Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Wasserman

This user has been made aware at least once previously that a number of editors take issue with his aggressive communication style. Personally I feel like some editors are far too thin-skinned about supposed incivility and have no particular opinion about the previous incident; I provide it only for informational purposes. Recently the editor has decided that there is an insidious conspiracy to eliminate the categorization of Jewish people as Jewish. Here he accuses User:William Allen Simpson of "rampant" and "blatant" censorship because that editor has nominated a number of "Jews by occupation" categories for deletion recently. In five CFDs from June 11 he copies and pastes substantially identical comments in which he accuses WASimpson of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of ... Jewish categories" along with accusations that WASimpson and I are engaged in a conspiracy against Jewish-related categories. Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here, at the very least the editor needs to be put on notice that hyperbolic and unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies constitute a failure to assume good faith and constitute incivility. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• In accessing the editor's page to advise him of this notice, I found this. User has a history of crying "censorship". Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a participant to those discussions and as such have been able to form an opinion about Wassermann. He seems genuinly distressed by certain nominations for deletion connected with "Jewish". And it is true that quite a number of these have been tagged for deletion lately. And it may even be that William Allen Simpson (with whom I have an issue here on wp:ani) is trying to tag as many ethnicity related categories as he can, in accordance with what he thinks is the right thing to do. But accusing editors of conspiracy, in the way Wassermann does, that is a little out of line. Nevertheless, in view of the emotional issue involved and in view of the fact that we all have been created by G-d with a different way of expressing ourselves, and for some that way is more emotionally loaden than for others, I hope we can suffice with a verbal explanation to Wassermann of the proper way to behave in discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any proof of validity of this users claim of "censorship"? Triplestop (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not really. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ill-advised, maybe. Deletionism gone a few steps too far, perhaps. Countered by reliable sources, likely. But there is no evidence of censorship based on religion here, and problems with deletions at CfD are a rainbow assortment crossing categories based on all races, religions, creeds and national origins, including claims that it is impossible to determine race, religion, creed or national origin for anyone without resorting to original research. A reminder that WP:COOLDOWN, clearly specifies that "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect" and that such blocks should not be proposed as a solution. CfD is in desperate need of greater outside participation to help produce consensuses that are representative of the community as a whole, and all necessary efforts should be taken to bring User:Wassermann productively into the CfD fold, rather than trying to push out and away those who disagree with some CfD regulars. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• COOLDOWN also says that if an angry editor is being disruptive they may be blocked. Accusing editors of engaging in conspiracies is disruptive. This is not a question of "push[ing] out" an editor on the basis of disagreement; that is not even close to an accurate assessment of the situation. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here" are your words. Policy is very specific that cool-down blocks are prohibited. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for god's sake. COOLDOWN says that they "should not" be used, it does not say that they shall not or cannot be used. It is advising against their use, not prohibiting them. And of course my words also say that he's crossed a line into incivility and disruption and COOLDOWN specifically states that blocks for this sort of behaviour are appropriate. Does there really need to be this constant parsing of everything everyone says?

• Otto's (I assume its Otto's) comment above this one may be a clue as how he could have led Wasserman to feel upset and frustrated. Does anyone, other than Otto, believe that a guideline that says "x should not be used" means that "x may be used"?

• I had to censor one of Wassermann's sub pages. Is Jayjg still around, he has had interaction with this user? --Tom (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

from his user page it looks like jayjg blocked him repeatedly but he disappeared completely at the beginning of the judea/samaria arbcom case and hasn't returned since then. untwirl(talk) 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that userpage a yesterday, and did not understand the reason for its "censorship". Clearly User:Wassermann is smart enough that conversation, perhaps by more than one editor, should be able to explain him what and why. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery: I noticed this thread because of a whimsical "Recent changes" excursion a few hours ago. Some of Wassermann's recent edits do seem to be a source of concern on the basis of WP:BLP, because of the insertion of unsourced Jewish-related categories into biographies of living persons. He has in the past been blocked for exactly this sort of infraction. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconding this. See this and this, where there are no reliable sources saying these people are Jewish, and obvious BLP concern. He's had so many problems with this before, for which he has been blocked, that I can't imagine he's unaware that this is a problem. Recommend a block. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And upon investigation, I see that Category:Jewish Economists was deleted in 2007, and then Category:Jewish economists was deleted just 4 days ago. This looks like an attempt to recreate and repopulate a deleted category. (Not exactly the same category, but the same arguments apply.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the majority of people in the category are not said to be Jewish in the article. This is a serious BLP problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, Wasserman has used Catscan and/or AWB to intersect Category:Jewish Americans/Category:American Jews with Category:American economists (as the ones I looked at are also in the former, eg Kotlikoff was already in a Jewish category). It is something of an attempt to subvert the speedy deletion of Category:Jewish economists. Occuli (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, read his comment there. Sheesh. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a related note, I have come down on User:Epeefleche here about attacking the nominator rather than the nomination, with what I perceive to be a direct intimation of anti-Semitic bias. This followed Wassermann's allegation of the conspiracy on Otto's part. I'm not sure if Wassermann realized that could be a direct result of his careless word choice. I consider these actions to be on the other side of a line that cannot be crossed here. I won't weigh in on a block motion yet, but I'm certainly monitoring the situation with both these users. (I'm also not a fan of the words Otto has used in this discussion here and elsewhere, but that does absolutely nothing to justify the negative behavior on Wassermann and Epeefleche's parts.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mike fails to point out: 1) that I raised the issue of a dishonest statement by the nominator, which I substantiated with references to the nominator's statements and the nominator's diffs -- Mike seems to both think that it is fine for the nominator to be dishonest, and a breach of Wiki guidelines for another editor to point out that dishonesty; 2) that all of the nominator's requests for deletions of categories of any religions/ethnicities/nationalities in those of his last 500 diffs related only to Jewish categories, though the proferred reason would have suggested that if the nominator was not singling out Jewish categories he would have been seeking deletion during that time of other religions/ethnicities/nationalities. I would also point out that incendiary language has been used by the nominator (calling others paranoid, etc.), but not by me. Mike has sought (both in his "come down" note and though comments of a person he invited to join the discussion) to chill my right make a legitate point as to a series of dishonest statements by the nominator. He has also sought to chill my right to ask a question as to motive. In both cases, with a heavy handed threat, completely innapropriate, of a block. I'm surprised, quite frankly, by what I consider to be heavy handed innapropriate behavior on his part.
• As to Wasserman, I'm not sure that use of the words "blatant" and "censorship" are punishable offences in this context. It seems more likely that the nominator's use of the word "paranoid" to describe Wasserman is more innapropriate than anything Wasserman wrote. As far as assuming good faith is involved, that is a presumption under Wikipedia:Assume good faith that can be rebutted by the nominator's and WAS's actions. The policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence of bad faith. I would posit that when someone lies, that is such evidence, and when they seek to delete a dozen "Jewish" categories but not other categories of religions/ethnicities/nationalities -- using an argument that is not Jewish-specific, that may well also be evidence of good faith that rebuts the assumption of good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf's conflict with User:Allstarecho becoming disruptive

So User:Damiens.rf doesn't seem to like User:Allstarecho, and it's spilling into a number of forums, and, I believe, becoming terribly disruptive. ASE wrote an article on Equality Mississippi, with potential COI problems as noted above, and Damiens.rf has been attacking that article -- I can't think of a more accurate term -- by adding a ridiculous number of fact tags (despite it already having Refimprove), removing the names of convicted murderers of ASE's friend, spuriously citing BLP, removing several sources because they mention "Mississippi Gay Lobby", not "Equality Mississippi" (despite the fact that the article says "The organization's original name was Mississippi Gay Lobby"), repeatedly removing information on offline sources (therefore making the copied PD text into plagiarism), adding {{pov-statement}} in many places (such as the word "historic" referring to a Supreme Court ruling), and many similar edits. Note that this is entirely tendentious editing; none of his many edits have actually improved the article. His few comments on the talk page have been brief and mainly sarcastic. Yes, there are legitimate COI problems in the article, and the sourcing can indeed be improved, but I don't believe Damiens.rf's edits have been good faith attempts to improve things. I believe they have been disruptive attempts to attack ASE.

Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated Wikipedia:ASE and Wikipedia:ASTAR for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit here and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like this one show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Damiens.rf on the two redirects. However, I'd say your characterization of his other edits is pretty spot on, and that this does seem to be a pattern with him. I'm not comfortable doing anything here either, but what kind of administrative action are you looking for? AniMate^draw 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf has also removed an OTRS link from the page several times. The mess of fact, citation, and "what" tags are continued to be added to the page. This is disruptive and Damiens.rf is not improving the article in anyway what-so-ever. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's continuing to edit war on tag placement. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his attention could be drawn to this ArbCom finding (currently passing) - "In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute." –xeno^talk 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this quite by accident and have encountered similar issues with User:Damiens.rf. After he nominated an image of a deceased legislator for deletion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_9#Byron_M._Baer.jpg here, responses that addressed his issues appeared to have triggered a sequence of new FfDs for eight separate images I uploaded on eight separate occasions at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_12. I have no idea what triggered this outpouring of deletion requests and these deletion requests accounted for almost all of his Wikipedia edits that day. Any legitimate issues with these images were readily addressed and could have been addressed without resorting to deletion, but the greater issue here appears to be that User:Damiens.rf does appear to have launched these FfDs on a retaliatory basis, in apparent violation of WP:HARASS and WP:STALK. I thought it was just me, but this ANI report seems to make it clear that this is a larger problem on Damiens.rf's part that needs to be addressed through administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the wikipedia rules, if any, about users creating "shortcut" pages that consist solely of redirects to their own talk page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_27#Wikipedia:PEDRO Kingturtle (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly different, as that was a redirect from an editor's name to a sub-page (that didn't even belong to them). A more accurate example would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 23#Wikipedia:GURCH, Wikipedia:EVULA, Wikipedia:ZN → User/User talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "harrassment by template" of Damiens.rf on the Equality Mississippi article and mass nomination for deletions of ASE continues. I wasn't going to suggest it, but since Damiens.rf isn't letting up in this template harrassment, a "chill" block might be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi currently has twelve templates on it, mostly {ref} and {fact} tags. The reason it's only twelve is that several have been removed. It makes the article quite difficult to actually read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed three (two tags and a template). I figured it was more than 12 to be honest....but no matter what, it is far too many. One or two, we get the point....12 is overkill. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing tags, why don't you remove unsourced statements? --Damiens.rf 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of littering the page with tags, why don't you source the unsourced statements? It's obvious why, but it just needed to be said. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained back in May (when I unsuccessfully tried to fix the article without the use of tags), I didn't sourced the article myself because I couldn't find much information about that organization. But since we're at it, why don't you, as the creator and main editor, sourced the statements when writing the article? --Damiens.rf 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.sf did the right thing, and I would hope that more editors would do what is an unthankful task, that is, pointing out problem with articles and their sources, either by deleting content or by tagging problematic sections. Andrei Rublev (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A user can do the right thing, but if they do it in the wrong way it isn't helpful. Damiens.rf has been disruptive and antagonistic here. It's not okay. AniMate^draw 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AniMate puts it well. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask the tough question...what are we to do? Do we just let Damiens.rf run rampant over the article, make snide and sarcastic remarks on the talk pages and edit summaries (which has already upset one user) or do we do something....anything? Bad ideas included. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's antagonizing ASE and being disruptive. He doesn't care if Equality Mississippi is improved. It's all about proving some kind of point. He's not listening to any one's advice today and it's rather obvious a block is necessary. (P.S. the people having aneurysms over his redirects need to step away from the computer...slowly...) APK (If You Wanna) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then someone should block him, cause this is disruption at it's worst. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and I have had a negative editing experience going on, I'm guessing, about 3 months now - ever since he went on an image deletion rampage that I disagreed with. Since then he's targeted me in several place.. images I have uploaded, shortcut redirects to my user page and talk page (he's nommed 3 of them at Misc. for Deletion just today), the article being discussed here and others in which he's felt the need and trolling on my talk page. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that at least 1 of the 2 IP users in the thread just above this one, is him. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you write up a report with diffs to substantiate that? Agreeing with several posters above that the actions today are probably blockable. If this isn't a one-off then there's also a more serious problem. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the Mfds; "bad-faith nom by user with a grudge against ASE. If someone feels strongly, pls re-nom and I suggest an admin topic-ban Damiens.rf from the discussion. (NAC)". To expand on that point, I think it would be fine for someone else to re-nom the pages for deletion if they truly believe that they should be deleted, but given Damiens.rf's history with ASE the well was rather poisoned and didn't appear to be done in good faith. Should someone re-nom the pages, I think it would be a good idea for Damiens.rf to be topicbanned from the discussion in order to avoid further problems. I believe what I did was within the realm of non-admin discretion for closing XfD's, as the close would best be described as "Keep inasmuch as the nomination was pointy and continuing a grudge, but there may be a valid concern here which someone without a grudge could raise with far less drama and enabling of ongoing interpersonal conflicts." //roux   19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I boldly re-opened them. Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !votes there, let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Which you should not have done, as you had already voted in the discussion. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel there is a goodfaith basis for nominating them. As someone without a grudge against ASE, you are probably more able to evaluate fairly whether they should be deleted, unlike Damiens.rf. //roux   19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Early closing a discussion with lots of delete !votes disenfranchises those good faith editors who believe in the deletion. Just let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • (edit conflict)Fruit from the poisoned tree. And I suggest you re-read what I wrote above, as it seems you didn't; re-nominating the pages without Damiens.rf's involvement is better for the project as a whole and ensures that those editors who had already commented may do so again as they wish. But since I don't particularly feel like getting into an argument with someone who clearly didn't bother reading what I had to say, have at it. You're completely missing the point that the nominations were obviously and purely further fueling of an interpersonal grudge, and we should not be enabling that. Apparently you think we should be, which I find perplexing at best. //roux   19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That's not the point though, as I noted on the MfD page. I was once followed around by a pernicious little stalker here, but it turns out that one of the places where the boy blindly reverted my edits did have notability issues after all. The right issue can be raised by the wrong person sometimes. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Have faith that the closing admin will take the bad faith nom into account when they close. This is distracting from the larger problems. AniMate^draw 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Indeed...There also wasn't that much participation from the nom either and the nom statement was short and to the point. –xeno^talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Note that Allstarecho has already recreated P:ASTAR which was speedily deleted just hours ago. Dismissing all of Damien.rf's actions as bad faith misses a critical element of why this ended up here in the first place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am thouroughly disgusted by this discussion here and at Equality Mississippi. In protest I will stop editing here. There is really no point in writing well-sourced and neutral articles on topics I am not personally involved in. Admins are apparently not willing to take steps against editors who abuse Wikipedia by creating vanity articles on their own organisation, and then revert everyone who dares to point out problems with this article. Not to mention the numerous copyright violations.

I guess that fits in the broader picture where editors who create fake articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deudonic_War) and attack other editors ([1]) are only blocked for a week and not for good. Good luck in attracting good editors, when in fact everything you do is to try your best to keep the bad editors. Andrei Rublev (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is interested in retaining counterproductive editors. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I read through the previous ANI reports and each time the conclusion seems to have been that there were legitimate issues that were identified by Damien and that accusations of bad faith and other personal attacks were inappropriate. And here again, I see a lot of complaints in this discussion about his prolific use of fact tags (for example), but the alternative corrective action was simply to remove all the unsourced assertions. There is also a serious issue of COI and an ongoing problem of pushing and exceeding the limits of our policies for photos, copyright, etc.

I certainly understand the sensitivity felt when an editor sees their work subject to series of noms (it sucks when you're the one targeted). But I don't see any evidence of bad faith, and when there's a pattern of mistakes it shows up in the edit history, and sometimes another editor will investigate and take action.

Normally I'm a big supporter of editors going there separate ways, but in this case there does seem to be a number of problems that need to be addressed. That many of the articles involve politically sensitive issues should not be used as a cudgel to scare away good faith editors trying to appropriately enforce policies. If someone has a suggestion on a better way to handle the problems Damien has identified, they are free to suggest it. I certainly agree that delicacy hasn't been demonstrated in the handling of this matter, but Allstar hasn't responded with a high degree of civility and kid gloves either. I think we should focus on resolving the issues and sorting out which of the problems identified are legitimate and how to correct them, leaving the rest of the accusations out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have little positive interactions with Damiens.rf so will confine myself to making a generalized statement that others can take in as they please. I found their editing across a handful of biography articles and at least two list articles, all about murdered LGBT people - mostly transgender folks - chilling. The seemed to prefer deleting to sourcing and set about edit-warring even when sourcing was added. Even if they are making some valid points that sourcing is needed, content needs to be NPOV, etc. Making articles into battlegrounds and targeting any minority group seems like a really bad idea and makes editing sensistive subjects toxic. This is completely counter to civility policies. This is among the reasons editors burn out and leave and prosepctive editors turn away. In a volunteer community we should be quicker to find ways to work with others, not in opposition to them. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no interest in the subject matter itself, but admins should be aware that regardless of subject or editor, Damiens.rf has a long history of overly aggressive editing practices on Wikipedia. While his base intentions may be good (AGF, after all), his overall style is very hostile and disruptive. Why should this be allowed to continue?

Please consider these past incidents when making a decision on how best to resolve this issue:

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Radiopathy •talk• 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's one more to look at: [8]. (The result—"both editors warned"—was unfortunate, I thought, because Allstarecho had done nothing to warrant being warned, while Damiens.rf had been making the same disruptive edit repeatedly, not technically in violation of 3RR but certainly in violation of its spirit). That incident—wherein Damiens.rf six times in four days, against consensus and without discussion, removed an image he himself had just nominated for deletion for the second time—was my introduction to Damiens.rf. This behavior was accompanied by various other unhelpful edits to Violence against LGBT persons, including much tagging and deleting. The whole episode, which lasted several days, left a bad taste in my mouth because I had been actively working to improve the article at the time, including adding sources, and found it difficult to carry on in the face of such massive disruption.

Since that time, I've noticed a troubling pattern to his edits of articles on topics related to violence against LGBT persons, such as the murder of Fred Martinez. On May 12, he nominated the Martinez article for deletion. It was deleted (erroneously, in my opinion, since it was well-sourced and clearly notable), but what I found particularly disturbing was Damiens's conduct with regard to two related articles:

1. Shaun Murphy (murderer) was a simple redirect page to Fred Martinez. Technically, since it redirected to a deleted article, it may have been appropriate to delete it. However, Damiens's stated rationale on May 20 for speedy deletion was "Link accuses someone of murdered (sic) and redirects to deleted article." The inconvenient fact was that it didn't accuse someone of murder; it simply took as its title the name of a convicted murderer, namely the murderer of Fred Martinez. The Martinez article was properly sourced to show the fact of Murphy's conviction, so Damiens's apparent implication that there was a BLP issue was completely unfounded. I'm all for assuming good faith, and I do so every time I interact with others on Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine that Damiens thought that the page should be deleted because its title contained the word "murderer". Of course, the on-wiki evidence that Shaun Murphy was in fact a murderer had been conveniently deleted—due to the efforts of none other than Damiens. Circular logic at its weirdest.
2. Also on May 20, Damiens made an edit to LGBT movements in the United States removing Fred Martinez's name from a short list of bias-related murder victims, saying in his edit summary that he was "removing martinez since it was a normal crime" (my emphasis). Of course, it was anything but a "normal" crime—numerous reliable sources reported that Shaun Murphy bragged about killing a "faggot"—but again, the on-wiki evidence for that was conveniently erased by Damiens's own hand.

In helping to establish a pattern, it also may be worth noting that Damiens placed a notability tag on Murder_of_Amanda_Milan last fall, and said in the edit summary, "I think this crime was not notable outside local news and lgbt circles". This seems to imply that topics of concern in "LGBT circles" (whatever those may be) are somehow not worthy of article space on Wikipedia.

I have had no recent interactions with Damiens.rf and am not especially asking for mops to be wielded here, but I have been extremely troubled by these (and other) edits he made last month, and I thought it would be as well to bring them to light here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to establish a pattern, look at his block log. Once he has something in his sights, he's single-minded in his pursuit of the issue. Therein lies the problem. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of single-minded, here's something new to consider: [9]. On the plus side, Damiens.rf is opening a discussion on the talk page rather than simply tagging or deleting. Problem is, it concerns a late friend of Allstarecho (see Equality Mississippi#Founding). It strikes me as bad form, at the very least, to be singling out this one item while this ANI thread is open. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in the midst of an adversarial encounter with another editor, I'd stay well away from any articles relating to that other editor's off-wiki life. Rivertorch (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense that Damiens.rf completely disengage from that article and Allstarecho broadly construed? There seems little good coming of this and Damiens.rf, IMHO, gives every impression of baiting. I would feel a bit stressed if an editor who had been hounding me now wanted to work through the murder of a friend of mine. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm beyond stressed about it. Especially more to see he's now taken the fight to a whole nother article. Until Equality Mississippi's closing, we gave an annual award to honor him - The Jamie Ray Tolbert Equality Award. I just don't know how to source that he and I were friends, that I spent days on end driving around Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi looking for him/his vehicle, that I was on the local radio and news doing interviews through tears... I mean, I can't simply call beyond the grave and ask him for a written statement that we were friends. What I do know is his death is what propelled me to get off my ass and start a gay rights organization in a state that had none. I think that's notable. unfortunately, I have no way of sourcing our friendship other than the original Equality Mississippi web site when it had the full history of the organization. I'm currently culling through the now defunct site via archives at Archive.org. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, since you are using Archive.org, try looking on the local TV station websites of the stations you appeared on for a story link. They would have said in that story that you were his friend...and would be more than enough to source it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have and so far nothing. I've found actual pages that notate our friendship but there's the issue of self sourcing.. using the organization's web site as a source has been another complaint by Damiens.rf. See The March 15, 2000 entry here from 2002 and here from 2004. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Damiens has a history of using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia policy as a tool for bullying - it goes well beyond simple enforcement of Wikipedia ideals and is often rigidly (and contemptuously) targeted at one thing or person. Orderinchaos 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, I think they are good sources and regardless of if they came from a group you ran, I think they should be added....or at least let everyone decide if they should be added on the talk page for consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's new edit relates to the same incident that is being discussed on Equality Mississippi's talk page. Although I don't agree with the their method of doing things, I believe that they are actually well-intentioned. I was surprised to see that there is talk of banning them here, yet no one uninvolved has attempted to discuss the issue with them on their talk page. I have left them a note, but mediation certainly isn't my strength and I am, regrettably, involved in these issues now, so perhaps someone tactful and uninvolved would like to give it a shot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The thread at User talk:Neutralhomer#Summit only further tells me that Damiens.rf has an agenda here.. whether it's driven because of me (the history has been shown), gay rights in general (that history of him has been spoken of as well) or the subject of the article, I don't know.. but him saying, "Mississippi State LGBT Summit" is a pompous name, and gives the reader an impression that Equality Mississippi is important. does not bode well for assuming good faith with his intentions. Statements like that make it seem as if he's trying to gut the article and then eventually take it to AfD, his final shot at me. I may be over-reacting but that's how it looks when combined with our obvious negative history. Pompous name of the summit? That was the official name of the annual summit. Based on his reasoning, a gay person shoudln't call themselves "gay" because that would be pompous.- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a bit too long and complex for ANI. Suggest taking to user conduct RfC. With Delicious carbuncle's comments in mind, that would offer fair opportunity for feedback and adjustment if Damiens has been acting in good faith. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, we have a large number of editors pointing out a pattern of uncivil behaviour by Damiens.rf targeting and bullying other editors. Seems rather straightforward. That they tiptoe on the line of using policy to harass only suggests contempt for the spirit of civilty policies. We don't work oppositional against other editors we find ways to work with editors with whom we disagree and d so civilly. That Damiens.rf has driven away the main contributor there and seems to be tagrgetting them and we now push this issue away to user RfC which has a history of being toothless? Seems to condone wikibullying. Is that what we want? I would be content for the moment if Damiens.rf was compelled to disengage from ASE fully, and possibly put on cvivilty patrol to protect the next target, until a user RfC runs its course. While I don't personally advocate user RfC's in this case it may help to collect all this information in one place so it isn't editor X vs. Damiens.rf but the collective concern about behaviours which seem counter to collegial editing. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you took it upon yourself to prematurely archive the thread about Allstarecho and the glory hole image shenigans. I started that thread to demonstrate that it isn't simply a question of one editor, Damiens.rf, being disruptive, but of two difficult editors colliding. Both Damiens.rf and Allstarecho have been editing Equality Mississippi today, but only Damiens.rf seems to be attempting to discuss their edits on the talk page. That article is a mess, I believe in large part because of Allstarecho's personal involvement with the subject matter. There are some very, uh, novel interpretations of WP policies on the talk page like the idea that it's ok to use only self-sourcing for claims about third-parties, or the idea that WP:BLP doesn't apply to convicted murders, or the idea that it is unnecessary to source the assertion that something is a "hate crime", or that it is unnecessary to declare Allstarecho's COI as founder of the organisation. I think I've accidentally wandered into a corner of WP where different rules apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think it's time for you, as well, to step away because every time I've seen your name, it's had something to do with me or an article which I have edited. What is your own reason for defending Damiens.rf's actions, and lack of, ? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to scrutinize my actions in regards to that thread, which has only served to deflect from Damiens.rf's conduct, as well as anyone to visit that page and take in the spirit of collaboration being offered toward ASE. Their friend was abducted and murdered and pasrtly in response Equality Mississippi was founded. ASE was the executive director and instead of extending a wee bit of good faith that just maybe they know the history of their own group you and Damiens.rf are is hounding them. This seems the height of harassment. LGBT people are murdered in violent hate-crimes every week in the United States but Damiens.rf seems to want to do everything possible to mitigate that such events are on wikipedia, I find that distasteful no matter how you add it up. They really should disengage away from this article and likely ASE in general. Based on the comments above from quite a few editors the issue might not be a LGBT related issue, as I thought, but a general civility problem. Past ANI threads have apparently gone stale enough with no action. Perhaps it is time to address this ongoing issue with ASE just being the latest in a line of targets? -- Banjeboi 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I categorically reject any suggestion that I am "hounding" Allstarecho and I'd like you to strike that comment. While I don't agree with the aggressive methods used by Damiens.rf, I believe they are simply attempting to apply WP rules and guidelines. I don't think that this has anything whatsoever to do with LGBT-related issues or antipathy, but I haven't looked into their history. I don't believe I've had any interaction with them prior to a few days ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet your edit history shows you've had very little editing anywhere else but here, my talk page and in articles related since this all started a couple of days ago. I'd never even heard of you until a couple of days ago and you've been right there behind me every step I've taken since. Just saying... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it you're "just saying"? If you, too, are suggesting that I'm "hounding" you, please say so, rather than insinuate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the comment but your tacit support of Damiens.rf plus your introduction of the glory hole non-issue deflecting from these harassment concerns suggest you do have an interest here as well. I have had many experiences with both Allstarecho and Damiens.rf. I am more than sceptical when I encounter anything from Damiens.rf and see this entire case of highlighting an issue with Damiens.rf's behaviours toward other editors which suggest a net loss for teh project as a whole. I look forward to the day when I see their name pop-up and all I think is someone doing good editing. For the record your involvement causes me a bit of concern but would likely be irrelevant if not following in the wake of Damien.rf's conduct. If you had only posted the glory hole bit it would have been dismissed rather quickly. -- Banjeboi 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, contrary to what I said above about never even hearing of Delicious carbuncle, it seems we did have a difference of opinion back on May 15th where I did a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuvola and in which he undid my close, even though he had !voted in the discussion. Sorry for not remembering who he was. So indeed, it's even clearer now why the user is suddenly so interested in me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject

Is there any interest in addressing what seems to be Damiens.rf's Wikihounding of Allstarecho? If so what? -- Banjeboi 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Navin Shetty Brahmavar

Resolved

Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk · contribs) has uploaded over 100 images, claiming the majority of them to be their own work. They appear to come from a variety of different sources, some of which clearly were not made by the user. For instance, File:Kaaranjji main.jpg was clearly a film poster, while File:Dubai-cricket-studium.jpg (source listed as "UNKNOWN", but still claimed as own work) was taken from the air. My usual action in this sort of case is to leave a message asking the user to come clean- if they're honest, I delete the images they direct me to. If not, I delete all of the images, and probably block them. I have contacted the user, but they have not edited in the couple of days since, and I'd hate to leave a load of probable copyvios hanging around. Has anyone got any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Give a final warning on uploading copyrighted images (which I guess you have already done). Looking at File:Mantis logo.gif, it is clear that user has understanding of image policies and it is difficult to assume in good faith that the user is perhaps ill informed about the uploads. As for the images, it is quite obvious that most are copyvios. I think it would be appropriate to delete them right away. ^LeaveSleaves 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all this user's uploads should be assumed copyvios. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I agree, some are not my Images and but majority is mine. Will clean it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The images have been deleted, and a last warning has been issued. If any of them were genuine, people are welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcool35 and IP edits

• Rcool35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rcool35 and his/her multiple IP addresses are continuously making disruptive edits. They continually falsify album ratings by increasing the rating by .5. For example, here a few of Rcool35's edits: [10], [11], [12], [13]. The following are by multiple IPs, doing the exact same edits: IP 99.147.220.233: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]; IP 76.193.182.195: [20]; IP 76.197.240.99: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]; IP 76.197.249.241: [27], [28], [29], [30]; more recently, IP 76.193.187.229, among many, many others. It's probably best to indefinitely block Rcool5 and get some sort of a range block as well, or something to stop this deliberate disruptive behavior. — Σxplicit 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a range block would not work in this case.  :( -download ׀ sign! 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...but I do support the blocking of him and his socks. -download ׀ sign! 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, anyone? — Σxplicit 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for vandalism. This editor has only received one 24h block before, and their other contributions seem to be in good faith. I don't know what's best to do about the IPs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP problem continues to be persistent—just look at the edit histories at the articles he edits—specifically Hip Hop Is Dead and Nastradamus. Several IPs are continually falsify the album ratings, nearly everyday. I'd rather much be editing other articles than reverting the IP edits every time they come along. — Σxplicit 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakezing - enough is enough

User:Jakezing has been repeatedly goading User:Max Mux, who has had his behaviour discussed further up the page. As I understand it, Max and Jakezing interacted in articles related to Kosovo, and Jakezing has been following Max over to other articles to taunt him for his own amusement. here he gets involved in other areas Max works in, specifically the British peerage, despite having no activity in the area previously - obvious hounding. here he taunts max on his talkpage, here he seems to partly admit he's doing it just for fun, and he's been warned by multiple users that he's going to get blocked if he keeps it up. Despite this he's largely unconcerned, and doesn't seem to be taking the situation seriously. Based on his previous record (several blocks for personal attacks/harassment, including one indefinite one that was overturned based on promises of good behaviour) I'd like to push for an indefinite block for harassing users and treating WP like a battleground, and preferably a community ban as well. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block – highly unpleasant user, clearly harassing/bullying. That diff on Max's talkpage (much as I broadly agree with its content!) is completely out of line, while this, on my talkpage is just rather pathetic. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - After accusing me of violating WP:NPA because [Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. I told him he deserved to be blocked], I've understood this person has absolutely no idea what the word "mature" means. He's also denied baiting Max Mux with the aforementioned edit, citing his addition "as a reply." --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - Based upon the evidence i would say this is warranted. Making "Promises of good behaviour" to overturn an indef means that a user should improve his behaviour - Instead we see another 2 week block a mere three weeks after this incident. Statements like this and also this clearly show bad intent - man does not comment on a user like this if he or she feels some articles are bad. You come with examples then and start a discussion, and you certainly don't say "User XY makes article's we don't need". As noted in the unblock: "Last Change Unblock". I would say he already had his last change on the two week one. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per those above. It is not behaviour which assists with editing an encyclopaedia and merely compounds drama. Orderinchaos 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support (And therefore endorse Law's block) On its own, I'd think this is a bit of an overreaction but having looked at his block log, it appears he was given a last chance when he was last unblocked. He has clearly blown that. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment On my talk page, he pointed out [31] that he had also been indef'd (and later unblocked) as the user Cody6.[32] It turns out he was actually indef'd twice as Cody6 [33] and had been unblocked finally, but abandoned that account in favor of the Jakezing account, which was indef'd some months ago for basically the same behavior as today. So this guy has now been indef'd for the fourth time that we know of. I wonder if this one will stick? However, I have to admit that if someone repeatedly asks "Why don't you like me?", as Mux did of Jakezing, they're practically begging for an insulting response. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you're not an admin with an attitude like that. Jakezing had been goading him repeatedly, and Max is a foreign language speaker - from my experience (and after looking at the situation as a whole, which I'm forced to assume you haven't done) he meant simply "what is your problem with me" based on Jakezing repeatedly pestering and harassing him. That isn't "begging for an insult" - Jakezing is the one goading people, not Max. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good thing I'm not an admin, as I would probably hate the job. I am by no means apologizing for Jakezing. His comments about other users "annoying" him are part of what led to his previous block. And in any language, asking "Why don't you like me?" or "What is your problem with me?" is a leading question that's unlikely to result in a satisfactory answer. Jakezing should have responded with a list of some factual issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney and I both independently denied his request for unblock based on the promise that he would avoid all talk pages. Baseball_Bugs, thanks for that; note, though, that's it's really just one indef block; the second was just done to include a block summary for the first. Jakezing promised several times early this year that he could change if given the chance. I don't see much evidence that he is even better than he was. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops, you're right, it was really just one block, all done on Pearl Harbor Day in 2007. So it's three indef's overall. Cody6 is not currently blocked. The user says he created Jakezing because the Cod6 logon wouldn't work anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Three indefs, four indefs - at that point, does it really matter? I feel for him because he seems genuine but he's not been able to resolve the issues any of the other times he's seemed genuine. Hopefully its just immaturity and he'll be able to come back after a year or two and have things together. Shell ^babelfish 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think this is the first time I've seen someone so desperate to edit that they are asking for a topic ban from talk pages. That is obviously not appropriate, as it leads to "discussing" changes in the edit summaries instead, and I expect you know how that kind of thing can go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - no more wikidrama. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - How you do anything is how you do everything, and if that is the way he behaves then I say that we have totally no confidence in his contribution to wikipedia, in part or in whole. True or true? Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sockpuppet investigation seems a bit excessive, unless they're looking for additional "sleeper" socks. Otherwise, it should suffice to block the Cody6 account, which has been virtually inactive since the Jakezing account began. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block - User was previously blocked several times indef as noted, and although this user promises the behavior will cease. It never does. This user has had.. let me see here, 8 chances at being good, and he's failed every time. Block indef and be done with it, he's shown quite clearly he can't change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: 04:10, June 16, 2009 Law (talk | contribs) blocked Jakezing (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block – no, no, no, no. Harassment is disallowed on Wikipedia, and we shall not let it continue. —MC10|Sign here! 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Maurice27

Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing his long pattern of personal attacks here and here (note edit summary). He's been blocked quite a few times for similar offenses and I don't see the pattern changing. Given other problems including the edit war on Catalan people, and previous sanctions, I think we need additional eyes on this. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty nasty attack, but it was in response to a 3RR warning for a single revert. Granted, you can violate guidelines against edit warring without making 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he could argue that he was provoked here. Can someone else take a look and see if anything besides warning is necessary here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his page. I note that he didn't react to the 3RR warning, but instead instantly got inflamed for it being labeled "vandalism" (which, well, he was using an "rv" edit summary)... at any rate, I gave a warning against edit warring AND civility; we'll see what happens. Tan | 39 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned over there, I use "rv" for revert, and "rvv" for revert vandalism. And I seconded your warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good call Tanthalas; it looks like he's definitely in need of a breather but hopefully he can do that himself as opposed to needing a block. Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks for weighing in here. I'm not sure I understand Sarek's comment of only one revert. I see 1, 2, 3, 4, mostly on the 15th, but also on the 11th. This is in the context of a bigger edit war on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"one revert" was shorthand for "one revert within 24 hours".

• 20:14, 11 June 2009 UTC - 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 60 hours
• 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC - 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 3 hours
• 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC - 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC -- 28 hours
• 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC - 20:11, 15 June 2009 UTC (your warning) - 4 hours

Time since his second revert back -- 35 hours

Time since his third revert back -- 95 hours.

Hence, not a violation of 3RR, in the strict sense. WP:EDITWAR might apply, if you are correct that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. But 4 edits over 91 hours is not really something I'd stress about -- especially since Maurice had been working for consensus over the past few weeks, and thought it had finally been achieved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct - I perhaps should have used WP:EW instead of WP:3RR in my warning (now ammended). However this editor has been blocked a number of times for edit warring on catalan-related articles, so I believe the warning was highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was appropriate, and that he went way over the top in his response, but I can see why he did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank you Sarek for understanding my point. Now, I'll explain you my point of view...

I have been accused of "reverting vandalism" for this edit (RV is used) when there are lots of examples where I used RVV here or here. Toddst1 blocked me for claiming that, what this anon was doing was vandalism and I stopped doing it. An administrator SHOULD verify this cases before accusing and Toddst1 DIDN'T.

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because I've been the only one warned for the reason he claims when other editors in that article have used "RVV" to revert the anon (here or here). Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps warning me of breaking 3RR while the anon user is reverting as many times as me (here, here and here). Again, Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because meanwhile I have all the other editors backing me trying to protect the consensus reached, Toddst1 keeps focusing on me as "the uncivil editor who prevents anon users to express their opinion". I counted 37 reverts by anons since 2 May 2009... Who is the one breaking 3RR? Again, Why was I the only one warned?

I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because despite asking him for help semi-protecting the article against this anon user (who doesn't care about the consensus reached), he hasn't done anything! Other users have asked him to semi-preotect the article as proved here, here or here... What was Toddst1 short and careless answer to all these requests? "That's not vandalism."Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And finally I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps using my block log as a reason to accuse me. My last block occured 29 November 2007. That's a year and half!!! I consider it enough time to consider my log as "clean". Why doesn't he?

So, here we are, a bunch of defenseless editors who really discussed for days and weeks in order to find a consensus and a single anon user who is having fun blowing up everything, reverting us, not explaining in talk-page, with the complete permissivity of an administrator who just doesn't care about the sake of the article.

Toddst1 has proven today that he was observing and watching the Revision history of Catalan people. As soon as I came close to breaking 3RR, he jumped to my user-page to warn me. He didn't prevent the (close to) 40 reverts by the anon... Just like I was his only interest. He wants me blocked. Why hasn't he done anything to protect the article? Why hasn't he answered to the other editor's requests? Because he only wants to harrass me. Where is the Good Faith assuption? Where is the No personal attacks guideline? NOWHERE!

If you want to block me? I can only tell you all to go ahead! I believe that the sake of Wikipedia is far above us all and I keep believing that administrator Toddst1 has reacted negligently in this case and that he has abused of his administrator "power" with me. If he is not interested in protecting wikipedia, he should not be an administrator!

I, thank God, live in a free country and, when I see an injustice so flagrant, I don't remain silent. Thanks for reading.--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please shut this ridiculousness down? The only reason I even looked at the article was because of this request and the misrepresentation/NPA violations have gone far too long. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just told him to quit with the soapboxing and ACCUSEations and either file a neutral, well-ref'd RFC/U or drop it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly the kind of bickering that puts anybody off wikipedia and, therefore, this will be my one-hit wonder contribution and then I'll leave this sad bickering. But, if the truth be told, I think user Toddst1 should take a deep breath and honestly tell himself wether he is in this dispute with a clear mind or less so, not the least because he is an administrator and he is supposed to abide to some neutrality (and effectiveness, I'd dare to say) standards.

To put a little context, there was a dispute over the Catalan people article (in which I was not even participating at that point). On the one side there was Coentor and on the other Maurice, they were both discussing as politely as it gets about the content, while an anon who refused to discuss or even to articulate his point of view at the talk page, kept adding it at his own risk, absolutely disregarding the discussion going on at the talk page.

Then Todd came in, and, as an administrator, all he did was to block the page (more or less where the anon had left it, therefore olympically ignoring the two main articulated points of view at the talk page) and call for a consensus to be reached. Then he disappeared. That is much less than I would expect from an admin. but I guess it is correct anyway.

In the process, he had given Maurice a warning, while did absolutely nothing about the disturbing anon.

Then protection expired and, finally, a consensus has been reached between at least four editors (including the aforementioned Coentor, Maurice, Cnoguera and myself, all with quite diverse points of view, but willing to compromise in the end). Still, the anon keeps fighting his own war, while refusing to discuss whatsoever.

Now, next thing I hear about userToddst is when one of the parties involved in the consensus building asked him to semiprotect the page in order to block the disruptive anon, so that we can all move on. This is all Todd had to say in return [34]. And this is when an admin. starts to tread so low that you wonder what is the use of admins., if any.

So now it does get worrysome about his will to help the users who are discussing and building the very same consensus he asked for (before he left us in oblivion).

Todd, with all due respect, if all you are going to make is block a contested page in the version with the least support, then give dry replies to one of the civil users and, in the meantime, try to block a third user whom you dont like mostly his past record (including that message he left in your talk page one month ago)...I think a mere bot, not an admin. could do. If you are not going to be a part of the solution, try at least to not be a part of the problem, like when you keep endorsing (not with your words, but with your actions) the disrupting anon, like when you keep tracking the involved users bringing up past grudges.

A bot at least does not have revenge feelings or an ego to be vindicated. And it looks like whatever Maurice told you did sit bad with you and you are devoting your energies rather than in helping the article to improve, in getting one of the consensus-builders blocked, basically because of his past record elsewhere (and because he spoke less than nice to you once or twice).

Now, as I said, I won't be adding more about this. I have better stuff to do in wikipedia than arguing with strangers for the sake of arguing. In any case, Todd, I do hope that I can still sleep tight and walk through wikipedia's manors more or less carefree. In other words, I hope that you have not added me to your "to do" list now because of this post... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of admin abuse, misconduct or bias should be considered carefully

It might not be clear, so I will note that User:Mountolive is posting here in response to a talk page request by User:Maurice27. I will also note that the above accounts are incorrect in a couple of respects, e.g.

• the statement "My last block occured 29 November 2007. That's a year and half!!!" was missing the clarification "if you ignore my block of 10 May 2009..."
• the statement "he had given Maurice a warning, while did absolutely nothing about the disturbing anon" ignored the warning that User:Toddst1 did provide at User talk:81.44.100.87. When asked about this point, Mountolive stated that they are not interested in reconsidering their statement above.

Accusations of admin abuse, misconduct or bias should be considered carefully. They should not be blown out of proportion and used as the basis for the sort of polemic written above, apparently without regard to the truth. Clearly in hindsight Toddst1 could have been more willing to admit that his approach was not perfect. I think I've commented enough on the other parties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I state my claim. Todd did nothing in May regarding the anon. And this question started in May, when, however, he was keen to warn (actually I think he blocked) Maurice. But this question is making me yawn already and I promised not to post here again (unless I get misrepresented, like above).

By the way, I never accused him of admin abuse. You said that. Ciao. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some specific information. Neither yourself nor Maurice27 made it clear that your concerns were about events a month ago, and given that the original post was about recent events, I'm sure you can understand how readers have responded.

As for whether you are accusing Toddst1 of admin abuse per se, or of some other form of misconduct or bias, or simply wish to make vague accusations, I've expanded the section title to encompass what I think you meant by this is when an admin starts to tread so low that you wonder what is the use of admins and he is an administrator and he is supposed to abide to some [ ... ] standards et cetera.

You should also make sure you're aware of our policy on assuming good faith. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just think he made a poor job back then, but everybody can make mistakes, admins too (that is why I said that I guess it is ok what he did, and I think that suffices for my good faith assumption). In this June round, I have found him a bit too trigger happy with Maurice, while kinda loose with the anon.

But I do not wish to enter wikimisery, like when an administrator uses broad paint in his summary edits (or treads low, as you wish) when referring to my otherwise I think civil comments (with one of those summary edits I have few doubts that a user like, say, Maurice would get blocked). When I see those attitudes is when I just leave. I still intend this to be my last post here, I ask you guys to please don't refer to me in your comments if not really necessary. That way I can leave and devote my time to stuff so much more interesting. Ciao. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About my accusations, I believe I have already explained them clearly here above one by one, but if any admin has still doubts about my accusations or the content of them, I will gladly provide as many explanations as desired.

On the other hand, when Toddst1 opened this incident, he forgot to mention to you all that I did ask for help to administrators as early as May 9 at the administrators noticeboard. As you may see in the link, he closed the case only 2 hours later, preventing other administrators to take a look and blocked me for 2 weeks.

Since he was informed on May 9 until he gave the first warning to the anon on June 15 (that's 2 days ago), 6 weeks have passed. 6 weeks in which the anon has acted freely! Toddst1 hasn't done anything until I almost broke the 3RR 2 days ago. Instead than giving me (at the noticeboard) or us (at the talk-page) a pausible explanation of what to doas you (SheffieldSteel) just did, he just remained silent.

If, (as proven by the timings) administrator Toddst1 wasn't interested in solving this matter at Catalan people, he should not have closed my report in first place, leaving it to other administrators who could have solved this matter more than a month ago by just taking 5 minutes and explaining the editors involved what to do. I may have overreacted in my response to him, but I still believe he just didn't care (again, as proven by the timings) about helping us. And I'm sorry, but I still believe that if an admin who is contacted and asked for help, denies that help, he should not continue being one. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will also ask the admins if the comments describing Mountolive and myself written by administrator Toddst1 and linked by Mountolive here above as broad paint in his summary edits are so CLEARLY less offensive not to get administrator Toddst1 blocked without warning for a forthnight as he did to me because of my comments in his talk-page. My comments in his talk-page could also be described as "ill-considered comment" (link), and I DID get blocked without warning and was asked to assume good faith. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly clear to this reader that Todd's actions on this issue (i.e. since May) were being discussed, since diffs were given to that effect. So the two minor things you sought to clarify in the complaints are clarified. "without regard for the truth" my eye. Todd eventually says above re the most recent incident:

I perhaps should have used WP:EW instead of WP:3RR in my warning (now ammended[sic]).

Yes, perhaps. If you wanted to give any impression that you were acting in good faith and had a clue what you're doing, perhaps. Or perhaps you should have left alone the editors who were using the talk page to come to a consensus, so that they could continue to do just that.

I hope Toddst is not in the habit of pointing at 18 month old sanctions when labeling something a "repeat offense" in a block summary. And I hope this is not all a personal vendetta based on the talk page msg to him that he blocked for on May 10. Since the OP now wants someone to "shut this ridiculousness down", I suggest we close this, since ANI is not for suggesting admin actions require careful consideration (?). 86.44.30.176 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Several new users with similar pattern of creating nonsense redirects

I see that there are at least 3 new users creating redirects from unlikely search terms. First there is User:PinkKiwi239 with Wiki Challenge redirected to Kiwi Challenge, User:Pbskidz61 with Shit beetle to Dung beetle and several other redirects from unlikely search terms which are synonyms for feces [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40], and then there is User:Piroonangel14 with this, this, this, this, and this as well as a redirect from Fee to Fe [[41]. When I asked for an explanation on their talk pages, so far Piorangel14 has defended the redirects on the grounds "Some people still might use these search terms, though [42]." I would like to see a checkuser on these new accounts, and advice as to how much discretion they should have to continue creating such redirects from unlikely search terms. I will advise them of this posting. Please watch for other new users on a spree of possibly vandalistic redirect creation. Edison (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pbskidz61 pointed out on ,my talk page that this page is semiprotected so new accounts cannot post here. Seems like an odd way to do business, and it is unlikely that vandalizs here would long go unnoticed and would be dealt with efficiently. Is the semiprotection always there, and if so why? I suggested that Pbskidz61 could explain the odd redirects on his/her talk page as a stopgap. Edison (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This page was temporarily semiprotected due to vandalism. It is not currently protected. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An additional checkuser on User:Perdidymis13 as part of a possible sock farm might be in order given the addition of Feces on the Pupu page [43] and a vandal edit [44] to Peepee as well as other related vandal edits. Edison (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are,

• Pinkgirl941222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PkGry95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PinkRat34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PkGirly25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PGirly94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lawson.X. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pderdergal23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pinkgirl9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Perdidymis13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PinkKiwi239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piroonangel14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbskidz61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pachouvia38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Puppet master is ScienceGolfFanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to delete the redirects they have created which seem like unlikely search terms or unlikely misspellings? See [45] which has many consisting of variant spellings in all caps. Edison (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the pages edited by the above, also found similar edit pattern by User:PinkVan34: [46]. Edison (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been through the contributions of the above accounts and deleted many of the redirects (mostly as pure vandalism, some as implausible typos). If there are any left that should be nuked, tag or list at WP:RFD as appropriate. Bencherlite^Talk 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If ScienceGolfFanatic has created all these socks and disrupted Wikipedia, is a block or ban appropriate? I will notify the user of this discussion. Edison (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through pages vandalized by ScienceGolfFanatic, at Mucus found "booger" edit by SGF [47] and a similar edit earlier, on May 23, by Pepperroni57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [48]. Another sock? Too old for CU? Still, there is the "walks like a duck" test. Edison (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Pepperroni seems unrelated. Thatcher 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Icestorm815 has indefinitely blocked ScienceGolfFanatic and the confirmed socks. I agree with a ban. Edison (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm coming a bit late to this and I'm not sure if this comment will be noticed but I want to say that I think it's possible the SPI didn't get quite everything. I am the one who turned Peepee from a redirect into a dab page and I have it on my watchlist for that reason. When I saw the vandalism I figured it was just everyday potty humor. But for some reason I was curious and started looking around the user's contributions to see if there was more vandalism that needed to be reverted. I didn't find any, but I did find that the puppetmaster was ScienceGolfFan, who, by coincidence, I happened to have crossed paths with earlier. This user was originally named User:Dbacvdeifdgthoimjskflan, which is "Davidtomsfan" interlaced with an alphabetic sequence of letters. Remembering this reminded me of user:Ftuecwkasphaictk, which is User:Tewapack interlaced with "fuck" and "shit" in much the same way. I had stumbled upon this other user sometime earlier but noticed that he was already blocked and thought nothing of it, and did not tell Tewapack about this likely "attack" account. I'm bringing this up now because I think that it's possible that User:Ftuecwkasphaictk is yet another sockpuppet of User:ScienceGolfFanatic, even though it didn't turn up on the sockpuppet investigation. I have to assume that it didnt turn up because it might be using a different IP address. Even though this user is already blocked, I think it's possible that there are more users yet unnoticed who are using the IP of Ftuecwkasphaictk but not of ScienceGolfFan (if, indeed, they are different IPs.) Im not familiar with SPI, so it's possible that I am wrong about the IPs and it didnt turn up on the list because blocked users never do. Again, Ftuecwkasphaictk is already blocked, but there may be more sockpuppets and I just want to bring this to attention if it isnt already too late. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Ftuecwkasphaictk yesterday in the check, but since it was already blocked, it did not show up in my block log, which is where I got the above list from. Thatcher 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete the pages, please. Would an admin please delete the nonsense redirect pages, so we don't have to go through AFD for all of them? Thanks. Finell (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? As I said above, I deleted lots yesterday. If you think there are any I've missed, list them on my talk page and I'll either delete them as vandalism or implausible typos, or take them to WP:RFD (not AFD) if non-speedy-deletable-but-worthy-of-deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You can tag dubious redirects for speedy deletion, I would just use the generic template {{db|unlikely redirect created by indef banned vandal, see ANI}}, any that look legit will be kept by the patrolling admin. Thatcher 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by A.K.Nole

• A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive

A.K.Nole has been editing disruptively on the article Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which has been put up for deletion by me. At the discussion on WP:FTN, he has been causing further disruption. Then, seemingly in revenge, he incorrectly claimed on my talk page that my name is a copyright problem because Mathsci is copyrighted by the American Mathematical Society. He changed the redirect page accordingly for Mathsci. However the trade mark for the web version of Mathematical Reviews (MR) is MathSciNet. This has been in place on wikipedia for years now. This user is continuing to change the redirect. (It is true that the joint electronic database for the two AMS publications Mathematical Reviews and Current Mathematical Publications is called MathSci and that the earlier multidisc version of MR, now more or less outmoded, is called MathSci Disc.) He has edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information. He has edited wikipedia only for a short time, previously having shared an account abusively with two other users as The Wiki House (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has made very few edits, his main contribution seemingly has been to blank a sourced section of Simutronics. The remarks at my talk page [49] suggest that this user is up to no good. He seems to be harrassing me and I think he should be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. I have made no secret that I am a directeur de recherche in the CNRS, previously having been a tenured staff member in Cambridge University. where I lecture a term per year and am still a fellow of my former college. I do not like this harrassment or baiting by A.K.Nole which seems to be just to prove a WP:POINT. As far as I can tell he is a total non-expert on matters mathematical (I assume for example he has no access to mathscinet). He seems to be editing wikipedia to make my user name illegal, but, as a simple search on google will show, mathsci is used everywhere (e.g. for mathematical forums, mathematics departments, journals, etc). Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I reject these accusations, which are significantly inaccurate in many ways and largely unsupported.

I will address the principal complaint first. User:MathSci alleges that I have "edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information". This is one of the most serious accusations that could be levelled against a contributor and it is quite untrue. The database (as opposed to its web interface) is called MathSci, and has been since 1999 at least: its name MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society. It is available today under that name as an online service and a CD-ROM. I provided sources for all this here before making any article changes, here, here here and here. User:Mathsci actually admits this now, having previously denied it here here summary and here, the last of these being at this very section.

The sources I adduced, here, here, here and here come from the MathSci products publisher and its two principal vendors (current, not outmoded, one disc, one online). They include two of the three top Google hits for search term "Mathsci". Hence my initial concern.

Copyright was never mentioned by me. MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society, registered on 6 Feb 1990 (go to USPTO to verify). Is this a valid username?

Minor allegations:

Disruption at Jeremy Dunning-Davies -- not by me. There was a BRD cycle and discussion at the talk page. I proposed a third opinion and User:Mathsci duly took it to WP:FTN.

Disruption at WP:FTN -- not by me. I leave it to the community to visit that page and decide who was disruptive.

Shared account. A beginner's mistake, resolved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House. It is not true to call it abusive.

Blanked a sourced section of Simutronics. Not true, it was an unsourced section, see long discussion at the talk page.

"total non-expert on matters mathematical". Perhaps, though not as far as I know a crime. What I can do is to read the sources, and tell the difference between a database and a website.

User:Mathsci fails to mention leaving threats to have me blocked here, here and here. This farrago is clearly an attempt to put those threats into operation for having dared to disagree with him. I reject all the accusations and note that major assertions here are demonstrably untrue. I invite the community to decide. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that the only reason A.K.Nole is editing items related to "Mathsci" is to harass Mathsci (talk · contribs), following on a contentious dispute. This is stalking and shouldn't be tolerated. Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Stalking" is a real-world crime: I reject that accusation completely and call on you to withdraw it. You probably meant "wikistalking", now called "wikihounding" for that very reason: the facts are against that too. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find Mathsci's user name to be promotional, and I recommend that he ignore the comment about his user name that Nole left on his Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Mathsci should ignore Nole's comment, and I strongly suggest that Nole start ignoring Mathsci. And predicting the possible consequence of an editor's actions is not making threats. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to ask Mathsci (talk · contribs) to ignore an edit like this one. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of other matters, that edit is correct; mathSci is a database produced by the AMs, available not only on CDs but thru the DIALOG service [50] , and this name is much more widely known and has been for many years than the US high school. I think the disam p. is needed, but if it is used for any one thing, it should redirect to the Web Search service., not the school. If it is used for other specific organizations or sites as well, then a more elaborate disam p. is needed. I do not consider that edit harassment, and changing back to the Redirect was in my opinion wrong. Needless to say, there is no connection and User:Mathsci is not in the least a promotional username--it is a very widely used phrase. One can trademark even such a phrase when used in a particular context, as here. DGG (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit was inaccurate, because the database refers to two distinct publications as is clearly stated on the AMS website (MR and CMP). As DGG is a professional scientific librarian, he will know that mathematicians use the terms MathSciNet, mathscinet and Mathscinet in real life, not mathsci, Mathsci or MathSci. I certainly used the multidisc set in the early 90's in the Scientific Periodicals Library in Cambridge before the online catalogue became available. By adding "id=MR1217348" [i.e. id={{MathSciNet | id = 1217348}}] to the citation template, editors on WP can make a direct link to a mathscinet review in articles related to mathematics (this example is from Michael Atiyah), but not to the master database. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC cluebat needed

There's been a renewed bout of Greek-Albanian national edit-warring recently, which needs some treatment under WP:ARBMAC (the original). The main articles affected are currently Cham Albanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Souliotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as several location articles such as Gjirokastër (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The main participants are:

on the Albanian side

• I Pakapshem (talk · contribs)
• Sarandioti (talk · contribs)
• Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs)

on the Greek side

• Factuarius (talk · contribs)
• Xenovatis (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

My impression is that the main troublemakers are I Pakapshem and Sarandioti on the one side and Factuarius on the other: the aggressive edit-warring comes mostly from the two new Albanian users, while a lot of the tendentious editing that has been spurring the conflict has been the responsibility of Factuarius, with Balkanian`s word and the other Greek editors showing a somewhat more constructive approach. The whole situation needs ample use of the discretionary sanctions rule by somebody with a good solid cluebat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd help, but I'm afraid I'd get whopped by ArbCom's morningstar. Sorry. One ArbComm case is enough for me, and I sincerely apologize to both you and J.delanoy for the horrendous situation. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the disruption on location articles began recently, when Sarandioti burst on the scene and I Pakapshem soon after. These articles were more or less stable prior to that. These appear to be SPAs whose sole purpose is nationalist edit-warring. They have a battleground mentality, use ethnic insult and aggresively edit war. The level of disruption in recent days has become intolerable. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion as they dismiss any source I bring on spurious and endlessly repeat that wikipedia must only use official data. Evidence provided below:

Sarandioti (talk · contribs)

Edit warring: On June 16th alone, 3R on Cham Albanians, Souliotes

Incivility: [51], [52] (calling user "greko"), [53] (michael "white"), [54] ("nationalist claims"), [55], [56] ("your pseudo nationalism, typical dodging")

Battleground mentality: [57] ("..attempting to hellenise.."), [58] ("stop your nationalist lies"), [59] ("Greek source=POV source"), [60], [61], [62] ("Warm welcome")

Assumptions of bad faith: [63] (calling others edits "vandalizing"),[64] ("meat puppets"), [65] ("vandalising by Athenean"), [66] ("greek nationalist Athenean"), [67] (assuming User:Politis is "recruited")

Gaming the system, thinks he is entitled to 3R: [68], [69], [70]

Endlessly repeating the "OFFICIAL data" (sic) mantra: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]

Ignores sources or dismisses them on spurious grounds: [78], [79]

Falsely claims I wrote "majority" when I clearly wrote "minority": [80], [81]

Continuously threatening to "report" people: [82], [83], [84]

Canvassing (in Albanian) [85] ("Greeks are vandalising articles")

I Pakapshem (talk · contribs)

Edit-warring: 3R on Chams, Souliotes on June 16th alone

Incivility: [86] ("greek buddy"), [87] ("trolling around"), [88] ("trolling around"), [89]

Assuming bad faith: [90], [91] ("extreme nationalist POV pushers")

Battleground mentality: [92], [93]

Official data mantra: [94], [95]

Dismissing sources on spurious grounds: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]

Threatening to report people: [101]

Gaming the system mentality: [102]

Also worth noting is that I Pakapshem is likely a member [[103]] of this extremist nationalist organization: [104] ("Movement of National Rebirth").

In this thread User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Greece-Albania articles, some thoughts.,, I brought up the idea of having a round-table discussion to settle this matter between editors, but I am now convinced this will be impossible as long as these two editors are allowed to participate. --Athenean (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, an admin is ALREADY on this issue, check the talkpage of the article Cham Albanians, and stop accusing your fellow editors without even informing them for this. And please stop commenting others and issues you dont know, without their knowledge, that is totally impolite. --Sarandioti (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And Athenean stop recruiting other editors, to help you. The admin is already on the issue. And stop accusing other people without any point. You and your friends attacked the articles called them POV without even explaining why, and you expect your changes to be accepted? Of course not, they were reverted, and now an admin is on the issue. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You accuse us of things we never even implied. But lets se what Xenovatis, Factuarious and the other greek editors wrote: [105] [106] [107] And you actually try saying that we are the ones who cause the trouble and that we should be excluded from the discussion? You provided no proof, nothing at all, so why did you expect that your POV changes would be accepted? Anyway matter is already discussed with admin in [108] --Sarandioti (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At last the Souliotes article is under protection and no one can vandalise it or make POV additions. In Cham Albanians we are all discussing under mediation. All ok. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just found this thread courtesy of Athenean at Talk:Cham Albanians#Neutrality dispute; I am the "admin" who was dealing with this issue (although Sarandioti is partially mistaken) and am attempting some form of dispute resolution there. I have posted up my personal analysis and comments on the edit war that took place on the Cham Albanians article yesterday in that thread, in case anyone would wish to refer to or comment on it. Future Perfect has got things spot on, by the looks of things. haz (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Yannismarou dished out 48 hour blocks to each of the warriors, with an extra 24 for Balkanian's Word. Xenovatis was coming off a 24 hour block for 3rr - I had run into him for the first time - having returned after a 4 month wikibreak with a flurry of WP:battleground editing. But he's been around for 2 years, 5000 edits. Does this editor have a past, productive history? Jd2718 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Haz both for his mediation efforts and for his very careful and insightful analysis of what was going on (at Talk:Cham Albanians). This detailed documentation will provide any uninvolved administrator with easy reference and sufficient information to base sanction decisions on, should further intervention be necessary after Yannis' blocks expire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, persistent attempts at promotion

Psikxas (talk · contribs) has for the past six weeks or so been persistently trying to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable headlight bulb company called Kärheim. His initial attempt was a mainspace article, Karheim, which was speedy deleted for violation of NOTE and SOAP (with great difficulty; Psikxas & socks repeatedly removed SD notice — see SPI). Deleted article retrieved and moved by admin Jayron32 at Psikxas' request to his userspace. I objected at that time; no consensus for removal was reached. Psikxas moved the article text to his main userpage, which is its present location. Retrieving admin reiterated RS, CORP, and NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here.

Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas (where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).

Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as LAZER helmet (request for reinstatement here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned User_talk:Jayron32#Plagiarism.

I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university Aristotle_University? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.

Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.

As far the LAZER helmet you mention, again lying!! Didnt the article reported restored or not??See there my reply here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[109]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt? (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that "report" at [110] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. can you tell us, which is this 'different' brand? try to respect at least, if you dont respect me cause you dont know me of course, the whole academic society. If something is posted in auth.gr, what you would say? Does it belong to one of its members or not? anyone.

pls, with a simple google search, look what you can find from this domain, something very common in universities all over the world, they use their domain to upload ([111] :

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]
• [116]
• [117]
• [118] Every university has the control of its members, can we judge and conclude something different?

please review the WHOLE conv between me and the admin. Take the time. Maybe, have you seen this ? Consider with google search how many times this admin promotes other brand in many forums, consider how insane he became when it proved that he was wrong by Miscellany for deletionof the article, imagine why he tries by all means to take revenge. Why?

Try to find everything and then judge. Review some links i posted here, review the department of electrical engineering (by the way, how you concluded that the university has nothing to do with it?) What you think is better? Knowing nothing, or know the half truth and then judge? Maybe admin is true i dont use my english very well, but this is for or against because i cant defend they way i could? Someone else here though uses bery well the language, and easily could spread the half truth, isnt?

At the time, i marked my article that its under investigation. In the past, i stopped my contribution. This bad admin will not stop, if he could, he would have banned me already. Is this a coincidence that an article restored after deletion and stayed intact more than 2 weeks, that was marked for deletion AGAIN User_talk:Psikxas few minutes after the admin here started this issue? Of course, nothing happened...but this avoid me to offer in wikipedia, and the impression givven is that i only cause troubles. because of one only article, because of infos everyone can find by googling —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

• Oh, just to add..try not to believe anything they say to you. Because someone told "its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it)" ..have you checked both dates? where this admin refers too? cant you see that submission date is different?? a full year! not few days! year! Anyway...ill wait for some serious reply, not from someone so credulous pls...Psikxas (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Under review by Wikipedia"?

Yesterday, User:Debora999 removed maintenance templates from David Ferguson (impresario), with no edit summary and no attempts to fix the issues. I added them back (with a few others that I thought the article needed as well) and left the standard {{uw-tdel1}} message on her talk page. In response (among other replies) she wrote:

Hmmm... Ms. Smith, it seems there is only one place that a citation is needed. I think I can take care of that. What is the problem here? I've reviewed your activities here and it seems like you must have a personal issue with this individual. Are you aware that you're under review by Wikipedia for your activities? They've flagged your talk page. I'm pretty sure they suspect that you know this person and have a conflict of interest... --deb (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, keeping in mind that I haven't touched that article in over four months (due to getting fed up with SPA editors), that most of that article's citations are primary sources and/or sourced solely to the subject's own website, that Debora999 describes herself as "a newbie" and that she & I have never previously interacted, I'm ignoring most of that rant. But the last part? I have to think that it would be a good idea for someone—not me—to drop her a line about WP:AGF, at a minimum.

And while I shouldn't have to mention it, I'm happy to state for the record that I don't know Ferguson; so far as I know, I don't know anyone who knows Ferguson; and I've never had any dealings (professional or otherwise) with Ferguson himself or with any of his businesses or organizations. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody has misunderstood the idea of Editor review. – Toon^(talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought also, but that bit about "They've flagged your talk page" gave me the willies. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid future errors with the template {{Editor review}}, it could be helpful to alter the text from "is currently on editor review" to perhaps " has asked for an editor review" or "has requested an editor review".

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand "editor review" and I am a newbie. But why is this person so concerned with my editing on that particular page? I apologize if it sounded like a rant, but does someone follow you and revert your changes as well, especially when it was so insignificant to you personally? It's frustrating. Anyone from Wikipedia can look at my activities and see that I don't know what the heck I'm doing... sorry Ms. Smith, I forgot a signature, probably more as well. As for that "rant" I tried to delete it before it posted but hit the wrong button and saved it, as the record shows, and the time stamp, I immediately re-edited to remove it--it was simply not meant to be left behind. But, honestly... what IS the problem with that page? I honestly don't get it... I don't even understand why everyone is always arguing here. By the way, I did fix the citation problem on the page, so I'm then allowed to remove that template right? I'm not trying to pick any fights so no need to go to the mattresses... ok--I'm asking for advice here. Oh yeah, Ms. Smith, when I commented about what I thought was a flag on your talk page, I thought I was doing you a favor. Is that why you left me that message on my talk page that stated that I was "under investigation" by Wikipedia? You forgot to mention it was because you started this... I guess they'll let me know if I'm going to get spanked. How does anyone learn this stuff if there's always someone to smack us down for learning it? This is not an ownership situation is it? Are you in the article or a subject of it? If so, I'm sorry for picking on your page, I'm not trying to do anything malicious.deb (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, she didn't say "under investigation" i don't know where i got that from... but why does everything have to sound so freaking scary?deb (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The way most of us learn it is by using what we learned about research in high school and college, combining it with what we learned about working cooperatively with others from our parents and our employers, and supplementing that prior knowledge by reading Wikipedia's rules. Sometimes we mess up, and someone corrects us- then we go read the rule (most people make a habit of linking to them), learn it, and do better next time. Sometimes we get into real disagreements with other people, and we have to just go do something else until we are less angry. The first few months, we make a lot of mistakes, and learn a lot. Even when we've been around for a long time, we still mess up, get corrected, and get into disagreements. You could probably read the talk pages and talk archives of anyone in this conversation and see lots of examples of mistakes, corrections, disagreements, apologies, negotiations, and compromises. But writing the encyclopedia is something that anyone with good reading, writing, and interpersonal skills can learn to do well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About the problem with the article, as the template indicates, there are multiple issues with the article. You can follow the links given in it to find out more about the problems and how to solve them. Since this has already been disputed, I suggest you discuss on the article's talk page whether or not to remove the templates (after fixing the problems of course) and see what others think. As for the arguments here, that's kind of traditional :D Everyone here likes contributing to Wikipedia and are kind of attached to it so you get heated discussions and debates... but once we develop consensus on what to do, we can move on. It's not like we bear a grudge and keep going on about it. After the matter is resolved,learn from it and forget the rest. Chamal ^talk 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, one thing at a time:

• The sum total of what I've written on your talk page is {{uw-tdel1}} and {{ani}}. That's it. If you have an issue with the standard templates, then that's your issue with the standard templates.
• I didn't say anything about you having left off a signature, because I don't care.
• I strongly object to your saying that I "follow you and revert your changes." That's calling WP:Wikihounding, and I have not done that. I objected to one change you made, and when I edited the page I modified a few things (not just a reversion). That's it. An apology would be nice.
• The problem with the David Ferguson (impresario) article is just what I said above: too many SPA editors, and too few good citations. If you took out all the primary sources and the refs that link to Ferguson's own web site, then we might have a shot at a decent article. But try to do that and "Wham!" the flying SPA monkeys swoop in. Have you read through all the talk page archives?
• And once again, no, I am not in the article in any fashion whatsoever. I just hate having this kind of biased and made-up crud in any WP article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Something out of the topic, but if you are sure of SPAs at the article why don't you (and others editing it) do something about it? By your comment, it sounds like they are practically controlling the article. No one can improve an article under such conditions. Chamal ^talk 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You can deal with the single user accounts at WP:COI. Finell (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, being an SPA is not against any Wikipedia policies, nor does it (by itself) qualify an editor as having a COI. So long as the editors involved claim that they're COI-free and claim they have a NPOV, there's nothing to be done. Or so has been my experience; if someone has a recommendation or experience to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank Bruno's Laugh

Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that this user is engaged in a pattern of trolling and petty harassment. Please review his or her talkpage and contributions. At a minimum, he or she has started his editing career very much off on the wrong foot; very possibly, much worse. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and implementing whatever action he or she deems appropriate, whether it's a stern warning or an indefinite block. (In my limited inquiries, I have not found any evidence of socking, however.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, from my point of view. I made a few edits to the reference desk, somebody mentioned suicide, I posted to this board, by post was removed with the summary WP:DENY, I questioned this, Jehochman and I got into a bit of a debate about the way I was spoken to (which we resolved, amicably I believe), Ryulong also reverted me, I had the same discussion with him, he was IMO rude and dismissive, I raised this to him also, he continued to be dismissive and refused to answer, we had a bit of a debate, he was rude to me a bit, I was rude to him a bit, Frank started reverting my comments, I posted to Ryulong suggesting we never contact each other again, he then contacted me again in a rude manner, I responded in a rude manner, Frank reverted me, I asked Frank to review Ryulong's comments as well as mine, Frank told me that Ryulong was more experience than me. Then I got the note from Brad. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was getting the same impression as you, Brad...spends a disproportionate amount of time baiting Ryulong. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ecx2 with above) I had noticed FBL's behavior earlier, and held off on blocking for the time. Given the continued baiting, harassment, and refusal to disengage in the conflict, I have blocked indefinitely. Review is welcomed, and should consensus form against the block (or its being lessened), I need not be consulted first. ÷seresin 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, which took about a dime's worth of time to compose: I have followed this little bit of drama for a few days. Whatever prior opinion one may have of User:Ryulong, he is being attacked by User:Frank Bruno's Laugh. I direct you to:

• I find it laughable that you quote policies at me, when you have been found guilty by the community of flagrantly breaching policies and punished by having your powers removed. What moral authority do you think you can possibly have, when your reputation is in tatters? If I were you, I would learn to keep my mouth shut a bit more, rather than trying to moralise and stir up more problems.
• You are, in my opinion, a bully, and that a lot of people are unhappy with your conduct. I am not sure how long you got away with this, but it seems that your conduct has been noted by the community and that you have been dealt with.
• rm hypocritical comment - Ryulong was recently found guilty of appalling conduct and his conduct towards me has continued to be appalling (making attacks without been prepared to justify (edit summary).

This is all from a user with under 100 edits, zero of which are in article space. Note: We've had some interaction on this point; see my talk page, his talk page, or Ryulong's. FBL's trolling is disruptive to the project and harassing of a prolific article-space editor.  Frank  |  talk  23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor is currently requesting an unblock. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block based on the above links/quotes from Frank, and a look through their edits, R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty reasonable block to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Why do I always seem to stumble across these sorts of accounts. I was very suspicious of this account, and a few others who seem to be playing silly games at the reference desk. I believe there is a long term reference desk troll. Others know more about them than me. Is there anyone who remembers those incidents who'd care to enlighten us who the puppetmaster might be? Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DSTiamat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the other account that looks like it might be engaged in some sort of games. Perhaps checkuser to see if it's the same editor as Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Appears  Unrelated. (Yes, Newyorkbrad just ran a checkuser, and didn't blow up the wiki.) Thatcher has already blocked one sock, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Snappy Chappy (talk · contribs) was one of the two socks blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). That account was also fiddling with the reference desk. Who here remembers something about the reference desk troll? Who's the master account? Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • There have been several banned/indef blocked users using socks to screw around/troll on the reference desks in the time I've been contributing there. Light current (talk · contribs) and Freewayguy (talk · contribs) are two of the more memorable/persistent ones. Not sure if either one is involved here, though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I endorse it too. Seems like a wholly preventative block to me. I honestly wouldn't be suprised if a CheckUser turned up something interesting.--Koji† 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as well; disruption-only account. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block for all the same reasons mentioned by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request per their behaviour, and zero consensus for an unblock here. --Stephen 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question for the checkusers: Who else do we know who's had a history of attacking Ryulong and gloating over their loss of admin tools? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a riddle or a rhetorical question? I don't know, not being able to follow every bit of drama this place serves up. Other than the two accounts I blocked, there are no other identifiable current or recent sockpuppets. Are you asking for a recheck so you can use a more precise block template? I'm not sure there is much value in that. Thatcher 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's actually a multiple choice question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was originally targeted as harassment of Ryulong; as I recall, the question was posted elsewhere and FBL didn't like the answer from Ryulong, and that was the first interaction between the two.  Frank  |  talk  16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

)after e/c) Sorry if I was unclear there. I was actually trying to remember one specific user who was sanctioned for harassing Ryulong (I'm pretty sure, on reflection, that it was User:DougsTech), and I wondered whether a Checkuser might be able to find out whether this is a reincarnation. Apparently not, though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the history of User:TAway, another sockish account.[119] That page was railing on Ryulong, until the content was removed or deleted. The page was at MfD for a while. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Wuhwuzdat

Wuhwuzdat pushed, responded, gently advised Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)}} Sirs,

This gentleman has been very rude to me ever since I signed up for wikipedia, at first deleting everything I type, now searching me out and again threatening me. He has now used profanity.

The following threat was left on my talk page, I do not believe I have been a "bull in a china closet". Please Help

If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent postings have been deleted as well. I do believe you failed to take the hint when I told you to stay off my page previously, so let me put it in plain, ordinary RUDE English...FUCK OFF!!!!!! 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What part of FUCK OFF were you unable or unwilling to understand??? Feel free to answer me here, and NOT ON MY TALK PAGE! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This is the latest post:

Isn't this baiting?

Please helpDfwaviator (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you just frustrated the *&%# out of him by WP:Hounding him on his talk page after engaging in the edit war that got you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe Toddst1 has summarized the situation quite admirably. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Left Wuhwuzdat a note on his talk page (though he appears to have gotten here just fine without it) about losin' his cool. Should be the end of it, eh? lifebaka++ 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to put things in context, Dfwaviator omitted an important line when he quoted me above. In context, the quote should be: "If you stop bashing every other editor you meet here, you may find that Wikipedia can be a nice place. If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page." I was attempting to give him helpful advice. I shall refrain from trying to give this user any helpful advice in the future, as I feel he would continue his current course of disregarding anything I have said to him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The user posted an essay on his talk page: User_talk:Dfwaviator#Chip_on_the_shoulder..... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin/User:Toddst1 shows this as resolved, it is anything but, and far from being resolved. As noted by numerous other editors Admin/User: Toddst1 is known to abuse his admin privleges, and in this case is encouraging another editor (with aspirations of being an administrator) to abuse and attempt to turn people off to Wikipedia unless they conform, and submit to their ideas and opinions. The editor user"Wuhwuzdat is not afraid to use profanity, and is in clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time. He/she did the same thing a couple of weeks ago, dropping the "F" bomb on a talk page at me. I respectfully request that a neutral Administrator look into this, and read my other complaint on this talk page and see that I am, in fact in good faith trying to correct a very bad article, written in poor taste, with non-factual information, not to mention information from copyrighted sources and simply leave it with the corrected facts. Thank you in advance for your assistance, and time. Also, considering the nature of the WP:CIVIL violation by user:Wuhwuzdat, a bit of a rest might be in order, and would not be punative, but constructive to allow a bit of a cooling off period, and allow me to have a good faith opportunity to contribute without constant reverts an threats from this user (Wuhwuzdat). Again, thank you. Dfwaviator (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella redux

Warren Kinsella, the subject of every Canadian's favourite nexus of contentious Wikipedia editwarring, has now sent me a private e-mail accusing me of libel and requesting my name and address so he can "pursue this matter legally".

[ Private Email redacted - please don't post private email ]

I want to stress the following points:

1. At no time did I ever express any form of personal opinion about the subject whatsoever; my very limited involvement with the article has revolved entirely around enforcing WP:COI rules. I have attempted to communicate on the related talk pages — the article and the user talk pages of the anonymous IPs that he was using — that Kinsella was free to discuss his concerns with the article content on the article's talk page for resolution; however, this e-mail is the first response of any kind that I've ever received from him.
2. The current version of the article has previously been listed here for review and been found to be consistent with WP:BLP on more than one occasion. I feel the need to repeat that I have no "preferred" version of the article, and no interest in the subject whatsoever beyond my role as an administrator in ensuring that policy is followed. Accordingly, I have absolutely no objection to content being removed from the article by a neutral party if it's found to be a BLP violation — and, in fact, I'd be perfectly happy to see the article deleted outright, given that it's turning into more trouble than it's worth. But if Kinsella has concerns with the article's content, he needs to follow the proper procedures for resolving it, not vandalism coupled with legal threats.

So again, I need to ask: firstly, can somebody review whether or not the standing version of the article is consistent with BLP? And secondly, what, if anything, should I do about the legal threat apart from the obvious "don't answer his e-mail"? Bearcat (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't answer is really the best thing to do in this situation. Avoid giving up any kind of personal information through your interactions with him or elsewhere, and just ignore it. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ironholds; Never forward any personal information trough e-mails. While the e-mail does indeed seem to belong to her that does not in any way oblige you to submit personal information; this e-mail is in no jurisdiction a legal instrument to demand information. Hence, i would strongly advice against it.

Similary, does the e-mail refer to a wikipedia account? Par WP:NLT issuing legal threats, both on and of Wikipedia, is strictly forbidden. If there is a user account behind this mail it should be indefinitely blocked for violating that guideline. Also, par wikipedia guidelines the subject of an article can contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org at any time to inquire about libel issues; there is no need whatsoever to contact a single editor. Similary, threats should be handled by the wikipedia foundation lawyer. If the e-mail refers to a user its probally best to indef it with a notice towards the WP:NLT page. If not, i should advice you to ignore it altogether. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He's never edited under a user name, as far as I know, but only through two IP numbers — however, both IP numbers have previously declared themselves to be Kinsella. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll faking user pages

There's somebody with an odd trollish pattern of faking user and user talk pages. Look at these accounts:

• Shamusogrady (talk · contribs)
• Midvalleythehornfreak (talk · contribs)
• Jesusfreak4545 (talk · contribs)
• Catalepticcatholic (talk · contribs)
• Auburnqueen (talk · contribs)
• Thewordsicantsay (talk · contribs)
• Baitingqueen (talk · contribs)

All were recently created, all have only a handful of edits, mostly to their own user page; all have large user talk pages with multiple threads, but the content is all identical and was all mechanically copied over by themselves from an unrelated account, originally from User talk:Staecker/Archive 3, and all of them have user pages copying yet other (unrelated and legitimate) accounts. For instance, User:Shamusogrady copies User:Eskimojoes; User:Midvalleythehornfreak was copying User:Cplakidas, User:Jesusfreak4545 copies User:Neelix, and so on.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. Maybe CU could determine if there is one IP of origin. Viridae^Talk 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Elie plus

Aside from the constant edit warring and insertion of false information knowingly in Samir Geagea, User:Elie plus wrote "NTEKO", which means 'go fuck yourselves' in Arabic on User:Halayc's userpage (now deleted). Admin left him a message twice for an explanation here and here. 'Elie plus' disregarded both messages and kept editing, later using another account, User:LMshe. Stayplus12 (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the admin that has been attempting to get a response in the above matter, and would note that Elie plus has subsequently commented on my talkpage - noting that NTEKO is a username used by them on different websites. I have queried this response on their talkpage, as the word was used singularly on another editors userpage. I should be grateful if any Arabic speaking editor could confirm what this word means - if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor : A short rest may be required

This was brought to our attention in WP:WQA. I will give some background:

• An editor tagged an article that IvoShandor had created for CSD.
• Ivo removed the tag with the edit summary "this is total bullshit, take it to AFD".
• Ivo then removed all related notifications from his page with the edit summary "rmv trolling nonsense from asshole" (which is a painful place to keep nonsense).
• This edit where he calls another editor a "condescending twit", and then today this entire post with the summary "fuck you dick".

These are worth a series of escalating warnings (and I have given him a level 4). However, what concerns me is his reply when a WQA entry was filed: "Did I go a little overboard with the incivility? You bet. And honestly, if my vulgar language and uncivil behavior discourages destructive editors like yourself, then it is by far worth any consequences". Indeed, his posting on my talkpage after the warning a second ago also confirms he will drive off other editors. When an editors purpose of incivility is to dicourage participation, it is becoming disruptive to the project. As such, a little rest would not be punitive, it would be preventative of disruption and other attempts to dissuade editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Although past issues are not necessarily indicative of a pattern, you may wish to peruse this from the archives (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Block 72 hours - This is really ridiculous, and I mean, I flip out, but not to this regard. This is totally destructive and I feel really sorry for the user who fell victim to this (I read the WQA thread, and am keeping the username anonymous). I usually don't support bans or blocks, but this time, a cool down is necessary.Mitch/HC32 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A "cool down block"? Can't help thinking we have a policy about those... Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment To play devil's advocate here, an even better way to "drive off editors from the project" is to tag things with spurious CSDs and the like. We already have far too many non-contributing wikilawyers who because they find some legalese excuse as to why they can delete something, see it as an opportunity to delete something. Although I'm sure User:IvoShandor has a thick enough skin to not be bothered by this, we do repeatedly see situations where new editors see their first works bitten like this and then disappear forever (and a little guidance to them instead might have solved everything).

I can't excuse User:IvoShandor's lack of civility. That's a requirement here, we're expected to stick with it despite provocations and on the whole the project works better with that than without it. However I can certainly understand his frustrations and would hate to see this turn into a wikitarring where the CSD-tagging editor is exonerated as blameless, just because they have the talent to remain polite whilst they're being condescending. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also question why this is on AN/I and is thus presumedly considered to be a risk of damage to the project, rather than an etiquette issue (perhaps worthy of admonishment, but not risking the technical content in the way that vandalism and the like does). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict. ;Persomally I don't think a block would be anything but punative. This is an experianced user that just needs to take a step back and see he is going down the wrong road with his emotions. Is there any other occasions where the same attitude is displayed? That would warrent this charge of driving away editors? This looks like an isolated emotional flare up to me and would be better discussed back at WP:WQA (Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous occasion was a year and a half ago. Although it was for what looks like exactly the same attitude. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I tried to respond, but lost it in an EC I don't want to participate in this escalation, because it is essentially a moot point. A block would only be punitive, but if you feel like it will help then go ahead. I really feel like if this is a pattern for the editor I lashed out at then that editor shouldn't be around. Obviously I'm not going to drive anyone away with a few words behind a computer (which while harsh and mean) were simply words. If I made anyone sad or upset then I am sorry. I've never tried to drive anyone away (and don't think that any serious person would think that this editor is going to be driven away - if they are, thicker skin may be warranted), and like most of us have put up with my fair share of crap around here, not that I haven't dished some out too, but honestly I just call it how I see it. I still think the speedy tag was an uncool move (is it ok to say uncool in place d*ck), and yes I snapped off a little, but the self-righteous posturing of some people around here is really just too much sometimes. --IvoShandor (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere, here, Ivo. Politeness really does help, really. To some extent, yes, editors need to have the ability to brush off harsh words sent their way. The examples linked above, though, seem to go beyond what one should expect to have directed toward oneself in what is supposed to be a collaborative project. We're all working together here. Powers ^T 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Warn both I would say a block is a bit to much for this, on either side. The editor that placed the tag was clearly in error placing it, and from past experience i can tell that Ivo is not the only person who becomes... Annoyed with a wrong tag. That being said i do not agree with the exaggerated response, and i strongly disapprove of the general lack of understanding that this can indeed drive (Especially new) editors away.

Still, blocks should be a last resort. I would say that the tagger should get a warning for incorrect tags, and Ivo should get a warning about incivility - and both should stop bickering over this issue. Personally i believe that should solve it; no need to force a block here. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be escalating the situation to nominate the article for deletion? Right now, it appears to violate WP:DICDEF, but I suppose there is some potential for expansion? Powers ^T 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do - It wouldn't be at all helpful, but I can't wait to read your nomination for it. How can you possibly think that would be a useful way to act? Why are you even suggesting it? Your worthy comment, "We're all working together here." cannot be reconciled with such an action if you have the remotest appreciation of good faith. It's clearly necessary to remind you that "good faith" applies to other people too, not just your own lofty judgement, and that includes Ivo. I know his crime is terrible, and that one day we'll have eradicated the dread scourge of people creating articles here, but in the meantime how about having at least a shred of appreciation for those people who carry on the core business of the encyclopedia: content. A little reminder: articles are created because someone once considered that their content was worth recording. This is not a coconut-shy where one group writes content just so that another group can bask in the pleasure of demonstrating their vast understanding of almighty Policy and finding a way to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, maybe that's why I checked here first, Andy. All I meant was that had I encountered this article separately from this discussion, I likely would have sent it to AfD myself, or even speedily redirected it, per policy. (Unless perhaps if it was brand new (< 1 day old) or had numerous incoming links.) I admittedly should have checked the creation date before suggesting that an AfD may be in order. Powers ^T 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Calling somebody an "asshole" is not just incivility, it is a personal attack designed to drive the other editor away. Ivo, will you undertake not to repeat that? If the other editor is being disruptive, calmly report the matter and let somebody deal with it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I hate to dig up old ghosts, but there is a precedent here. IvoShandor, you need to put your temper behind you when you edit and before you press "save". More than a few times it's caused debacle, and there's only so much of it to be tolerated. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 07:27, 26 February 2007 (edit) (undo). In other words more then two years ago. This is not even relevant anymore - if you are going to complain about my CSD tagging, are you going to argue that my first month of tags was way over the top, even though that happened 1.5 years ago? If this behavior happened on regular basis i would agree with that diff, but unless i see something more recent i fail to see the merit of this. Snapping once every 2 years? Regrettable but tolerable i would say. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, that was simply the extreme case (and it was extreme). As I mentioned, it's happened quite a number of times. We can see evidence of that here. When a case this extreme exists, I don't think it unreasonable to point towards it in the face of similar conduct 2 years later. It's not irrelevant at all in that light. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • All the evidence i see so far is 1) Evidence over two years old. 2) Evidence generated within a few hour timespan. In fact i think we can count this as two counts of uncivil behavior within a two year timespan. Sure, there were more edits but in case someone gets fired up that happends; it rarely stays to a single edit. Also, do we really need to make a soapbox out of this and start trowing around blocks for a single incident? I completely agree we should keep it friendly around here, but we should not dramatize and scream block as soon as someone steps over the line once. Screaming block, after all, does not really help to establish a friendly atmosphere. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivo did say this..."If I made anyone sad or upset then I am sorry"' and he does appear to have calmly gone off to think about his actions. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

• Yes, and in looking through the short history of this little kerfuffle, Bwilkins comes out poorly as well. Condescension is no better than incivility. Unitanode 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? Where do I "come out poorly"? An incident is brought to WQA that I consider an extreme situation that possibly warrants admin intervention, and I'm the one coming out poorly? I have no horse in this race whatsoever, and escalated it properly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get carried away, this is basically incivility and dispute resolution between Fire 55 and IvoShandor and should go back to WP:WQA . I would say there is nothing to discuss here and move to close the thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I am glad to see this resolved amicably, I apologized personally to the user in question. As for Anonymous Dissident's comments, I addressed self-righteous posturing above, perhaps its something we (incl. myself) should all be cognizant of.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New user writing selfpromotional business articles.

I wasn't sure if this is the place to report but User talk:Redstonevt is editing and creating spam articles at Redstone Commercial Real Estate. my understanding is a block is in order until the isername is changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is Purely informational, and far less promotional than most other 'business' pages. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstonevt (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NB:User is warned of username policy and is at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Gsmgm (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Page was also a copyright violation of the linked source. :/ Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Has asked for a change of name. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has a new ID as Nathanlgordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is writing the same self-promotional stuff. I don't think he quite gets the point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he sure4 doesn't, He wants me to explain how his company is notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing I saved the info from the article before it got zapped the second time. I might need to use their services someday, and they are the market leader in full-service commercial real estate in Vermont. I know that's true, because they said so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, though, he was left with the impression that his username was the problem. That's not the problem, it's only a symptom. However, he has since been advised to read some policies. That's where the problem is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, he says he read them and his article was fine. We just need to research more and verify for him. see below "You recently deleted a page i created for a company, Redstone. You asked me to review the notability and spam guidelines, then promptly deleted the page. I reviewed said guidelines, and i believe the content is all there, and easily verifiable. If there is a better place to continue this discussion, please let me know." oh well hopefully he'll learn. I'm sending you a message on your page with a different question so be looking for it bugs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw. That's about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cemetery of the Holy Rood. Between that, and the above, and the below item, it seems Wednesday is now designated as "Push Your COI Day". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the original username was blocked as a WP:U violation. Shereth 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User has requested a deletion review of the article. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 17#redstone Commercial Real Estate. MuZemike 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User name blacklisted

!---slappdash---! (talk · contribs)

Not sure that ANI is the correct place for this, but here goes anyway. This user name appears to be blacklisted so that messages cannot be posted to the user's talk page. Kinda weird that the user name could be created, yet the user and talk pages cannot be edited. Obviously I cannot make the user aware of this discussion as I cannot edit their talk page... – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, an admin could create it, but really, they shouldn't have such a stupid username :p ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created it, but presumably they won't be able to create a user page either. Perhaps someone with more blacklist nouse could add an exception or something. – Toon^(talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question - can bangs cause any issues in page naming and/or template parsing? Or is it only ampersands in usernames that cause problems? //roux   16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't think exclamation points are a problem. We have a redirect page, !Three Amigos!, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam

This is an article of current interest. The Food and Drug Administration just ordered the manufacturer of Zicam to stop marketing it due to health hazards. This is supposedly a homeopathic remedy, and some pro-homeopathic editors keep trying to tone down the article, changing "Product withdrawn from sale after warning letter from Food and Drug Administration" to "Criticism", for example. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's certainly not homeopathic in the real definition of the word, since homeopathic remedies have the "active" ingredient diluted to undetectable levels. Zicam is a natural or "naturopathic" remedy maybe. Thatcher 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's more of a content issue. One editor continues to try to tone down the FDA warnings. I quoted the actual FDA warning letter, which can be summarized as "stop selling it immediately or else". The story is all over the mainstream press. --John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd wondered why Zicam had such strong defenders on Wikipedia. It may be because Rush Limbaugh endorses and is sponsored by Zicam.[120]. He defended Zicam and attacked the FDA on his radio show yesterday.[121] A new anon is now trying to tone down the FDA warning. Protection isn't necessary at the moment, but please watch for the next few days. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg

This article was created on January 24, 2007 by User:Fiddy2 which identified himself as the subject of the article or his brother, Gregg. It is obvious from the comments made on the talk page that he continued to edit until blocked as User:Arric, User:Danerunsalot, User:Runnerguy, and User:Revertedlesbo, making edits that misstate facts and place his "fiddy2" project is its most favorable light. In April and May 2008, User:Fish and karate conducted a mediation which resulted in a version that did a lot to remove the POV and COI elements of the article. The article has remained stable until April 1, 2009, when the following IP addresses started to make edits and leave messages on the talk page that have details that only Dane Rauschenberg could know:

75.169.94.36	Salt Lake City Utah
198.36.194.3	Qwest - CONCOURSE COMMUNICATIONS
70.192.118.79	West Linn, Oregon
75.169.58.50	Sandy, Utah
75.169.89.100
198.202.202.21	Denver International Airport
12.105.229.198	San Diego, CA - a day after Dane ran a marathon there

The location data are consistent with the travels that Mr. Rauschenberg discusses on his blog.

The problem is that instead of confining the article to past verifiable events, which was mostly resolved by the mediation, these IP editors seek to "plug" Mr. Rauschenberg's new book and an upcoming race that he is organizing in August 2009. Ordinarily, including a new book by the subject of an article would be appropriate for inclusion, but this book is not listed on amazon.com, and the publishing house has only produced two titles, this being one of them. There are no reviews of the book in the mainstream media, and it has all of the trappings of a vanity press situation where Mr. Rauschenberg is the main vendor of his book inventory. (He sells it on his website and sells books at marathon expos.)

A group of editors have been working to keep the article COI-free, but they have been distracted by incivil talk page comments from User:Alansohn (who has not made edits to the article itself since the mediation.)

I am planning to back away for a couple of weeks to let things cool down, but I am concerned that Mr. Rauschenberg, through various IP addresses, continues to use the article as his personal Facebook page. Good luck. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket has been involved in a multi-year war relating to the article for Dane Rauschenberg. I don't know who he is and have no opinion for or against the article's subject, but I saw the article at AfD, voted to keep, and then tried to sort through two warring pro- and anti-Rauschenberg factions that have been involved in the article. I have been through the article ensuring that all material is backed by reliable and verifiable sources, including articles about Rauschenberg and his 52-marathon effort from such sources as The Washington Post here, Sports Illustrated here, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette here and on National Public Radio here, all of which published reports on Rauschenberg, before, during and after his year-long effort. The coverage is independent and in-depth. User:Racepacket doesn't think so and has edit warred for years to get the article deleted. He has already been caught as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (deleted due to "privacy concerns" related to allegations of physical threats), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, showing votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket is awaiting checkuser, with overwhelming evidence showing that User:66.173.140.100 is used by User:Racepacket as one of several "bad hand" accounts to make attack edits on the Rauschenberg article, its talk page and several other articles. Racepacket and his sockpuppets have made several allegations that Rauschenberg will physically assault him and appears to have some sort of personal connection with and grudge against Rauschenberg that he perpetuates using sockpuppets. A very lengthy block or ban of Racepacket will at least deal with half of the problem. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Obivously, I disagree with the above. There is a big difference between removing COI, unverifiable self-serving content and seeking to delete an entire article. The question here is what to do about a series of IP editors that know offhand whether Rauschenberg was selling books at the San Diego Marathon expo and other details about his life. Those editors do not want to live with the results of a mediation and do not want an objective verifiable article. In any event, there is no need for incivility. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wish that there was some credibility in the claim of being a crusading COI fighter, but the sad fact is that the whole Racepacket family of sockpuppets has been devoted to pushing the POV that Rauschenberg is not notable (despite consensus at AfD even with extensive votestacking) and claims that sources are not reliable (despite clear evidence that the articles are all about him and written independently in major national publications). From your collective descriptions about the article's subject, it is clear that you know and have some sort of contact with him and that this conflict of interest has led you to try to get even with him somehow through this article through a whole range of sockpuppets. Years ago I opened a sockpuppet report which resulted in eight blocks from all the COI factions, both pro- and anti-Rauschenburg. Racepacket has been caught multiple times using sockpuppets with and without usernames, and this is unfortunately continuing despite multiple blocks. It's hard to accept that someone who is so devoted to defaming an individual and abusing Wikipedia policy could claim that other people are being "uncivil". Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because Racepacket has a prior 1 week block for sockpupperty, and has clearly been editing while logged out to try and avoid scrutiny to his edits, blocked for 10 days.
• Racepacket is further banned from making any edits to Dane Rauschenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for 3 months, under any user name or IP, to be enforced by a one month block and a reset of the 3 month ban timer should he violate the ban. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
• Dane Rauschenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will be semi-protected for 3 months to prevent logged-out editing by any parties, including Racepacket and associates of Mr. Rauschenberg. Editors who wish to contribute to the article are invited to create an account, provided they respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Thatcher 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny_Spasm

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 hours for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Johnny_Spasm is continuously reverting a factual, sourced item in the Everlast page, despite repeated warnings. His reasons are 'Will the real slim shady please cut it out.' He has been warned several times and has ignored all warnings, saying he should have called me 'Stan' instead of 'Slim' only, and not addressing the issue. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time that this IP has been engaged in edit-warring on this article; IP is also currently edit-warring on Ghost Hunters. IP can't get his way, so he calls for the banhammer and reports Johnny Spasm to AIV and now here. MuZemike 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't until his 4th revert that he bothered adding a lyrics link to make it a "sourced item". Blocked for 3 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

deletion of sourced info

Resolved

 – No admin action required now. I'll watch this article and it's talk page. Sancho 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&diff=296998174&oldid=296994828 Compare my edit to his, I had added several sources and documented info about his lebanese descent and that he may have been born in Greece. He removed all my sourced material and added his own made up text, when I asked him on the talkpage he replyed: "You're welcome to purchase the book and read it" he added a link to amazon.com where no one can see the text inside as a source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Background reading: User talk:98.194.124.102, User talk:Xeno#Hello, I need help –xeno^talk 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness had, earlier today, deleted my own sourced information, based on Omar Sharif's own autobigraphy, The Eternal Male, and replaced it with unreliable websites and an obscure book without proper referencing. SD used that obscure book to argue that Omar Sharif "may have been born in Greece". In the original source that SD had deleted, The Eternal Male, on page 39, Omar Sharif states that he was born in Alexandria, Egypt.

I do not have to photocopy the pages of the book for SD's viewing. The Amazon link shows the book's proper referencing information including title, authors, ISBN, etc. It is up to SD to purchase the book and read it.

SD used the same reference, the obscure book, to destroy also earlier today another article I had spent hours building, Stephan Rosti, to prove that he was Hungarian. Previously, SD had used IMDB to prove that Stephan Rosti was Italian.! SD has done the same with the Soad Hosny article. SD is clearly going around Wikipedia making changes against everyone Egyptian.

This arguably racist and vandalizing behavior by SD needs to be brought to an end. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

• As I said elsewhere, I think mediation would be ideal here... One of you should file a request at WP:MEDCAB. As for the article, if there's two reliable sources, you could mention both and note the discrepancy. –xeno^talk 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you (Supreme and 98.194..) please enter discussion with each other on the article's talk page and do not continue this edit war. This requires no administrator action. Continued edit warring by either side may result in a block. Sancho 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of AfD template against WP:GD

Resolved

 – User warned against further removal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User Moshe-paz was warned [122] that deleting the AfD template is against WP policy. I reinstated the template and adviced him that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup is the right place to voice his views on the deletion proposal. However, he continues to remove the template [123] despite being aware that it is not the way to go. It's crucial that an admin. talk to him as he seems think that my actions are a personal vendetta against his edits. Likeminas (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Symonds

I'm not sure how best to bring this up, but http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24914&view=findpost&p=178988 does it best. Basically, someone has created a hoax article about me. I've seen the article - reverted vandalism on it - but never read it properly. It contains a lot of half-truths about my life, none of which I particularly want spread about while I'm NN. I remember reverting vandalism on this article, but I certainly didn't create it or involve myself in its creation. I've read the history, and I would very much like it oversighted - but not before anyone who wants to has read the article, as I don't want to be seen as hiding things. It seems to be an amalgamation of myself, the wildlife artist of the same name, and a deceased civil servant. I know Yeanold Viskeretc in real life, but he's not normally someone who would do something like this, I didn't think.

In short - help! I've done nothing wrong but I'm frightened of what's going on on WR. Am I going to lose my adminship? Advice needed, as well as someone uninvolved to oversight the old versions! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You will be fine. Contact oversight for removal of the appropriate revisions. Love the username btw. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User Krakatoa edit warring on Bobby Fischer and mislabeling edits

This editor has twice mislabeled his edits within a short time frame despite warnings that mislabeling edits is disruptive.

He is also engaging in edit warring on the Bobby Fischer article despite encouragements by other users to reach a consensus before adding material, I ask that this user be blocked for his disruptive behavior.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not deliberately mislabelled any edits. (Note that 194x144x90x118 cites no examples.) I did mistakenly refer to a revert of one of 194x144x90x118's edits as being a revert of an "anon" because I thought "194x144x90x118|194x144x90x118" was his IP address. I later realized that it was not, but was in fact his handle. This was an honest, and I believe inconsequential, mistake on my part. As for edit warring, 194x144x90x118, not I, is the one guilty of that. As you can see

here, in the space of less than 9.5 hours 194x144x90x118 has made the same revert to Bobby Fischer (reverting first Philcha, then Brittle heaven, then me). This is a flagrant violation of WP:3RR.

Philcha, Brittle heaven, and I have all civilly and rationally addressed this dispute on the Talk page for the article. 194x144x90x118 is now the only one arguing his/her side of the issue. He/she has responded in an abusive and profane manner, keeps repeating the same points, and has made no effort to reach consensus. Here are some sample quotes from 194x144x90x118:

"If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?"

"If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic."

"Let me also say, I aint no expert on Fischer either, I did however have the honor of meeting the man and having a short conversation with him and I like many other people am a pretty good judge of character, hatefull bigoted people Do in fact exist but Fischer wasn't one of those people by a long shot, he may dislike certain things regarding Jewish culture and Jewish politics but he obviously didn't give a fuck if your great granddad was a jew or not cause how exactly would he have lived with himself if he did?" Krakatoa (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like Krakatoa was mistaken about me being an anon he is also mistaken about me having violated any 3rr rule since that rule states "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." As well as some other things but I'll repeat "more than three reverts" and he and the other stooges are also extremely wrong about that edit of his belonging on Wikipedia. He has twice mislabeled his edits, is engaging in edit warring instead of trying to reach a consensus and making false accusations. This user needs to be blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the 3RR rule, which is violated only by more than three reverts in 24 hours. 194x144x90x118 made three reverts in 9.5 hours, but has not violated this rule. My apologies. 194x144x90x118's reference to Philcha, Brittle heaven, and I as "stooges" is a further example of his abusive remarks, which violate WP:CIVIL. Krakatoa (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see these diffs 1! and 2! they show the disruptive behavior of editing a previous edit that has already been replied to, thereby making the discussion harder to follow. And also disrupting the timeline of this ANI thread.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The administrator User:Hiberniantears has reverted and protected the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This in my opinion appears to be a violation of WP:PREFER.The administrator has reverted to a version that is four months old. Regular editors to the article had worked to build a consensus over the last four months, and within one day it has been reverted. A thread was posted on the fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. But user who posted this thread, Dbachmann, didn't make any notification on the Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. So to our surprise, all of a sudden we have users reverting to a four month old version without even discussing on the talk page. [124]. I believe that such type of editing is inflammatory. We have not had edit warring on this article for two months and it has been resurrected by users who are not willing to reach a compromise and gain consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AGF, Wapondaponda. I am uninvolved in this article, and took action based only on my review of the thread at the Fringe Theories board, the ArbCom case, and the article history. I was operating off what I found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, which led me to restore the version I reverted to as it appeared approximate to the version mentioned in the case which Moreschi put in place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article. It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous response, quite honestly. What you would have seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is clear evidence that Dbachmann is an over-opinionated editor who has been sanctioned previously for making disruptive edits, including to this very article. Moreschi has not been involved in this article for a long time, and if you had read the Moreschi version you would have seen that it is seriously incomplete and in fact contains numerous tags calling for more info - which your protection now blocks us from adding. If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding Dbachmann's damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. Wdford (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is any claim of consensus. You seem to misinterpret a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The article has for months been an example of WP:SYN and not so subtle POV-pushing. Good action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good action, because you know very well that protection is just temporary. There were no problems on the article until Dbachmann showed up. Of course WP:CCC applies to any article, but Dbachmann, just posted comments on the talk page and made unilateral decisions about content. There are several editors who don't and won't agree with this. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Dbachmann "showed up" 4 years before the first edit ever to the current article, so your comment probably refers to some recent event. And if you think the article was fine in this version, you are very wrong. That article is not about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it is refighting it. It's full of original arguments and WP:SYN. It does contain very few sources about the controversy, but is a collection of otherwise unrelated facts that support one side or the other in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I felt the article was quite comprehensive. I didn't agree with everything, but that is the essence of compromise. If anyone wanted to know anything about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, it was found in that version. The current version is just a topic on Afrocentrism. A topic on which many contributors have little interest in. Furthermore, many reliable sources deal with the topic of the race of the Ancient Egyptians, in the same manner as the consensus version. The facts remain that there is a content dispute and there are ways to deal with content disputes, discussion and consensus building. Going behind the backs of other editors to get a particular version protected is somewhat disingenuous. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is weird here is that an administrator reverts then protects a page! What kind of neutrality is that? I can understand if the administrator wants to protect (I may disagree, but I understand). But I fail to understand why the administrator reverts! --Lanternix (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, I'll accept your justification for your actions however what your actions resulted in was fulfilling a deliberate attempt by Dbachmann to sabotage months of work by other editors on this page. I recommend that the user Dbachmann be permanently banned from the article and that it be unlocked so that we can continue to build on and refine an article that was showing alot of progress. AncientObserver (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the action by Hiberniantears to prevent this article being hijacked by POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned multiple times

I have warned user 75.176.78.4 repeatedly about the content removal. Track record of removing the same content on Adam Stenavich.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The only content I see that 75.176.78.4 (talk · contribs) has removed is this, this, and this. There is obviously no need for this report to this page, but if he insists on removing the content, you can always report him to WP:AIV. His/her recent edits seem to be OK though. -download ׀ sign! 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:RegistrarHistorian

I'm an employee of Dotster, Inc. and I'd like to bring to your attention the user RegistrarHistorian. This user's edits and contributionsto various Domain Registrar sites has been intentionally negatively biased against Dotster. This user originally created a Dotster Wiki page that has since been deleted, and I'm not aware of what the content was, but apparently it was deserving of deletion. Since that time, the user has continued to make negatively biased or false edits about Dotster. Examples include an unnecessary comparison of GoDaddy and Dotster on the Godaddy page that is factually inaccurate (this user has since included a graph to accompany the statement, an edit on the Network Solutions page that, while truthful, does not add to that page, and most recently changed the List of Domain Name Registrars page to move Dotster from its proper spot to the bottom of the list with (service suspended). As for that last part, I don't even know what exactly that means, but it's certainly not true as we're still operating and not suspended.

As a Dotster employee I don't want to be editing these pages and have a conflict of interest, but it appears that this user is specifically targeting Dotster with negative information. I started a discussion on the GoDaddy talk page suggesting that the page be modified to remove the Dotster comparison completely, but I think unless the user is dealt with the issue won't be resolved. Thank you! --Dotsterrep (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look, though I'd love a second opinion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and concur with Dotsterrep, though note that his username violates policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that people have been backing off from that policy recently, the the grounds that it is better for a COI to be explicit than hidden.

What part of WP:U does this user name violate? Shereth 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops, I realize you are referring to the OP and not the subject of this thread, in which case you are correct. Shereth 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize my username violates policy. I'd be happy to change it if you'd point me to what needs changing. --Dotsterrep (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User names should not include company names or otherwise indicate that it is a "role account" - see WP:U for details. You can visit WP:CHU to request a name that meets the policy - thank you for your understanding. Shereth 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits do seem to focus on negative info about this organisation, plus none of the ones I looked at were sourced at all. I'd be interested to hear Historian's take on it. – Toon^(talk) 21:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu signature RFC/U

A RFC/U has been started regarding Docu's refusal to use a normal signature. Please comment there if you wish. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Serbia edit war

There's an edit war occurring on Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether to include a map that shows Kosovo (which declared independence about 18 months ago) in a different colour from Serbia or as part of the same country. Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WCIU-TV edit war

There's an edit war occuring on WCIU-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over a new digital channel called That TV. Could some involved administrator please take a look? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Needed to Salt a Couple Articles.

Resolved

 – User blocked, pages salted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plucker678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plucker678 has recreated several articles today that had been speedy deleted. The user has repeatedly removed the CSD tags placed on the pages and has vandalized a couple templates (Template:NYC Morning Drive and Template:New York Radio) as well. I have warned the user and taken this to AIV, but the pages need to be deleted and salted, something I can't do. Please help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Fl has blocked Plucker678 indef and salted the articles. Quick! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor mistakenly altering many birth/death cats

User:Johnpacklambert has again begun altering birth and death cats for hundreds of individuals, putting in specific birth or death year cats for individuals whose years of birth or death are unknown. See User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Please_stop for an earlier incidence of such behavior. Please ask this person to stop, and to roll back his mistaken edits. We are an encyclopedia, and if we have specific birth or death year cats for individuals whose years of birth or death are unknown, it undermines our credibility. Thank you for your attention to this. Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User_adding_thousands_of_many_improper_possibly_incorrect_year_of_birth_cats. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 abuse of Adminsitrator privleges

Resolved

 – User:Dfwaviator blocked 48 hours for continued incivility. MuZemike 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Toddst1, I believe blocked me in bad faith. I would like to also point out that he is encouraging user Wuhwuzdat by giving him more privleges aimed at blocking users. The article I have been attempting to correct has glaring errors, and erroneous information that directly conflicts the facts in the NTSB report, and quotes copyrighted material from a newspaper article, that was written from the point of view of an unverified witness (WP:POV). The cemetery listed on the article does not exist under the name that is published, and is in a different city that published. The article lists attendees at the funeral that could only be verified by referencing the guest register from the funeral, or getting a notarized statement from someone who attended the service. The only record of attendees is not verified, and comes from copyrighted newspaper and magazine articles.

Admin Toddst1 shows the issue of user Wuhwuzdat using profanity, the "F" word, two different times as resolved. This administrator is friendly with this user, which in my opinon makes him unable to be objective, and is a bit of a conflict of interest in this case. The administrators have only joked with this user about it, (with the exception of one who just said "don't do it again" and have not seriously addressed the issue. Please, someone do something about this.Dfwaviator (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sake. Any more of this bullshit, I'm gonna block the user myself. One good read through his talk page tells you everything you need to know about his ability to work in a collaborative atmosphere. I think WP:COMPETENCE applies here. Tan | 39 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You like to use your user talk page as a blog and a soapbox, I see—both against WP:TALK, of course. Troll, much? MuZemike 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just warned him to stop commenting on other editors, or be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Blocked 48h for continued incivility. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Swancookie and buzznet generally

User:Swancookie, who had not edited for 10 months, reappeared Tuesday and reopened a set of edit wars regarding several minor league celebrities associated with buzznet.com and Clint Catalyst. Between Tuesday's and today's edits, User:Swancookie has:

• violated 3RR on the article Jessicka
• reinserted an obvious copyvio/imdb cut-and-paste on Christian Hejnal [125]
• reinserted an conspicuously inaccurate, obviously unsourced "discography" listing Hejnal as performing on all the releases by bands with which Hejnal was ever affiliated, even when he had no involvement in the releases [126]
• reinserted various BLP-violating texts where the sourcing is either conspicuously unreliable or the text does not match the sourcing [127] (blog sourced criticism of ex=boyfriend for supposedly copycatting his public image); [128] (similar issues)
• repeatedly reinserted various promotional quotations from consipicuously unreliable sources (including a Wikipedia mirror, an obvious fan-site, and a music retail site (emusic.com) -- the last being flagrantly inappropriate, since the quotation isn't even found on the emusic page, nor is any mention of the musician involved) [129] [130]

and on and on . . .

To cap these efforts, User:Swancookie then posted an attack on his/her talk page impugning the good faith of three users/admins, "Rickey, Big Daddy or Bali" who had been involved in resolving editing disputes on the Clint Catalyst and now-deleted Lenora Claire articles. two members of the same community of self-promoting would-be celebrities. "Rickey" is User:Ricky81682; "Big Daddy" is User:Bigdaddy1981, and "Bali" is User:Bali_ultimate. (There's also an attack on me, of course -- actually more than one.) The user then added a "helpme" template accompanied by a not so terribly subtle insinuation that the three other editors/admins and I were acting out of anti-"LGBT" bias, which, given the complete absence of any basis for the claim, should be treated as a major civility violation [131].

I don't think it's an accident that Swancookie's activities today follow in the wake of attacks by various anons and SPAs on those of us who've been trying to clean up a surprisingly large walled garden of mutual/self-promotion -- note, for example, the attacks on Bali ultimate by User:Fairness Is A virtue and the particularly nasty attacks on Ricky81682 by User:POVbattler. There's been a fair amount of sockpuppeting in this dispute, which has been going on since early April. It's virtually a trademark of the other side in this dispute to accuse everyone who tries to clean up this rat's nest of bias and COI, but, as every uninvolved editor who's commented has noted, the claims have been made in the complete and absolute absence of any supporting evidence.

Cleaning up BLP problems is one of Wikipedia's more thankless tasks (just check out my talk page, I still take flak for an edit that Jimbo Wales said I might well have been thanked for). And removing BLP-violating promotional material is an easy way to become a target, as these disputes and the Clint Catalyst affaire make clear. (Even though removing BLP-violating material, including RS-violating promotional material, is exempt from 3RR restrictions, I try to stick to the 3RR/24hr standard to avoid opening unnecessary avenues for disputes, although I occasionally slip from that timeline, like I may have tonight. But Swancookie's edits included copyvios and clear non-promotional BLP violations, which called for an immediate response.)

Therefore, given all of the above, I'm asking for a (standard-length) block on Swancookie for edit warring/3RR, BLP/RS violations, and the implied personal attacks on the three editors/admins not directly involved in tonight's dispute, attacks which were particularly uncalled for.

I'd also like to see some wider discussion of the underlying issues regarding the problems coming from buzznet. Buzznet is a social networking site that encourages feral narcissists, and its standard page templates encourage its users to use Wikipedia to promote themselves and their friends. For examples, note on this page [132], under the "Promote Clint Catalyst" headline, the link to Catalyst's "WikiPedia" page (towards the lower right); similarly here [133] (Lenora Claire) and here [134] (Jared Gold) and here [135] (Jessicka) . I stumbled into this mess a few months back by removing inappropriate external links from one buzznetter's article, and I've been harassed by partisans recruited through that site ever since -- as have the admins and other editors who became involved in resolving that dispute, and followups. We need to stop this nonsense before buzznet makes MyWikiBiz and other sorts of paid editing look benign. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to not get into a long defensive diatribe here. There's a lot to say but I'd like to stay on topic. First and foremost neither article I edited has anything to do with Buzznet. The whole Buzznet tangent User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the articles I am editing. Neither Jessicka or Christian even have Buzznet accounts, I checked. I'm sorry but even mentioning Buzznet in this case is grasping at straws. There's no promoting of "Clint Catayst" either - the sections I was editing do not even mention that person.

"a music retail site (emusic.com)" The section is not a retail site it's a music review section. [136] removing section as I see the Scarling. review is not there. I will replace when it's re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swancookie (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a LGBT friendly editor/ admin. had nothing to do with you. I was going to ask them about something completely different. Is killing two birds with one stone against policy??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swancookie (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All I am doing is re-adding sections that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz blanked when they clearly had proper references. I left some of his edits as they did make sense but re-added sections that I thought necessary with proper references .

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as well versed to wikipidian policy as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz but I am trying to strengthen articles not vandalism them in any way. Why call for a block? It's this type of behavior that is exacerbating some weird us against them mentality. New users are being bullied and talked down to by editors' like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and some other editors who are very condescending and unhelpful.

I have not been recruited by anybody. I had worked on some these articles before and noticed some sections needed references. I also discovered that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was spending a lot of time on certain articles and their edits were very aggressive. I investigated further by reading some of the comments made by other editors and decided to be bold an help edit. I was immediately scolded by this editor and now he is asking for a block just because we don't see eye to eye?

I did not personally attack anybody. All I asked is is to have an neutral administrator who was not one of the ones I mentioned as I believe that are all a little to close to this subject, might have a bias after dealing with other editors, and are not as patient with newer users as some other administrators might be.

I think you'll see the articles Jessicka & Christian Hejnal meet wiki standards. I am waiting for one reference link to be re-uploaded within the next 48 hours. [137] The rest of the reference links are solid. I in no way deserve a block because I don't agree with this very aggressive editor. Swancookie (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't edited the article in months, how can you have an issue with me? I haven't touched the other articles unless your issue is that I've messed with your work at Clint Catalyst from last August. Assuming good faith seems like an unclear concept to you. Just state what your issue is and we can discuss it. Also, before any admin listens to the COI complaints, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz for our most recent round of accusations. Wanting reliable sources and keeping the article in accordance with WP:BLP is NOT a COI problem. This kind of stuff is why we have a COI problem, and the fact that it comes directly from the people who are the subjects of the article is just the kind of intimidation we really should not be having here. I've received emails from someone claiming to be one of the BLPs at issue and it's all the same kind of speculation that Hullaballoo and everyone who disagrees with adding details about his amazing beautiful wedding speeches and the like are all out to personally get him, because of some nefarious secret personal COI. I've noticed you've readded the name-dropping of who attended the wedding again at Jessicka here, along with a mountain of other content. I suggest someone semi-protect (or even fully protect) all those pages and we can start the cleaning process yet again. This kind of nonsense needs to end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this nonsense needs to end. I don't have an issue with you. I just wanted an admin. with a clear head/clean slate on this topic. I've read all of the nonsense, it's easily accessible. You don't need to edit an article to know what's going on. Please see my reasons above of why I wanted a new neutral party. I have no recourse here as you are an admin. and I'm just an editor. There's no reason to semi protect these articles as I'm not vandalizing them. I really think you are overreacting and making an example of me because you are frustrated with this situation. Swancookie (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again: what is your issue with me that you want a "neutral" admin around? You cannot just go around saying you need someone new to review and not at least answer that question. So what exactly is going on that concerns you? You may as well respond here as anyone else is going to ask the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note that if you have a specific discussion on a talk page, you can always ask for third opinion. That might be more useful than simply asking for an outsider to get involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord

SallyFord (talk · contribs) is proving to be a contentious editor on many articles since her first edit in February 2009. First she shows up to the article of an anime podcast, Anime Pulse, calling for its deletion. While at first her edits were reasonable. Based on this statement where she makes some remarks about how Internet Archive Way Back Machine is unsuitable for a reference, she states that she hosts a rival podcast.[138] As time when on, she became more hostile towards the article, including removing content [139] and later adding a term to describe the podcast's hosts that could be taken as derogatory towards the hosts,[140][141], and removing references.[142][143]

She then moved on to other articles where she has repeatedly edit warred over content, including Amber MacArthur[144][145][146][147][148][149], People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[150][151][152][153]3RR, and more recently on Honey in the Rock,[154][155][156][157]3RR warning, and Naruto Uzumaki.[158][159][160][161]3RR warning[162][163][164][165][166]

SallyFord also has made several comments and edit summaries that are hostile towards other editors she disagrees with and even several personal attacks. (Calling another editor's writing "shitty", civility warning. Calling another editor a "chicken butt", NPA warning. Declaring another editor has a COI without any evidence. Reasserting COI claim after the other editor refuted it. Reasserted COI claim after a second editor refuted it. Claims that the other editors are gaining up on her and referencing a mysterious "UpDog" policy. Claiming other editors are on power trips for opposing her edits, second reference to "UpDog" policy which she claims is a Wikipedia policy. Third reference to mysterious "UpDog" policy) --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you need a tissue. Cry much? Can I say that? Or a personal opinion is not allowed? Every edit I made has been refuted aggressively for no reason and I'm the guilty one? If anything, I was only retaliating from bullying from power tripping editors. If I can't make a simple edit without some miffed editor and his/her buddy unnecessarily cracking down on legit edits then there is something definitely wrong with Wikipedia. Just because you don't agree with an edit does not mean it is vandalism or an attack on you and you have to call in all your friends to threaten me. I did not call another editor a "chicken butt", it was a joke I heard that I pleasantly shared. And as far as hostility, let's review your hostility with me first. If I were you, I would withdraw these accusations unless you're squeaky clean yourself. And believe me you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything you just said is incivil. Please address what Farix has stated above: the diffs, the edit summary, your messages, and whatnots. And I do not see any thing wrong with Wikipedia right now. Piece of advise, do not compound your problem with judgment error. ax (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You really need to tone down the personal attacks, Sally. You're skating along the edge of block-on-sight, and I say that as someone who has never even edited a page that you have, besides this one. No "you need a tissue", "shitty writing", or anything like that. Got it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it? Is this a threat? Please enough with the threats. Personal opinion does not equal incivil. I can't voice a personal opinion here? The reviewer just has to review Farx history to see the personal attacks against me - very simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is an indelible division between personal opinion versus insinuation and incivility. Secondly, you should have known by now the distinction between warning and threat. You have been warned on your talk pages several times using Wikipedia's warning template, the one that is used to every editor, and what we said above is not a threat. ax (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I second TheFarix's summary. Her edit warring was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎#User:SallyFord reported by User:Collectonian (Result: more info) but as she technically has not done 4 reverts on the exact same issue, the report appears to be going no where (and the issues are expanding beyond just edit warring). Despite this new discussion, she has also continued edit warring at Naruto and using continued "snarky"-style edit summaries, such as "fixed some stuff. Please don't be offended" and "added a space. I hope this edit is okay and not offensive. Please let me know." Her responses here are typical of the responses received in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Need third opinion where the issue of her edits at Anime Pulse were first brought to wider consensus. For some reason, she also continues to refuse to sign any posts in discussions, despite numerous requests on her talk page to do so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord apparently feels the need to hunt through the contribs and user pages those who disagree with her and attempt to vandalize and/or nitpick articles they work on. With the start of this thread, she began introducing factual errors to Blood+, an article noted on my user page as one I've worked on. It has been reverted three times, twice by myself, once by another editor, and she has received appropriate warnings, but continues ignoring them.[167] She has received through level 4 now, and still reverting[168][169] to a false version. As this thread would preclude an AIV warning, I've requested page protection, but this continued disruptiveness needs to be stopped, please. As noted above, this is the same disturbing behavior she displayed with TheFarix. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As Collectonian said above, SallyFord is now knowingly violating 3RR (currently at 5RR) after having been warned less than 24 hours ago not to violate the policy, all on an article she hadn't touched before Collectonian's report above. She seems to be trying to make a point here, and should be probably given a few hours to think it over. Dayewalker (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sally did the same thing at Honey in the Rock, which is why I originally called her contentious editing there as "retaliatory". The only reason she went to that article was because I have it listed on my userpage as and article I created. And this right after I reverted her edit removing reference on Anime Pulse and speedy tag on Geeknights. --(not quite in bed yet) Farix (Talk) 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked SallyFord for 24 hours for edit warring at Blood+ (5 reverts before engaging at the talk page, followed by a 6th revert). I'm off to bed, so if consensus emerges to unblock any admin may feel free. –xeno^talk 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Note that Collectonian has made about 5 reverts as well, technically edit warring, but if this was borne of wikistalking as the above claims then a block may not be appropriate. I don't have the energy to figure that out so would hopefully another admin can take a look and decide. –xeno^talk 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My 5 cents, if the edit is considered vandalism, i.e. giving misinformation, a revert is warranted. Cartoon Network is being changed to Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, which is not politically correct because the latter is not a channel but a programming block. There is a concensus a long time ago that Cartoon Network is to be used. Ow, have a nice sleep Xeno! ax (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I'll decline to place a block on Collectonian but would advise them that they were treading close to the line - though, since SF was edit warring to introduce a red-link, it could arguably be considered vandalism. The stalking allegation is also a mitigating factor. –xeno^talk 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Xeno. It looks to me like an account that thrives on conflict and disruption, and who was more than willing to get in trouble if she was able to take other editors with her. For what it's worth, I was also trying to revert SF's edits and get her to stop and talk, but Collectonian beat me to it every time. I didn't want to say anything on C's talk page for fear of feeding the Ts. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Advisement noted, and yes, I was considering it vandalism since it was a factual error and red linking. In other places she was making less than helpful edits, I avoided 3RR despite her edit warring, since she wasn't vandalizing just being contentious and annoying. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• KrebMarkt's opinion: Sorry to join this late this discussion. I'm in France. I concur with Farix & Collectionian. As the discussion in Manga/Anime project went to nowhere [170], i don't feel restrained anymore to revert any dubious SallyFord (talk · contribs)'s edits. I won't call her an editor because she didn't prove herself as one so i would call her an user. As most grievances were already reported here, i want to emphasize That user repeated refusal to face her responsibility. She would either ignore other users comments or dodge the issue like she did it again here. That user modus operandis is to gnaw articles she doesn't like by adding unverified and/or orginal research information (Honey in the Rock), slanderous edit (Anime Pulse), reference blanking (Anime Pulse), abuse of CSD (Anime Pulse & Honey in the Rock). If someone doesn't like an article, he can send it to Afd however writing Afd is to much a bother for That user who prefer to undermine those article. That user has also the habit to hold grudge toward editors who opposed or contested her edits so it is warranted for those editors to stay alert for retaliation strikes. I personally view the series of disruptive edits in Naruto Uzumaki as the retaliation of Farix bringing her bad attitude issue to WP:ANIME discussion. When her power of nuisance waned in that article, she switched to Blood+. Keeping an eye on That user activity as a pure act of protection for the articles targeted by her retaliations. I really doubt That user can be reasoned all we can do is to have her restrained and put on watch. --KrebMarkt 06:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider abusing warning process

user:Storm Riderhas serious issues with the West Ridge Academy article. Every time I make an [171]edit], user:Storm Rider immediately [172]reverts] my edit and posts [173]warnings] on my talk page for edit waring. user:Storm Rider even had me [174]blocked] for this, even though I was simply editing the article the same way he was. I contested the block, but by the time I did my ban had already lifted so no one looked into the allegations I have made about Storm Rider. I am requesting that it be reviewed at this time. When I warned this editor about their own violations of Wikipedia policy, the warnings were [175]deleted] and I was banned.

I feel like this issue is more about religion than the accuracy of the article. I was being bullied by user:Storm Rider and I requested [176]mediation] for that reason. The mediation has not been granted, and user:Storm Rider still is dominating the voice of the article, even though user:Storm Rider has very [177] [178]serious] POV issues. I have [179]attempted] to reach a consensus and bring the debate to the talk page, but it is not working. The editor has teamed up with an employee of the subject of the article and not only sought to have me removed from editing completely, but have [180]started using personal insults] and attacks both on the [181]talk page] and on [182]my talk page]. The user has taunted me with warnings of being banned, and quite frankly I am afraid he will be able to do so if I do not get an administrator to step in. There are [183]multiple warnings] from this editor on my talk page - they are bullying, abusive, unwarranted, and need to stop. Please help. --DoyleCB (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley chose to block you for 24 hours. That was his decision so you cannot blame Storm Rider for following the warning templates and requesting that you get blocked. It was a separate decision by the admin. Just glancing at your first diff, what's wrong here? You removed an uncited claim, he added a source for it. If that's a revert to you that's concerning, you aren't going to get sympathy here. Is there something wrong with the sources? Do you now want to remove the sourced statement? Why? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want it removed. I thought I was cleaning up the article by removing a citation needed box. He added it back and I am fine with the edit. I have a problem with two things. First is the bullying and abuse of reporting practices. When I make an edit it is reverted by Storm Rider, and I issue a warning template the warnings are removed and Storm Rider reports me for abusing the reporting process or for reverting edits if I attempt to change them back. I don't understand why Storm Rider is not subject to the same rules I am. Or why I am unable to report him. Second, his strong COI and neutrality issues. He has taken ownership of the article and has threatened or been uncivil to anyone with a challenging perspective. It's nothing short of harassment. --DoyleCB (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A review of Talk:West Ridge Academy and User Talk:DoyleCB shows a long pattern of extremely disruptive editing, against a consensus of half-a-dozen editors, with no sign of getting a clue even after a 24 hr block. In my opinion this calls for a lengthy block or a topic ban from anything relating to West Ridge Academy. Looie496 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images on user page

User:Mabuhelwa is using several fair use images (logos for AIM, Skype, etc.) decoratively in an infobox on his user page. I removed them with an explanation as to why here, he restored them without comment here, I once again removed them and repeated my reasoning here, and the user once again restored them with no explanation here. Can an admin intervene? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them and left him a message on his user talk page, providing some possible alternates. As far as I'm aware, 3RR would not be applied to removing fair use images from outside of the article space. Perhaps in the future you should try to leave the user a message on his talk page as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Croats

78.3.245.128 (talk · contribs) and 78.3.240.245 (talk · contribs) (likely the same person) have been removing from the article lead the part that says that Croats are South Slavic people. Their editing seems to be continuation of last-night addition of fringe theories [184] mentioning "Iranian theory" and "Gothic theory" of Croatian origin which have been discredited in scientific literature for ages, and still being discussed only in some nationalist circles. IP has been given full set of warning templates but doesn't seem to be eager to discuss their changes first at the talkpage before engaging into contentious edits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with expertise in Portals and categories

Gregbard (talk · contribs) has recently created at least two new portals, Portal:Social and political philosophy and Portal:Philosophy/Subportals and is busy changing and adding categories at a very rapid rate. His justification is at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I found him at Uniformitarianism (science) where his edits were twice reverted by two different editors when he tried to rewrite the lead to make it fall in line with his pov on science and philosophy. Another editor has expressed a bit of unhappiness on his talk page. I'm concerned that he is making a very large number of changes in a very short period of time that may be problematical. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The "portals" and "theories" are two unrelated activities. I invite any questions about either of them. Does anyone have a particular complain other than "Uniformitarianism"? It is, in fact, a theory, btw. That is a more proper and neutral way to describe these things. Please do offer input on the whole concepts and theories organization. Be well (and don't overreact next time) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea

User Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently under community sanctions because of incivility. During last month he began to make some, in my view, disruptive and uncivil edits on talk pages. Here he accused editors for "screwing it up", making the edits that are "very, very, very dumb", and to one editor he said "I'm staggered by your bias, and lack of knowledge". After ten days he returned with comment how we are "still screwing up this page" and "giving into stupidity because I'm afraid you don't know better". He also seems to have something personally against me accusing me of "inserting rubbish into this encyclopedia" and "bring nothing". After his comment was removed and he was warned by other editor [185] he left this satirical comment on article's talk page.

I would appreciate if some administrator could have a look into this and maybe put me on the list of people to whom Wikidea is banned from interacting with or commenting on. -- Vision Thing -- 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)