Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Claims by User:Vlad fedorov

Can someone take a look here: [1]? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison^☺ 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of false translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_brigades&diff=122006717&oldid=122004017

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You also may take a look here: [2]Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison^☺ 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: [3]. I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Wikipedia should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government [4], his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation [5] and [6] and [7] and [8]? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit [9] sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of E104421 and Tajik. I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree on Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.

As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.

Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.

I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.

If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Wikipedia runs on California servers, Wikipedia should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Wikipedia, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin#How_can_we_move_forward. Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Wikipedia WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Wikipedia community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

• (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
• (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
• (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
• (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
• (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
• (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
• (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

• (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
• (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Wikipedia definitions)
• (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
• (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
• (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see [10]) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: [11].Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [12]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Wikipedia would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [13]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see:[14] It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". [references].Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

• 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
• 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
• 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
• 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
• 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
• 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
• 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of sourced text is vandalism)
• 18:44, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv to version of Rich Farmbrough (Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism),)
• 18:42, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 18:40, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 03:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 20:02, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page (the text was supported by reliable sources)))
• 20:01, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:48, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:26, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page)
• 22:15, 31 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism, see talk page)
• 19:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism)
• 19:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (Vandalism again)
• 18:41, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:40, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:39, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:38, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (→Biophys false translation and personal attacks)
• 18:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Vlad fedorov (Vandalism warning)
• 14:57, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alison (Vandalism report)
• 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Active measures (Alledged vandalism)
• 04:32, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring well sourced text about BLOGGERS - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv well sourced text - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:30, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv - restoring sourced text (I warn you: what you are doing is vandalism))
• 05:35, 1 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group (←Created page with '==Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov== Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his arti...')
• 22:49, 21 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalging - see discussion)
• 22:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism and POV editing of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:36, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:35, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv vandalism (each cited statement was supported by a reference))
• 16:40, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:04, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Galina Starovoitova (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 16:00, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:55, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:50, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 05:22, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion; he also removed links to reviews of the book)
• 05:18, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links)
• 05:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of Vlad Fedorov - correctly describing ideas of author is not violation of BLP policy; this is quite the opposite)
• 22:50, 16 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv to last version by Biophys (BLP and reverting vandalism) - see discussion)
• 05:05, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion. The source are the books.)
• 05:07, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv - vandalism; she does NOT work now for Izvestia; she was fired)
• 21:39, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism (reliable and notable source - see discussion))
• 20:11, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism)
• 06:24, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 04:54, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv - vandalism (deleting valid reference to a notable person); there are no BLP issues here)
• 05:47, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - vandalism)
• 00:52, 9 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Disinformation (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov. I did not remove anything. I made this more clear and added more text.)
• 06:42, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Boris Stomakhin (rv - "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" is falsification by Vlad Fedorov - see my comments in Litvinenko talk page)
• 05:46, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (rv vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov)
• 02:54, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted - 3rd time. This is statement by directer of a notable human rights organization.)
• 18:20, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 18:16, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 15:54, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Alexander Litvinenko (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted.)
• 15:49, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverterd. Naftalin and others (not me!) are talking about suppression of a dissident.)
• 15:45, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted. Naftalin is talking about ethnic problems here.)

Reply. Could anyone trace my recent edits of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Ramzan Kadyrov, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, Human rights in Russia, Persecution of political bloggers and others (with their talk pages where I explained my position) and check if editing by Vlad was actually a vandalism? What he always did was deletion of texts supported by perfect references! He even did not want to recognize such sources as Nature (journal) Review Genetics (article Nikolai Koltsov). I openly warned him about vandalism twice in his talk pages (he deleted this) and openly asked advice of administrators twice (see my talk page). But if I was uncivil, then yes, please do whatever is appropriate. Biophys 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please note how different your to texts: Text that I disputed initially and text which became the result of my dispute. So you claim this was vandalism?Vlad fedorov 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other instances of Biophys personal attacks against me

1) User Biophys on his User page put the following: attack on me.

2) Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Another cover-up of personal attacks.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

4) Calling me a troll.

5) Calling me vandal.

6) Calling me a stalker and vandal again

7) And again I am vandal

You know guys, I am actually tired of putting here all the links where Biophys attacked me, because these are of enormous quantity and would just clogg all the board.

At the top of it is the creation of attack page against me titled Internet troll squads. Just in order to call a troll all those who dared to defend not even Putin's policy, but him as an ordinary man.Vlad fedorov 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of death wish by Biophys

First of all, here is the complete context for your claims that I wished you to die:

---

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog [15] because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

After putting the relevant context, I would like to note that there is no actually death wish, because I am replying to death suggestion by Biophys. He tell imagine if Putin dies. I replied the same would be. In this context if I made personal attack, Biophys also made personal attack against Putin. I just defended him as an ordinary man who deserves the same kind of respect as other individuals, despite all his wrong, bad an so on sides, features and so on.

Second, I was punished for this By Alex Bakharev. So I can't be punished twice for one and same thing. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also apoligoze if Biophys accepted this a personal attack. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of attack with Phallus

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person - Putin. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV. Vlad fedorov 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking about your continuous insertion of Putin phallus allegations into the Phallus and other articles. Most outrageous was your insertion of "Putin Phallus" into Persecution of political bloggers article, despite the fact that the author of this article is a journalist and it was published in internet newspaper, not blog. Considering that you have so many times inserted this into many articles, it would be logic to conclude that you love that topic. By the way this was the only my such post and it was because you have contacted the users with whom I had conversation on Freedom House article. You began to contact them posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. It was a case of wikistalking by you, since no one of these users have ever crossed your article and you never was participating in Freedom House. Moreover in all these "requests for help" you was attacking me too, you said I "wikistalkied" you and all your usual stuff.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is your repeated insertion of Putin Phallus into Persecution of political bloggers article insertion, although Kursiv is not a blog, but registered internet newspaper, having registration number in Ministry of Mass Media.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here just notice from your talkpage: I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Defamation of me by Biophys

Biophys also began to contact different users by posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. In these messages he called me wikistalker. Vlad fedorov 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I called you "wikistalker" because User:Colchicum officially filed an RfC about your alleged wikistalking of him and me (sorry, I did not write "alleged").Biophys 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-reply. You called me wikistalker, after adminstrators on RfC declined to acknowledge wikistalking. Moreover, it happened exactly when I decided to step aside from mine articles. I decide to tackle with Freedom House and see the talk page. I have pretty nice discussion with these guys. But you have followed me and began you witch hunt by posting these defamatory statements, knowing already that Bakharev and others didn't shared you accusations of wikistalking, violations of BLP and so on.

User Swatjester already said that you just can't leave without "your victory". I should add that you also couldn't leave without defaming me. You want harass me and to abuse me. This is exactly what you did posting these messages to other users. You just want to "cause me pain" right by blocking me?

Reply. What victory? This is nonsense. I only wanted to keep well referenced text that you simply deleted. A lot of people edited my articles after me and I never had complaints because they did good faith editing. I also objected inserting poorly sourced defamatory claims in biographies of living people that you did. Biophys 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you never had complaints because you was shamelessly reverting and deleting their contributions in case you didn't like them labelling it as "anonymous vandalism", "unrealible sources", "defamation" and so on.Vlad fedorov 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I note, that your poorly defamatory claims in biographies and other articles are objectionable too? Why I don't delete your insertions though? I would tell you, because I always was acknowledging my mistakes and I never crossed the line by deleting sourced text, although objectionable but somehow referenced. Tha is my difference from you. You sterilize texts of your opponents shamelessly. You claim violations of BLP everywhere when it fits you political views, the same is with reliability of sources. Vlad fedorov 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You excuses for "alleged" are of no avail. I never was writing to every editor of the articles which you have edited, that RfC was also filed against you. Vlad fedorov 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New attempts to eliminate others POV by Biophys

Please look there how Biophys again censures and deletes other work without credible explanations. Here is the diff. He creates an article where he inserts only his POV sources and then eliminates any attempts to insert all the POV's. It is he who sterilizes the articles. Vlad fedorov 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New personal attacks by Biophys

Please see that Biophys calls me vandal even at AfD for Internet brigades. He claims that he accused me of vandalism at my RfC [16], but this is lies. Just go and see that he never brought charges of vandalism against me. This is again a personal attack just to get more score at AfD. Note that Biophys doesn't stop his personal attacks while he reports to this noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just an example of you trying to misinterpret evidence. In the working diff, Biophys does not call you a vandal, he only refers the readers to RfC where such accusation was made. All of your above 'evidence' of personal attacks on you is in fact misinterpretation and an attempt to deflect discussion of your evident incivility to discussion of alleged incivility by one of those you have offended and who reported you here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you, Piotrus, provide diffs in support of your statement, that Biophys has accused me of vandalism in my RfC? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And please respond directly to my links that show Biophys calling me vandal, troll and wikistalker. If calling me "vandal", "troll" and "wikistalker" is civil? How many times Biophys mad personal attacks on me? Why no one has ever stopped Biophys from personal attacks on me?Vlad fedorov 07:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary by a Third Party

After reading over the thread, I recommend to the administrator(s) addressing this thread that Vlad be blocked for five to seven days, because:

• His edits suggest a major problem with edit warring.
• He's been blocked multiple times in the past, once for block evasion.
• He's already been blocked once this week for edit warring.
• He's also committed a number of obvious WP:NPA violations, some of them on this page. Not the least of these was the implication that Wikipedia users would like to see Biophys dead (see above). Rather than apologize, he has tried to pass these comments off as legitimate, honest commentary, despite their obviously mean-spirited nature and the unusal harshness of his accusations.

It's clear to me that this user has a history and hasn't learned much from it. I invite Vlad to read over WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Also, I would like to point out to Vlad that while Biophys' addition to Phallus may not have been appropriate, it was indeed satire. Just because the author was convicted of a crime under (I assume) Russian laws does not mean that 1) his commentary is not satire or 2) that his commentary would necessarily be considered defamation under Wikipedia policy, which obviously has a substantially different position on both Putin and satire.

Here I would like to note that journalist who wrote "Putin Phallus" was convicted and sentenced for defamation in Russian courts, therefore reproduction of a defamation texts is forbidden in Wikipedia. Mister Moralis should familiarize himself with the context and stuation first. Biophys used "satire" labelling just to insert defamatory statements of convicted and sentenced for defamation journalist. Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I feel, should be treated with more leniency- while his actions have certainly been disruptive, he has not been as persistently disruptive as Vlad. While I feel it is fair to be harsh on Vlad because of his history, Biophys' block log is clean.

See how many attacks were done by Biophys in his contributions! Is it not disruptive? Vlad fedorov 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is just a discrimination. I have disputed my first block which was done by English speaking guy William Connely who coudn't ascertain whether the texts where supported by references. It is discrimination. Biophys so many times abused me, and in the end I got "just" and "discriminate" sentence by mister Moralis who isn't even administrator? Why so many evident Biophys violations are considered as light? Shouldn't sanctions be equal to everyone? Isn't everyone is equal here? Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also see here that mediator disagrees with one of my block too, I always disputed this block. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin&diff=110220318&oldid=110217877. Vlad fedorov 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like also everyone to see the bias in relation to me. Biophys has violated 3RR rule recently on Boris Stomakhin. I have reported him on noticeboard.3.114 User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning) And what? User Biophys received only warning!!! This is so unjust. Sorry, but I can't name it otherwise than bias. I was blocked without warnings momentarily when Pioutrus and his team were reverting Internet brigades incorrect translations. Vlad fedorov 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a 36-hour block for disruptive editing, and that he be watched carefully for a little while. I don't think we have -too- much to worry about from Biophys beyond addressing the above, versus Vlad who has already demonstrated that he will be a persistent problem.

The content removed from Phallus (among other pages) should be evaluated for potential inclusion in Vladimir Putin, under "Putin in humour and fiction." --Moralis (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question. My another article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked for AfD. Can I at least finish this article before you block me? At least tell me please how much time do I have.Biophys 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) O'K, I finished this edit. Now you can block me.Biophys 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I have observed Vlad's behavior here and at Internet brigades and its vfd. For the most part I have tried to stay out of his way, but the two instances where I stepped in were unpleasant. I think a cooling-off period is in order. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Warnings" to Vlad fedorov by Biophys

Please see the article Russia and Saddam WMD allegations and see how Biophys deletes text which he don't likes. For inserting texts that nullify his efforts to create conspiracy pages he "warns" me diff. If this civil? Vlad fedorov 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sharing future plans about creation of new articles is civil. Biophys 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sharing is a normal thing, but threatening with future plans is definetly not. Vlad fedorov 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see also more rude "warning" diff. Vlad fedorov 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked

Since nobody wants to step in and stop the bickering, and since the drama has increased since starting here, I've blocked both Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days. WP:BRD if necessary. Naconkantari 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorsed. Thank goodness. They both did something similar on my talk page a few weeks back - Alison^☺ 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with caevat. Equaling Biophys to Vlad is not fair - I don't think any of the users who commented above suggested this, and several pointed out the difference. Yes, Biophys should not be left off the hook with a pat on his back, but current solution is not fair. He has also given plenty of answers above suggesting willingness to discuss and compromise. I suggest shortening his block to one day at most.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• After spending 15 minutes reading this long case (I will be late on my lecture) I must endorse. Although I personally think Vlad is worse policy violator than Biophys. Maybe block of Biophys should be shortened to 24 hours, as he already shown a will to compromise. - Darwinek 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lowered the block on Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 24 hours, which has just expired. Naconkantari 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for a block

Resolved

24.190.154.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a school's IP address; it has been blocked four times, and someone claiming to be a pupil there (and an "administrator", though I'm not sure what that means here) – Elnerdo (talk · contribs) – left the following message on the Talk page:

==Please ban us==

If an administrator sees this, please ban our IP address from all editing of Wikipedia. We are a highschool in Northern New Jersey, and we have absolutely nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyone who has anything important to add to wiki already has an account. elnerdo 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that such a request would need to come from someone in authority at the school, not a pupil, and that even then I doubted that we'd be prepared to block an IP indefinitely. I just want to confirm that advice here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC we have blocked indefinitely such IPs in the past, but as you say as a result of formal requests from a responsible party (probably via OTRS) --pgk 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence gives me pause. I have to wonder if this really comes from a position of authority. Part Deux 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have my doubts (although he does say that he's a pupil with some position; the equivalent of a prefect?). We'd certaibnly not block it on his say-so.

On a related but different matter — I've just received this:

== i'm Sorry, but please block my IP address. ==

Hello Mel, I have tried every trick in the book to get booted from wikipedia editing and now i would just like to be blocked. This is my last request, so please consider this so that i'm not able to edit pages on wikipedia.

Thanks-

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that he has been living up to his User name, and couldn't have been far off being blocked anyway. Again, what's the correct response please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks, you aren't supposed to be able to request a block for yourself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, if you wanted to block him for something unrelated (which came to your attention after you started investigating the initial request), I think that'd be kosher. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, so the question's now moot. (I've always wondered why self-requested blocks aren't allowed; in this case, certainly, it would have mede sense.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably just to avoid confusion. I can think of a situation where someone would request a block, and then someone else would miss the request and get all hysterical (He didn't do anything wrong! How dare you block him?!). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that that could happen — but f we forbade everthing that might be misunderstood, we'd have little left that we could do. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou vs. User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali

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

This isn't going anywhere. My talk page is open if there are unresolved issues. – Steel 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

For several months I have been subject to continuing abuse by vandals and sockpuppets who object to my edits and my extra-Wika politics relating to the Middle East. To date, some 160 sockpuppets of User:Runtshit have been indefinitely blocked for their libellous and abusive edits to over 130 different articles. In addition to abusive comments, these editors have been adding a link to a weblog set up for the sole purpose of spreading these and other defamatory comments. Following the intervention of several administrators, linking to this hate site has resulted in automatic bans for the perpetrators.

Now, for the first time, an established editor has repeated these libels and posted a link to the weblog. In the course of a dispute at Talk:Shimon Tzabar, User:Jaakobou appears to have trawled through the history of my edits, and has repeated a libellous accusation as fact, including posting the URL of the abusive weblog. Since he has clearly read the weblog, he cannot claim to be unaware of its libellous nature. And since he has studied my contributions history, he must be aware that scores of vandals have been banned for posting these false and defamatory allegations.

The posting of this material is a deliberate provocation. It is a clear and deliberate breach of WP:NPA. If allowed to go unremarked, it could encourage other editors to post such abusive material. I therefore request that User:Jaakobou be blocked for a suitable period in order to emphasise the serious and unacceptable nature of his behaviour. RolandR 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali have been making a tag-team effort and on numereous occassions stooped down to defamatory intonations and accusations with their tag-team reverting. this case was not much different as he accused me yet again (for the umpteenth time) for pushing my POV, an act that deserved a reply that he should quit doing so. after scores of situations where i was "against" a tag team revert effort while trying to make a normative contribution to wikipedia:

a few samples of insults/tag-team efforts:

1. "was in the article for several months until removed by POV editor"
2. Reverting tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits
3. "RonaldR, any valid reasoning for removal of criticism and POV change of "seperation wall" title ?"
4. cencorship of criticism per "politically-motivated"
5. "Removed hostile POV editsd"
6. Adam Keller warnings on RolandR talk page - part 1
7. Adam Keller mediation attempt i've made - refused by RolandR - personal attacks included: "this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."
8. warning on RolandR talk page per more personal attacks
9. earlier weasel terms warnining he removed from his talk page
10. "I wouldn't be too worried at User:Jaakobou's bluster. He constantly threatens and attempts to bully other editors who do not agree with his own POV" and a little extra sad taunting attempt.
11. Abu Ali, please help me out on Adam Keller
12. "tag team war reverting" warning recieves these: "He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously", "I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou" and the best attempt to give the tag-team revert an anti-jaako feel: "Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks."

I could go on and on with smaples of tag team wars by these two and POV pushing. this entire complaint by RolandR against me is the result of his incessant attacks on me which is the resut of a blatant tag-team warring style of editing preffered by the two over a proper talk page discussion debate. off course by now, he's contacted allready all of his other tag-team buddies to add libel against me... but guess who was first? (Abu Ali). evidence from the article of this initial report: a request by Lizrael for RonaldR to not force his opinion into the article, and a second request - both were ignored by RolandR and Abu Ali. The RonaldR attack - "My suspicion is that the deniers want to suppress the link altogether, in order to prevent Wikipedia readers from linking to its well-written and devastating critiques of Israel's behaviour.". obviously, i've had enough of the insinuations and the "hidden" nick-naming and i presented that he should stop calling me out on "POV charges" (claiming his view is neutral) cosidering that someone has even made a blog to honor his anti-israel POV. Jaakobou 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks by Jaakobou are irrelevant. The fact remains that he deliberately posted a link to a defamatory website, despite knowing that 160 sockpuppets had already been indefinitely blocked for the same offence. RolandR 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how would i know that 160 sockpupets posted it? i'm very sorry that you have sockpuppets chasing you, but i was only presenting that you are a POV editor and that you should stop accusing me with POV while claiming you're neutral. another note i wish to stress, is that you constantly claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce your POV onto articles. Jaakobou 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please do not POV the title of this incident ^{per this edit: [17]}. Jaakobou 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been made clear, perhaps User:Jaakobou will agree to not post the link again, and perhaps both of you will concentrate on the topic at hand rather than other editors. What does Abu Ali (talk · contribs) have to do with it? He hasn't edited for nearly a year. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for catching that, error fixed - User:Abu_ali what the correct username.

note: i was not the one reporting this "violation". Jaakobou 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then will you agree to not post the offending link? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of "posting" the offending link, it was placed (via ^[2] style) to validate my claim that a blog that celebrates his bias exits. To my defense, I am fairly tired of being attacked under "tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits" allegations by a tag-team that claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce their POV (bypassing 3RR) under the pretnece of neutrality... regardless, i wouldn't mind not reposting that link (when forced to mention it's existance).. but it would be only fair that user rolandR remove the warning from my page and in the future avoid statements such as "silly".."highly POV editor" and such. reverting should be left out and a discussion should be done properly... in fact, i'm surprized that this issue was not dealt with earlier. note: it would also be a good thing if he'd avoid removing my warnings from pages of other users and his own page also. Jaakobou 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, i was thinking of archiving this thread but you haven't answered Zzuuzz's question yet. Will you agree to not post the offending link? If yes, then we can move forward and archive this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}, as you can see from User:RolandR's reply, he has no attempt to consider other editors in a respectable manner (per "totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response", "I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid", etc.). I see no reasoning for me to post the link (and i don't intend to) but a reciprocal reaction would be the removal of the warnning and an honest attempt at resolving disputes without the tag-team reverts per "user is highly POV and untrue, pejorative and misleading" tactic. It's become a major hassle to deal with them every time we encounter a dispute. note: why do you place no regard to the tag team revert and disrespect issue? Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response. The link did not place itself; it was placed by Jaakobou, who himself repeated some of the libels from it. It is inconceivable that he can have looked at this site and not realised that it was libellous, abusive and offensive. I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid to recognise this. Nor can I believe that he was unaware that scores of other editors posting this link have been banned from Wikipedia. After all, he trawled through my contributions history to discover some that he could cite as examples of my point of view, so he will of course have seen the dozens of contributions relating to this, as well as the offensive edits made to the pages he looked at.

I have been battling for months to deal with this. Several other editors and administrators have wasted hours of their time removing these libellous edits and links from Wikipedia. Zzuuzz is aware of this, since he himself has dealt with this abuse on many occasions. A grudging and half-hearted undertaking not to repost the linbk is simply not good enough -- Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this.

Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations. I do not intend to dignify them with a response, except to note that it is a lie to claim that I have removed his "warnings" from user pages other than my own. RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placeing the attention at the root. i could care less about some people hassling you about your views. I do care about the blatent disrespect you're repeatedly showing. you're the one jumping on the first thing you can in an attempt to ban me. Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page, removing a message from User:Abu ali. He accuses me above of removing his messages from other users talk pages, and now he does himself what he falsely alleges that I have done. This too is unacceptable behaviour. Is there any way to block him from my talk page? RolandR 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the previous comment by User:RolandR was preceded by this one: personal attack complaint^{quick link - 22:11, 14 April} and followed by this one: "i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it"^{quick link - 23:45, 14 April}

For a second time, Jaakobou has moved my comment in order to remove it from its context. It's not enough that he vandalises my talk page; now he is also vandalising my complaint about this. His behaviour has passed all reasonable and acceptable bounds -- he seems to believe that he can censor not only messages from one editor to another, but also the resulting complaints. I have the right to make my complaint in the place and mmanner I thoink fit, and he does not have the right to decide that it should be made in a different manbner. If he wishes to respond to my complaint, he should do so here, rather tnam move my complaint out of its context to a place of his choice. RolandR 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR your incessant attempt to portray me as a vandal are becoming increasingly annoying. do you have a proper reasoning for placing a vandalism complaint out of chronological order above the "personal attacks" about those very edits so that a naive reader might think that vandalism came first and personal attacks came later? Jaakobou 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. My comment, which Jaakobou has now moved three times, was not a response to his remarks below. It was a continuation of the discussion above, and in particular his false allegation that I have been removing his comments from other editors talk pages. By moving it, he makes me appear to make an irrelevant response to a different comment.

Meanwhile, his (very) frequent posting of unwarranted and extremely verbose "warnings" on my talk page and those of other editors, his removal of other editors comments from my talk page, his repeat of libels against me, and his posting of the URL of a libellous weblog set up purely in order to defame me, certainly warrant the description of vandalism. RolandR 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR, (1) it would be far more factual if you'd be able to link to all of your claims when you make them, as i usually do. (2) i've managed to solve the "comment moving" problem by placing a timestamp and link - i don't think you can really deny the time each comment was made. (3) i have no interest in you or in defaming you - i am however interested in proper conduct when working on articles, something you refuse to do despite many attempts i've made to relay that message to you.^{Adam Keller month long dispute, and rejected mediation case}. Jaakobou 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

recent personal attacks

Please see RolandR's talk page to see Abu ali's subtle personal attacks against me. It's a repeated phenomena that's difficult to work on articles with; a duo that says they "must be doing something right" after they see they have, to put it bluntly, pissed me off. when noted that this personal attack is frowned upon, RonaldR ignored the note and reverted the personal attack back into his page and also made a 4th level warning on my talk page^[18]. Jaakobou 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following "i removed a personal attack" comment was preceded by this User:RolandR comment: "jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page removing a comment from Abu_ali"^{quicklink (scroll down) - 23:16, 14 April}

i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it while ignoring my notice that this personal attack is frowned upon^{quick link}. Jaakobou 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou invited [19] me to state my case here. My talk page contains a number of final warings by this editor which I normally shrug off. But I think that this edit edit is libelous and defamatory beyond what is acceptable here. So I think it would be best for User:Jaakobou to apologize and agree not to insert such material here in future. If he is unwilling to do this, some sort of sanction may be appropriate in order to show him the seriousness with which such personal attacks are treated here and convince him not to repeat them. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that's an interesting way of mispresenting the warnings you had recieved in the past (and just recently) and ignoring your repeated insinuations, attacks and tag team warring. your rich history of zionist conspiracy claims^{easily found here} makes me wonder about wikipedia's ability of dealing with destructive editors who abuse their personal page to catalogue israeli gouvermental officials that have or had issues with the law.[20] Jaakobou 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know you do not like my user page becuase you have raised an ANI about it in the past. Any editor who is interrested in this will have fun trawling through our contributions history. But lets not get distracted and get back to the current issue. The question FayssalF and I asked (and you for some reason ignore) is will you apologize for this [21] edit and agree not to reinsert links to this libelous and defamatory material. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i've answered the question twice allready. (2) will you apologize for all the attacks you've made on me (and erase those which can be erased) including the one made just 10 minutes ago and start dealing with disputes in a proper manner on the talk page without tag-team reverting? even when i've requested your opinion on an article[22] you used it as an opportunity to unjustly attack me [23]. Jaakobou 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer. (2) I have made no attacks on you, and find it puzzling to say the least that you demand that I apologize for non-existent personal attacks, while you continue to make personal attacks such as this [24]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) look it up, it's on this thread. (2) your name doesn't even exist on the link you have provided. (3) scroll up a little bit and you'll find a few of your personal attacks on me. Jaakobou 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) the personal attack I mentioned was against RolandR. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Troll#Pestering. Jaakobou 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is being a troll here, and pestering others, it's certainly not Abu Ali. Jaakobou, on the other hand, persistently posts unwarranted "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. Just look at these, for instance: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. That's quite enough to demonstrate a consistent pattern. Jaakobou, I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such allegations in future. RolandR 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

brilliant effort here. one (User:Abu_ali) bugs me with "If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer." and links unrelating to him. (hence the "pestering" link) and now you're inadvertently accusing me of "being a troll here, and pestering others" - well you did some linking so i guess i should respond to them:

link 1 - [31]

your first link: was a serisous problem with Abu_ali who had not ignored a level-1 notice, but has used it to repeatedly put my username on display on his personal page: [32] and placed again even after it was removed by a wiki admin first removal of Abu_ali finger pointing->Abu_ali putting it back, and second time it was removed by an admin (not by Abu_ali, which is why the all the warning stayed on his talk page). now if you would have taken the time, you would have found it. I actually handled the situation unlike you^[33],[34] - i used the proper steps level-1, level-2 to get around to the level-3 warning after a the "protest" activity in regards to the level-1 and level-2 warnings. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

link 2 - [35]

The second link of yours was actually one of your tag-team efforts where both of you were repeatedly ignoring the talk page and reverting the article page.

from that same warning i give this link to the Abu_ali blind revert 9:54, 24 march and the brilliant part is when going over the history of the article [36]:

Scrolling down to the 24th, you can see that i make an edit, and you revert per "Reverting POV edits", I then move the problem to the talk page for discussion 23 march. user Abu_ali reverts the page without regarding the talk page 9:54am, 24 march - i waited around for an hour to see if he does adress the talk page, but since he didn't - and since you two have shown tag-team editing in the past i went on with my warning 10:52am 24 march - perhaps a level-3 would have been better than a level 4 but for both my talk page effort and the "link 1 issues"... and after the warning, i got this response: "Shalom to my friend Jaakobou. The implication of the phrase "what they descrive as the occupation" rather than the simpler "the occupation".... But as this is not a Kahanist blog or an Israeli foreing ministry propoganda site, we should call things as they are, hence the occupation" (then there's a comment about me trying to intimidate him with the warning - which i protest since i was only not appreciative of the "quick revert and ignore talk page" methodology)... let's go on with this one and follow up on the history: the warning and reqest that he self revert were ridiculed by the couple and here's a capture of the changes in conversation on the article talk page since that warning:

[37] summary:

Jaakobou - kahana is outlawed (personal attack), you should revert, second time you call RolandR, article related discussion, tag team warning, self revert and proper discussion request. Abu ali - did not call you kahanist, you will know i'm right if you go to a checkpoint yourself. Jaakobou - regardless you your personal narrative there's wiki terminology, please self revert the tag team reversion and i'll remove the warning from your page, article talk. Abu ali - As you have been a soldier you will know from direct experience that the regime (i.e. attacking me-jaakobou and my country)... "What did the state give you in return for these three unpaid years of your life?"

after this personally orientated discussion (by Abu_ali) and reluctance to discuss properly or self-revert in return to a removal of the warning. i went on with this:

23:27, 25 March summary:

level-2 notice for turning the conversation into a chat about me, POV issues, reply to personal question, notice about refusal to self-revert and warning that repeating on it might result in a block for him, note about being contributive over destructive (with proper linkage^[38][39][40])

then i reverted the Matzpen page on 23:29, 25 March - on 06:26, 26 March (the next morning) Abu_ali reverted it again per "as explained on the talk page, we should call a spade a spade" and gave this reply on his talk page "It seems that we will have to agree to disagree.".

user RolandR then continued to make "shocked" comments on Abu_ali's talk page in regards to the complaint i issued^[41] so that the complaint would not follow through: "am shocked at the patronising tone", "Quite a colonial attitude", "doesn't surprise me that you are offended" - and it worked.

i could go on with these links... but i think i've illustrated the problem sufficiently. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

other links

link 3 [42] - increasing warnings about removing warnings from other user's talk page (i've later learned that this is allowed?)

link 4 [43] - same issue - with one of the 3 users involved: NSH, RolandR and Huldra.

link 5 [44] - a very much legitimate level-2 notice - with proper citations and links - issue was properly resolved also.

link 6 [45] - the old RolandR initial encounter on Adam Keller that i've linked to here more than once - i've tried to resolve with mediation, but RolandR declined on the attempt... article seemed to be progressing for a bit, but currently it's locked due to the reverting on it (did i say tag-team yet? - the team has actually did 4 reverts together on 11th of April). Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

extra talk

This thread keeps popping up in my watchlist and it's getting annoying. Jaakobou, there is no rule that says if someone starts a new (sub)section, people can no longer post in the previous section, so quit moving other people's messages around. Also, I can't see any personal attacks from RolandR, just you constantly accusing him of making them. I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative. – Steel 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, i've managed to solve this problem without moving the misplaced comment, thank you for the lovely response. all you need to do to find (many of) the details of the situation is to follow it through from the start of the thread. Jaakobou 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, could you please explain the reasoning behind this edit and perhaps present a better title to allow for this mini unrelated conversation to not clutter up the main issue? Jaakobou 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, it's not unrelated. – Steel 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, pace Steel's comments, that Jaakobou could benefit from taking a less confrontational approach towards his fellow editors. He does seem to have a habit of assuming bad faith and making claims of wrongdoing; this seems to be more of the same. It's the kind of approach that just ends up annoying people. -- ChrisO 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, i'm assuming good faith regardless of our history. Your intervention here is not very noble. if you feel i was wrongly assuming bad faith on the Pallywood situation/incident, than you can discuss about it properly - personally, i was only alleging that you're insisting on your own opinion on the article and ignoring the other editors. rather than make insinuations on an AV/I that's got nothing to do with me assuming bad faith onto you (and i do believe we were wtill working on the talk page and not on the revert button) but rather with 2 editors tag teaming while ignoring the talk page and making repeated personal attacks/insinuations on me. Jaakobou 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruption/community block

I'm finding User:Jaakobou to be quite disruptive. AFAIK I've never dealt with him before, but yesterday I received an email from him pointing me to this thread (as if I could have failed to see it). That got promptly trashed, of course.

Steel archived this discussion as going nowhere, and explained to him why; Jaakobou undid; I reverted; and now he's visiting my talk page too. I'm starting to see the words "exhausted the community's patience". --kingboyk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

feel free to remove this comment (seem you do that often), but i do feel that your conduct here^[46][47] is very much uncivil. Jaakobou 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an unpaid volunteer; I don't have to waste my time answering questions which have already been answered. Steel told you why he archived (and so did I on his talk page), so there's no need to keep asking me about it is there?

Please don't add a point-making section header (==civility==), and please don't try and turn the argument towards my behaviour (a favourite t**ll tactic if ever I saw one). --kingboyk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Jaakobou. Quite frankly, I'm fed up with this. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, obviously. --kingboyk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the above, Jaakobou was swiftly unblocked, and in the confusion caused by his multiple postings (some 40 edits in three days, as well as countless postings to other talk pages), my original complaint was lost sight of. I was requesting a lengthy block on Jaakobou for his harassment of me, and in particular his posting of a link to a libellous website and his repeating of the libels therein. As I noted, a serial vandal is spamming scores of Wikipedia pages with this material, and to date more than 160 sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked for repeating this. If an established editor is allowed to get away with this, it's open day for all sorts to continue with this abuse of Wikipedia. Jaakobou's behaviour warrants a significant response, not simply another warning. I haven't even had an apology, and he has failed to give the requested undertaking not to repeat this libel. We can't just ignore this. RolandR 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

look, i apologise for placing the link ... and sorry for revealing personal information about you, I only did so out of frustration in this stressful issue. I will avoid such links in the future. Jaakobou 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't block for punishment's sake - it's supposed to be a way of modifying behaviour. I think of it as being like whacking a dog with a rolled-up newspaper to discourage it from crapping on the carpet. If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity. -- ChrisO 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is Communism

He went through the Navajo encyclopaedia doing his usual dealie [48] - I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to say anything, but I don't speak Navajo. WilyD 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, did he do that to the main page? Yikes. I reverted it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hit the Rumanian wiki too: [49]. I'm reverting them now. Part Deux 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WilyD 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else would like to help, you can see the list of vandalized pages at [50]. I don't time to fix them all. Part Deux 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Navajo wiki. --Golbez 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you see rampant vandalism on a small wiki, report to #wikimedia-stewards, we can fix this much easier with our tools. MaxSem 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly easier may be more appropriate actually. Prodego ^talk 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Communism Vandal. He use to go around just blanking pages and putting the image of the Hammer and Sickle with the caption "Wikipedia is Communism". One of the better known habitual vandals out there.--Jersey Devil 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does he have an agenda? Does he really belive that 'wikipedia is communism'? And if so... Why? ThuranX 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance it isn't the original vandal but impersonators of him/her.Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism gave up around 2005(?) so it's probably an imitator. Oh, back when vandals were simpler and on wheels... Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou

Based on Steve Dufour's statements about Scientology Finance on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scientology_Finance, Misou put up a speedy deletion template [51], which was removed by another user. Then Steve Dufour put it back [52]. I removed the template because it has nothing to do with living persons, nor does it fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. It looks to me that they want to get rid of the aricle for POV reasons.--Fahrenheit451 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. User:Steve Dufour has done things which seemed to me like abuse of the deletion process before, such as nominating a featured article -- Xenu -- for deletion when his arguments that it was non-notable were rejected.

I'm still of the opinion that there should be a status here comparable to vexatious litigant, such that a person who repeatedly engages in misuse of processes such as deletion is barred from further use of them. User:Steve Dufour's gadfly challenges to the sourcing of Scientology articles are occasionally very slightly useful to article quality, but abusive tactics such as this make his overall contribution lean towards the negative. --FOo 06:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To ask a related question: If an individual lists themselves as a participant in a WikiProject but over time shows themselves to be clearly acting against the goals of that WikiProject, can they be ejected from it? When the WikiProject maintains a noticeboard for noting articles that face deletion, and supposed participants in good faith nominate articles for deletion without posting the appropriate notices, it really raises the question of why they listed themselves as participants. The requirements for participation in a WikiProject are generally not onerous, but "don't go behind others' backs" would seem to be a very reasonable one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Misou

Thanks, guys, for not informing me about this sneaky attack on myself. Hope I don't disturb your little club here. Foo, could you please stop smearing me and start contributing some sense, thank you. Fahrenheit451, if you look at the edit summary, you'll find a different "truth" than what you spread here. The deletion of this article was suggested by an Admin but in any case fulfills the deletion criteria. This article is not a WP:BLP issue and I never said that. What it seems to be is a) Original Research with zero RS to back it up (could be wholly invented by you, as it stands right now and you could not provide any RS since a while either) and b) useless. This minor subject could easily be a part of one of the hundreds of existing articles. Misou 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't say anything about User:Misou, unless you're the same person as User:Steve Dufour, in which case we have a sock puppet problem here. Is that what you're saying? --FOo 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it was not you for a change. It was Fahrenheit451 giving this thread the tendentious title "Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou". He might explain how he got the idea to mix me into his vendetta with Steve. Misou 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou, could you please explain where you think that an admin suggested that you should attempt to speedy-delete the article? I find no such suggestion anywhere on WP:BLPN. An admin did make a comment about bringing it to WP:AFD but as has been explained to you before, speedy deletion is a very different process from proposed deletion is a very different process from articles-for-deletion. Why exactly did you think that an admin's suggestion that deletion of the article should be discussed (AfD) translated to "I can mark this to be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate" (speedy)? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Dufour

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

• Added Schwarz "Attack article" section — (later removed by another editor)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

• Added 2005 Schwarz nom to 2006 AFD log — (later corrected by another editor)
• in an attempt to open 3rd nom — (Schwarz AFDs 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

• Added 2 and 4 — (Schwarz sections 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)
• Added "Article about suspected sockpuppets of a WP editor?" (Schwarz)

• Added 1 and 2 — (Rathbun sections 1 - 2 - 3)

• Added Scientology Finance — (later removed by another editor)
• Added section again

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• Added Schwarz section — (and anticipated 4th Schwarz AFD which soon appeared) — (subsequently incorporated into another section)

Wikipedia:Village pump

• Added section "Scientology overcovered?"

Page histories research results contributed by — Athænara ✉ 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have had difficulty with this editor, he seems to make a habit of bringing up issues already decided for the same reasons that caused said decsion. diff. He is again claiming the article in question is an attack article. Anynobody 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hows about we just stop the "tactics" and edit the encyclopedia?

Here is a word I had for Steve on the Scientology Finance article in response to his alerting me to it. Boils down to a NN article that was, IMO, simply added to give another opportunity for Scientology critics to link to off-wiki POV, non-RS, attack sites.

. . . Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This highly POV linking violates wikipedia policy but they have gotten away with it so long that they seem to think it is a norm. The article is non-notable Church policy and if Steve and Misou want to put it up for a delete then they should. Hey guys, instead of trying to get your opponents in trouble, how about we just walk through the process here. Thanks. --Justanother 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

what's the proper process here?

ok List of That's So Raven episodes has something like 96 individual episodes that have articles (though 7-8 of them have already been deleted or redirected back, more on that in a moment). I've gone through the first two seasons: so far every single article without fail is unsourced, original research, and consists of at least 50% of the pages content is trivia. Now, according to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes it seems that only NOTABLE episodes are to be given their own pages, and that unverified, unsourced pages and trivia should be deleted/redirected. The apparent consensus there is that redirects to an episode list page are notable.

Now, I about broke my arm prod-ding the entire first season. Two prods were contested, I took both to AFD, and discovered 1 of them had already been AFD'd with a consensus to redirect back to the episode list. The other one is currently on AFD. After doing some research, I found that at least 7 episodes already have been to AFD and the consensus was to redirect back into the list of episodes.

So, my administrative question is what is the proper process. Do I AFD and Prod 85 more episodes? Or can I simply ignore the rules, be bold and redirect all the episodes back into the main list of episodes?

It would seem to me, that since all the articles have the exact same critical flaws, and 7 of them already have been up to AFD and uniformly been redirected back into the main article, that given the centralized discussion consensus, there is adequate grounds for me to just go ahead and redirect the articles. However, I don't want to do something out of process and then be yelled at for it later. Not that I mind being yelled at, but considering the target audience of these articles, such a move is going to get me trolled by a bunch of 11 year olds. Not something I mind, but I want to be able to say "I was in the right" when they do yell at me for it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well I don't see what we gain by deleting this content in the first place. It's harmless, if there's OR, remove it. --W.marsh 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because after the OR is removed, nothing is left. Also, per Centralized Discussion, first you have an article about the show (there is one). Once there is enough notable information, then you have an article about the seasons, or some other high level logical time division (there is a list of episodes in this case). Once you have enough NOTABLE information about each episode, you then can start building individual episode pages. The problem here is that process was completely ignored. Now, we have almost 100 articles that do not deserve existence, and are magnets for teenage vandalism and fancruft, OR, and trivia. We've already noted before through the last 7 AFDs that there is a consensus that those articles should not exist on their own. So why should we allow the others? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's for encyclopedic content. Trivia over whether a minor character left their locker open in an episode, is not encyclopedic content. In 20 years, will anyone want to read that? Unfortunately, that's what over 50% of each article is: trivia. Once all the trivia is removed, each article is an exact duplicate of the synopsis at the main list page, and therefore should be deleted as a duplicate article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It looked like a lot of plot summaries, guest stars, and other kinds of information when I checked a few articles. That's interested to fans, it can be verified... I don't see the harm in it. Anyway... you're apparently here to get approval to ignore all rules and speedy them all, I'm of the unpopular opinion (apparently) that episode summaries like this are harmless and we have better things to do than delete them. So I'm not going to give you that approval obviously (although, IAR doesn't require approval so whatever). --W.marsh 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, plot summaries and guest stars are either already included, or easily inclusible on the large "list of episodes". The vast majority of information on those pages is unsourced trivia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I want approval, but I also want to know what the proper action is. If I'm wrong, and other editors agree with your viewpoint, W.marsh, then obviously that's the correct action. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered mass AfD? But do take note that if you do pursue this route, and it is successful, you would be starting a new, potentially controversial, undoubtedly heated precedent. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've considered it, yes. It seems a viable solution, but I've found two problems (at least for me). First of all, that's a lot of copy and pasting the article names in there. It's MUCH faster for me to be able to just open each episode in a new tab, click edit on all of them, ctrl+v paste in the redirect code, which would be the same on each one, and then click save page. Then all I have to do is edit the main list and dewikilink the article names. That could all probably be done in less than 15 minutes. The mass AFD route however would probably take me close to an hour. Second, undoubtedly, some of the articles have already been AFD'd and I didn't know about them, opening them up for super contentious deletion review.

I'm not opposed to a mass AFD by any stretch. I just would rather go through the path of least carpal tunnel syndrome. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but being accused of "out-of-process" deletion will give you both carpal tunnel syndrome and high blood pressure. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hence, the question here, heh. See my dilemma? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second. There's a big difference between original research and primary source material. Watching a show and writing a summary isn't original research--the show is the primary source. Articles etc. about the show where the show is described are secondary sources--they got their material by watching the show as well--the only real difference is that it's much easier to cite and check many secondary sources than it is many primary sources--at least in terms of television, games, events. Just because an article only uses a primary source doesn't mean it's original research--it may however mean it isn't notable, but I don't particularly see a reason to go ahead and delete all of the articles. Lots of TV shows have an episode list and a stub or start size article or even a longer article on each episode, and I don't see why this TV show is being singled out. Perhaps a decision should be made as to whether articles on non-notable episodes should be allowed--and this might take some Rfcs and a big watchlist poll, and then people can go through and clean-up tv land if it's decided they shouldn't stay, but this seems odd to me. Other than possible non-notability, which would need to be decided per article, I don't see a problem with the articles. Oh, and when you use a primary source you still need to cite it--so adding a citation for the show/episode needs to be done, but I don't see an issue, at least not with the episode articles I looked at. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are zero third-party sources on a topic, then a proper encyclopedia article cannot be created. Such topics do not warrant separate articles; Wikipedia is not a fan site. —Centrx→talk • 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My note about primary sources was simply pointing out that they are not infact original research. You could tag all the articles with the primarysource tag, or put them up for Afd based on notable due to primary sources, but I the articles weren't using OR (at least not that I saw), and since the issue at hand was brought up as OR and not notability (it was mentioned briefly), then the rush to delete seems less necessary. And while I believe that there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that doesn't belong here--Wikipedia isn't a fan site, I do think that we should have clearer standards in certain areas as to what is notable and what isn't and what should and should not be done in that regard (i.e. tagging, deletion, merging, etc.) What is suitable for one section is not always for another due to many reasons--practicality being one of them, and I think having guidelines laid out for this purpose is important. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be an argument you would use when such an AfD comes up. But polls don't due much except gauge current consensus, not whether the articles really are of worth or not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. What makes you think that it would be ignoring any rules to merge and redirect a set of articles into a single article? What makes you think that "the rules" say that you should involve AFD at all? "The rules" say exactly the opposite. There are clear statements at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, and indeed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself that if you want to merge articles, AFD is not the place. It is Articles for deletion, not Articles for merger. Article merger does not involve any deletion process at any stage. Just do the merger, and don't involve deletion at all. Deletion is for when an administrator using administrator tools is the way to solve a problem. This problem here can even be solved by editors who don't have accounts, who have all of the tools necessary to perform an article merger. Don't involve administrators when ordinary editing using ordinary editing tools fixes the problem. Uncle G 11:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G — merge into the list and redirect. It's going to take work, as some of the plot summaries are already too long, and will need précising further — and there's going to be determined defence from the fans who created and occasionally tinker with them. I'll lend a hand, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel and Uncle G. That's what I wanted to do, was to redirect them back into the main page, and I was wondering if doing so was out of process, but it appears not. I'll probably get started on it tonight then. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried this once before with the Phil of the Future episodes, which contained much less information than these and at AFD the consensus being leave them and expand. These episodes have verifiable information that if all kept on the main list of episodes would create an extremely large page. There is nothing in these that warrants deletion. All of the info is verifiable, it's a lot easier to tag them to need more sources and such, but no one can add sources if you just go and delete the episode(or redirect it to the list). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood evading blocks via sockpuppet

Resolved

 – block reset

Instantnood (talk · contribs) has just been confirmed as Pointe (talk · contribs). His block needs to be reset. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Natalie 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

THis was done within a minute of the checkuser being done.Rlevse 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Pointe was done that fast, but Instanthood's block wasn't reset, which is what Penwhale was asking. Or at least I hope that's what he was asking, because that's what I did. Natalie 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AH, but shouldn't Instantnood be indef vice one month as a known multiple acct sockpuppeteer?Rlevse 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per an arbitration case, he can be sitebanned upon consensus of three administrators. I think it's about time to do that, he certainly doesn't show any hint of improvement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I fully agree on an indefinite block, and if I understand correctly, Saraphimblade and Rlevse agree. So there do appear to be 3 admins now for the block. Shall I proceed, and block him indef?--Aldux 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'll ban Instantnood indef.--Aldux 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin & his uncivil remarks:

Recently I opposed the user Moralis on his RfA. This RfA is controversial as it is the first to be done with an open format & lack of tally as described on WT:RfA. At first, I commented on the RfA about the use of the new style & how I found it distasteful in an intended humourous way ([53], which was later supported by an admin [54]), as well as replying to other's views on both the RfA & Moralis & opposing ([55], [56], [57]). I'm usually used to having my oppose votes respected on RfAs, without someone arguing with them - However, Durin saw fit to do so with both me & other opposers ([58], [59] as well as others before me - [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], as well as discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis). Durin may have a valid point, but it is lost on because of his uncivil & combative bahaviour. Thorughout my discussion with him he often employed the use of the CAPS LOCK (After which another user politely asked him to stop with [66], but the advice wasn't taken), the usage of *asterixes* & Bolding, often used all *ALL AT THE SAME TIME*. As per my above links, I grew tired of Durin's high octane approach to the RfA & his overprotectiveness to it, as well as the ever-so-often seen ploy of replying to every single oppose vote. I left a message on his talk page ([67], User talk:Durin) & stated his actions were uncalled for & I didn't want to talk to him further in his combative mood. He then replied on his talk page ([68]), stating that he had no intention of calming down, & that I was "*WAY* out of line" & that I owed Moralis an apology. He said I should be ashamed & said "If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project." I then replied ([69]) that if he told me to be ashamed once more (which he had done already on numerous occasions), then I would infact report him. I had no intention of doing so as I had no idea Durin would continue the argument again by replying ([70] with the edit summary of "Fine, report me." & [71]) once again that I should be ashamed & that I should go report him. In his second reply he made a personal attack by saying "After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature." - this hurt my feelings (I don't know why but it did... sticks & stones etc...). My notice on my talk page is because I don't like arguing & wanted to stay out of trouble, not so that someone could use it against me & critisize me. I never got personal, I never attacked either Moralis or Durin in anyway other than stating that his demenour was combative & that I believed Moralis of subjecting himself to this experiment as a kind of stunt. That is my opinion & neither one had to agree with it - infact, the discussion Moralis & myself was rather pleasant, unlike my discussion with Durin. I don't care whether you agree or not with the RfA style, if Durin had replied kindly to me, I would not have had a problem - I actually enjoy the meeting of two minds & discussing important topics civily. Coming from an ex-admin, this behaviour is unacceptable - Because this is at the lower end in my view of arguments on a scale, I'd settle for an apology. However, I doubt I'd get one out of him & I don't want to post on his talk page in case I get attacked any more. I've managed to stay out of arguments for a while now & I did not engage in this one - I don't enjoy arguing & I remember a time when I did indeed look up to Durin. Any comments would help. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the formatting of this particular RfA has led to a significant amount of criticism, warranted or not. Durin seems to have received a great deal of it. I'm sure no ill-will was meant by his statements, which look as though they are borne more out of frustration than anything else. Sorry if you were hurt by things; I'm sure that wasn't Durin's intent 74.12.80.240 07:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the condolensces, but I doubt Durin shares the same view. Frankly, I'd prefer Durin to say it, but thanks all the same. :) It just hurt my feelings by his last personal attack towards me - I've been trying hard to stay out of arguments & haven't been in one for 45 days now. For him to simply quash all that & make a quick judgment of me based on one of my notices is upsetting. I'm a man of far more facets. Thanks anyway. Spawn Man 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a small dispute. I doubt any administrative action is necessary, although Durin needs to maintain his civility at all times. It's better if you leave him alone for a while, and I'm sure he will apologize in time. I'm sorry if you didn't mean it, but your discussion with Durin could also be potentially be very upsetting on his part, when warning him of AN/I. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoguht that was common policy (like FAR, where you tell the creator of the article)? Sorry, but this is my first time reporting at AN/I. As I stated before, this is a very small despute & was hardly a definite breach of civility - it just hurt my feelings is all & hoped someone would talk to him. Maybe this wasn't the palce to go, but I provided a well worded & calm argument in any case. Thanks - I'll take your advice & leave him alone for a while (which I've done already...) & hopefully he'll come to me. Thansk, Spawn Man 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no intention to apologize for my remarks and I stand by them. User:Spawn Man ruthlessly attacked the guinea pig (User:Moralis) in the RfA experiment and shows no remorse in his behavior towards him. He's accused him of performing a stunt, of weaseling his way around process, and disrupting RfA to gain publicity. You can see it for yourself [72][73][74]. If saying Spawn Man should be ashamed for his behavior towards Moralis is a personal attack, then Spawn Man has made 10 times the personal attack. Subsequent to Spawn Man's "warning" that he would report me, I read the intro to his talk page. I noted that it says, in part, "I get in a lot of arguments with other editors. When I argue, I argue for a long time & don't usually back down". It's no surprise he won't back down and admit his behavior towards Moralis was improper. It's further no surprise that he should go out of his way to attack a person who calls him on it. I stand by my opinions and offer no apology to Spawn Man. He most emphatically owes one to Moralis. --Durin 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, yeah, it looks like Spawn Man is attacking Moralis, and Durin is just standing up for them. Spawn Man should think about what he has been saying. I do believe Kat Walsh even took the time to correct him [75]. --Kim Bruning 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As they say, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Spawnman your remarks and subsequent outrage are part of the problem here. Take responsability for that part and walk away, no one will win this argument. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease... Spawn Man 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Spawn Man, have you read the diffs presented by Durin? I'll post the relevant parts right here just in case: "In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news," "This is every bit a stunt. The only reason that a crat hasn't withdrawn it is because of it & the fact they can't be bothered looking for a solid tally in all this mess...," "The only reason I believe this user got so many supports was because he went against the grain & used this format. A user with under 800 edits would never get this far without this stunt Moralis has employed!" I'm sorry, I just can't believe that those aren't uncivil accusations and defamation of Moralis's character. Durin responded to incivility uncivilly. So? Retract your statements or live with it. --Iamunknown 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[76], [77], [78] The use of the word stunt and the implications of trying to game the system may not be a ruthless attack but they are outrage. And the latter continues by your presence here rather than sorting it out with Durin on his talk page. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man's "talked" to Durin before reporting here...so it kinda didn't work. --Iamunknown 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess i was implying not enough. There are other avenues too, such as the RfA talk page. I suppose he is there too. But this venue just seems like the wrong place to be discussing this issue. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't see how this needs administrator intervention and, as such, why it needs to be at ANI (user talk pages and talk pages directly to the disputed article/project page / the article/project page where the dispute is are usually an excellent place to start!). --Iamunknown 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only endorsing what numerous other editors had said on the RfA. If anything, it should be Moralis who has the problem - Durin just came charging in making it worse. It doesn't really matter any more, I'm going on a Wikibreak - I'm not going to let Durin stand ther e& judge me, when he isn't telling about 50 of the other editors who opposed for the same reasons to be ashamed. He's targetted me out, & I have bigger problems & things to do in my life than waste it on arrogent editors like Durin. If you all want to defend him, that's fine, but if it was you in my shoes, then you'd understand. I stick by my comments fully & I can make a judgement on Durin on my own - I can clearly see why he denounced his adminship; because he's obviously a very combative & uncivil person & didn't want to be threatened with his adminship. I don't see how he shoudln't be punished any different just because he gave up his privilages - it gives him no right to continuously name call me & provoke me. I'm only taking a break so I don't say something to him that I may regret, but I think I've summed him up perfectly. Arrogant? Check. Combative? Check. Argumentative? Check. Somewhat like myself? Check. ;)... Thanks guys, you've been somewhat of no help, but thanks all the same. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat of no help? But you're taking a break and that sounds like a positive thing to stop the escalation. Or are you saying we didn't frustrate you enough with indifference to cause you take a break ;) But seriously, come back cheerful, life is too short. David D. (Talk) 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• On my talk page, I suggested Spawn Man just walk away [79]. He chose to ignore that advice. That is still the best advice available. From Spawn Man's talk page, it is blatantly obvious that by his own admission he won't back down. His continuance here on this page with this issue further supports that conclusion. In fact, even worse, he's continued his assault now calling me "pig headed", "acting like a 3 year old" and that I am up on a "high horse". Read it for yourself [80]. And above, he's now calling arrogant, combative, and argumentative. --Durin 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. --Durin 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user block request

Rostov-on-Don (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of community-banned user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is again edit-warring to insert his POV on one of Rms's favourite pages, Tim Pat Coogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint filed at WP:3RR regarding User:Demiurge's repeated violations of WP:3RR over the past 36-48 hours on Tim Pat Coogan page; block requested. Allegation of sockpuppetry patently false.Rostov-on-Don 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, maybe you'd like to explain why you're inserting the exact same newspaper article quote (even down to the editing/formatting) as previous sockpuppets of Rms? Demiurge 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; I was interested in Coogan following a comment he made last April (I guess I am not the only one), but which someone only recently showed me. When I checked the history I was curious as to User:Demiurge's unwarranted and unexplained rv, and I found that the rv was unjustified and I chose to re-add restore it as it was in toto. I have no idea if User:Glencolumcille is a sockpuppet or not but his edit was superb and encyclopaedic. Wikipedians remain innocent until proved guilty (which no one but User:Demiurge, who never requested oversight from an Administrator until I complained about him/her at WP:3RR, prior to his/her compalint complaint at WP:AN/I, has alleged). This sounds like there is some sort of an agenda on the part of User:Demiurge, who has appointed himself/herself prosecutor and judge. Rostov-on-Don 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a newbie user who has been here only a few days know about the 3RR? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The old-fashioned way, by reading. Rostov-on-Don 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well that comment pretty much confirms it, "superb and encyclopedic", right. Can someone please block this blatantly obvious sockpuppet before he wastes any more of our time? Demiurge 12:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• As the person who prepared the community ban for this editor, it's pretty clear they are one and the same. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why hasn't anyone noticed that of all the edits I made, User:Demiurge, who claims I am a sockpuppet, saw fit to revert only one, to which he/she apparently objects on a personal basis?. He or she probably will rv all now, anyway.

P.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott wonders how a "newbie" editor knows about WP:3RR, yet does not wonder how I also know how to cross out words using the markup tools?

P.S.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott also chooses to ignore another Wikipedia precept: "Don't bite the newbie"?

P.S.S.S.S. How does "Korn" taste?

You will, I know, pardon me if I feel less than fully respectful of this kangaroo court.Rostov-on-Don 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I've been dealing with your POV edits for almost two years now and I know your style by now - Alison^☺ 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock blocked. – Steel 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the latest sock of Peer-to-Peer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? The editing interests are the same as RMS, English peerage plus the account re-instated two edits that the earlier sockpuppet made - [81] [82] [83] [84]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and back again as 162.83.176.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pusher

For about a month the articles on Photoshopping, Home of the Underdogs, Abandonware and a few other have been under relentless attack of Special:Contributions/216.165.158.7. The editor has been warned several times by different admins regarding his conduct and after an initial 2-day block made by me, he was blocked for 2 weeks by Durova. The block has expired and the user has returned with the same behavior of POV-pushing, unflexibility and agressive interaction with well-meaning editors. I now bring this case forward so that it can be evaluated by an administrator not yet involved in the case, hoping to reach some kinf of more effective result. Regards, --Sn0wflake 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, quite honestly he seems incapable of editing alongside others. I blocked him for a month for POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see reason still prevails on the Wikipedia... cheers! --Sn0wflake 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I blocked that account for one week, not two. Durova^Charge! 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have changed the block to one week. This partly in view of the error about Durova's original block, which wasn't for the two weeks stated, but one week, thus not a really good basis for a hike to one month. While I have to agree about the POV-pushing (I've written a long warning to the user on his page about what is going to happen if he doesn't change his ways[85]), I also want to stress that this is no vandal. In fact the majority of his edits are constructive and helpful. They're aimed at resisting the ever ongoing onslaught on the encyclopedia of spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience... Rather than a phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks, I would suggest an RFAR and perhaps a mentor. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure that 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs) is DreamGuy (talk · contribs), because of very similar editing patterns, taking effectively the same actions at the same articles. For example, the following edits to the Santa Monica article all performed the same action, with similar uncivil edit summaries:

• DreamGuy, March 18, 2007, "this says NOTABLE people, not Wikipedia editors with articles and massive egos"
• DreamGuy, March 30, 2007: "...most certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards for purposes of a listing here"
• 216.165.158.7, April 14, 2007: "people adding themselves (or getting people to add them) out of vanity... removing them... this is only for famous people"

A quick look at contribs will also show that both DreamGuy and the anon have been posting at List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. And other activity similar to the Santa Monica edits appear at University High School: 216.165.158.7[86], DreamGuy[87].

DreamGuy has been accused of sockpuppetry before, and a checkuser came back "Likely,"[88], though to my knowledge he has not yet been blocked for this type of activity. --Elonka 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I block too soon?

Gekedo (talk · contribs) is concerned that I blocked 87.2.92.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too soon. See User talk:Metros232#Blocked 87.2.92.89. Could other admins please review this? It's my belief that he was appropriately warned (level 3 mentions that a user will be blocked if they continue vandalizing) and if you're vandalizing Jimbo Wales' user page, you know pretty well the consequences and everything else that goes along with it. Metros232 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No concerns here. -- Nick ^t 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns? My own concerns is that we spent too much time worrying about obvious trolls - good swift action on your part. --Fredrick day 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Blocking before level 4 at times is reasonable, especially with the obvious vandalism shown here. -- Avi 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "right" to 4 warnings. This was an anonymous user with no useful edits, who has repeatedly been warned, and still vandalized. I think the block is fully appropriate. 31 hours means he/she/it can come back tomorrow as a productive user if he/she/it so choses.

To be fair, since anons can't actually see new messages, the number of warnings is sort of irrelevant, isn't it?--VectorPotential^Talk 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anons can indeed see warnings. Visit Wikipedia from a public computer and discover that immediately. Anons with shifting IP addresses may miss the message; but most shifting IP addresses shift after being forced to or after a day or so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The new messages bar hasn't worked for anons since December, it's a well known bug, and there are reports all over the place, the Village Pump, the Help Desk, even here a few times--VectorPotential^Talk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. Anyone have a link to the bug report/discussion? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly works for me at work, where IP addresses rotate through the company. Visiting Wikipedia last Friday morning before logging in brought up a message bar for a conversation someone else had been having overnight. A bugzilla number or discussion link would be helpful.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's this one, this one, this one and this one to start with, it might take a while to find the original discussion as Village Pump archives aren't really organized in any particular way and are deleted after 7 days. Either way, it's easy enough to verify, just leave yourself a message on a static IP, for the first several hours the orange bar won't show up at all, then for the next several hours it won't go away no matter how many times you view your talk page. And finally, one of the bugzilla reports--VectorPotential^Talk 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user creating subtle attack page (BLP concerns)

User keeps re-creating this attack page (the figure in the page is not notable but so it seems to be a run of the mill grudge). On first glance, it might not seem an attack page (it's been deleted twice) but he seems to be adapting with each delete and changing the language to try and get around this. The crux of the article is that this mean is creating face lotion out of sperm and he's doing with the help of his wife (in the first now deleted version, she was a prostitute), reading between the lines, he's testing it on her face. Can we delete and salt? --Fredrick day 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked. Naconkantari 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Back again --Fredrick day 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

75.45.187.11 at it again

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

75.45.187.11 was blocked for vandalism yesterday (after multiple warnings) and has come back for a fifth attempt at inserting the same racial slur into Bouyancy. Longer block? —David Eppstein 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Apparently static, apparently a vandal and nothing more. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats and BLP issue

Don Murphy has been the subject of ongoing BLP concerns, some raised by the subject. I have myself raised concerns about the article, although the last time I looked at it, it was much improved from its former condition.

A discussion today was raised about this article at the village pump. During the discussion, first-time User:StillbornScott made a post that was grossly harassing of and made personal attacks against another user. In addition, this username is unacceptable. As the account appeared to have no intention of good-faith contributions, I blocked it.

Per the user's talkpage, a thread has now been posted to Don Murphy's website, allegedly by Murphy himself, calling for me to be outed in real life and harassed. I have responded on the page, but wanted to make the broader admin community aware of this situation. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock for WP:NPA. Would stubbing the article (again?) have any effect? Naconkantari 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With my personal experience, he is all talk. There have been numerous threads for his stooges to find all the information they can about me and thats all they do. They really can't do anything with that information, maybe because it is illegal to harass people. Don't worry about it. I also haven't been adding anything to the article unless there is a consensus to do so (excluding one edit where I reverted back to an edit by Zanimum, I thought a consensus was reached or something), even though I think the information is highly relevant. Honestly, don't even worry about his board. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a troublesome situation, which among other things gives me even greater empathy for our OTRS volunteers who ordinarily deal with complaints from disgruntled subjects of articles. I have been discussing this matter with the user I blocked on User talk:StillbornScott, who now appears to be Don Murphy himself. His opinion of Wikipedia and its users is obviously low ("Shitipedia") and clearly many of the comments he has made are not acceptable. Yet I remember a post here about comments he made on his external site a couple of weeks ago, and remarking at the time that while his threats were wholly deplorable, that there were serious issues with unsourced gossip and undue weight associated with this article which he has a right to be upset about. At this point, I will be legitimately accused of having a conflict of interest if I ever touch this article, but I hope it is being closely monitored, even as I hope that its subject will immediately discontinue his problematic behavior directed against Wikipedians. Newyorkbrad 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different subject, I think we can link Fecapedian (talk · contribs) to being Don Murphy himself, as well after a cursory reading of the discussion that StillbornScott first commented at.

Back on topic, this appears to be getting to DB-level proportions with seeking the actual identities of users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also slightly off topic, discussing this with Eagle 101, we have blacklisted his forums as they are now in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site (and we really need to develop local blacklists that aren't bot based)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also ColScott (talk · contribs) involved with this?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions that ColScott is in fact Don Murphy, but I really can't offer any proof other than writing style and emails to me that are written by ColScott. As well, I can no longer edit the article (cept for vandalism and attack stuff) so I might as well make my point here. I am positive the incident between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Tarantino happened. It was reported in TIME, EW, E-Online, and (Before it was removed by Mr. Murphy himself) on Mr. Murphy's website. So I don't think the issue was unsourced, nor was it gossip. I dunno about copyright issues, but I do have screenshots of Mr. Murphy's page in particular that admit the incident happened, so e-mail me if you want them.

Undue weight, I don't think so. If you go back in the pages history, the incident was there LONG before I even touched the article, with no BLP issues raised (perhaps because no one noticed the article), only to be removed by ColScott (probably Mr. Murphy). I was looking at some of ColScott's edits and I noticed that a rather significant incident in Mr. Murphy's life was removed so I reposted the incident, added some new references and blam, I get slammed with me having some personal vendetta against Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy believes I added the incident because I don't like him (I don't know enough about him to form a perfect opinion) or something, while in fact I added it because it was removed earlier. Need any more info, ask me, I'm ready to answer questions. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier with the situation if certain people were more inclined to any sort of reasonable debate. Related trolls can and probably should be reverted and blocked on sight, as far as I'm concerned -- we're plainly dealing with organized disruption, here. If people want to come by and discuss things like adults, they should be more than welcome to do so. Stalking, harassment, and ad hominem are not on the menu. Apply healthy doses of WP:DENY and WP:RBI. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad-faith user page

User:Lewisskinner/trollbox. Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's just keeping track of some diffs. No policy violation that I can see. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at its name. Andy Mabbett 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Andy Mabbett, I looked at the diffs under your entry on said list and I think I see what you're talking about, possible WP:CIVIL issues:diffdiff2

I'm not trying to beat you over the head, please include the specific issues. The items on his list are ok before your entry, so people may get the wrong idea if they can't find the meat of the issue. (When I say "can't" it probably should be "won't", the admins here have a lot on their plate so it's more or less up to you to show what you are talking about. I hope this helps.) Anynobody 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed civility issues, but in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is a collection of vandalism edits and good faith edits that happen to be critical of User:Lewisskinner, each annotated with a sarcastic comment, and the page title being trolling. I can only read that as Lewis implying that all the edits, including the good faith edits, are trolling. It's pretty minor stuff, but I can't see that the page contributes to the goals of the project. Unless someone believes that it does, I'm going to blank it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Silence. Blanked. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At 11am, BenAveling (talk · contribs) suggested he would blank the page in question if there were no objections. 4 minutes later, he informed me [89], and a further 36 minutes later, he blanked the page. I do not feel that this was enough time to defend myself, especially as I have only now got onto wiki in my lunch break having been workking from 8:30 (yes, LUNCH!)

As soon as I had the above message, I reponded [90], indicating that I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has said above that this will be OK, and I have now done this, so I hope all parties will be happy.

As an aside, I'd like to ask why Pigsonthewing has reported this? I can only assume it may have something to do with this and this. The user in question has a history of reporting users with whom he has (often unrelatied) content disputes (just ask Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)). Might I suggest that this incident, and in any possible future disagreement, he post a message on my talk page, rather than wasting admin's time (please, by all means check. He has not even once raised any issues with me). L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) has said above that this will be OK," My name is Andy Mabbett, and I have said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You did Pigsonthewing, here: "in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content". L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My name is Andy Mabbett. Your refusal to use it is uncivil. Thank you, though, for proving my point: I did not say what you claimed I did. Please do not misquote me. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"each annotated with a sarcastic comment," - these have been restored. Andy Mabbett 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate lewisskinner's cooperation once this was brought to his attention. I wonder if Andy was worried that it would be a more lengthy process following a similar issue with Captain scarlet. In this case it would seem that contacting the user with the concerns would have been quicker. I note Andy's point about the sarcastic comments but think that the name of the page gives context so I'd let it pass. I'm sure Andy will also be pleased to see how helpful Lewis has been and will have more confidence in other editors in future. Lewis, it probably isn't fair to suggest this was raised because of the content dispute. Andy is more likely to notice such issues when the dispute has brought you to his attention. Can we call this issue resolved now? Adambro 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like an attack page to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still is. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can we call this issue resolved now?" - No. Note that the sarcastic comments remain and that the word "trollbox" has been restored to the page. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the occurrence of "troll" in the title, if the list was only vandalism and trolling by others I would have no problem with it (after all, it would be a trollbox). The inclusion of good faith attempts in such a page though is why I believe it violates WP:CIVIL (and Assume good faith). Anynobody 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is precedence for deletion. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the request you cited, from the comments n the page it looks as though most people felt it was a similar content/name discrepancy. As I recall, a similar good faith attempt by you was listed on the page in question. The issue being you weren't trolling so listing your post was an act of bad faith (you weren't the only one either to appear on said page incorrectly, right?)

If the page in question was called a trollbox, and only blatant trolling (Posting to say a person is stupid, etc.) or vandalism was listed, the impression seemed to be that such a page is ok. (again with the caveat that adding regular disagreements is not appropriate.) Anynobody 07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Campion School (Athens)

Per this OTRS ticket, the school has complained about repeated vandalism on their article, which they have reverted themselves. I think that protection of the page is unnecessary as of now but it would be nice if some of you could add the article to your watchlist. Thanks --Mbimmler 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, and will be keeping an eye on it. Cheers, Jayden54 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Freddieandthedreamers

User:Freddieandthedreamers was warned back in February by User:Lucasbfr and User:Carabinieri for adding copyrighted content to History of the Jews in New Zealand and History of the Jews in Slovakia. More recently I noticed he created History of the Jews in Iceland with copyrighted content. After I deleted the article and warned him that he might be blocked for posting copyrighted content he created the article again, this time copying the content from a different website. He's been creating a whole series of History of the Jews in X articles and I fear there may be more copyvios lurking in his contribution log. I would appreciate some help with this. Haukur 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No takers here so I placed an indefinite block myself. Haukur 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Red Wolf" vandal

There's been a series of vandalism edits and article creations to various articles, (some pertaining to wolves), such as Red Wolf, Dingo, Scarpine, Max Zorin and others by User:Meiji Rit, User:Rufus Meiji, User:Rufus hattai, User:Rufus Lupus etc. These users are being blocked and edits reverted as and when the vandal spawns a new sock. Admins please be aware. I may request some page protections, as it's getting tiresome. --Dweller 09:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest incarnation. Have watchlisted the articles and if there's any further abuse, I will semi-protect for a short while. Bubba hotep 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I semi-protected Red Wolf for a couple of days. Bubba hotep 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect Your Republic Protest

An anon is repetitively adding {{citation needed}} tags to the article even when the comment is a direct quote. This seems to be the users only contribution - though users IP changes after a few edits so I am not exactly certain. -- Cat ^chi? 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; are you saying that direct quotations don't need to be given sources? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• "some critics argue that the government is inching the country towards increased religious rule."[91]

I'm inclined to agree with the anon here. Anything starting with "some critics" is crying out for a citation. It shouldn't be hard to provide. Likewise for "Erdoğan's questionable political history has made people suspicious of his motives.". The statements might be true, but that's not the issue. WP:BLP is the issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some critics" is a direct quote from CNN. It is cited yet anon repetitively ads the template. I have rewritten the other comment today (merely expanded it). WP:BLP doesn't apply as Erdogan was convicted and jailed for four months for "inciting religious hatred" - which in my opinion gives him a "questionable political history". -- Cat ^chi? 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to CNN, critics claim that...[cite]". Job done. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doable. -- Cat ^chi? 11:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question: If CNN's webpage states something like this: Some critics argue that Mr. X is e.g a racist. It doesn't say which critics say this, It doesn't have any sources but the name of a reporter. Hypothetically. Then would it be ok to include THAT in a Wikipedia article just because CNN said so? --Anon mentioned.

That's nothing. I can point you to an article where one MP said under Parliamentary privilege that another living MP was responsible for the murder of 12 people, and it's not a problem apparently. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it, and it does not seem to be the view of a way-out minority - e.g. Fox News :o) - we should be fine with the "according to X" formulation. The judgement of whether that view constitutes a significant criticism is another matter. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By "way-out minority", I assume you mean David Icke claiming that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are "bloodsucking alien lizards"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:87.2.250.211 persistent vandalism

User:87.2.250.211, a probable sock puppet of M.deSousa, is persistently vandalising the pages Pretender and Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, introducing proven false information regarding Hilda Toledano, a claimed adulterine daughter of king Carlos I of Portugal, and a supposed sucessor of hers, a certain Rosario Poidimani, presently under arrest in Italy, as has been reported by several European newspapers (in fact the same newspapers User:87.2.250.211 presents as source). This clearly is an hoax and User:87.2.250.211 should be blocked. Thank you. The Ogre 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.

Southluver 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, we see no proof of what you're claiming. Second, what i see is that User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90 and you are probably the same person (at least you know eachother). Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiTerrorists was created by Bobbybilly90 (i'll delete it soon) and edited by Glfootball92. You are also a member of that weirdo project. Aren't you? Don't you use the same templates on your userpages?. What we'll do is block everyone for trolling and disruption. Do you agree? ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call, FayssalF. These morons have been on ANI before. See here. I'd suggest (if they haven't been already) indef blocking the whole lot of 'em--they're only here to disrupt the project. This first edit by Southluver (talk · contribs) is interesting... — Scientizzle 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked all of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet abuse

I'm bringing this here instead of WP:SSP because some of the diffs are on pages marked for speedy deletion. While patrolling new pages this morning, I came across what appears to be some odd behavior involving WhiteKongMan (talk · contribs), Mrscottjackson (talk · contribs), and 199.94.73.221 (talk · contribs).

WhiteKongMan reverted an edit that removed his speedy deletion request and stated that the article should be prod'd or go to AfD.
199.94.73.221 then added some nonsense about the band "helping defeat the americans in viet nam."
WhiteKongMan then returned and added a db-nonsense tag.

I thought this was odd so I compared some of their other recent edits.

WhiteKongMan replaces a hangon with another speedy request.
After I replace the hangon, Mrscottjackson appears and removes it again.

WhiteKongMan adds some speedy tags.
199.94.73.221 removes the hangon.
After I replace the hangon, Mrscottjackson removes the hangon.

WhiteKongMan requests a page move.
Mrscottjackson supports the request.

And now 199.94.73.221 is back and also supporting this page move request. --Onorem 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, all 3 have messages on their talk pages concerning a deleted article about a journalist named Scott Jackson. I think it's pretty clear there's some meat or sock trouble here with the anon adding patent nonsense so another speedy tag can be added and the request for a page move being supported. --Onorem 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

After a little bit of searching, I think there is a connection between the post two up from this one ([92]) and this WikiProject. If we look at what links to it, there are three accounts in particular (User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90, User:Southluver) which (IMHO) engage in harmless to borderline disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. I am not too concerned with the accounts at this time, but what to make of the WikiProject? Inclination seems to be to delete on sight, but would be better to check with the rest of the community if this is something actionable. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: about 3 minutes after this post, this issue regarding the WikiProject has been taken care of. Thanks. --HappyCamper 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All the 3 trolls have been indef blocked. See above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unaware of this thread, I declined an unblock request at User talk:Glfootball92 earlier. Just for the record &c. --kingboyk 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User RexxCrow again

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

After this ANI report user was blocked for 31 hours for incivility. User has issued another scathing personal attack and shows no intent of stopping. Per request above, I will refrain from suggesting appropriate administrators' response. /Blaxthos 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have protected it until the block expires. // Sean William (PTO) 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I extended his block to 48 hours... Looks like he needs some longer cooldown time.--Isotope23 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request requiring knowledge of IP configurations

User talk:Einarsen bears an unblock request which I think needs specialist TCP/IP knowledge, if somebody with that knowledge could please oblige.--kingboyk 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done

Hosting companies do provide proxy-like connections but based on user's assurance that this is his office PC, I replaced the hard block with a soft block. He can edit, but anon editing is still disabled in case his IP is assigned to someone else in the future. Thatcher131 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your prompt attention. --kingboyk 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for update

Recently a user avoided a block because his previous block record was not noticed after a user name change. His socks are also not apparent for this reason, but really ought to be. Can updates be made according to these [93][94]? While I am considering some sort of formal action against this user for ongoing conduct and dishonest editing issues, it may be good if his sockpuppetry is plain to see. The Behnam 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I will try to migrate them myself by simply switching the names. Hopefully that will work. In any case you are all notified. The Behnam 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No wait, I need verification that this is a fine to do. Is this OK? The Behnam 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just have to do it now. I've gotten no response and I cannot see any reason that this is incorrect. The Behnam 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some limited renaming (checkuser page, added a note on the sockpuppet category) but did not yet retag all the socks. If this person intends to improve their editing, or at least stop using sock puppets, we can stop there. If this person continues to be disruptive so that it is clear that he is trying to evade his past, then everything should be retagged. Thatcher131 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a quick look at his recent editing shows that he isn't making much of an effort. People shouldn't be allowed to run away from their records anyway. He changed it for gender confusion reasons but there is nothing indicating he has changed editing habits. Anyway thanks for what you have done so far. The Behnam 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Behnam - I'm quite sure the admins will resolve this, but in the meanwhile would be great if they ask you to stop vandalising and deleting the contents of the Wikipedia - and instead offer something useful and constructive for change! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassing and Intimidation using profane language

Hi,

I was directed here by admin Durova (talk · contribs), [95]. User vandal, 203.101.45.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked by admin Durova (talk · contribs) for abusing profusely, swearing constantly and vandalising articles [96], [97]. Now this person is back and again has started cursing to intimidate me and push his POV. Check this: [98], he refers to me as "f***er*". Suggest a block. Thanks,Mudaliar 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza protected again

I have protected Wikipedia:Esperanza following the resumption of edit warring over what information should be on that page. The inability of Dev920 and Ed to agree the content of that page is astounding. I am at least the 4th person to have to protect this page due to these issues- this has got to stop. Any suggestions on how to bring this dispute to a close welcome. It may be that attempts to summarise the deletion discussions should be abandoned and replaced with links to them instead, allowing the reader to make their own assessment of the merits/problems of Esperanza. WjBscribe 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently mediation has begun at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation. Good luck to Ryan with that one... WjBscribe 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation - this might help. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My line of argument may be found here, for those who don't want to wade through the history. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to leave the page protected indefinitely. Esperanza is dead, I'm at a loss as to why there's so much activity there anyway. Failing that, ban Ed from the page, as he appears to be the problem. – Steel 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring against consensus is certainly annoying. A page-ban could be proposed at WP:CSN, but we should give this mediation a chance to work first. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather obvious case of a consensus with a lone dissenter. I don't think page protection is needed, just tell the dissenter that he'll be blocked if he does that again (i.e. page-ban). Ignoring consensus is disruptive. >Radiant< 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Edit warring on the page of a dead organization that promoted community peace. Oh the irony... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Bear and Dragon and Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

Admitting to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th), User:Bear and Dragon has been making edits to this article and its talk page, which has been causing User:Historian2 difficulties. --Shirahadasha 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bear and Dragon (talk · contribs) for using this account to block evade. The block is indef right now, but I'd be open to discussion on this. The original account has a ban tag, but as far as I can tell, this individual isn't actually banned, just indef'd and evading. Anyone care to link a ban discussion? If banned then all this editor's additions need to be reverted per WP:DENY. If just indef blocked, then we can discuss what needs to be done here more long term.--Isotope23 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, does it. If the user had been editing inoffensively, I'd be more inclined to lenience. I would suggest that this is taken to the Sanctions noticeboard, where Shirahadasha's post above should be looked at, before a decision by consensus is taken. --Dweller 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me find out if he is actually banned and then if he is not this can go to WP:CN for some informal input. If he is already banned then it is sort of a moot point!--Isotope23 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the tag he was banned by Grandmasterka --Historian2 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Grandmasterka can't "ban" anybody... any more so than I can. A ban is a social construct that is imposed by ARBCOM, by the community at WP:CN, or by the Foundation. It looks to me like the individual behind the accounts is not banned, but most of his accounts are indefinitely blocked. I'm following up with Grandmasterka to see if there was indeed a ban discussion that I'm just missing. Otherwise this is just a mistagged indef block. It's kind of an important distinction because a banned user's edits are subject to immediate reversal per WP:DENY. An indef blocked editor just can't edit with that account.--Isotope23 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See WT:BAN#Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban, and note the deleter's claim that "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban".... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[99]... Apparently he wasn't technically banned and I jumped the gun a little soon 5 1/2 months ago. He should be given a very short leash at best however, after making what I consider to be a death threat against a group of people. Grandmasterka 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block 209.7.171.2

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism; see [100] and other edits on Belvidere, Illinois. —Rob (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

School IP -- same as old blocks. Reset the block in question. You may get a faster response from WP:AIV, for future such reports. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

I at one point had a good relationship with User:TxMCJ (under her previous username Mandaclair). However, our relationship has deteriorated and she is now engaging in uncivil and disruptive behavior toward me.

Hi -- that's me. This mediation could be helpful, but I'll say upfront that I'm not wiki-savvy enough to provide all the imbedded links to support my own case, like Gnixon has below. There's a lot of commentary to be sorted through for sure, and I hope you will read all the interactions from both sides, even if I am not really knowledgeable about how to provide imbedded links to specific exchanges, here on this page. Thanks, TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• First positive interaction: TxMCJ's first edit to Evolution was reverted by another user. I welcomed TxMCJ and encouraged her to stick around. When TxMCJ and the other user got into an argument involving accusations that TxMCJ was "arrogant" and "thin-skinned", I successfully mediated. After TxMCJ and I commiserated about the sometime painful process of editing here, she thanked me for our conversation and invited me to email her. In another early, friendly conversation, she signed her full name, which was how I learned her identity. The conversation among TxMCJ, the other user, and me may be difficult to follow because TxMCJ often erases posts on her user talk page, including warnings.

This is all true except for the final accusation. The only time I have ever erased posts on my user talk page was during my first 2 or 3 days as an editor on Evolution, and it was only done as housecleaning and not an attempt to hide anything. I was advised that it's preferable to archive instead of erase, and I have not erased any user talk since then. I will also note that under the Wikipedia "rules" as I understand them, it is not unethical or disallowed to erase one's own talk page, although -- as I have stated -- I do not make regular or "often" practice about this, as accused. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She's correct. She last blanked the page on 3/30, three days after she began editing (excepting a handful of edits months ago). Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Next positive interaction: Since TxMCJ described herself as a professional biologist teaching at a university, I made a substantial effort to encourage her to contribute to Evolution. She made a number of helpful suggestions and edits, but spent about an equal amount of space complaining about how anyone, even non-experts, could edit at Wikipedia.

I improved the article significantly during this time, based on my professional background, as any other editor there would likely attest. Also, I will note that voicing a complaint about the Wikipedia process is not unethical nor inappropriate content, and I will also note that some very common complaints of Wikipedia include "TOO open access" and anti-elitism -- both of which I view as counterproductive to producing quality scientific articles, especially about something as volatile as Evolution. It is not inappropriate to voice complaints or concerns about those topics if they are relevant to obstacles encountered while editing. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strife: After being away for awhile, TxMCJ returned to Talk:Evolution and expressed shock at aruments on Talk:Evolution related to disagreements I had with another user. We engaged in what began as a friendly conversation about editing at Wikipedia, but it quickly degenerated after I left a comment at her user talk page. I assumed there was enough good faith and friendliness between us that she wouldn't take offense when I wrote I'm not sure what your specific complaint is. Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn? I was wrong. She also took issue with the fact that I had come across some of her personal interests when Googling to find out about her research, and would not believe me when I insisted I had only mentioned them to be friendly. Conversations at Talk:Evolution#More comments from TxMCJ, her talk page, and mine quickly deteriorated.

I will be the first to agree that I was highly offended -- not as an individual, but as an intellectual -- at hearing any editor on a science article voice the opinion that "experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped". I did not take this as a personal insult, I viewed it as an astoundingly counterproductive attitude coming from someone who actively edits (and arguably monopolizes) a very high-profile science article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Gnixon did not merely Google and post my personal interests without asking, he also apparently tried to Google my professional background, and publicly posted an inaccurate "expose" on my years of experience (also without asking) in a failed attempt to discredit me to other editors. In my opinion, THAT is true stalking -- not me investigating his prior edits on other science articles.TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since TxMCJ had repeatedly made reference to her professional experience in order to support her opinions, and since she had made no secret of her identity at that point, it seemed entirely appropriate to review her experience, which in my mind she had inflated. Happy to discuss the details. My first post about her experience was based on memory, and referred to her "one or two years" as a postdoc. She corrected me, pointing out she has been a postdoc for 5 years. I thanked her for clarifying. Regarding personal details, I learned about them while researching her stated credentials since she advertises several unusual personal interests on her (professional) university webpage. I had no idea she was sensitive about interests she advertises so openly (in fact having even alluded to them in an edit of hers many months ago), I used them only in good humor and friendliness when we were still on good terms, and I have not mentioned anything personal since then despite my temptation to raise issues of personality. Again---TxMCJ provided me with her full name, invited me to email her, and has made constant reference to her professional experience---that's why I committed the sin of typing her name into Google. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon specifically posted an inaccurate count of "a few years in grad school and a 1 or 2 as a postdoc" as a specific attempt to discredit my experience. That this was a (failed and inaccurate) attempt to discredit should be clear upon examination of the context in which he posted this comment (not that it matters, but I was 6 years in grad school and have been a postdoc for 5. When I corrected him, he countered by telling me to "come back when I'm a tenured professor". Thus when he found his discrediting attempt failed, he attempted to raise the stakes by implying that only tenured professors in their fields should be regarded as experts. All of this just seems a bit unreasonable (and hilarious) to me...TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Aftermath: Since then we've had a number of arguments at Talk:Evolution about who should contribute there, the value of our respective contributions, and the value of the credentials TxMCJ uses to justify her special ability to edit Evolution. This has been an unfortunate but mutual argument in which I've admittedly participated too much.

None of the abovementioned interactions constitute abuse, stalking, unidirectional personal attacks, or misuse. They were all arguments of principle, all related solely to my interest as a professional and educator to see a quality article at the Evolution page. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The principle she was arguing here was that I had made "stupid" comments, that I was incapable of disagreeing with her on editorial issues, and that it was appropriate to address me as "my dear" and (!) "sweetcheeks." In any case, although tempers flared on both sides at this point, her behavior detailed below is simply unacceptable. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help smiling at this complaint... I will honor the request not to "address in diminutives" in the future on the article talk page, but I sort of feel that all bets are off on user talk pages, particularly in cases like this... please correct me if I'm wrong about that. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unacceptable behavior: Since then, she has harassed me on Talk:Evolution, responding negatively to virtually every single post I've made, regardless of whether she agrees with me or not, and nitpicking details to attempt to discredit me (see Talk:Evolution#Discussion of structure 2 under "Genome projects." More importantly, she has teamed up with the other editor who was previously warned following a |WP:ANI post by me, with the intent of labeling me some sort of undercover creationist in order to discredit me among other editors of Evolution. She has implied I am a creationist, baited me, repeatedly, to prove that I am not, and posted the accusation on Talk:Evolution#My Apologies In Advance, where she hopes to discredit me. Moreover, she has tracked me to debates where she clearly has no interest of her own, and has attempted to discredit me among others there. Please in particular review that last example carefully. Finally, she in every way refuses to maintain a WP:CIVIL tone with me, and in particular has addressed me with diminutives even after I asked her to stop.

Although I am not technically savvy enough to provide the imbedded links, even a cursory examination of the above interactions will show that Gnixon has participated equally and fueled the fire through his own unwillingness to "back down". I am sorry if Gnixon is offended at what he views as attempts to "discredit him", but every counteropinion I have voiced to his (highly limited) contributions on the scientific content, have been solely scientific counteropinions, as a close examination will show. Close examination will also show that a number of "uncivil" statements and personal attacks have come from the other direction as well. Also, please DO look at the exchange we had under "Genome projects". I am bewildered that Gnixon would have any objection to my contributions or tone during that conversation. He was simply wrong about the subject, and I explained why, in civil and specific terms. That is not "discrediting", by any definition. He suggested a bad example to use in the article, I countered about why (scientifically) it was an incorrect example. End of story. How is that "discrediting"? Gnixon's mere *attitude* that is threatened by expert knowledge and that views such intellectually valid exchanges as "discrediting" him is, I believe, a central problem in this whole issue. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Close examination will certainly show that her arguments have not been scientific and impersonal. Please do look at the tone TxMCJ adopted in that discussion and consider whether it was civil. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at the "Genome projects" discussion. Perfect example. While Gnixon loads his rhetoric with comments such as "Sweet Baby Jesus" and "I set off your 'don't let this jerk have a say ' button", every single one of my comments in that discussion was scientific, civil, reasonable, and factually correct. Gnixon is the only one in that exchange being combatitive and defensive. I agree wholeheartedly that this type of discussion is a good example of (one of the many aspects of) the problem. That aspect being: Gnixon has a very hard time accepting when he is factually and conceptually wrong about something he is not an expert in, and even goes the extra mile of accusing people of "discrediting" him when they are only explaining in perfectly sound, sensible, and civil language why he is wrong. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinion (shared by longtime Evolution editor Orangemarlin) that Gnixon operates under a POV-tainted agenda, is in my view a very sound one, based on what Orangemarlin and I both view as a very biased strategy on Gnixon's part of archiving/refactoring the discussion page in a way that is most consistent with his POV (i.e., emphasizes objections to evolution and archives scientific information). Perhaps as bad is the fact that despite his lack of sound understanding on the subject, Gnixon seems to insist on spearheading the editing of the Evolution article ("subtle ownership" as Orangemarlin put it, as I will agree). All together: monopolizing the article talk page, contributing inaccurate content, demonstrating clear lack of understanding of core concepts in Evolution, along with what seems to be a fairly apparent agenda (subject to opinion, of course, but Gnixon is also very active in the Intelligent Design article) -- these things together all contribute to what I view as an extremely counterproductive and maddening editing environment over at Evolution. Not that any of *THAT* constitutes abuse or violation of Wikipedia policy, but I feel that it is important that any administrator or mediator recognize what the real issues here are. Gnixon has been accused by Orangemarlin, and I will concur, of "owning the article" and "POV-pushing", and I will add to that, that his understanding of Evolutionary science is abysmally poor. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to participate, but THOSE are the issues that have fueled the frustration, debate, and dispute at the Evolution article. And I would argue that the situation is SO counterproductive to the Wikipedia process (and to any intelligent mind) that it was worthy of posting my objections (initially voiced by Orangemarlin) to the article talk board. I agree that it is ugly and unfortunate, but for the sake of fair process and progress, I felt it was necessary. Again, although I do not know how to provide the imbedded link, I encourage you to read over recent interactions between Gnixon and Orangemarlin as well, particularly on Orangemarlin's talk page.

It is telling that she would bring up User:Orangemarlin, who was warned by administrators from this page to stop his rude speculation and commentary about my supposed personal beliefs, which speculation I reluctantly indicated was wrong. Labeling me a secret creationist on an article talk page where creationists are widely reviled is akin to insisting in a 7th grade locker room that a boy is a secret homosexual---I found it highly offensive when Orangemarlin did it to me, and I now find it highly offensive that TxMCJ has joined him. It is impossible that a review of my edits to Evolution would suggest I'm "subtly owning" the article. My edits to the talk page have consisted largely of archiving old conversations on that high-volume page as well as attempting to limit recurrent flamewars with creationists that distract from editing the article. I've been complimented for both of those efforts. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it will be time-consuming (since I've corrected the situation), it is pretty apparent that Gnixon has in the past made a habit of swiftly archiving/refactoring the scientific content of article talk, while leaving wide-open (for all to view) any user POV comments that express doubt or attacks against Evolution. Orangemarlin observed this as well, and while I am not necessarily demanding Gnixon admit it's intentional, the pattern is a real one and in the sake of neutrality it must be stopped. I have begun addressing this a bit on my own (see edits to article talk involving archiving/refactoring changes I made, and why I made them.) TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And although I can (and will not) speak for other editors, I would like to note a comment made very recently by another editor, Silence, directed specifically toward Gnixon (on the Evolution talk page). That comment reads: "The thing I understand least about this entire exchange is how you can so consistently and unwaveringly misrepresent what everyone else wants." Only that editor (Silence) can elaborate or justify that statement, but I will concur that this is precisely the sentiment that has driven Orangemarlin away from the Evolution page, and is behind most of the conflict with Gnixon that I've been involved with. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

She refers to a simple misunderstanding that was resolved amicably. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that there is a pattern in Gnixon's behavior and frustration of others. TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the accusation of "stalking" is thoroughly absurd and hypocritical, as on several occasions Gnixon has taken it upon himself to investigate who I am and what I do (I am not an anonymous user), and he has on multiple occasions posted personal information about me, both correct and incorrect, in attempts to discredit my experience and expertise. Because these attempts have failed and I view them as basically silly, I have not complained about "stalking", but if either of us is guilty of "stalking" it is Gnixon who began such actions long before I ever did. All I ever did was investigate other articles he has edited to see if he is as much of a menace (in my opinion) on other pages as he is at Evolution. I cannot comprehend how that constitutes stalking more than his previous investigation of my non-anonymous identity, and his unsolicited broadcasting of his findings to Wikipedia and the world. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue of TxMCJ's professional and personal information above, and frankly, given how often she boasts of her professional experience, I'm proud to have gotten out the facts about her slow career progress. Another user has commented below about the inappropriateness of her stalking me to other, unrelated articles and attempting to discredit me there. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. Firstly, I have never "boasted" of my experience as much as I've sadly found that I am desperately required to cite it in order to defend myself whenever less-knowledgeable and less-experienced editors insist on debating endlessly about issues that are elementary, trivial, rhetorical, or off-topic -- or when editors are simply wrong about a topic, yet continue to waste time and space debating about it. Second, I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly view my career progress to be "slow" (Harvard Ph.D., Co-PI on an NSF research grant I authored, invited NSF speaker on seminars and colloquia on education in Evolution, several years experience teaching Evolution at top universities... this is not BOASTING, it is a counterargument to an absurd opinion that is clearly based on Gnixon's feeling of being threatened). Third, it is completely inappropriate that even if a person had that opinion of my "slow career progress", what the purpose of publicly posting that opinion could possibly be other than to gain leverage and discredit others. Gnixon consistently refuses to provide his own experience, career specifics, or credentials: thus, this constitutes a personal attack (imagine that! right on the administrators/mediation page!) -- as well as a flawed, failed attempt at discrediting my background. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I've repeatedly made efforts to bury the hatchet, she refuses to reciprocate. It's reached the point where her behavior is violating policies on civil interaction and disrupting my ability to contribute here. I request intervention. Thanks, Gnixon 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to burying the hatchet on matters of personal differences or civility, but the true root of the problem is that Gnixon has frustrated me and other editors by overbearing/overmanaging/micromanaging and monopolizing the editing of an article on a subject he has demonstrated poor knowledge of, and worse, seems to be motivated to edit, confuse, and complicate the process via what Orangemarlin and I view to be a creationist POV-driven agenda. Thank you for your time and understanding, and I am willing to participate in any sort of mediation process if (and only if) it results in a healthier and more neutral editing environment over at Evolution. TxMCJ 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the edit histories will show no record of me "monopolizing the editing" of Evolution, nor will they show any more than the usual frustrations of editing here, with the notable exceptions of Orangemarlin and TxMCJ. As I've stated before, the baseless and maliciously-motivated labeling of me as a creationist with a hidden agenda is both highly offensive and entirely inappropriate, and I urge the administrators to warn this user to stop these attacks and stalkings, or to block her if necessary. Gnixon 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is certainly not justified -- and if "stalking" is the offense, I'd have to maintain that Gnixon's stalking (Googling my personal info and posting the results on more than one occasion) has been far worse and more invasive than my own (in which I merely researched his prior edits). TxMCJ 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of what TxMCJ has written is at best a misrepresentation of the facts, but uninvolved parties will have to judge for themselves. I'll make no further responses here to TxMCJ or Orangemarlin. Gnixon 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is a perfect example of Gnixon's approach, demeanor, and I daresay strategy on the Evolution page as well. He presents points, erects arguments, and gives complaints, taking up an enormous amount of space and time with them. Others respond to these points, arguments, and complaints. When he finally finds he is at a loss for words, he dismisses the entire situation while still clinging tightly to his dissatisfaction with it, thus providing no chance at resolution or consensus. This is neither a rational nor a productive approach to editing. TxMCJ 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Christopher Thomas

As I noted in a dispute between these two users at User Talk:Enormousdude, TxMCJ (talk • contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), active since 27 March 2007 only (barring the first 7 edits out of 417 as of 16 April 2007). This user seems to have followed Gnixon (talk • contribs)'s editing of other topics (Special relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) enough to be making posts disparaging Gnixon's edits to this article [101] [102]. These comments do not appear to reflect anything resembling the actual situation, at least in regards to SR [103] WPP thread; scroll down for other editors' views. The small fraction of the interaction between these users that I have been exposed to is consistent with malicious wikistalking on the part of TxMCJ. --Christopher Thomas 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In the interests of expediting any useful purpose this incident report may serve, I invite all of the participants to consider the following:

• AN/I is for reporting incidents that require administrator attention. In your own sections, please state briefly what you want any administrators reading this to do, and why. They'll either do so, or not, and give you some indication as to why.
• For discussion and comment, rather than reporting, please consider either hashing things out on your own talk pages, or pursuing the steps of WP:DR. The most appropriate stage of DR at this stage would seem to be either a user-conduct RFC or mediation.
• AN/I is not a court. The closest thing Wikipedia has to that is WP:RFArb, which is the very last step of dispute resolution. If you feel that further discussion to solve any disputes amicably is not possible, start the WP:DR process, from the beginning, to show due diligence.

--Christopher Thomas 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Orangemarlin

I am going to comment in opposition to User:Gnixon’s complaint.

• Pattern of activity: As another editor attacked with an ANI by Gnixon ANI Complaint, I feel compelled to defend someone else, because I failed to defend myself. This user accused me of stalking User talk:Gnixon#Some thoughts, even though he eventually apologized for the accusation. It appears that he thinks that only he can watch all of the Evolution/Creation articles and not others. These accusations of stalking are just not appropriate.

My accusation of stalking by Orangemarlin was based on a misunderstanding, and I rightly apologized. (There were much more offensive behaviors by him.) The user above has commented on TxMCJ's stalking, which is certainly not a misunderstanding. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Single purpose account: I don’t know why it matters that User:TxMCJ should be criticized for being a single-purpose account dedicated to editing Evolution. This editor has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, and, as we know, that doesn’t really matter on Wikipedia because we should ignore credentials, but as a scientist (and I won’t ignore my own credentials), she appears to be one. She is an expert on Evolution, and has contributed significantly to the article. In fact, Gnixon’s first point about the revert of the very first edit TxMCJ did on Evolution was totally unfair, because it was her first time, and we all have an opinion that for controversial articles like Evolution, one should discuss major edits. It was a newcomer mistake only.

I'm not sure what unfair point I made about that edit, since I supported it at great length. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perceived slights: This is a perfect example where Gnixon gets upset over any edit of his WP:OWN writing, and makes accusations. User:FeloniousMonk, an administrator and someone who has been editing these articles for years, gets hit with an accusation. Another unfounded complaint

For the record, the user he refers to immediately reverted an edit of mine on a physical science article which was totally unrelated to another article where we were having a disagreement at the exact same time. My edit to the physical science article was made in good faith on expert knowledge, and was perhaps the 20th of similar edits I had made to the article within a couple weeks. He reverted it with no comment explaining what was wrong with it, and that revert constituted his first edit to the article within the last many months or couple years. I accused him of following me from the other article, he denied it, and I apologized. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this user continues to be uncivil and complains about anyone editing ‘’his’’ articles. Can TxMCJ be a little nicer with Gnixon. Maybe, but from my own experience, Gnixon is difficult as an editor, and someone with whom simple conversations are manipulated to the point where it is difficult to have a civil discourse. If anything, what should be done with this ANI is a small recommendation to TxMCJ to calm down, but a stern warning to Gnixon that he cannot continue his behavior of making accusations against everyone who may not agree with his article. Orangemarlin 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never once expressed any claim whatsoever of ownership of an article. Orangemarlin is obviously not a neutral party in this dispute, as a brief review of his talk page will show. Gnixon 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Expressing" claim of ownership is not required in order to behave and operate as if you think you own the article. You've got two editors now with biological backgrounds who feel that you behave and edit as if you "own the article", while it doesn't seem that any other editor over at Evolution has been accused of such. TxMCJ 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action

• Warn TxMCJ that wikistalking, as in the diff provided above, is absolutely unacceptable, and block her if it continues. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Consider the circumstances of the "secret creationist" accusations and consider them to constitute a personal attack and a form of harassment. Warn her, and block her if necessary. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Christopher, for good advice, and I apologize for misuse of this page. Gnixon 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here, and the suggested actions seem way out of porportion for the situation. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested action -- Response

Please note that I did not bring this issue to this page -- however, in response to the above:

• I request administrative acknowledgement that researching an anonymous editor's prior editing history on other articles and posting valid concerns about them (valid concerns being good faith and neutrality, no POV-pushing), is not wikistalking. This will vindicate both me and Orangemarlin, who has also been accused by Gnixon as "stalking" him.... WHEREAS, Googling a non-anonymous user's personal information and posting the results publicly without permission, in clear attempts to discredit that editor (as Gnixon has done to me on several occasions now -- amazingly, including on this particular page and administrative request) is *undeniably* stalking. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Before passing judgement on the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of "secret creationist accusations", I request that you make an effort to fully comprehend the arguments Orangemarlin and myself have made regarding the POV-pushing that to us seems evident in Gnixon's archiving and page refactoring choices, as well as a fair acknowledgement that this is a reasonable (although possibly wrong) hypothesis, given Gnixon's involvement on other articles such as Intelligent Design. I request that you think carefully about accusing me of "personal attacks and harassment" while Gnixon has clearly been responsible for at least as much, if not more (given his actual-stalking, rather than wiki-stalking). I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I request no blocking of anyone (please note: I am not the one requesting a block or administrative action here! Gnixon is!) However, I might suggest 1.) a stern warning to Gnixon that *his* stalking (as described above) is truly unacceptable while my own actions do not constitute stalking; 2.) that his reputation as a difficult, POV-pushing editor is growing fast and becoming apparent on a number of different articles (apparently even including the Intelligent Design article now); and 3.) without actually accusing Gnixon of creationist agendas, provide via this page and anywhere else appropriate, a public, *general warning* that if *anyone* (including Gnixon, or not) has any creationist POV leanings, that being heavily involved with the Evolution article (a science article) while simultaneously making the editing work of professional scientists difficult, constitutes *vandalism* and a lack of *good faith*. I request no action on this, other than agreement with these principles, and a warning if deemed necessary. Thanks for your help, and I'm sorry that Gnixon dragged you into this. TxMCJ 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of either harassment or wikistalking here. What I do see is one user, Gnixon, who's been an aggressive and overly assertive editor on a number of topics and all too quick to accuse others and be incivil himself, making allegations that appear to be exaggerated against an editor he appears to be in a simple content dispute with. If Gnixon is genuinely so unaware that he considers the behavior he's described to be harassment and wikistalking, then my advice to him is to become more familiar with the terms and grow a thicker skin (being unwilling to get as good as he gives). But if he thinks he can use this venue find clueless admins to waylay opponents in simple content disputes, then he may find himself hoisted by his own petard and the community's goodwill rapidly diminishing for any future claims he may bring here. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Apologies for the hassle. TxMCJ 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock discussion - User:Spammyou

Hi guys! Just wanted to check in regarding an unblock I did. Spammyou (talk · contribs) was brought to WP:RFCN for a discussion about whether or not the name violated WP:U#Trouble. The discussion was in progress when HighInBC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the user. I felt that the RFCN discussion was still quite active at the time of the block and discussed it with him, asking that the user be unblocked pending the results of the discussion. He asserted that he had used his own judgment (which is absolutely A-OK, btw, that's what we're supposed to do) for the block and deferred unblocking the user. I let him know that I planned the unblock the user for now so we could finish the RFCN conversation, and he asked that I mention it here. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, you said it was a valid block[104]. Secondly, I asked you to bring this up here before unblocking[105]. Rather than wheel war with you, I am just going to let it play out here. A lack of consensus at RFCN does not make a name "unblockable". RFCN is a request for comments, it is not the end of decision making. I ask you to reinstate the block, as you have already agreed it was a valid block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you would revert my administrative act and then go get community input? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the user on my own judgment after speaking with you, then posted to AN/I as you requested. I'm not certain where wheeling comes in, is there something else? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a clarification, I'm not judging your block as 'invalid' or 'abusive' or anything else pejorative, I'd just like the RFCN conversation to last a bit longer as it had just gotten started. The user can always be reblocked, I'm thinking a little WP:AGF is in order in the meantime, especially considering that the user's edits have been pretty good. This is all fodder for a healthy RFCN discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN does not do block reviews, that decision has been made on the talk page and has been enforced for a few weeks now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one would seek some sort of agreement with the blocking admin before unblocking or go to a wider audience. I did not mean to imply that you were wheel warring, more that if I reverted you that I would be wheel warring. This puts me in a rather bothersome position, as you said the block was not invalid, but reverted it anyways, so really only you can revert yourself without a big long consensus here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I would have expected the discussions here to occur prior to any unblock. As to the username, definitely borderline. HighInBC exercised his judgment. His block isn't insane and is grounded in policy so I don't see why it shouldn't stand. WjBscribe 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would personally have preferred HighInBC to have waited a little before blocking given there was an ongoing discussion at WP:RFCN but he was perfectly entitled to block as and when he did using his judgement of the policy involved. Will (aka Wimt) 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally one might even seek to persuade a non-vandalistic editor to change his name voluntarily before imposing a block. Notice that the user has not in fact edited anything since 20:37, 15 April 2007, seven minutes before the first suggestion that there might be a problem with that username. The current instructions on WP:RFCN say, "Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username." The user hasn't refused, agreed, or said "boo" as far as I know. The user may not yet have seen the request; or the user may even now be editing under another name, in compliance to what he thought was required of him; I don't know, do you? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user can still change their name, the template kindly explains how. I agree though, that for RFCN there is a consensus that people should be notified before a discussion starts. However, I did not block under a consensus at RFCN, but under my own judgment. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I must confess that I had not realised that the user hadn't been asked to change their username before the debate was instigated at RFCN. Nevertheless, as HighInBC states, he is still entitled to block the user using his own judgement of policy. Will (aka Wimt) 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the user had been asked to change their username, about 11 hours before the debate was instigated at RFCN. However, the user has made no edits since shortly before that request, so we don't know whether the user saw that request. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, a confusing situation. I think the unblock was not the best idea here, and the name should probably just be reblocked. First of all, the argument as to why WP:U is being violated is pretty clear, and I do think "spammyou" implies an intent to cause trouble. HighinBC made the call, and it wasn't way off base or anything, although I can understand that not everyone would have responded the same way. However, once the block was laid, I think things become different. If the user were requesting unblocking, that would be one thing, but the user has not done so. To me, now, not only is the question of whether the user should be blocked still up in the air, but it also looks like Wikipedia admins can't enforce their own decisions, which is sort of bad. Once a user is blocked, whether they become unblocked is a decision that should really involve that user unless the block was a mistake or clearly inappropriate. And the second factor here was the RFCN discussion, which was frankly pretty irrelevant all along because block decisions aren't up to a community consensus (except for community bans, I suppose). Mangojuice^talk 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'm a bit concerned about in the above is that it seems to suggest that our blocks are sacrosanct and set in stone, and some of HighInBC's comments in the discussion on his talk page about this have given me the same impression while also suggesting that a disagreement with him is the same as an attack on his character. When we put 'be a united front of admins' ahead of doing the right thing and exercising our judgment in a way that hopefully demonstrates the ideals of the project, then we're in trouble. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not set in stone, but you should get some sort of consensus or the agreement of the blocking admin before unblocking. And once again, I must point out you said it was not an invalid block, so what are you fishing for? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing? I'm not sure I understand. You made a judgment call to block, and I consulted with you before making a judgment call to unblock. As you mentioned, group consensus is not required for blocking, why would it be required for unblocking? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a) you are reverting an admin action, which needs some sort of justification, and b) you have said yourself the block is not invalid! So why are you unblocking? For kicks? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the name should be re-blocked. I don't want to do it myself, to avoid appearance of wheel warring. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about personal attacks

[106] Can this be considered a personal attack?

This was made by my former AMA Advocate (he was my AMA Advocate from January 21, 2007 to January 23, 2007) regarding me:

"My own feelings are that she uses advocates much as she used her sockpuppets in order to gather support for herself. I feel she is manipulative and exploitive and is quite volatile and hurtful. I am personally hurt that she has been leaving negative comments about me on Wikipedia when I tried to assist her in a patient and supportive manner. I bitterly regret that I tried to help. She appears to be rather self-obsessed and detached from an awareness of how her behaviour and words can be hurtful to others. She is possibly in need of professional counseling."

I wish that someone would evaluate for me whether this sort of statement is a personal attack or merely a "blunt" statement. Help would be appreciated on understanding the difference. I know this is an unusual request but I would like to understand. (In the interest of full disclosure, there were sockpuppets on my computer for a short time last summer/fall. The sockpuppets were stopped. I was punished. There have been no sockpuppets since.) Sincerely, Mattisse 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered a personal attack. Regardless, IMO without a consistent check of what actually led to that statement, it's not punishable. --Sn0wflake 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "a consistent check of what actually let to that statement" means.? Like diffs and emails? Or general description of situation? Sincerely, Mattisse 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[107] Here is one diff from the former AMA Advocate's archive on me. Replier User:999 was banned indefinitely shortly after. Replier Neigel von Teighen is another AMA Advocate Sincerely, Mattisse 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[108] - diff from my archive - about half way down under and signed by User:SilkTork - this is only posting I received from him. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That link is wrong, maybe you meant this one? Thatcher131 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent to interject) Thatcher, could you tell me how you got that diff as I could not figure out how to do any better than I did. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, that comment is part of a discussion in which other AMA members express frustration with you. As far as I'm concerned, the last sentence should not have been said and the second-to-last could have been phrased less personally. However, unless this is part of a pattern by the editor in question of making questionable personal remarks against other editors, the only remedy would be to politely ask him/her to avoid making such remarks in the future. Meanwhile, some introspection on your part as to why several AMA members seem to be frustrated with you might be in order. Thatcher131 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, starting with my first AMA application and to each AMA Advocate subsequently I have repeatedly asked for feedback on my personal behavior and how I could improve it but have received none on my talk pages or via email. I have an advocate now and have asked him also. My first Advocate was probably frustrated but did not say so, dropped out because of computer proplems he said, and complimented me later on my behavior in an Arbitration and events surrounding it. My third AMA Advocate "took over my case" and put it under investigation. Then told me not to contact him. Two months later, after he made "blunt" remarks about me because I posted some general criticisms of AMA on the MFD page he accused me of harassing him and other negative behavior. But he never emailed me feedback or posted feedback on my page. Do you have some suggestions how I could better go about this? As I said, I have an AMA Advocate now and have asked him for feedback also, as I did the others. Perhaps this time I will get some. But I have been asking since November and have gotten somewhat frustrated over this, so I apologise for that truly. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[109] Is this a personal attack? How do I respond to an AMA Advocate who says this to me publically, provides no proof of lies etc.? Please inform me how to handle this? He did not give me this feedback when he was my AMA Advocate.

"Not quite sure what point you are trying to make, or even if your comment is in reference to my comment or Steve Caruso's, however I have said the above simply as a matter of record of my feelings about working with Mattisse. In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, let me explain that I don't like her. I don't like her dishonesty. I don't like the way that she lies about what happened. I don't like the way that she complained about me here while at the same time sending me messages pleading with me to help her. I withdrew from the case because I felt I couldn't trust her. I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome. I was, however, polite with her, and I communicated with her, and I explained what I was doing. She claims that my emails went missing, so I sent her more message to another email address which also went missing. Apparently somebody gained access to her email account and diverted my messages or deleted them or some other strange happening. Anyway - I withdrew politely. She told lies about what happened. And continues to do so. I am here simply giving my side of events. I am here giving an account of how annoyed and hurt I am. Exactly what part of my experience do you feel I should withhold from any other advocate considering getting involved? Bear in mind I am only writing here because Mattissee feels it is OK for her to complain openly that I behaved badly. I have asked her to amend her statements, to apologise to me, and to refrain from spreading any more lies about me. She hasn't done so yet. And I suspect she won't, because in my opinion she enjoys the attention. SilkTork 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

• How do I answer a personal attack like this when I do not know what he is talking about, what lies I have told, etc. as he provides no diffs. "I withdrew because I felt she was unstable. I withdrew because I found her tiresome." What lies did I tell? Ask User:WeniWidiWiki if you wish to know about the email. Please provide me with the lies. I have not gotten feedback about "lies" except from the sock puppets and User:Rosencomet supported by the sock puppets that Blnguyen (bananabucket) shut down. Have you checked Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ekajati. A Sincerely, Mattisse 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, anti-semitism, abuse and disruption by Saintrotter (talk · contribs)

Saintrotter (talk · contribs) and Rastishka (talk · contribs) are pretty clearly the same person (user pages are carbon copies). He also edits under the IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs) (which was determined by an admin, see IP talk page). On his Saintrotter user page, he openly states that he has a bone to pick about "liberal bias" at the Holocaust article, and then makes a pretty blatant personal attack on Wikipedia editors in gereral by stating that "moderators take a Pro-Jewish point of view" and "Moderators openly admit to a pro-Jewish bias." The Saintrotter user also makes inflammatory statements like this [110], [111], [112], [113]. I had some dealings quite some time ago with this person when he was editing as "Rastishka", and his new sockpuppet leads me to believe that he's still pretty much an angry, bigoted, anti-semite who is mostly concerned with nursing a grudge against Jews, is disruptive in his insistence on reintroducing racist POV and images, but he can be very sneaky in doing so and falls beneath the radar a lot. I wish someone would look into this more closely and deal with this person because really, I don't think Wikipedia is any place for anti-semitism or for trying to push non-consensus points of view, and for basically acting like a dick whenever someone reverts his sneakily racist edits. While he has made SOME constructive edits, they don't really outweight the disruptive and anti-semitic ones. The Rastishka account has been blocked in the past for 3RR and personal attacks, the Saintrotter account has been blocked in the past for 3RR and warned about vandalism and personal attacks, and the IP has been blocked in the past for vandalism, disruption and personal attacks. TheQuandry 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've stepped in. Let's see where this goes. --Sn0wflake 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's outright denied any wrongdoing and instead tells you to assume good faith. That's his signature. He always denies ever having done anything wrong, turns it around on whoever attempts to communicate with him and somehow he always manages to avoid being indef blocked. TheQuandry 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think there's any excuse whatsoever for THIS [114]. TheQuandry 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting WP:POINT and WP:HARASS blocks

Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT. Neither editor posted an unblock request, several uninvolved editors have supported my decision, and both of those blocks have long since expired. I had to block one of these people from gmail chat after he ignored my repeated explanations and referrals to WP:ADOPT. I have treated this matter quite conservatively until now, but this amounts to WP:HARASS and the "clarification" they request looks like a query into what methods two people who volunteer at the same workplace could use to manipulate WP:AFD and other voting discussions without getting blocked. I hope that decisive action will prevent a need to repeat the same remedy that the community imposed here. Durova^Charge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:Durova#Need_Clairfication
• User_talk:Durova#Conflict_of_Interest_re:_User:William_M._Connolley
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#Zeeboid_block
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#COI_Opinion
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Durova^Charge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that one of the editors in question, User:Mnyakko has a link to an off-wiki attack page on his user page, and now states on his user talk page that he fears real-world stalking by his on-wiki opponents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Said attack page being here. Reading the edit summaries (and, of course, the context) here also is enlightening. --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link just went login-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason they keep inquiring is because Durova never answered them. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova did, however, suggest that they get an outside opinion at AN which, IMO, would be a lot more satisfying. I wonder why they never did? --Iamunknown 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It can still be examined via the Google cache [115] links. --Kim D. Petersen 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also am unclear on why they were blocked. In the quote below, the reason given was WP:POINT. I had never seen WP:POINT applied to a discussion board like COIN before. I thought that was reserved for articles. Above, Durova says she blocked them for WP:MEAT. I am very unclear on the concept of Meat Puppets. It appears to apply only if one of the people is not a real person, which is certainly not the case here. Tony and Zeeboid found key evidence that Durova cited when she ruled that Connelly should not ignore COI. I truly believe Durova is doing her best to remain fair, but I also think Durova is under a tremendous amount of pressure from the AGW crowd to punish those who oppose William Connelly's edits. Since I posted the complaint about Connelly on COIN, it makes it difficult for me to speak out in behalf of Tony and Zeeboid. But I do not wish to look like a coward. Isn't there some way we can bring this to a resolution without further blocks that will only open Wikipedia up to additional criticism about suppressing valid viewpoints? RonCram 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, you should probably take a closer look at WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, which begins "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, so Could someone please (like the person who blocked us) point out how they believe how multiple individuals (we) created brand new accounts specifically to particibate in, or influence, the particular vote that Durova banned us for violating WP:SOCK for? Also, I can provide the gmail chat if you want to see it.--Zeeboid 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. You both work on the radio show Race to the Right, and both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right. In fact, Zeeboid, your first edits were to a related discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete (a page about you, apparently), and on the same day you edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right--a pretty good indication that you began editing "to influence a particular vote or area of discussion," to wit, to promote (or document, if you prefer) your radio show. After that time, you and Mnyakko supported each other in controversial discussions, namely on Talk:Global warming controversy and related discussions.

Furthermore, you and Mnyakko are maintaining an attack page together on Race to the Right's wiki--the link is above. Obviously, that site didn't play a role in your previous block, but in my view it ought to play one in any future block you may receive. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhileus, I was looking at this. [116] But the citation you provide, while different, still does not apply. They did not create brand new accounts to vote on the issue of Connelly's COI. I do not know anything about the attack page you mention, so I cannot comment on that. I am only saying that I did not understand exactly why they were blocked and I still don't. RonCram 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Define (a) what specifically qualifies a site as an "attack site" so we all can work from the same definition instead of demogoguery, and (b) what policy gives jurisdiction over Gmail chats, private websites, etc? I noticed she did not provide these "harassing" chats. Zeeboid, you should post them. I also noticed that the questions I asked to better understand the foundation of this retalitory request are still unanswered. Frankly, considering how vague everything is in Durova's complaint the questions will not be directly answered for the very reason that this whole process was started: because someone (durova) really did not like being asked to clarify her blocks. Arbitrary decisions are indefensible, thus questioning them results in retaliation. Truth is, she was begging for 'someone' to take action against me as more solid proof came into the COI discussion against the subject...knowing that there was more to come it was becoming too difficult to achieve the protection of fellow admin, so specious blocks were performed. Of course, the protected admin and clique applaud, but ask an objective editor to explain precisely what was infraction was made and I doubt one could. As a result, the questions build up and all the while she knows there were no solid answers to give. So, how do you stop the questions? First by inviting Zeeboid to open a request in AN...no doubt in my mind his doing so would be the justification she would use for claiming POINT violation ('using AN to prove a point, yadda, yadda). He didn't take her bait so she did it instead and for what reason? "open a thread at WP:AN where you can see whether administrative consensus agrees that I did a reasonable thing and I can see whether administrative consensus agrees that you deserve a new block for WP:POINT. That would satisfy both of our concerns in an impartial forum." First, this is not an impartial forum. Second, since we have not been given any clear and specific indication from Durova how she concluded a violation of POINT, her comment AND her actually opening a request in AN was clearly an action specifically purposed to "prove a point" rather than "stating" it. I'm not sure, but I think that might be important when considering a block for a guideline where a section is titled, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally", but, I'm not an admin so I'm obviously missing some nuance to explain why Durova is not close to violating POINT while providing the proof she claimed to require in a COIN is a violation of POINT. In fact, I would almost bet my mortgage that some juicy rationalization will fabricate some reason that hypocritical double-standard is a justifiable 'exception'. Makes objective wonder if other's assertions have more merit than initially thought. And, of course, when one side is making a valid point, a valid case, a valid justification...they are accused of 'wikilawyering'...which means, "You're right, I cannot refute what you have said, but I still have to find some way to denigrate you so people will not pay attention to you." -- Tony G 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• There really is not much point addressing any of this. I have no faith in this process of being fair and objective, the aforementioned block being the latest example. Seeing that making quick and incomplete links/quotes is the preferred method of response or support, there is no legitimacy in the belief that this process seeks the facts. Providing complete context is called wikilawyering and ignored (in the case of the referenced block by Durova, that was one of the reasons listed for the block). So, this will be a partial list of relevant items...and they will be shortened as well.

For the record: the text that Durova refers to as "explanation" for the blocks:

This subthread, however, is...about the actions of two of his accusers. Zeeboid's defense is a false analogy: Connolley and Mann do not participate in the same Wikipedia WP:AFD discussions, but Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this...discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week.

So, rather than give a defense that is not going to be considered anyway, I will pose these questions (and hope these are not ignored by Durova).

1. Obviously there is not a distinction between private and public correspondence (based on Durova posting a private e-mail on a public page), in light of such strong allegations that she makes which include off-wiki chat, can you provide the full text of "harassing" chats?
2. Where is the exact wording that you interpreted to mean that 5-minutes between votes is SOCK? Would that include reverts done by different people on a regular basis within minutes of each other?
3. Is one week standard first block timeframe when the justification is so broad that understanding the specific violations are difficult to determine?
4. When was the opportunity to "defend ourselves" offered? Was it after I mentioned I would be offline for about 2 days (which was posted at 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC))? The only one I see was posted at 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) with the block occurring at 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (which, btw, would be overnight for me had I even had access to the internet at the time).
5. The five links provided with bullet points are to demonstrate what? One is to the archive containing the COI where the blocks were announced. The other 4 are talk pages, one started by Zeeboid, one by BlueTie, one by Childhood's End and the other started by UbER. What is the harassment? Who are the harassers again? If that many different people do not understand a rationale, shouldn't that be an indication of how poorly it was explained?
6. Does GMail chat count in a Wikipedia discussion? If the supposed harassment exists outside of Wiki then that is a police matter...or does Wikipedia policy include non-wiki e-mail? If you are not starting some off-wiki complaint for harassment then it must not be harassment to begin with.
7. Based on what you have presented here how is my or Zeeboid asking an admin that block us to explain why "behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person"?
8. If the 4 links Durova provided above are examples (and as of the writing of this the ONLY examples) of harassment, why are only Zeeboid and I the only ones with notification of this request?
9. It seems that this is request from a defensive posture with having a number of people (not just the two who were blocked) asking for clarification on the blocks. Why we are being targeted? The reasons, patterns and connections are pretty clear...but I would not want to be accused of violating AGF without providing proof and then blocked for wikilawyering for providing proof. However, a partial summary was sent to Durova at the very outset of the COI where this all originated to help keep the page from being cluttered with background information. That message was ignored leaving no choice but to try and explain online everything that was relevant.
10. Final item...this one is rhetorical. The COI was against an admin that was, at the very root, editing article text about a colleague and then requesting the article to be deleted outright. The result of the COI in a nutshell was (1) The initial COI was baseless as the connections were not strong enough (co-authoring a blog, presentations, research papers, etc), (2) the connections between two people providing the links to the blog, presentations, etc (and providing responses to every "evidence presented does not meet newly stated nuance" by Durova) were enough to block them simply for voting within 5 minutes of each other, and (3) the same two people, upon seeking clarification from "the horse's mouth" being targets of a selective request for action. -- Tony G 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this gives some relevant perspective on Tony's contributions. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The page of Fable (video game) must be checked out due to its inappropriate content-- a vandalism-- sticking out like some sore eye (consisting of words such as a**, p*nis, etc.), which was put there, undoubtedly, for immature and foolish purposes. I am unsure of what I should do, but I do know that I must report this immediately. The 'Summary' section, or more specifically the 'Plot', I did change, but unfortunately I do not know how to re-edit the short introduction since this is the first time that I'm doing this, and I have just registered an account just hours ago. Either I must be notified of how to change the introduction of a page, or someone else must re-edit it.

Here is the link of the page I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable_%28video_game%29

I apologize in advance for any mistakes that I did, and request a warning/notification in the future. I also suggest an investigation of who the vandal is since I am unaware of whether or not I could find out who did this or not. Is this possible, by the way?

Anyway, thank you for taking notice of this notification, and good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaostame (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your notice, I've now gone and removed all the vandalism from the page, I'll come to your talk page to show you how to revert and warn. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

The article on the recent virginia tech shooting was moved to Virginia Tech massacre from 2007 Virginia Tech shooting by administrator user:GolbezGolbez. There are some people who disagree with this move, and i have posted a request ont eh talk page to discuss it. I would appreciated some administrative or other input here on the talk talk:Virginia Tech massacrepage of before any action is taken to prevent the possiblity that there be a wheel war. The page has been move protected to by admin only. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NVM, somebody else moved it. Bolder than I am. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the talkpage

There's currently discussion on the talkpage over continuing semi-protection thereof. I don't know if the admin who locked it down is still active in the discussion - if an admin has an opinion maybe s/he can drop by? Anchoress 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. John Reaves (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats by User:Ilyhg

It seems to me that User:Ilyhg is the same puppet as User:Hapoelhaifa3 who was banned for one week for abuse. This user is also personally attacking me as well as threatening me with legal action. It is obvious that both users are children or Teenagers but the abuse deters me from making quality additions to Wikipedia. See the users talk page where he wrote in Hebrew that I should contact the lawyers to send a defense statement, and my own talk page. He restates this in English on the talk page of Yochanan Vollach. The same page where he has been vandalizing my edits. -NYC2TLV 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see that there is actually a rule against what he did: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Not only did he break this rule, but he also is masking his breaking of the three revert rule. -NYC2TLV 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Damaging Wikipedia's reputation

I think the subject under discussion here [117], where the possibility of banned editor has bad mouthed the project in a major British newspaper needs addressing. Giano 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you going to do? Ban the user further? ~ UBeR 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• No that would be rather futile - wouldn't it? We need to have an official policy of countering, answering and refuting such public attacks on the project - from someone authorised to do so - rather than just keep sitting back and seeing the project dragged repeatedly through the shit. Giano 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, I can tell you that Wikipedia's reputation is certainly not going to be harmed by one letter in the Times. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a meeting with one of David Cameron's most senior Front-Bench colleagues (i.e. Conservative; the Education Secretary is Labour) who publically spoke of it in the most glowing terms. [P.S. Help me get my identity back, please: User:Jeffrey Newman - see below!] 172.212.75.134 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate name and usage of a Project infobox

Dave Gilmour (talk · contribs) is identifying himself as a member of the Pink Floyd Project which is a bit a conflict with an actual band member being named David Gilmour. The new user is also using the Guitarist Project infobox from the "real" David Gilmour article on his userpage. 156.34.142.110 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've notified the user that they should make a request to change their username, as their username violates our username policy as described at Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. --Durin 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he's now claiming that David Gilmour is his real name [118]. --Durin 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted the username policy prohibits this anyway. Thatcher131 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Portal for music group

I noticed that there is an entire portal for one band: Portal:Rush (band). Is it just me or is it odd to give a band an entire portal? I've never even heard of them, but I need to know whether or not they should have a portal on Wikipedia before I make an sort of MfD nomination. Thanks for any help. The Behnam 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy, but don't start your MFD by saying you never heard of them. Rush is one of the biggest rock acts of the 80s and 90s, at least in the US and Canada. Thatcher131 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about portal policy either... but agree with Thatcher131; they are extremely well known among rock aficionados and musicians, particularly drummers.--Isotope23 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know better to than to reason an MfD involving music based around personal ignorance as I don't follow such things, but it still strikes me as quite odd that there is a portal just for that band. What could possibly be useful about it, and why does the band deserve an entire portal. The Behnam 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At one point we had a system set up for approval of portal creation which was designed to prevent portals with such a narrow focus. The system was rejected, so there is now no limits as far as I know on what portals can be created, except the MfD process. I suspect that any good faith portal which is well-formed and well-maintained, and which has an adequate pool of articles to showcase, will survive MfD.-gadfium 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess it is fine then. The Behnam 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin blocking a user with whom he was in an edit conflict

User:Raul654 has blocked User:216.67.29.113, with whom he was in an edit conflict at Intelligent Design. While I agree that some of the IPs edits were a little biased, the text he was correcting was probably a bit biased as well. Not only is this a violation of the non-involved policy, but users should not be blocked for edit warring when other people are edit warring just as much on the same page. At very very least, this should have been brought up on the noticeboards. Part Deux 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is false and misleading. I removed his Chablax's FAR nomination because it was duplicitous - he was complaining the article was unstable because *he* was the one making it unstable by (means of his logged-out IP address - 0a not-so-minor detail he neglected to mention). I reverted him nom and warned him, he persisted, and I blocked him. He was not blocked for edit warring, he was blocked for gaming the system. And I left a thread on wikipedia talk:featured article review where everyone supported my action. Raul654 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user:216.67.29.113's edits to that page had been reverted by others between April 9 - April 13. When Raul stepped in, he was only defending consensus and stopping this user from re-inserting banners already deemed unnecessary. This doesn't make Raul a party to the content dispute. My opinion is to endorse the block. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I was mischaracterizing the situation, as I have no desire to get User:Raul654 in trouble. Perhaps a better block summary may have worked, such as "gaming the system, persistent edit warring against consensus across multiple IPs". But POV pushing doesn't seem like it was the case, here. Not at all (though I might point out I do disagree with this editor). Part Deux 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, when the first message this IP gets is a block threat for what appear to be good faith (though misguided) edits, this whole situation was pretty much set up to end badly. I'm not defending Chahax (talk · contribs) or the actions the editor took, but it appears there wasn't a whole lot of WP:AGF being extended here before the hammer was dropped on him... and yeah, the Chahax (talk · contribs) block summary should be corrected.--Isotope23 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The other question is block duration. Right now it's set at indefinite, which can be a long time. I've also asked Chahax to explain why he acted as he did, which may be relevant. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the precedent of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs), who was blocked for 1 month for socking and gaming the system. I would be in favor of commuting Chahax's block to 1 month, "if" Raul's assertion that Chahax could be someone else's sockpuppet holds no water. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbot attack

An anonymous user has been vandalizing the userpages of various Wikipedian with obscenities; after I blocked some of the addresses, he went to specifically target me. See the history of my user page, and my block log

• Thanks to whoever protected my talk page; what else needs to be done? Checkuser? Open proxy check? - Mike Rosoft 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• We've rangeblocked about three or four times, so... good question! —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It's a British Telecom IP who are one of the biggest ISPs in the UK, and are also dynamic. Too much range blocking could cause plenty of collateral damage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned user

24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was previously identified as a suspected sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in March 2006 has just edited the Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton article, to which the only other recent edits in the last month are previous Rms125a@hotmail.com sockpuppets and those edits being reverted. Can anyone see a duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also MobyGames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the IP and user are blocked indefinitely. No useful edits came from that IP—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

block review requested

I have just blocked Gooxareinsane (talk · contribs) as a borderline username plus trolling, as seen in their only edits: {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Tech_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=123350473] and [119]. User was never warned but I think given the high news profile of the situation any warning would have allowed the user to troll for an unacceptably lengthy time. Review requested. Natalie 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clearly racist username anyway, the block would've been justified on that alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify that I also blocked account creation. Natalie 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's usually just a judgment call, but a trollish username combined with trollish edits certainly justifies it in my book. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good early catch to me. If the user wants to contribute constructively, they can do so under another name. However it looks like you've autoblocked the IP itself indefinitely, if I understand the software correctly? -- nae'blis 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think autoblock only last 24 hours no matter what, but if I'm wrong someone please change it - I have to go eat dinner. Natalie 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a long-term sneaky vandal, as I noticed when he/she repeatedly reinserted unsourced misinformation into Virginia Tech shootings this afternoon. The accumulated warnings on User talk:Gamer112 and the edit history might justify a block at this point. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admin edit reversion

User:Geogre reverted John Arbuthnot with the explanation "Consistent US orthography is superio(u)r to spotty and petulant conversion to Brit(t)ish orthography (and Noah Webster rulez anyway)". My sympathy is with the previous editor. Is Geogre expressing policy? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is a matter for discussion on the talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the MoS calls for consistent spelling on any individual page, but also that the appropriate spelling varies by page, under the following rules: 1) for an article on a nationally associated subject use that nation's spelling rules (so the article on Tony Blair should use British spelling, the article on George Bush should use American spelling), 2) for other articles use whichever spelling was already there, and 3) don't edit war over it. GRBerry 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With point no. 3 being, IMHO, the most important. Natalie 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This admin is now describing other editors as "nonce accounts", which may nor may not be intended to mean nonce (slang) . . . whatever the correct spelling might be on the page, could someone suggest he be a little more polite? Hobson 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's like nonce words--he's saying they're disposable accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review request for Maxman280

I've blocked this user indefinitely. Following a previous 24-hour block, he's been engaging in disruption [120], [121] and outright vandalism [122], [123]. Requesting review, as the user does appear to have some positive history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps going from 24-hour block to indefinite was drastically harsh, don't you think? --Sn0wflake 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. I was about to suggest a weeklong block, but if he already had a block, he's been warned enough. I mean, c'mon: [124]. There was literally nothing useful coming from this account. Part Deux 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Well before his first block he was making assinine edits like these [125] [126] [127]. It isn't as though we are losing a valuable contributor here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure... just poiting out that it would be standard to issue weelong first, to give a last chance. But I don't believe a review is in order now. What is done is done. --Sn0wflake 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree, and would have given a week, but this edit convinced me pretty well he intends to continue. "Indefinite" doesn't mean forever, if he were to come back in a week or two with a sincere apology, I might well support giving him a last chance. As to review, we do that in unusual circumstances-blocks can always be reduced, if it turns out there's no consensus for placing them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse an indef block here. No legitimate reason to expect anything constructive out of this user. A Train^talk 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User removing warning templates with IP accounts to circumvent final warning

User Jahedul (and possibly a block of IP addresses need) to be blocked.

Jahedul has uploaded the following images that appear to be improper images according to fair use policies and I have marked them as such:

• Image:Cuztv.jpg
• Image:Mac best.gif
• Image:Image-Home-FabolousFan.info.jpg

The user removed the template and claimed that they were valid for use under mistaken and/or bogus claims that he owns the image or received permission to post from the image owner.

I informed the user that {{Replaceable fair use}} specifically says "Do not remove this tag" but he continued to remove the template. I left a final warning message on the user's talk page, but that was followed by these edits: [128] [129], [130], [131]

The edits come from the same ISP and city, and edits such as this and this suggest they are Jahedul. Ytny (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Those IPs are in too wide a range to be blocked. However, the page could be semiprotected, and probably a 24h block extended to Jahedul for removing for FU violations and sockpuppetry. I've watchlisted the pages. Part Deux 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this user has a history of creating bad images as well. Perhaps he could use some time off *hint hint to admins*. Part Deux 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Jahedeul's block log out of curiosity and he's been blocked before for repeated copyvios: [132]. So it doesn't seem like a case of not understand policy. Ytny (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

25 or 6 to 4

Could someone keep an eye on this situation, please. Mastersman (talk · contribs) has nearly broken the 3RR on this article by readding unsourced information/speculation, call it what you will. They have already assumed bad faith of an anonymous IP who has tried to remedy this situation (calling them a vandal in the process). Then when I come along (notice Coelacan tried to do the same last week), I get told (on a discussion now moved to the article talk page) that the page is "being managed by fans" and "trust [them] to do their job". I'm guessing this is the royal "we" being referenced here. Anyway, WP:OWN, 3RR, and possible sockpuppetry going on here. I am about to revert and go offline, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes. I have no stake in this article whatsoever and was responding to a request for help posted on another admin's talk page. Bubba hotep 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice the similarity in phrase here and on the edit summary here – using the word "Wik". Chances of two people calling it that? Bubba hotep 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ernham editing as anon while banned

68.187.115.195, which appears to be User:Ernham, is revert-warring and POV-pushing (eg here) while indefinitely blocked since 11 April 07. Can someone take this through Checkuser and then block the IP address? Ta, JackyR | Talk 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

duck test Navou ^banter 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Grey#In_the_media

InspiredMind (talk · contribs) is the director of CoSM The Movie, which is about this person. I came across the movie article on NP patrol and discovered that the user is the same as the producer director and editor of the film. There are serious COI issues with this users' editing as everything they have done is connected to their work and is either promotional and/or vanity. I noticed the following line in the above section that the user has just reinserted after I removed it as spam/advertising.

• Directed by Nick Krasnic and distributed on DVD by Docurama.

I'd be grateful if someone could review this and remove this if they consider it appropriate. I'm away to my bed and have edited that section 3 times already today. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoSM The Movie & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Krasnic. Thanks --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Joie de Vivre

User Joie de Vivre - appears to be entering bigoted anti-Catholic remarks in the discussion as a reason for deleting a post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fertility_awareness#External_links_-_Software 75.84.156.180 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, comments such as this are not welcome on Wikipedia; if you cannot be civil, please be gone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sort of editing we aspire to here?

“Four editors with strong personal or religious prejudice control this Topic. Please drop by periodically and revert back your preferred writing ... send other editors ... break this cabel!!!” TipPt 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to quantify this, but it appears to lack the spirit of any number of our policies/guidelines. -- Avi 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please, let me explain. Two established editors comment on how crazy the Circumcision topic has become, and I suggest that they check in periodically and see how it might be better. Please see the Topic history some of Avraham's recent edits! He seems to deny the reader important facts for personal reasons.

• I am simply encouraging participation, because most editors give up faced with these cabels.TipPt 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TipPt, you joined Wikipedia for the express purpose of "saving" the world from circumcision, and since then you've done little but edit-war on circumcision-related articles, attempting to insert your POV into them. To make things worse, you have compounded that by frequent violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and by projecting your own agenda onto others. You may find it simpler to post on the various anti-circumcision websites and blogs out there; I understand there are quite a few, and they don't insist you abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a user post on blogs instead of editing Wikipedia is uncivil, especially when considering the rest of your comment. KazakhPol 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

At Faith Freedom International, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a 'notability' tag that has lead to a revert war. I'm not sure what the best thing to do in this situation is so I'm asking for help here as admin action may be needed. Thanks. The Behnam 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Newman

I spent a little time with Wikipedia a couple of years ago, using my real name, and now want to resume my identity. However, the password does not work. I am happy to give my e-mail; I am happy to meet an admin in UK; I just do not want to start all over again with a name that is not me, please! I actually do not believe, with a little common sense (qv Hannah Arendt) that it is difficult to judge that I remain the same person with the same interests! I shall look for replies here, please. 85.210.255.81 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have an email address set on your account, you can click on the "Email new password" button at the login page. Naconkantari 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if you cannot recover your password using the e-mail function then there is nothing we can do. This is a technical restriction. Apologies. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Regaining_Identity.21_User:Jeffrey_Newman (would there be a simpler way to make an internal link to this?) gives me some further suggestions and help. I am still not prepared to give up as 'impossible' but I will accept 'very difficult', 'highly unusual', 'nearly impossible', 'pain in the xxxx' etc. Who, what, where, is 'a developer' and is it possible to contact one? That appears to be a route that might be necessary. And I do apolgise for all this but I believe Joe Mabel user:jmabel (who suggested I tried here), perhaps User_talk:Gadfium and User:AmiDanielpossibly understand why it is important - and I do apologise if I have quoted them/you inappropriately. Perhaps if I could find one or two other senior Wikipedians with a similar outlook, we could find a way through. Thank you. User:Jeffrey Newman 85.210.255.81 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to know what exactly I can and cannot do

Hi, I was recently blocked (and it was mentioned here, yet I was not informed of the issue) for "once again asking for inappropriate pictures". I objected to the block, of course. But the past is the past. I would like to know what exactly I am allowed/not allowed to do. I have checked WP:SEX for guidelines regarding images, but I haven't found anything specific to entail my block. But that is besides the point. Basically, what I want to know is where my current standing is. Am I allowed to request pictures? Comment on other users requesting pictures? Request drawings? Comment on other pictures requesting drawings? I would like to know this so that an unfortunate misunderstanding doesn't occur a second time. Thank you.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Several images, all of which are allowed on Wikipedia:

• Image:Cambridge tondo.jpg Is this child porn? It certainly depicts a child in a sexual act with an older man.
• Image:Virgin Killer.jpg Is this child porn? It is nudity, but no sex. Title suggests violent crime.

Seeing how those images are allowed on Wikipedia, that is what I used to claim that "Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography". Also it should be noted that Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_films contains many pictures albeit not of pornographic variety.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears you were blocked for this edit, in which you suggest that Child pornography could be improved through the addition of an image (possibly, barely reasonable) and that "Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography" (trolling or cluelessness). Given the rest of your comments on Talk:Child pornography, I would strongly advise you to abandon this thread here, before you get blocked for a longer period of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So even questioning the circumstances of my block is trolling?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Consistently asking for a dainty selection of child porn on a silver platter, please, is, however. Or so that is the sentiment I am gathering from this thread. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about child porn. I just want to improve the article by having a picture of an example, per WP:GA? and WP:FA?, both of which say that having a picture which illustrates the subject is a very good idea. If I wanted child porn, <link redacted> there are plenty of places besides Wikimedia Commons from which I can obtain them.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, as a courtesy to people who might be at work or in a public place, please don't post a link to Google Images with the search query "pedophilia"; or, alternatively, at least write in bold NOT SAFE FOR WORK or something like that. --Iamunknown 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article surely does NOT need a picture of a naked child engaging in anal sex to illustrate the article of child porn just to gain featured article status, thank you very much. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When the news covers a child pornography case, they don't show the pictures. They instead show the families, pictures of the criminals, and so on. We don't need to explicitly show a picture of child pornography.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how does that illustrate child pornography? I'm not purposely creating a Catch-22 situation here, but the reasons you give are not substantial enough. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Sexual_intercourse, which does not have a picture of the act, but does have drawings, as well as a drawing of sodomy, which again seems to depict a child.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I concede that point. If you want that piece of art as a description of child pornography, then by all means take it to the appropriate talk page and discuss. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion is off-topic and should be discussd on the talk page. I am here asking what exactly I am allowed to do with respect to sexuality articles.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This does smell of trolling, but I can't help but roll my eyes to hear he was blocked for this. zOmG, aren't you all heros and looking out for the childrens :P Block him for being disruptive, maybe, but don't play the moral police, it's lame. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How is opposition to child pornography 'lame?' The Behnam 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Violates WP:NPOV and WP:COI.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that refer to child pornography in a negative light. — MichaelLinnear 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an RS which opposes child pornography, and an organization which actively tries to eliminate it. If a person is part of an anti-child pornography movement, it would be a COI for them to edit related articles.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if anyone has any opinion on anything, they shouldn't edit articles related to those things? JuJube 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying

This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia. Please contact us if the article contents causes you concern.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're talking past us. We're asking you to stop requesting that a federal crime be committed. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never asked for a federal crime to be committed. What you said is equivalent to slander.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Slander is spoken and libel is written.— MichaelLinnear 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I used the word "said", not "wrote". But you're dodging the issue. What you wrote is character defamation. Please strike it out.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Defamation? You mean personal attacks, do you not? Defamation is a legal term, if you did not know. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, Ned, that he wasn't blocked out of moral outrage – zOMG kiddie porn! – but rather because he was trolling and being deliberately WP:POINTy on the talk page of the article after repeated warnings. And he's doing it again here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Did I ever add pictures of child porn into mainspace pages? No. As an established user of Wikipedia, I took the right choice and discussed it on the talk page before adding any pictures.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming exhausting that he keeps bringing the issue back up in new ways to try to press for something that will not be granted. He should be blocked like last time he did this. The Behnam 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why won't it be granted? That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. Since you seem to say this with much definitiveness, I'd like to know why it won't be granted, from you. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other editors have given you pretty clear advice:

• How about this... stop asking for child porn. Thanks. The Behnam 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you are truly having difficultly understanding the line between child porn and !child porn, you should probably refrain from asking for images at all. And probably you should withdraw from editing articles on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep pushing. — MichaelLinnear 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be tolerated at all. Not only is it a continuation of trolling he was previously blocked for, but it happens to be that this guy is literally requesting child porn. It is completely disturbing. The Behnam 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough silliness. Even 'established users' don't get to troll indefinitely. I'm recommending an end to this thread, and I'm blocking Kirbytime for an additional 48 hours in the hope that he can find a better windmill at which to tilt. I invite other admins to review this block, and to overturn at their discretion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The block seems fine to me. It might be a good idea to propose a topic ban at WP:CN, Kirby seems to have an ongoing problem in this area. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Super-strong endorse. As I was reading this, I was about to do the same thing. Daniel Bryant 04:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - He continues to use legal terms and is also being uncivil on his talk page. The Behnam 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember at least two other posts in the past dealing with his POV towards this... I have no problems with an uncensored Wikipedia, but this is going too far... I would support a topic ban towards him. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gang Lu vandalism

Due, I think, to the Virginia Tech story in the news, the Gang Lu article has become the target of vandalism. Request soft-protection for that article and suggest that all school and university shooting-related articles receive the same thing for the time being. Cla68 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a more efficient response posting this to WP:RFPP. After a closer look at the article, I don't think a semi-protect will be necessary. There's only one or two cases of vandalism this week. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI

Resolved

 – deleted. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article, which was deleted on April 15th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI has been recreated essentially with the same content. It needs to be speedy deleted and the editor who recreated it warned or possibly blocked. --Bduke 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To note a recreation of deleted material, type {{db-repost}} or {{db-g4}} at the top of the article. I'll do that. Since I'm not an admin, I'm not going to contact the user. I will warn the user, who has made no other edits than these two. YechielMan 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Supergear redirected to User talk: Natalie Erin

User talk:Supergear has gone through a whole lot of vandalism by anon IP's (after being blocked), and has now been re-directed to User talk:Natalie Erin - It's a bit beyond me to work out what should be there, and I've got to log off now, just to let someone do this & revert it for Natalie! Thx Lou 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored the last edit by Supergear (nothing of value since then, I think), and gave it semi-protection for a few days. Hopefully whoever it is gets bored, by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict sockpuppet account

He has set up another sockpuppet account: User:The Verdict1, his only two edits so far is admitting that he is Verdict (inlcuding telling an admin, User:Yamla, that he can't do anything about it). Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he threatened to "kick Yamla'a ass", which is block-worthy by itself. TJ Spyke 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Something this obvious could probably go to WP:AIV, if he comes back. Grandmasterka 07:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Impersonator Account Created

User:Burgdorf is an impersonator of User:Burgz33, creating a user page with some personal information and some false information, and should be banned a.s.a.p. All of his/her edits have been not vandalism, per-say, but impersonating another person and attempting to make them look bad. I have blanked their user page, but I'm sure it'll be back up. The only solution is to ban the user in my eye, because the account was created for the sole purpose to vandalize ones name. I really don't think it is proper for him/her to have such a user page, considering user pages should be for constructive editors. 70.253.167.161 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali seemingly stalking again

I'm hoping somebody can help with a problem I am having. User: Abu badali seems to be checking my contributions and removing images from articles that I have uploaded. My feeling is that he is doing this in retribution for my support of the Rfc against him. He has stalked me in the past (Theresa Knott challenged him about this), so I am not surprised. His latest episode has been to remove this image from the article about Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. If one looks at the licensing, it states clearly that the photo is available for use by the public, so long as the RFD (Dutch Information Service) is given credit for it. Its use on Wikipedia fulfills this criterion. The notice from the RFD says Deze foto mag worden gedownload, gebruikt en gereproduceerd zonder schriftelijke toestemming....Voorwaarde hierbij is wel het vermelden van het auteursrecht van de RVD.: This photo may be downloaded, used and reproduced without written permission...on the condition that it is stated the rights are from the RVD"

Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus" or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months (even on the Dutch Main Page) without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Wikipedia would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if an admin could look at the image and reach his or her own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

cais-soas.com and User:ParthianShot

I came across this web-site when I looked at this users contributions and uploads. See this. Most of the images he has uploaded are taken from cais-soas.com with a note "Permission granted by CAIS". I don't see any ticket from OTRS. But this goes beyond just this. I have a feeling that this user is associated with the website. Please read this discussion. I think all images used by the website are also copyright violations. The website looks official, but does not have any relation with SOAS (University of London). Can someone take a look at this? If the website is a fraud website, then we may have tens of copyvios here. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)