing a vandal here make sure that: 1. The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." (my bolded text). It would be better, surely, to specify the "unusual circumstances" that are mentioned in the advice somewhere, pethaps in the warning issued, because one person's "unusual circumstances" may not be another's - certainly more likely not if those circumstances are not given and the reasoning or justification made clear. It may be a small amou8nt of extra work, but I think an explicit warning for each act would be simpler and less likely to result in disputes, fit in more clearly with the guidelines given, and be simpler to work with when there are multiple editors potentially trying independently to combat vandalism.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the AIV guidelines can be better explained somewhere, if they are not already. The basic idea is that AIV is to stop immediate future vandalism from happening rather than punish for old vandalism; i.e., the user must show a strong likelihood that they will vandalize again even after being told not to and informed that they may be blocked. That's the purpose of "proper set of warnings" and "vandalized after a recent last warning" (though the latter is more for IPs than for vandal-only user accounts). Given the blatant vandalism of James116 before and after the final warning, reporting to AIV was appropriate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a multiple, obvious, string of vandalism, I see no issue in going right to level 3, 4, or 4im if necessary. -- Avi 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Saberscorpx (talk · contribs)

I originally listed this at WP:RFCN but they said this was a better forum. Saberscorpx is not exactly a vandal, but his sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to create and defend the article Saber's Beads which is a vanity neologism he created. He recreated it after a first AfD and I listed it for AfD a second time[177]. I've also tried to get the image associated with the article deleted. Since then he's been doing slow scale spamming of my talk page with minor edits to the comments he's made on it, causing me to get the new messages link, sometimes several times a day [178]. I asked him to stop and his response was an odd accusation that I had deleted his comments. I have done no such thing. He's been at his game of adding nonsense to Wikipedia for months now as seen here. Given his obvious COI I think the time has come to do something about him. I will admit I initially listed him at WP:RFCN after being annoyed with yet another useless edit of his to my talk page. And yes his talk page is mostly made up of warnings from me. I'm on my PDA now but later I'll link to diffs explaining things like why I warned him over the New Moon article (for adding his neologism to it several times after his article had alread been deleted.) Nardman1 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On a random note, there was a strong consensus to allow this username based on username policy and the evidence presented at WP:RFCN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Publicroutes

This users account is being used to spam a website around the public transportation articles. This site has shown up from other users to include:

• 71.247.72.12
• Back2Ape
• Future2010

This site has been added to numerous pages within the last 45 days. Its caught fairly quickly, however this current user has a substantial number of spammings. First batch conducted in december 2006 and user was warned. Now user has 12 edits today alone. I will be initiating a RFCU to see if these are puppets as well. If an admin can look into this, it would be great! Rob110178 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk-page question

Users are generally allowed a fair amount of leeway in editing their own Talk pages; they're not, though, allowed to edit other editor's comments in order to misrepresent the nature of a discussion. Skyring (talk · contribs) has effectively been doing this by deleting my final comments from a discussion on his Talk page, apparently in an attempt to make it look as though he had the last word, to which I wouldn't or couldn't respond. What's the position with regard to this sort of behaviour? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally ignore him, but that is rather petty of him. Ral315 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I know — I should be able to do "ignore" better. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the ignore button? I cant find it? Do we need to put in a request for a new button called the ignore button? (it could be similar to the easy button for staples). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking his block log, he has a ton of blocks. Maybe an indef is in order. JuJube 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Proto ► 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Notification to Users Whose Edits are Subject to AfD/DRV

This AN/I entry concerns directives I have received from admin TenOfAllTrades on February 14, 2007 in which I was told to not provide notice to users whose work was threatened with deletion under the AfD process. The exchange was played out on our respective talk pages which are found here and here . The AfDs involved in this matter are found here and here.

Background and Discussion: I periodically review AfDs and DRVs looking for articles with significant merit. If I find such an article that has had substantial participation from users who are not involved in the discussion I have at times provided a notification to all editors who have contributed to the article. This practice is motivated by concern that fair and complete process requires that those editors whose work may be destroyed by deletion are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Simply put they are entitled to have a say in the matter. They can't participate if they don't know about it. I can not participate often as this notice procedure is somewhat time consuming. I have been selecting well less than 1% of articles in AfD/DRV. Again, I try to select article with merit and multiple editors.

I have received somewhat inconsistent direction from admins on this matter. Here I received advice from the closer of an AfD that it was permissible to contact article editors to participate in the DRV. Here I received advice that notice is proper providing all sides are contacted (This was an DRV and although AVI felt contact was permitted he would not provide names of underlying editors in article, record of which had been deleted). It has become my practice to clearly indicate in the AfD/DRV when I notify edits. Here and here are two examples of DRVs in which I announced posting notices. The admins who closed these DRV must have been aware of the notices and they did not see any reason to even comment to me. Now for the same conduct TenOfAllTrades has indicated I will blocked if I continue to provided such notices.

I have been an editor of WP for 16 months and have made a little over a thousand editors. I know that is not much by admin standards put it is enough for me to care about. I have never been blocked. I know many, including admins, confuse what I am doing with "canvassing" or "aggressive cross posting" I have tailored these notices to conform with WP:CANVASS. I am acting in good faith, out of legitimate concern for the work and rights of other editors.

Some of those who receive notice may be mildly inconvenienced. But the interests of editors who are able to participate because they receive notice greatly out weighs any trivial burden on those who don't care.

Finally I know that many of the users receiving these notices appreciate them. I have seen notified editors participate in discussions. I have seen them help form consensus to keep articles. Most importantly I have seen editors improve articles, as is encouraged in the AfD process.

Requested Action: I request that the admins reach and articulate a clear consensus concerning notifications to editors whose work is subject to deletion in AfD and DRV matters. The lack of this consensus subjects the would be providers of such notices to the limits imposed by the most restrictive admins or subjects the provider to blocking and loss of reputation.

Note: I will provide TenOfAllTrades with notice of this AN/I entry.

Respectfully Edivorce 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is not merely acceptable to notify the creator and major editors of an AfD, but that it's encouraged. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Edivorce is working in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I am, however, concerned that he has misunderstood our policies and practices on Wikipedia with respect to cross-posting. (Part of the confusion may stem from overgeneralizing the applicability of some specific advice he may have received.)

To clarify, I believe that there is a broad consensus that sending out a templated notification to every single editor of an article when it is nominated for deletion is considered an inappropriate level of cross-posting. Further – as far as I can tell, at least – Edivorce has never received advice to the contrary. I initially approached him after I noticed his posts (two in the same day) on another editor's talk page that I happened to have watchlisted.

The specific cases (cited above) where Edivorce has received advice are somewhat different situations. In order of the diffs above:

• [179] Edivorce was advised by CharlotteWebb that when DRV sent an article back for a second AfD, it would be appropriate for him to notify the participants in the original AfD. (Note also that CharlotteWebb is not an admin. Not that non-admin's opinions should carry less weight, but it's worth correcting Edivorce's impression.)
• [180] Avraham provided essentially the same advice—that is, that advising everyone who participated in the original AfD that the article had been renominated was acceptable. This is the same case as the first link.
• In the third instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League, Edivorce cross-posted a message to all editors of the article at some point after it was nominated. A few other editors suggested on the AfD that this probably wasn't a good idea, but there wasn't actually any administrator intervention. Edivorce appears to be interpreting silence as consent.
• The final link is to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination), which is the renommed article from the first two links. Again, this isn't a parallel situation as notifications went to all editors of the original AfD, and not to all editors of the article.

I have little doubt that for nearly every AfD, there will be some editor who thinks that the article is "with merit" and has "multiple editors". If notifying every editor of every article nominated for deletion is deemed an acceptable practice, I fear that all of us will be overwhelmed by talk page spam.

I advised Edivorce that a reasonable and acceptable compromise would be to notify "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions", with the proviso that "If you're sending a notice to more than two or three people on any given AfD, then you're probably casting too broad a net for 'substantial'." Notifying the eight IP editors of an article as well as editors who've made a single spelling correction or removed a redlink is overkill. In general, I believe that editors with a strong interest in an article's welfare will use their watchlists, and that articles with more than two or three major contributors are likely to have no difficulty clearing through AfD without extra canvassing.

Have I badly misread common practice? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have, or the page needs a rewrite, or somewhere in between. It specifically states on the WP:AFD page "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter." We fall into the middle if he was notifying people who added periods, but if the people being notified made contributions beyond "minor" edits then its actually the practice reccomended by WP:AFD, which does not put a cap on how many to notify. --NuclearZer0 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that if the person simply added a period they are pretty likely not to care about the article and so it doesnt matter if they are notified, its not like we are working with paper. --NuclearZer0 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to not notifying bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor" This can be seen on the history page (where I get the info anyways) and is not burdensome. In fact it would save work. I only notified these in an effort to be fair and diligentEdivorce 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not for edits not marked as minor, it specifically says main contributors. To me, that's a group of maybe 5 editors that, from looking at the history, clearly have the article watchlisted and have contributed significantly to it. If I've, for example, rewritten a paragraph that I stumbled across through random page or whatever, then I simply cannot mark that edit as minor, but I do not expect to be notified if the article is on AfD. If I care, it's in my watchlist. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe you interpretation to be correct. The fact that you fall back on "if I care, it't in my watchlist" would actually remove the need to notify anyone, surely the articles creator has it watchlisted. Main contributors really depends on the articles edit history then. If I put an article up for deletion should I look through the 80 pages of edit history and measure the ammount people added or removed? I simply think the blanket approach allows for no bias. If I was to pick 5 editors who contributed, I can pick 5 editors who deleted tons of content and be done with it. Again, "if I care" surely fails in this case, cause if that is what was meant, then you would not be asked to notify anyone, cause someone "who cares" would see the AfD added. --NuclearZer0 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that that statement on WP:AFD is prefaced by, "It is generally considered civil..." Nowhere does it say it is required, nor does it even say it is recommended. In other words, it is saying that it won't be viewed as talk page spamming or canvassing (as it might in other instances) to notify the creator and the main contributors that you can identify from looking at the history. You're right, I don't think anyone needs to be notified; that's the entire purpose of {{afd1}}. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I state your opinion seems to be different from that of the community, or at least writer of that passage that snuck by =) I do think giving notice to anon's, at least those who do not seem to consistently edit anonymously is overboard. I also think excessive noting may have happened, but due to the small number of contributors, it probably did not seem like it would hurt to inform everyone, when everyone is 30% of the total anyway, had it been 5 editors on each article that is. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point; I said that that passage does not imply that notification is required or even suggested. I'm not opposed to notification (as long as it's done responsibly), but I don't think it's necessary. That, in my opinion, is entirely in line with the statement in question on WP:AFD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "the main contributors" is stronger than "not bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor"". If TenOfTrades's comment "In the last few hours, you have sent out at least sixty copy-pasted (or templated) notifications about a couple of AfDs." is correct, that does sound a bit more than just "the main contributors". I can't imagine an article than has 30 main contributors! I think "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions" is a good paraphrase of "main contributors". That may amount to more than 2-3 on large and/or important articles, but surely not 30. By the way, my compliments to Ten for civility. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are those 60 people from the same article? I guess that becomes an issue. You can see the fluctuation between 2-5. I think it really depends on how large the article is. Again I really do not see the issue, its not paper and its not bias notices. Encouraging debate before removing content from Wikipedia should be encouraged and noone seems to be complaining about getting a notice. --NuclearZer0 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The roughly sixty notices were for two articles, both about minor political blogs. I encourage readers of this thread here to read the discussion that I had with Edivorce on his and my talk pages, to provide context. In total for the two articles Edivorced posted 68 notices on February 14. (Some editors received two notices, as they had happened to edit both articles.) 24 notices were posted to the talk pages of IP addresses. Many, many notices went to logged-in editors who made single, very minor changes to the articles in question: changed linkback to a different choice of main article, narrowed a cat, unlinked a couple of redlinked names, Added the AfD notice(!).

To tell the truth, I didn't expect anyone to treat my suggested three recipients as a hard ceiling; I figured that there would be a little bit of fudging around that guideline number, and as long as Edivorce reined in a bit then I wouldn't kick up a fuss. I just know that thirty messages for an AfD is too many—how many major contributors could there possibly be to a five-paragraph article about a minor political blog? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I took my guidance from Wp:CANVASS not WP:AfD. I have read this caveat just now. It places a civility floor on contact to creator and major contribs. Not a ceiling. It is disallows bots and "minors", which I have no problem with. BTW a whole lot of AfD are not civil by this standard. No affirmative notice at all is typical.Edivorce 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess the idea in the future is to avoid notifying anon's and possible very minor article contributors. An easy way to guage this now is that you can see how much content they added in an edit, dont think its a mod I have, but standard now. While I think the ceiling can go pretty high in some cases, which is why I oppose a cap of sorts, seems others do as well, I think some basic restrictive ideas can work here. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the prohibition on annons. I have successfully corresponded with annons using talk pages. I have seen annons participate in AfDs. It is a Wiki-Axiom to treat annons, as far as possible like everyone else. Why not treat them like others here?Edivorce 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that a very large majority of IP addresses are shared and dynamic; leaving a message on an IP's talk page that at one time contributed to an article has a very, very low chance of actually being received by the editor you are attempting to write to. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was making the point of simplicity, I am not enacting any rules against you. Just making suggestions, how about checking the anon's edit history to see if they have participated in multiple articles in a coherent way, will tell you if its a dynamic or static IP basically. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal with a grudge

On my talk page I have received another report about the infamous vandal with a grudge. Apparently, he contributes from the addresses 83.148.0.0/18 and 84.244.64.0/18, and there seem to be little to no construcive edits from these ranges. I have suggested blocking the ranges for a year, but I don't think that I should take such drastic action without agreement of other editors. What do you people think? - Mike Rosoft 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally broad range, Mike. The potential for collateral damage is huge. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Redvers that the collateral damage would be great. I'd personally recommend filing an abuse report instead. Cheers. Yuser31415 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism from Tom66909 (talk · contribs)

This person made some normal edits initially, but ever since has been inserting not-notable spam about himself and his friends into articles, and creating articles about not-notable films that he was in with his pals. He made this edit to Deerfield, Illinois, [181] where he added himself as a "famous resident". If you click on the link to Tom Cummings, it's a redirect back to his own userpage (it's already been speedied). He also created an article for a not-notable film (which has since been speedied) [182]. He also added more garbage here about himself and his not-notable pals [183]. Someone should have a discussion with this person and either make him understand that his random garage band and an unreleased film he made with his friends aren't worthy of Wikipedia articles. Or else block him for spamming. TheQuandry 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the additions are inappropriate, but looking at this user's contributions I think we should WP:AGF and not label these edits as vandalism. Misinformed, yes; vandalism, no. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've placed a note on his talk page that will hopefully clarify WP:N, WP:V, and WP:Conflict of interest. TheQuandry 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd heading south

Anthony John Bailey has been nominated for deletion. There's already been 3 !votes from the same IP editor using 2 different names in the Afd, it might be an idea if someone keeps an eye on this one. One Night In Hackney 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3RR decision review

I am requesting that the admin decision of this 3RR report (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:No_block.29) is reviewed. User :Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (a.k.a. Nearly headless Nick) has closed the report as "no block" claiming that "It's not clear anyway." I believe that a clear 3RR violation has occurred. The first three reverts were identical 21:07 Feb 15 02:02 Feb 1606:06 Feb 16. Please look at line 41 of these diffs. In all three reverts, the words "right given to slaves" (in red) were added. Now please look at the fourth revert 06:26 Feb 16, line 40 at the very top of the diff. Same here, the words "right given to slaves" (in red) were added. Thus, this is the fourth revert and an unambiguous 3RR violation. I am asking that an uninvolved admin look at this report again. Beit Or 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was 12 hours ago, right? Has the reverter reverted since then? If not, why, after 12 hours, are you seeking a block? Are you seeking the reverter be punished? Coz we don't do that. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um Beit, I suggest you read the blocking policy. Even if he had violated 3RR, blocks are handed out because of imminent danger, none of which appears to exist. Cheers and sorry for the confusion, Yuser31415 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks shoved at me aside, I requested to comment on the substance, rather than on my motives. It doesn't hurt to assume good faith, Redvers. Beit Or 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody was attacking you, or meaning their comments in that way. I was just giving you a friendly reminder. Cheers :)! Yuser31415 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of a total block, Sir Nicholas requested the user to avoid editing the subject article for a period of time. As I have written elsewhere, that is a sensible solution to many 3RR disputes that I frankly think should be used more often. It has the positive effect of putting a halt to the edit war while allowing the contributor to channel his or her efforts into other articles, rather than losing them completely for 24 hours, and also avoids the side effect of disaffecting the blocked editor completely. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What about disaffecting those editors who have to deal with his edit warring on one page over another? Beit Or 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

There's a wheel war going on at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 between numerous admins. There's a related discussion going on at DR regarding the 1992 category. All sysops involved seem to be well aware that they are wheel warring and there appears to be absolutely zero discussion going on regarding the matter at any talk page. --- RockMFR 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Do these admins want to be desysoped or something? Because that's the road they are traveling on. Yuser31415 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the list of stewards? Yuser31415 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards don't have the authority to desysop (without the ArbCom's authorisation) unless it's an emergency... which this isn't. -- Steel 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV has endorsed the deletion - crisis over.--Doc^g 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, I had just gone into the steward's IRC channel. However, wheel warring, in any shape or form is completely unacceptable and does not look good for the project at all. Yuser31415 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not so much "numerous admins" as 1ne vs. all comers. I re-deleted per WP:DRV#Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 and the associated TfDs. If he undeletes again I think we might have a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think this edit shows that 1ne has (albeit reluctantly) accepted the WP:DRV result [184]. WjBscribe 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6 restores of the same repeatedly-deleted-by-community-consensus article is ok, but seven restores is the mystical number of doom? Proto ► 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see 1ne has now deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989. That looks at little pointy as Wikipedians in this category must be 17 or 18. Can someone take a look? WjBscribe 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not restore, as I don't want to get dragged into the RFArb 1ne seems hellbent on, but I have asked him. Proto ► 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It has now been restored by Ryulong in any event. Undelete summary was: "9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago". WjBscribe 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame ... all of these unencyclopedic age user categories should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And it is a redlink again... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is someone readying the WP:RFAR case statement yet? – Chacor 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconclusive Disruptive Editing RfC

Would someone please look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus, which concerns disruptive editing on Johannes Kepler and Scientific Revolution. The RfC was created at 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) and Logicus was asked to comment at 14:07, 1 February 2007.[185] Logicus has not responded to this RfC, but he has also suspended his editing. I wouldn't like to let this just drift into limbo.

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Fys on Talk:Paul Staines

I'm currently receiving ad hominem abuse from Fys that I consider to breach WP:CIVIL:

• calling me falsely a "liar"
• edit summary - a "drunken child"
• edit summary - patronising tone

I consider I have been polite throughout. Could an admin take a look please? DWaterson 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Fys_removing_warnings_about_personal_attacks et seq. Nssdfdsfds 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fys has just come off a 31 hour block fora breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Viridae^Talk 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why let Fys continue? I'd support a 62 hour block. Yuser31415 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for other input. I too would support such a block, but I would like another opinion on the matter, pref an another admin to carry it out. Viridae^Talk 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He's just come off a 31 hour block and immediately continues as before? He has a history of incivility, 3RR and blocks? Why has no-one suggested indefing? Fys seems almost permanently on AN/I for one abuse claim after another. It's beginning to seem like the only solution. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, mainly because in the not too distant past Fys was a block log clear highly contributory and productive admin. (→Netscott) 21:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually suggested indef during the last report on his behaviour, and I still support it he has never shown any signs of reforming. However Before carrying outsomething Like that I would like to hear from some more people. Viridae^Talk 21:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked his contribs and Fys was making abusive edit summaries even back when he was an admin. Which was six months ago. It seems to me he has simply become more abusive and truculent as time gets on, and I see no downturn, even with his blocks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which abuse might that be? Prior to the ArbCom case that saw him de-admined the only thing I recall of any "disruption" on his part was a long running edit war with the then disruptive user Irishpunktom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on the Peter Tatchell article. (→Netscott) 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Whatever caused the problem, Fys' current behaviour is aggressive, rude, obnoxious and disruptive. He also appears to blame all his ills on other people. It is not impossible that the root cause is some off-wiki harassment, given the change of username and his sensitivity about this (which I didn't appreciate back in December). But his editing style, settled since his dispute with Irishpunktom, needs to change - and soon. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see any of the abuse you are mentioning, please provide diffs rather than links to the history. Viridae^Talk 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was simply making a point that he wasn't that nice as an admin either, but if you want diffs: [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]. Not that this should towards any block now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of sequence point but all those diffs you cite Dev are all from the time the Arb case was being decided and I was decidedly annoyed by the whole thing.

I did not call DWaterson a "drunken child", and the "patronising tone" to which he refers was not intended as such. I am sure he and I will agree soon, and that's what it meant, I'm sorry if he took it in any other way. But if what I've posted today is really personal attack material then it is at the very lower end, and I hope it is noted that I am often the target for personal attacks. New user nss.. put one of my articles up for deletion and systematically reverted my edits. Whatever. I will take this weekend off (blocked or not, although I hope not). But I do expect that people will play fair with me. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I put plenty of people's articles up for deletion, please don't feel you were special. I'm not sure why you're still bringing it up, a week later either. I have not 'systematically reverted' your edits, any more than you have systematically reverted mine. This does not justify calling me a liar, as you did. As soon as you came back from your block you edited/reverted three articles I'd been working on. I don't have a problem with this,what I don't like is you calling me a liar [192] and reply [193], there's just no cause for it. Nssdfdsfds 12:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you will not be blocked by me then. No reason to. Viridae^Talk 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also say I'm not sure I shall be continuing longer anyway. It's a bit pointless because I know if I ever get into any editing dispute will always assume I'm in the wrong because "he's got a block log longer than your arm, isn't it obvious?". Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fys, I don't care about your block log, other people can deal with that. But it seems very obvious your politeness took a nosedive around the Arbcom and never came back. Take a nice long wikibreak, chill out, and then really think about your choice of words when you come back. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent history doesn't speak very well of you. You have never really showed any signs of changing either. However, if you are now accepting that some of your behaviour comes across as very hostile (due to the weight of the critiscism directed towards you at times and the frequency with which your actions appear here) and are willing to change then I offer myself as a "mentor" for such change. I am willing to deal directly with any complaints about your behaviour in an impartial manner, while at the same time keeping track of your edits to point out if there is anything I see that I feel is a violation of any wikipedia policies and guidleines, notifying you of them (and you in turn, once notified make an effort to make up with it, be it apologising or anything else). I will also, assuming you accept this offer, vow not to block you for any of the behaviour I notice while being your mentor accept in case I consider extreme. In borderline case I will report here for the opinion of other admins. That way you can be assured I am not doing this to make your life hell. What do you think? Viridae^Talk 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If anoyone else has any comments on this, please chime in. I welcome feedback. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fys is a very valuable contributor and a bright chap, who knows precisely when he is and isn't being civil. I'm not sure he needs a mentor, as such, just to bite his tongue occasionally. It would be great if Fys could be more like that Dbiv guy. He was nice. I miss that nice Dbiv. Proto ► 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Users Pokemaster1234 and FlavaFlav789

These users are both immature and persistent vandals. Their contribution histories [194] [195] show an interest in vandalizing the same articles [196], and I do not see any good faith edits from either of them. I'm guessing they're either the same person or friends. I gave them both final warnings, and they've both continued their vandalism. I'd like an administrator to look at the situation and either ban or block them. AniMate 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AIV is down the hall ;) —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them are exactly "active" now, so I thought this was the right board to come to. AniMate 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If neither of them are "active" now, then a block would be punitive, not preventative, which is against the blocking policy. If they start up again, warn and list on WP:AIV. Trebor 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked indef as fully warned vandalism only accounts. Viridae^Talk 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User Reversionist

User:Reversionist (a possible sockpuppet of User:Maleabroad and User:HinduDefender; checkuser request filed) is recreating deleted articles [197], making POV edits to others (see edit history) and leaving uncivil edit summaries. Can someone look into this ? Also, is Maleabroad's block up ? Abecedare 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, the "Reversionist" account should be usernameblocked. szyslak (t, c) 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If this user is a sock puppet of Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then the previous AN/I case is relevant to this one. Also, he's been editing without logging in from the following IPs:

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

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

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

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

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

- that's just in the last four days. His edits continue to follow the previously observed pattern of outrageously POV edits, continual revert warring, no discussion, and blatantly uncivil edit summaries. His response to the previous blocks was editing from an IP as soon as the block was placed, and his response to article semiprotection was registering shedloads of new accounts. Orpheus 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indefblocked by Sir Nick. Sandstein 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV issue at edit summary

• User:JAF1970 has reverted my edits at Space music [198](it took hard work to merge and mediate between previous versions) addressing "my" revision as "vandalism". His/her behaviour is very inconsistent becouse he/she admits that the article has been there for years, indeed it stated clearly the differences between NewAge, Space and Ambient music, but now this user restores the same version that User:Gene_Poole created, and that now just say that Ambient music=space music. I suspect it is a sockpuppet case. I already reported User:Gene_Poole also at WP:COI/N a few days ago.--Dr. Who 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tonguebutcher likely sockpuppet of User:Nomenclator

User:Nomenclator seems to be using sockpuppetry to evade a 3RR block. Nomenclator was blocked earlier due to 3RR violations at Veganism. A new user, User:Tonguebutcher has appeared and is making contentious edits that are nearly identical to those make earlier by Nomenclator. This guy has raised some fairly bad karma on Veganism and Talk:Veganism - I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into it. Thanks! Skinwalker 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion?

I notice that the Progressive Bloggers page has been deleted, as a result of the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers (2nd nomination).

My reading of this situation is that there was no clear consensus one way or the other, and I wonder if the deletion may have been made with undue haste. Could someone please review the matter? CJCurrie 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

☛ WP:DRV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can request a review a Wikipedia:Deletion review yourself. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments about requesting a deletion review if you feel the deletion wasn't appropriate, but I'm not sure where you don't see a clear consensus. There was only 1 keep !vote that actually included an argument, and that argument was addressed. The linked mentions about Progressive Bloggers were only in passing. --Onorem 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is what we think AFD is about, and what the closing admin's role is. When I !vote in an AFD (as I did here), my role is to express an opinion and, sometimes, give an argument to try to make others change theirs. In this AFD, I made no argument. But with or without one, my expressed opinion should be respected as part of the consensus process. What is the closing admin's role? They are there, imo, not to decide who won the argument, but instead to determine what the consensus was. In this case, there were 4 deletes, 2 weak deletes, and 4 keeps. If it had been me that closed, it would have been "no consensus". (I also note that the article was closed one day after relisting.) Take it to deletion review? I don't care enough about it to bother, really. But I am concerned to be told that my opinion, and the opinions of three other editors--two of whom are admins--somehow does not count. Bucketsofg 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Devout Christian again

Indef-blocked Devout Christian (talk · contribs) is back at one of his IP addresses, 212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs), making the same old anti-consensus edits. --Ideogram 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That appeared to be a pretty clear case to me; also, he/she appears to have had the same IP address for several months, so I blocked for a month. Not knowing much of the history beyond what I read on talk pages and by checking contribs, though, someone can review and adjust as necessary. I turned off the AO block for the same reason — appears to be a static IP address, and it has been unblocked for several months, so who knows how many sleeper accounts exist. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest requesting a checkuser to confirm that the indefinitely blocked user has used that IP in the past? If the checkuser confirms this, then the IP can surely be banned from Wikipedia, provided that it's not a network IP gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Far too much time has passed for a checkuser; we have to rely on editing evidence, which is pretty clear-cut. Unfortunately, no IP address is guaranteed to be forever static, so as a matter of policy we do not indefinitely block IPs. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you block 127.0.0.1 indefinitely, but then again that's technically not an IP address, or is it.... but it does remain static forever (the exception to the rule mentioned above!) However, 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked before!

But as bbatsell says above, it's true, IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely, it's unlikely any will remain forever static. --sunstar net^talk 10:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Elsanaturk is edit warring already, i suspect he is obvious sock of Atabek, he has had two socks recently and they both have been blocked, he is edit warring here, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, check user states, "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" = "Block. No checkuser is necessary." any admins i urge you to look into this before the edits get worse. These users keep on popping up its getting old and its disruptive to our article contributions. Nareklm 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[199] and [200] Nareklm 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything wrong with those edits. If you want, you can file a RFCU code letter "E", but otherwise you have a content dispute, and I would encourage you to move on to dispute resolution. Yuser31415 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm edit warring hiself on multiple pages, undoing other peoples edits without any explantion. I'm really concerned that no action was taken against Nareklm, who was proven to use sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nareklm) and who is edit warring again. He reverted all of my edits to the articles about Caucasian Albania and History of Nagorno-Karabakh without giving any reasons back to the versions of the banned sock User:Tutmoses8 and banned anon sock. I suspect that this disruptive activity is coordinated outside of Wikipedia, because a few users, including Nareklm follow my edits and undo them without any explanation. Anon IPs and socks are also used for this purpose. Those users are not known as contributors to the pages they are reverting and most probably are not even well familiar with the topics of the articles they revert. I would appreciate if someone looked into this issue. Grandmaster 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually was blocked and this doesn't concern you unless you have any confessions to make? you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules? no, i didn't see anything behalf of your part adding the info, and removing info and making it suitable to your needs.Nareklm 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm, you say "you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules?" In which case, you are violating the spirit, even if not the letter, of edit warring and should be blocked. Is that clear? Yuser31415 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, i mean revert basically the same thing, and i have not edit warred since i have been blocked the user is stalking me and replying everywhere with my sock puppet case which admins have closed. Nareklm 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You "revert basically the same thing"? What do you mean? Yuser31415 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant when i said edit war to reverting comparison, i never reverted more two times on any article these past days since i was blocked, yet grandmaster is bringing up groundless accusations, him adil and dacy have been bringing this up hard these past hours, even though this case was closed bringing up irrelevant things since this has nothing to do with him. Nareklm 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You've heard what I said. Edit warring again will result in an immediate restriction of your access to the site. Furthermore, I suggest you do not be hypocritical and throw baseless accusations of sockpuppetry around when a checkuser case regarding your own was closed positively only three days ago. Yuser31415 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided references for all of my edits, but Narek reverted each and every one of them without any explanation. And I was reverting socks of User:Ararat arev and Nareklm, helping the admins to clean up the mess. Grandmaster 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't get over the fact that i wasn't blocked right? stop adding nonsense to articles and start discussing you added it you discuss i don't revert for fun i was obviously not satisfied with your edits and you removed alot of references to so stop with that. Nareklm 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And quit arguing, you two. Yuser31415 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here I reverted a proven sock of Ararat arev: [201] and edits by this vandal account: [202]. ANother sock here: [203] And I rvd some more socks earlier. I did not make more than 1 or 2 rvs anyway, but these edits should have been rvd. Grandmaster 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? those aren't even me. Nareklm 07:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this IP yours: [204] Grandmaster 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Nareklm 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I find it strange that the sock accounts rvd in parallel with certain established users, supporting their actions to supress the info they did not like. Grandmaster 07:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Another scok I rvd: [205] Grandmaster 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again stop bringing up irrelevant users, go do a check user on ararat and me please. Nareklm 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: [206] Grandmaster 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are each others socks, it just looks very strange that you rv activity is so well coordinated with that banned user. Grandmaster 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of Nareklm reverting your ref'd edits, please. Yuser31415 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: [207] [208] Grandmaster 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And can Nareklm state why he did so? Yuser31415 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As one could expect, no explanation has been provided. Grandmaster 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk and Atabek are not the same people. One lives in Azerbaijan, the other does not. Khoikhoi 07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Khoi what a person huh, he just closed the discussion in one sentence. Nareklm 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check this: [209]. Edit warring is continued by another user. Grandmaster 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Most of Atabek's and Elsanaturks edits are pointless edit warring. They simply go around removing information they dont like on several pages. They start needless and pointless edit wars, which then drag other users in to stop the removal of sourced information.Azerbaijani 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the above pretty accurately describes what you do. You go around and revert the articles to which you never contributed a single line just to undo the edits by Azerbaijani users. I can illustrate my point by examples of such behavior. Grandmaster 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting immediate semi-protect

Request being made for XM Satellite Radio due to a severe rash of vandalism by an individual. Such vandalism is being done at such a rapid pace that editors have been having difficulty keeping up. Any assistance is appreciated! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to semi protect. Vandalism is by one IP account. Had received no warnings. Check out WP:UWT for warnings you can give to vandals and instructions on how to use them. I've given the IP a final warning. If it continues it can be reported at WP:AIV and blocked. WjBscribe 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite familiar with the warnings, I suppose that I hadn't noticed that the anon had only been warned by you. I only took note that he had been warned. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologise if the advice on warnings was a bit patronising (I've struck it). However, I actually went and made the first warning after reading your post here :-). WjBscribe 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what is going on ;) I think the lack of sleep must be playing with my mind... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I reported the IP editor at WP:AIV after continued vandalism and they have now been blocked by Gogo Dodo. Problem appears solved, though I will keep the article on my watchlist... WjBscribe 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IT Service Management

Can I request that someone cull the external links at IT Service Management and keep a watch on it for spam? I can't, I'm gainfully employed by an IT Service Management software vendor and this would be too much like POV pushing for some (and fair enough, too). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll cull and watch, half of the links are products anyway--Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Steve. I am a little concerned about the rest of the links... are they really that important to Service Management? Certainly they don't seem to be significant, and they look linked to the Axios linkages. However, I can't be sure. Full disclaimer here: Axios Systems is a competitor to Infra, who I work for. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Clashwho

multiple failures of WP:AGF, accusations of bias, dishonesty, cowardice, etc. Andy Mabbett 11:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

...And you expect us to do what with this enlightening information? This isn't the Wikipedia complaints department, and there's nothing in that diff that even remotely concerns me. Grandmasterka 11:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible COI to edit protected article

I recently went and asked on the BLP page how ones verifies an identity. An admin claimed to be contacted by a well known conspiracy theorist, Peter Dale Scott. I had trouble believing the person contacting the admin was in fact the person they claimed for a few reasons: They were not located at the University they are associated with. They were contacting the admin from a DSL line in a different part of California (derived from the IP). They contacted an admin who is not sympathetic to conspiracy theories, and has stated they believe people who do believe in them are "not all there" (not a direct quote).

The anon that contacted them left no evidence of their identity, or that this is their new belief.[210] They did not update their UC Berkely page to reflect this,[211] or update articles on another site they are known to write for.[212] The admin posted the message on the article talk page, [213]and I told the admin I would prefer if they just cite the persons view in the past tense, instead, they did not deny saying it, just stated they changed their mind, which still makes the quote legit.[214] The admin removed the passage anyway from an edit protected article.[215] One they have edit warred on, which is why its edit protected. I would like the article reverted as it seems to be a Conflict of Interest and extremely odd timing. It also does not seem any verification of identity was undertaken, or that the anon was reffered to the Wikipedia office to be identified/confirmed. --NuclearZer0 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Block log problem?

I blocked a user over half an hour ago and it doesn't show in my log or the user's block log, but it does show up on Special:Ipblocklist. Has anyone seen this happen before? (Time of block: 11:30, 17 February 2007, user: Kilda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NoSeptember 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried to block the user, but it said they were already blocked, although there's no log entry. Grandmasterka 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked myself and it worked. I've always wanted to read what the message blocked users get looks like and now I have. Grandmasterka 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahm ... MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Viridae^Talk 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But do you get the heart-pounding thrill without experiencing a real block? ;) NoSeptember 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Power level (Dragon Ball)

Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk · contribs) has made what I believe is a veld threat to another user, TTN (talk · contribs), in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raditz.[216] Apparently, the two, along with Dark Dragon Flame (talk · contribs), have been in a dispute about whether to merge/redirect Raditz into List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball prier to this coming to AfD for a "larger opinion".[217] I have already issued a warning to Power level (Dragon Ball),[218] but further admin actions may be needed. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that first diff the one you meant to post? --Onorem 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was what you meant to post? --Onorem 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I get for having several tabs open. But yeah, that's the right diff. --Farix (Talk) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deal with the user a lot, I'll handle it. --Deskana (request backup) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I have to go out now, can someone else handle it and I'll take a look at it later? Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 12:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparant outing and threat against me

The anon 71.230.172.146 (talk · contribs) has posted this attempt to 'out' me. The bit about 'visiting hours' sounds like a threat to me. This anon has been editing in concert with Mokumbear (talk · contribs) and Stephenjayburns (talk · contribs) to insert an unsourced and POV rant into a couple of articles, Morikami Park and Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens, and I suspect a sockpuppet/meatpuppet relationship. -- Donald Albury 13:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the anon and deleted the purported personal information. NoSeptember 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I prefer not to use my buttons when I'm personally involved. -- Donald Albury 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gonial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cause for concern? This user appears to be a sockpuppet making POINTed removals of gallery links and images from articles. Based upon an edit conflict on the La Défense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (review the history) it seems pretty obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of user JulienD3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who's also impersonating User:Gonioul). Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What links do you want me to post!?Charlie Gets It 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of admin privileges by Darwinek

A previous incident involving admin Darwinek was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. That involved his block of me, reversed by another admin.

Now User:Darwinek continues to abuse his admin powers in relation to a different article, Zoran Petrovic.

On 17 February 2006 15:57 UTC User:Darwinek moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović over redirect: Serbian name".

In the same minute, Darwinek protected the page "Protected Zoran Petrović: move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop]"

If there is a dispute, however, User:Darwinek is one of the two disputants, and just as he did in abusing his blocking power to gain advantage in a content dispute, he is now using his page protection power to gain advantage in a content dispute.

Furthermore, is there really a dispute? There is no discussion of any dispute on the talk page; in fact, Talk:Zoran Petrović and Talk:Zoran Petrovic remain redlinks. There is no discussion of any dispute at User talk:Darwinek nor at User talk:Gene Nygaard, and there aren't any other participants in any dispute as far as I know.

Darwinek has also not requested a move under Wikipedia:Requested moves, so there is no dispute under discussion there.

Prior to this, on 17 February 2007 at 12:27 UTC, Darwinek had moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović: Serbian name".

Three hours later, at 15:40 UTC, I (User:Gene Nygaard) reverted that move with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic over redirect: revert undiscussed, unreferenced move by User:Darwinek contrary to all cited sources."

It remains a totally undiscussed, unreferenced move by Darwinek.

In fact the only substantive edits Darwinek has made to the article were the early addition of a stub category, and since the first renaming his only substantive edit was to change one Petrovic to Petrović, and at the same time delete the Category:1952 births and Category:Living people entries, in an edit marked minor with no explanation of why he was doing so.

It remains true that all references cited in the article use the "Zoran Petrovic" and that none use the "Zoran Petrović" spelling. It isn't even established by any citation to any Wikipedia:reliable source that "Zoran Petrović" is an acceptable variant spelling deserving of mention in the introduction, let alone that it is worthy of consideration alongside the verified "Zoran Petrovic" spelling in choosing the proper name under Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

As an admin, Darwinek is also presumably aware of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. When it has specifically been pointed out that there is no source for a claim, then it is his obligation to provide one if he wants to continue making that claim. Gene Nygaard 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected the page. Use the talk page of the article or dispute resolution to resolve the problem. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After posting this, I see that Darwinek has also protected a series of other pages (Damir Matovinović and several others), but once again only after making similar moves on his part to gain unfair advantage from his admin powers. The only difference in most of those cases is that, unlike this one, the earlier unreferenced undiscussed moves were made by a different editor, in most cases User:SndrAndrss, who not only has a propensity for making unreferenced, undiscussed moves, but also completely fails to address the various attempts by several editors to discuss his various headstrong actions at User talk:SndrAndrss. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the page protection should not only be removed as Nearly Headless Nick has done for [[Zoran Petrović, but the admin doing the unblocking should also move the article back to where it was before the Darwinek move immediately preceding his page protection, to place the burden of showing that there is good reason for making the moves where it belongs, on those who want to make these moves which have been undiscussed, and in most cases totally unreferenced and contrary to the references already existing in the articles as well. Gene Nygaard 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it you, Eugene, who is generally not liked by the community, and is it you who will be definitely blocked for life sooner or later. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always, you obviously don't fight against "unreferenced moves" which didn't stress diacritics. I can easily move e.x. Ramon Brown to Roman Brown and you will be OK with that. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)