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: Light current evading block?

There are many similarities between the postings on the ref desks of 87.102.8.103 (talk · contribs · count) and Light current (talk · contribs · count) - the spelling, grammar and inflammatory, pointless comments are all Lc's style. He seems to have quit for this evening, but it may be worth keeping an eye on. Natgoo 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sent to AIV. Failing that, Request for Checkuser may be appropriate. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, block evasion would not be vandalism if I am reading WP:VANDAL correctly. An admin may need to review this to take action. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to rfcu to confirm. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In an interesting coincidence, an IP that appears to be registered to the same internet provider, 83.100.174.70 (talk · contribs · count), appeared and made an awful lot of edits on the Ref Desk during one of Light current's previous blocks. I ignored it at the time because a) I didn't think that it would be worth the trouble to deal with formally, and b) I wasn't as familiar with Light current's editing style as I am now. A CheckUser followed – if appropriate – by a firm but polite word with Light current seems in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A CheckUser request has been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits from 88.109.41.162 (talk · contribs · count) seem mighly familiar as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are pretty obvious. Of course, that leaves the question of what should be done about them. Is there anyone left around here to whom Light current would listen? He desperately needs to disengage from Wikipedia for a while, for our good and his. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back with possible. Someone will need to look at the content of these. If they are obvious socks, they should be blocked. Ok, the word was inconclusive. Inconclusive = possible. pschemp | talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• A-hem. That's not what checkuser came back with. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. pschemp | talk 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All 'inconclusive' means is it doesn't confirm it one way or the other. Given the content, and the fact that it is on the same ISP, and the editing pattern, it's Light current. Suggest extending his block by 2 weeks. Proto::► 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is transparently Light Current. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not me honest Lc oops 8-)

I dont think it was Light current, because LC is too clever to be caught so easily! If its transparent, I suggest you get new glases Hippo.

Hippo seems to be imaningig Lc all over the place simultaneously. I suggest his olefactory system is faulty. He couldnt smell a sock if you waved one under his (rather large) nose which he should keep out of things he doesnt understand.

Neither can he detect trolls as I have proved on many occaisions.

I even bet that Hippo suggests I am Lc next! Just to make it more confusing, Ill use one of Lcs favorite symbols 8-)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.96.31 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

• The RfCU proved "inconclusive". As in, there was no conclusion. Inconclusive means nothing, there is not enough technical evidence to prove likely or unrelated. You may have to use other means to prove this, editing styles, patterns, etc. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we not spar about the meaning of inconclusive? :) I agree that precision is required. But to me, the editing patterns are more important, if several experienced editors say "same pattern" CU results do not matter. CU is imperfect, it can be fooled, and sometimes it can be inconclusive. Patterns are much harder to mimick if the contribution history is large enough. So I support a block for block evading sockpuppetry based on editors saying they see the pattern. (anon only, still allow account creation...) ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Light current all but announced his intention to evade the block a few days ago with this edit right here. Combine this with his previous block evasions, and there should be no surprise here. I think the best thing all around would be for him to come back with an alternate account that is sufficiently polite and mature that nobody knows it's him. Friday (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this edit seems to announce Light current's intentions pretty clearly. It's an unfortunate turn of events, but I find myself needing to seriously consider that Light current may have decided that he can no longer contribute constructively and in good faith to the project anymore. Not a happy day. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's either going to have to be a community ban, or we need to find some way for LC to contribute constructively to the project again. From what I've seen, I don't think he can be trusted not to indulge in personal attacks and general disruption even if he was permitted a totally new account, which is really sad, given LC's excellent contributions. I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say, in light of the trolling above and general disruption caused already, I'd support a community ban. -- Heligoland 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if we have a community indef ban, whats to stop Lc appearing from random ISP addresses and wreaking havoc. I feel hes a pretty dtermined sort of person who will not take things like that lying down. Long term rehabilitation into the proper Wiki ways may be the only long term solution. he has to feel as thought hes won 9even though we know that we have by controlling him) if hes outside WP, who knows what damage he could do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.31 (talk • contribs) (Probably Light current sock)

Do youw want to contribute productively to Wikipedia, or do you want to act like a petulant child who is throwing all his toys out of the pram? Please stop wasting our time. If you want to play, go visit Encyclopedia Dramatica. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, could I suggest this isn't the most helpful response? Yes, I fully appreciate that I make plenty of mistakes. Yes, also having admin super powers and dealing with problem users probably isn't very easy. However, I personally think Friday and Ten should consider taking a break from this dispute. Only my suggestion. Addhoc 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring the fact that Light current has made vile personal attacks, disrupted, promised to continue disrupting, and has taunted the project with the sentiment that he cannot be stopped. ToaT was responding to a message where he was threatening to launch into even wider disruption going forward, it is my personal opinion that you may wish to reconsider who the target of your criticism is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere on this page I've expressed support for the one month ban and that was before this apparent block evasion. Obviously, I'm not equating a somewhat stressed admin acting in good faith and someone who requires a 1month+ ban. Addhoc 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that in all seriousness. ED is a place where trolling and dicking around and just generally wasting time is welcomed and encouraged. We're busy at Wikipedia building an encyclopedia, and we don't really need the grief of dealing with someone whose behaviour is incompatible with that work. Wikipedia is not therapy, nor is it a babysitting service. Light current has received a multitude of second chances and an abundantly generous dollop of assumed good faith. I suspect that if he actually respected the block he received and came back to make productive contributions, he wouldn't be hassled—in fact, I would actively intervene if he were. However, for whatever reason – be it a lack of self-control, a mental disorder, a need for attention, or just plain immaturity – Light current's current behaviour makes him unwelcome here. He can find another outlet and another audience elsewhere, if he wants. I have no further comment on this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we could prevent new account creation, whether or not we wanted to. Isn't it (sigh) true that we have no effective technical means of achieving a longterm block (other than on specific named accounts) on someone coming from a large ISP? Friday (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an outsiders view.

Well really, I think that all LC needs is some respect from Admins as to the work he has done, and for good faith to be assumed so that he can carry on his (generaly) good work. For instance Lc has been accused a number of times here of block evasion, but how do we know its him? Is it not just possible that LC is in fact just sulking somewhere in a corner at his treatment. I would suggest that the accusation of block breaking is not proven. If that is the case, I suggest also that we are doing LC a disservice by accusing him of that. Also I thikn we need to inform him as to the actual length of his block, so that we give him some light at the end of the tunnel. Whether lc will in fact come back if he is not banned is a further question, but one about which we can do very little. I think its beter to have lc on board rather than outside causing possible mayhem to those whim he thinks hav aggreived him. Just an outsiders view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.96.31 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

While I do not have on opinion as to if the user is LC, I remind folks here that a check user is not the only evidence acceptable for dealing with sock puppets. You are allowed to use common sense, as to what that sense would be in this case, I don't know. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. When I'm acting in my checkuser role, I don't get to use much common sense, so the best I can say is that LC uses the Tiscali network. When I take off my checkuser hat, I do get to compare and contrast behavior and say "duh." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Until LC can A) Respect a block without evasion, and B) stop referring to himself in the third person as if we are not aware of his oh-so-clever sockpuppetry [1], then he is going to get scant respect from anyone. Clearly he has no respect for the consensus of this community and has now, in LC's usual saying-it-without-directly-saying-it style, threatened to "wreak havoc" unless he be given another chance. I don't believe the community should respond to blackmail, thus I now find it difficult to see past a rigorously enforced community ban for LC. Rockpocket 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a "chicken vs. the egg" thing. When he stops wasting everyone's time, admins and non-admins alike, he will get the respect his contributions deserve. You can't say that the issue is that admins have aggravated him, when it is evidently clear he has a great deal of the responsibility behind this mess. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. I suggest not giving LC the attention - just block all his oh-so-obvious sockpuppets and give him a community ban. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

THe trouble with Lc s so called socks, is that they dont seem to form a pattern or prove that hes actually breking his block. There seem to be a few people who have jumped on the bandwagon to further besmirch LCs good name. Are the admins, especially SeeNoZense, really convinced that its him. I suppose becuase Im defending him, that youll thikn Im him as well! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarkFuture (talk • contribs).

Your clever attempt to be cute is painfully obvious, Lc. User:DarkFuture, User:88.110.96.31, User:88.109.41.162, User:83.100.174.70. Any more before I or someone else creates a page on SSP? edit: never mind, already is. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any remaining objections to a community ban for Light current?

As discussed in the sections above, User:Light current has begun editing anonymously and is threatening to "wreak havoc" if we don't reinstate him. I think it's clear that he either does not have, or chooses not to use, the maturity necessary to respond to the community's requirements for his behavior. I was previously in favor of the "1 month block" plan, but I no longer see any potential purpose to giving him "one more chance"; it's time to cut our losses and stop letting him waste our time. Are there still objections to a community ban? -- SCZenz 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Duja► 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The one month ban wasn't just to give LC time to cool down, but also time to demonstrate maturity and civility. He's failed to show any restraint, so a community ban is the only option. Keep an eye out for Tiscali IP addresses and socks, I guess. -- Heligoland 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is really LC he needs to be banned yesterday. --Ideogram 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: He's now vandalizing with a string of sockpuppets. I'm going to indef block him now. -- SCZenz 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like we paid out the rope and he gleefully hung himself. Farewell, Light Current, the cost of having you around evidently outweighs the benefits. This is a great pity. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do we have a checkuser to confirm that these are probable socks of Light current? (and by probable, I mean on the same Tiscali range of IP addresses) If so, support a community ban. Note a ban is not the same as a block ... you block an account, you ban the person behind the account(s). Proto::► 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He's asking to be unblocked here if an admin could deal with. Ta. -- Heligoland 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

<edit>Unblocked sockpuppet User:Taljan here too, just needing blocked. -- Heligoland 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done (second done courtesy of pschemp). Proto::► 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another unblock request User talk:Hitmewithyourrhythymstick this time, claiming to be a meatpuppet and requesting the impossible. Any chance of protecting the user and talk pages to stop this soapboxing ? -- Heligoland 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I just hope this isn't the AN/I troll that had been messing creating vandalistic usernames about users mentioned here. However, the edits coming through the same IP range, with the same characteristic prose style are pretty damning. I can't endorse the community ban, but I no longer object to it. Titoxd^(?!?) 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well lets see, go look in the deleted history of the userpage of User:Hitmewithyourrhythymstick. Lovely personal attacks and I'm the one who reduced his block from indef to one month. Nope, no objections. pschemp | talk 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling pretty disgusted that I spent part of last Saturday morning trying to save Light current from himself. He's wasted far too much of our time, and he's clearly beyond redemption. I endorse a permanent community ban for Light current. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. No single objection at all. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you all know he has been used as a sockpuppet? (just out of curioustiy since i still don't understand the term). mickyfitz13 ^Talk 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see why, he had admitted it on the talk page of Reilly Light, sorry for such a stupid question. (After reading this whole incident i don't whant to take up your time.) mickyfitz13 ^Talk 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's tried speaking up for LC, can I just say how sad I am to see it come to this, but that I agree wholeheartedly that there was no other course of action open to you admins. He's truly brought this upon himself. What a shame. --Dweller 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, more important than the community ban question is the issue of how we deal with him from here on out. Since his primary purpose appears to be attention seeking, I second the suggestion above to ignore this as much as possible. Revert any bad edits, of course- probably block the accounts, but other than this, don't worry about it. The longer he sees his "name in lights" here on AN/I, the more he'll continue his attention seeking. Friday (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Lets revert, block, and tag as a sockpuppet without further comment from now on. He'll get bored eventually. Rockpocket 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we checkuser the accounts to see if they are Light current or an impersonator?? I suspect these may be impersonators, but I may well be wrong. --sunstar net^talk 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser is a good idea. An impersonator didn't occur to me, but now that I look the edits don't look exactly like Lc to me; it could be because he's switched his modus operandi, or it could be that it isn't him. I'm not able to edit much from where I am—can someone look into it? -- SCZenz 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support ban. Due to pattern of behavior and checkuser results[2]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The real Light current speaks

ATM there are many impersonators of me (the REAL LC) on the Wiki. Its dissapointing to see the gullible Admins have been fooled again, and have banned me as a result. I didnt have much faith in Admins to start with, but this latest action shows their complete and utter stupidity. See you soon TheREAL Lc (accept no imitations) 8-))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmint (talk • contribs)

Whatever. If you're "real" this bit of civility makes me even more firm in my feeling the ban is justified.pschemp | talk 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rearrange the following words nail, coffin, the, final, in and the again, to make a popular well known phrase ...... ban. Pedro |  Talk  19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just follow WP:RBI. Don't give him your time. SirFozzie 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ali doostzadeh

Ali doostzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an obnoxious reverting behaviour, directed against any contextual information that contradicts his POV about Aryens: look especially at his persistent deletions at Scythians and Saka. There is no way to appeal to reason and usually he flouts arguments in the discussion page, or he singles out one detail as a pretext to revert a whole section. His attitude is utterly noncooperative.

BTW, I wonder if Marmoulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of his sockpuppets since this user has an equally bad or worse reverting reputation on basically same subjects, discuss deletions even less and flouts arguments even more.

Rokus01 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this could serve as background information about this reverting incidents: a group of Iranian-nationalist users help each other and give each other advises about how to work together in deleting information that would be against their political goals. Read this welcome-message on the Talk page of Pejman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

"Heja has a long history of de-Persianizing WP. Dont be surprised. When you have clear reputable sources that dont mention any controversy, dont hesitate to engage in reverting these editors. Just be careful of the 3R rule, and keep your cool, and end your talk edits with a cheers:) just like they do. Good luck".--Zereshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now this Pejman47 engaged as well in reverting the Scythians-article, appearing out of the blue and again without giving any reverting reasons. I think this behaviour will compromise the quality of Wikipedia seriously. To me this is a kind of large-scale sockpuppetry. Rokus01 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making baseless accusations and personal attacks. You have a bad history of throwing around personal attacks and accusations([3][4][5]) you should try having civil discussions with other editors instead to avoid edit wars - Marmoulak 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is baseless accusation. The author of the above was asked to quote Mallory on Scythians and he did not. He glossed over the important parts of Mallory about Scythians and he did not know I had the book in my personal library. Instead he is extrapolating some ideas which are not related to Scythians from pages not relavent to Scythians. The discussion is perfectly scientific and there is no personal attack. I am just quoting many sources including Britannica 2007 and Encarta and etc. The above author does not like the sources, so he deletes them, or weakens them and brings his own theories (some from 1911 whereas if I am correct, it is year 2007 now). The above user even thought that Hermatta madeup the term Khotanese Saka..The above user is not a scholar of Scythians and yet he insits on pushing his viewpoints from extrapolating materials from authors who have not claimed what he is claiming. --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Above I supplied userlinks to facilitate independent investigation. The disruptive reverts are systematic and organized over a long period of time and directed against the contributions of many people. Conflicts are staged and arguments, whenever used, cliché (f.i. "removal of sourced information"). Truth is presented by begging the question, without the required reference to current discussion or supplying required information. Hypercritical disposal of arguments is mounting to an inacceptable degree of non-scientific negationism, as can be demonstrated by the above accusation where A.D. calls my extensive supply of quotes and contextual information (Talk:Scythians#Origins (Third party review)) "glossing", or by insinuations on details not even mine (like the above reference to Harmatta). All of this compromise the veracity of Wikipedia articles. Rokus01 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a place for independent investigation. It quotes scholarly sources. The source you quoted also says Scythians were clearly Indo-Iranian speaking and it is under that section. That is why on purpose you did not quote the relavent section. That is considered hiding information. --alidoostzadeh 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote independent investigation refers to your reverting behaviour and warmongering and not about why you can't agree with WP:OR definitions concerning relevant sources. Rokus01 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Text removal ban: BabyDweezil

Did I just perform a new admin action? Instead of blocking BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for inveterate edit warring and especially text removal, after several warnings, I've given him/her a "text removal ban" for all articles. Please see my message on the user's page.[6] Here are just a few of many, many examples of the user removing sourced text and/or references, after my warnings. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

It's possible that some individual removals are good, but none of them are done in a good way, and the overall pattern is obviously frustrating for other editors, and hampers work on the articles—compare the talkpages. Note also how the same removals are repeated over and over. (If somebody would like to do some 3RR calculations, good luck—I didn't want to muddy the waters with that at the moment.) BabyDweezil has earned a block, in my opinion, and I regard it as merely deferred. If the ban is ignored, he/she gets it, is the way I see it. I'd really like avoid blocking, though, as I take the user to be editing in good faith and with the intention of improving articles. But it was getting so I had to do something. Your thoughts? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I have reviewed your note to me and do take it seriously. However, should you take the time to review some of the history, you will find that I have largely been removing egregious violations of Wiki policy, gross distortions of fact, straight out fabrications and the like, but unfortunately, with the opposition of a pair or so of hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors who often inserted the distorted material in the first place. I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues). Likewise Ive been faced with this bloc working together to restore flagrantly biased and incorrect material, with no more explanation than they arent happy with it being removed. I will try to be more genteel, but please be aware that making sensible arguments and appealing to reason and Wikipedia policies re WP:NPOV and the like generally doesnt suffice vs ideologues. Regards, BabyDweezil 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This appears at first glance to be a content dispute. Perhaps starting dispute resolution may be appropiate. Any type of ban enforcement may will require the support of the community. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block would in order - user has been blocked twice before (note: once by me for a personal attack); is clearly edit-warring, including the use of misleading edit summaries; and is POV-pushing as well, calling reasonable content "distortion" (example). I have no objection to the "text removal ban," but you shouldn't hesitate to move to a block if the behavior continues. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy, just for the record, you blocked me for one single comment in response to an editor who had been cult-baiting, maligning and abusing me incessantly, and continued to, without any action against him, despite my constant complaints. Just for the record. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the involved editors. The problem with the guy is that he invests like 10 seconds to remove something, and then others have to invest a multiple of this to put it back. In some cases, he even agrees that it is properly sourced, but claims it is "out of context". But instead of taking the time to improve the text or write what is missing, he just deleted. Yes, this is frustrating.

So this "selective" ban is a good idea, because it gives him a chance to improve his manners. There are other editors (members of controversial groups) sharing similar viewpoints , but who are able to work things out without "delete first, discuss later". --Tilman 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm another one of the "hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors." BabyDweezil continually deletes well-sourced pertinent material because he personally finds it to be "POV". He repeatedly asserts that by deleting "POV" material he is removing "distortion" from the articles (there are several articles involved) and thus restoring NPOV. His idea of achieving NPOV, as demonstrated about 25 times by my count, seems to be to delete everything that he disagrees with.

He also inserts OR into the text in order to identify clearly to the reader that a particular element of the article is "POV".

He has ravaged Cult apologist to the point where it had to be protected. There is zero chance of achieving consensus and removing the block there because he is adamant about his edits being justified. Now he is starting in on Cult. Tanaats 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his statement above that "I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues)." He doesn't discuss the removal of well-sourced material first. Then when he edit-wars and others don't, Talk discussions are then opened by other editors. He does not achieve majority support in the Talk discussions. He has perhaps two editors who weakly support him. However, on Cult he has recently inspired a new editor who has declared his intention of removing all of the "POV" material in the article. Tanaats 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the protestations that I spend "10 seconds" obliterating Wikipedia pages, the fact is I have spent a good deal of time and effort correcting extensive errors, falsehoods, and outright nonsense in these articles. the 2 editors above are consistently inable to respond civilly to my edits, nor to justify them within Wikipedia guidelines, so they instead have mounted a campaign to vilify me. The loudness of their complaints I believe is in proprtion to the disappoiuntment they may have in having at least a bit of their POV's toned down in the artciles. I stand by all the edits I have made, and am confident they will stand up to scrutiny. The articles were POV pushing horror shows frought with fabrications when I began, so ban me or not, at least they are now slightly improved. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You could easily get out of this trouble by not "deleting first". The better way to work is "discuss first" / "suggest first". "Be bold" doesn't mean "be bold in deletion". Be constructive, not destructive. The "delete first" attitude not only upsets others, the reconstructing reverts will upset you as well. --Tilman 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bishonen's idea is a "new admin action" only in that it's a bit of mercy and an attempt at avoiding a block.
• Navou, you refer to the policy WP:BAN, which is about bans in the sense of "formal revocations of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." I can't believe that I yet again have to urge people to know the difference between a block and a ban. Bishonen is using the term "ban" for something different: an informal revocation of the right to perform a certain type of action. To pick irrelevant details out of WP:BAN off the mark. It's a ban on an action, not a ban on a user.
• She's putting a message here to get community input on the new semi-block she's proposing, not to drum up support for a community ban. Administrators block for "I warned you not to do that anymore" altogether too often, and here's Bishonen trying to avoid blocking someone by working out a new alternative. She's saying that she wants input on telling a user, "Don't go around cutting large paths with a lawnmower to fit a point of view." The implied "or else" is "or you'll be blocked." The user is clearly ripe for a block, as Mr Darcy points out, and the user's intransigent response here suggests that he's (Dweazel Zappa is male) dedicated and devoted to repeating this action. He/she is getting a little extra AGF from Bishonen, that's all, and she's asking the rest of the community to comment. Geogre 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that the user is not banned from editing Wikipedia. I understand that the user is not banned from editing, or further editing a set of articles, or area. I understand the technical aspect of a block; the difference between block and ban. However, if I understood the message correctly, just banned from performing a certain action. If I have applied the definition of ban inappropriately, then forgive me. I understood the potential for this informal revocation to be enforced by a block, if the ban message was placed by an admin who has the technical ability to place a block. Making it a de facto formal revocation. Although the policy does not deliberately define this action, unless I have missed something, I think I applied it correctly. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you are on record as disagreeing with it? If so, are you therefore agreeing with just blocking the user, or would you prefer that no block take place and that this situation go to RFC, then RFM, then RFAR? At some point during all of that, I assume an RFCU would have to be taken, too. I agreed with Bishonen's position, myself, because it minimized the disruption without all of that, but I did want to see what others thought. Geogre 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not entirely, I would like to see the user providing positive contributions, and the integrity of the encyclopedia preserved. Hopefully both can be served. I do not at this time, see RfC, or RFAR is necessary (and can probably be avoided) and don't understand how RFCU applies (help me out here). My best recommendation would be to talk to the editor about the behavior. Informal mediation may be of some use. DR should be conducted at the lowest level possible, when possible. Ultimately serving the project. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, how am I being "intransigent." Because I have my own opinion of the matter? Is that the defintion of "intransigence" here? BabyDweezil 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, "intransigence" is when you never give an inch in discussion, on the principle that failure to contradict you equals losing, while contradicting you equals "making incessant personal attacks".[16] This is not collaboration, it's intransigence and attrition, and I'm tired of seeing it. Please argue in a more civil and reasonable way on talkpages. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Update: the extra AGF approach with everybody discussing away hasn't worked. BD has removed the passage in Eileen Barker about Dvorkin's criticism of Barker nine times in the past couple of days, violating WP:3RR two separate times. Four of the reverts were made during a 7-hour span after my "No more non-consensus removals" warning. There was no consensus for these removals on the talkpage, quite the opposite. [17] I don't like these threats of further removals, either.[18] OK, that's it, after all the warning and carry-on: 24 hours for 3RR+ inveterate edit warring+incivility. The user knows about 3RR.[19])—though if this was just a 3RR matter, I would give a shorter block. Any thoughts? Bishonen | talk 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Has this editor done anything productive? I've looked a little, and all I see is EW against CON, with a lot of NPA violations and general incivility and POV pushing. I'm looking for ROI, frankly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA, Killer. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Killed in action

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) is disrupting the page Killed in action as evident by the history, who seems to think he owns the article and is reverting all attempts by other editors to improve it by making it in line with the WP:MOS. So far he has used two meatpuppets/sockpuppets (one was admitted on the talk page, I believe, where he said he would ask a friend to help him out), KSCHO (talk · contribs) and Andrewrhchen (talk · contribs). I don't feel the user should be blocked indefinitely or anything like that as he seems to be acting in good faith, but he doesn't seem to be listening to reason. I'm therefore bringing this issue here. Cowman109^Talk 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And it appears he has just broken WP:3rr by reverting multiple users once more. Could someone please look into this situation? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point I really don't think he's operating for the good of Wikipedia. He has his preferred version and he's going to do everything he can to keep reverting to it. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think he's acting in good faith, but it's just that it's a disruptive good faith that he does not understand. I believe the user also has a conflict of interest as he mentioned somewhere that he is either a member or a founder of one of the foundations for the relatives for those killed in action, so this is a sensitive issue. Cowman109^Talk 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done what I can. He's past the 3rr and will not respond to the talk page. Material he keeps adding is irrelevent to the topic of the page. Mystar 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is taking up a huge amount of attention and resources. I do believe he is acting in good faith, but I believe he has personal issues and at some point we have to cut our losses. --Ideogram 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this? The user has taken to editing with an IP now and calls other edits vandalism that reverts his (and has called another sysop a 'vandal' in the past to put things into perspective). He is unwilling to listen to reason and believes that he owns the article. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears this user has already been blocked for 24 hours, and then extended to 1 week for evading that block[20]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A meatpuppet of John's, KSCHO (talk · contribs) had taken to reverting the article for him. The user is a friend or colleague of John's, I believe it was confirmed, and as is clear by his contributions, his only edits are to that article as a single purpose account. Cowman109^Talk 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Confirmed meatpuppet with admitted intent to carry on edit war. pschemp | talk 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User making personal attacks on his talk page. Block extended. pschemp | talk 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, this user is now name dropping Brad's name apparently in an attempt to get unblocked or make a veiled threat and talking vaguely about "we" (his foundation?) and how wikipedia is responsible for libel. none of this bodes well for his editing future. pschemp | talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. He and Wikipedia will part ways, it's only a matter of time. --Ideogram 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Fensteren

Chris Griswold unblocked Fensteren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am not happy about that. Fensteren arrived, made a couple of token edits to get article creation enabled, then set about pursuing User:BryanFromPalatine's vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA, ably assistaed by Bryan's "brother", User:DeanHinnen. Since Bryan is a known sockpuppeteer and this is absolutely classic sockpuppet behaviour I really do not think we should be unblocking this account. Nothing against Chris, but he seems to be the only one looking to unblock what looks to several others to be a classic sockpuppet. I have reblocked pending further discussion. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt...sixth edit here is simply the kind one would expect from only an experienced editor. Mysterious out of the blue appearance on a sockpuppet investigation is not indicative of a newbie. Meaty account at the very least.--MONGO 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Any editor or admin who genuinely believes that the following post (the user's sixth post) is from anyone other than a sock or meatpuppet should strongly consider voluntarily relinquishing their editing privileges for the good of Wikipedia and all mankind. (joke) ;-)

"See how BenBurch responds to claims that he has threatened someone. He responds with more bullying. Since joining Wikipedia I've tried to learn how the website works: the interpersonal dynamics and hierarchies. I haven't done much editing, just reading and learning about the sociology of the site. I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed. I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories. What they're doing is not right. I looked at the Free Republic talk page and the Democratic Underground talk page, and archives of both. They are like dogfights. But every fight has a history. I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters. I found this edit war (9-10 January) and this edit war (31 December - 1 January) (both on BryanFromPalatine's talk page while he was blocked) and this foul remark (5 December). I've learned that a user has the unlimited right to edit his own Talk page. Any edit war there is the fault of the visitor. Many, many other edit wars and foul remarks in the archives. They're still harassing Bryan here and here and here. There's also this, where BenBurch is using IP address 69.81.140.136 as a sock puppet. The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Wikipedia to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms that BenBurch and FAAFA have formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, the other one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch and FAAFA always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch and FAAFA should share his fate. Fensteren 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)"

- Fairness & Accuracy For All (except for meat & sockpuppets & trolls) 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether Chris Griswold has done anything wrong...he just has assumed good faith...his unblocking may not be something a few of us agree with, but that doesn't mean that he should be "voluntarily relinquishing their (his) editing privileges for the good of Wikipedia and all mankind", or anything like that.--MONGO 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good God no, Chris' only error is to unblock withotu waiting for feedback, and that's hardly a big deal since no damage was done. Sorry if I implied anything else. No, this thread is a block review. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know - I was just being a smart-ass cause I can't help it - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note : This post from Dino, (the brother of checkuser-confirmed multiple puppeteer BryanFromPalatine) to Fensteren:

Fensteren, please help us out - "You sound like a very level-headed voice with regard to BenBurch and FAAFA on the Free Republic article. As you can see, they make "sockpuppet" accusations against anyone who disagrees with them. Please participate to a greater extent. The people who "own" the article now are putting Wikipedia at serious risk of a libel lawsuit from Jim Robinson, who has already been proven to enjoy suing people and organizations that say bad things about Free Republic. Dino 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)" Troubling. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reblock, methinks. This editor has done very little here bar disrupt and the edit pattern shows that it is blatantly apparent that we've seen this editor before in a previous life. Obvious sock/meatpuppet. I mean, even Jacob Peters isn't that obvious. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• sigh - This never ends, does it? I'm *still* convinced that DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine are the same disruptive person. He keeps "representing" Bryan here on Wikipedia - at least twice that I know of he has posted the permablocked Bryan's words as a proxy. And even if he weren't, he should be blocked for being so disruptive and baiting everybody he encounters. But even if we do that I think we will have socks of his here for ever. --BenBurch 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ben and FAAFA, with respect, butt out. We know the history, please leave it to us to sort this out. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okey-Dokey! - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Sorry. I am too tangled because I am certain that I see what's going down here. I'll leave it to you. --BenBurch 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Ben and FAAFA, while I have no objection to your other activities, the two of you are way too tangled up in this to have any sort of an unbiased opinion.

Regarding the specifics, as I said in email, I would neither be suprised if it turned out that this was a sock, nor if it turned out that an uninvolved person had reacted that badly on initially seeing the earlier Free Republic fracas. The edits are suspiciously mature for such a new, uninvolved user - I remain very suspicious - but I would personally be willing to assume good faith and watch them. If they voluntarily agreed not to edit the Free Republic article directly, working through the talk page as Dean is, and to avoid engaging FAAFA and Ben, it might work out ok. That said, I wouldn't unilaterally unblock on good faith myself if I could (and I can't, not being an admin yadda yadda). Consensus sought... Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Me, I am an evil suspicious bastard. A couple of token edits, then posting to an RfC using a term which only this account and Hinnen have ever used ("street gang", rather than the more WP-usual "cabal"), registering a "meatpuppet" RFCU with the 8th edit at BenBurch, displaying knowledge of policy and claiming this is because he's learned about diffs, histories, talk pages and archives before pitching in? How many new users manage to learnt eh Byzantine complexities of Wikipolitics before hitting a dozen edits? Just how likely is that? Plus, the tone looks far too much like DeanHinnen. Clinching factor: do we need yet another partisan combatant bringing the Free Republic battle to Wikipedia, even in the unlikely event that this was not yet another sock of a known sockpuppeteer? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and minor but constant mischief edits

I have noticed a similarity in style between the edits of User:Wbrz and numerous anons in the editing of Claudette Colbert (now semi-protected) and Talk:Claudette Colbert (unfortunately not semi-protected). All are pushing a very similar POV, and they all use a similar indiosyncratic grammar (English seems not to be the first language of either the registered user or of the anons). Some vandalism has been appearing from the same various anons on my talk page (now semi-protected), and since semi-protection, on my user page. All harmless but annoying. My name is also appearing in senseless comments being left on the talk pages of other editors. For example, another editor has left 3 vandalism warnings at User talk:218.217.208.119. One of them is for an edit to my user page, but the other edits are both directed at me. It's so stupid, the edits basically say "User Rossrs, an admirer of Vivien Leigh" which makes no sense whatsoever, and is harmless but I'm getting tired of seeing my name in these bizarre edits. Similarly, a string of reversions to Claudette Colbert on Feb 3 are directed at me personally, with my user name in each edit summary. (although the summaries make no sense at all). Actually this started about a week ago when I reverted some edits by User:Wbrz on the Vivien Leigh article - I left a message at User talk:Wbrz which received no acknowledgement, however the anons have had quite a lot to say about me ever since.

I think it's likely User:Wbrz and the anons are the same person, and I've noticed a couple of edits that duplicate language used elsewhere. this edit to User talk:Rossrs is identical to edits made here, and both were made by User:218.217.208.119. The same idiosyncratic phrase "delusion maniac" is also used in this edit by User:Wbrz.

User:Plek reverted some vandalism by one of the anons from my user page in this edit, and used the edit summary "rv daily nonsense". The same edit summary appears in this edit by User:Wbrz. The same edit summary was also used by User:218.217.207.123 here.

I was considering reporting this as sock puppetry, but wasn't really sure what to do. I've never seen this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I would really just like it to stop. I'd appreciate it if someone could look this over. thanks Rossrs 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what Wikipedia policies this violates, and how admins should respond to it. --Ideogram 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really weird behaviour and hard to summarise, but if a registered user made all of the combined edits, it would be considered vandalism and harrassment. It's ok. Another user addressed the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Claudette Colbert and User:Wbrz. Rossrs 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User Dmz5

Dmz5 is engaging in personal attacks by calling fellow editors trolls. Please have this unproductive behaivor stopped.

Post made by Dmz5... "Please stop feeding the trolls. It is increasingly obvious that Ballog is uninterested in consensus and is trying to get a rise out of the "wikigeeks" through his disruptive edits and intentionally vague and misleading comments. Let's please stop giving credence to his arguments and trying to "reason" with him, which will only get more and more frustrating"- Dmz5* -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballog (talk • contribs) 14:07, February 7, 2007 (UTC)

• Calling someone a "troll" isn't really a WP:NPA anymore than referring to other editors as "Wikigeeks" is, though both are rather uncivil. That said I really don't see anything requiring action at this time; other than maybe everyone taking some time to read WP:SPADE...--Isotope23 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No comment. Other than "no comment." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Given the situation, I thought this might simply be a lack of reading policy, and decided to give Ballog some useful advice and links here. He decided all my points were trolling or incorrect, told me basically that everything was my mistake because I obviously didn't understand what I was doing, that I was trying to start a flame war, and that if I did not stop I wopuld be blocked. He then commented on my talk page here which is pretty much where I'm going to leave it, because there's no point in continuing the discussion. Thought it might be useful for behavior patterns, though. MSJapan 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism & Conflict of Interest

I am asking for someone to take a look at the Stephanie Adams page to block or ban User Sean D Martin from editing the article. If you follow his talks and contributions, you will see that he has repeatedly made personal attacks to other users and even made several personal attacks to the woman the article is about (Adams).

This user seems to enjoy distorting facts provided on your site and even removes what little is written there to begin with. This is classified as what Wikipedia refers to as "sneaky vandalism" and has a direct "conflict of interest" with the person in the article because she (Adams) is suing someone he knows. (Please refer to the comments.)

I am not the only one who feels this way, as several others have left requests to ban or block the user from editing (as seen in the history of the article).

Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Cle0patr4 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute not vandalism... Dispute resolution is right over there. Beyond that, linking a source to a press release on the subject's own website would seem to fall completely short of WP:RS and appears to be just as much of a WP:COI. We like our 3rd party sources around here.--Isotope23 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that straightforward. User:Hoary is keeping an eye on things there, in any case. Jkelly 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure User:Hoary has it under control. Hoary has a lot more patience for dealing with the nonsense that happens at that page than I do.--Isotope23 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you actually check, you will see that I made small edits that more accurately reflected the facts as shown in the references attached to the Stephanie Adams article. You will also see that I was attacked personally despite my following Wikipedia's preferred procedure of making a RfC. I am happy (and prefer) to discuss the merits of my edits. But when lies and attacks are posted about me I must be able to reply to them. Such as: (1)I have made no "sneaky vandalism" as a review of the edits and comments attached to them will show and (2) Stephanie Adams is not suing anyone known to me personally.Sean Martin 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lies and attackes are not being posted about you. You are trying to take away fom the quality of the article because you have some sort of personal conflict of interest with the person it is about (whom you do not even know). And Stephanie Adams IS suing someone you know (who has posted numerous defematory comments about her on some amateur site called Metadish) and you have put your name down as a witness to the defendant. 66.108.144.31 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

sigh Yes, lies. And continuing to repeat them will not make them any more true. (And BTW, just HOW am I supposed to have a "personal conflict" with someone I "do not even know"?? Please make sense.) As for the lies: Again, Stephanie Adams is not suing anyone known to me personally. (She has threatened to sue a friend of mine, twice, and the fact that she hasn't carried thru and actually done so suggests how weak her position would be. But she is not currently suing anyone I know personally.) And just what am I supposedly a witness to? If you have facts, use them. That you don't is very telling.Sean Martin 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you are free to defend yourself from accusations here, I think this is pretty much a dead thread... I don't see anything actionable at this time.--Isotope23 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:162.127.188.126

All of the edits from this IP (over a period of 18 months) have been vandalism. I think the IP should be permanently blocked. Jooler 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't perm block IP addresses. If you see them vandalising, warn and if they continue past a final warning (one that mentions that they can be blocked) report them to WP:AIV. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We do if they are open proxies... in this case though this resolves to the Nebraska office of the CIO. I don't live in Nebraska, but if you do it is your tax dollars at work!--Isotope23 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See [21] Jooler 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by a group of editors

A group of editors has been indiscriminately vandalising my edits.The group comprises of User:Dangerous-Boy,User:Nobleeagle,User:Bakasuprman,User:AMbroodEY and an unknown IP from 128.83.131.122 - If you see the edit history of the unknown [Texas Univ IP], it has solely vandalised all my articles.Their points are removing in the article Babri Mosque[Images of Muslims reading in the now destroyed by a Hindu Mob - Babri Mosque], [vandalising Hindu Fundamentalism to redirect to Religious Fundamentalism rather than Hindutva to which it was redirecting to]and [Removing "mythological" reference] to one of the Hindu Gods Lord Rama ]] saying in the edit histories that - "mythological??? that's really rich, just go and insult another person's religion" when no insult is implied.No standard world history books mention of Lord Rama to be King Emperor as stated in the article [See the timeline] niether do they mention of Lord Rama's close friend Hanuman who was a demi-monkey to be rulers of any region.Neither does the last article mention the birth dates and ruling preiod of ruler as such.No offences meant but some of the ideas being propogated by this group of editors is of spiritual and religious nature whose approach is unsuitable for all of us as encyclopedia Neptunion 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The editors in question returned to a more NPOV, and better, state of each page. To declare Hinduism a 'mythological' set of ideologies would be as insulting as to call all of YOUR beliefs 'mythological' and be similarly dismissive. It's a religion, and thus a set of beliefs. 'Mythological' often implies that they are 'false' or 'dead' ideas, which Wikipedia can't decide upon. Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha might be 'mythical' too, in the eyes of some, but we can't make that judgement. ThuranX 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with ThuranX's take on this, and at any rate, it seems to be a content dispute rather than an administrative matter. The first step in any dispute of this nature should be a discussion of the disputed passage on the article's talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well in that case:

• 1. The one who redirected the Hindu Fundamentalism to Religious Fundamentalism - Did s/he discuss the change.
• 2. I only added an image to the Babri Masjid page that may be key to understanding that that place served as a historcally On what grounds is its removal necessary.Did anyone give any indication.You will find numerous instances where this group of editors frustrates other members from contributing by simply reverting the pages without assigning reason.
• 3. Written history testifies both of your examples of Jesus and Muhammaed but does not call them "King emperors" who at least have records in history

Please see the histories of many India related pages where this group of editors has frustrated others attempts to contribute similarly Neptunion 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Churan - your saying that the article "returned to a better state" might be democratically correct - you are adding a voice but it has no substance Neptunion 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Might you consider (just consider, mind you) for a minute that these other editors (whom you call a group) are right and that you in fact are the one who is wrong? It's just a possibility. I'm not saying one way or another, mind.... JChap2007 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the page histories first and the line of their editing ..Just mind for a moment that they indeed are editing in a subversive way.Neptunion 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the photo other editors keep removing seems to do nothing to illustrate the mosque, but is of three worshippers who used to worship there before it was "destroyed by a Hindu mob." Instead, it seems more like it's waving the bloody shirt than actually explaining the subject of the article. Religious fundamentalism has a specific meaning, as described in the article, in addition to its use as a term of derision. Hindutva is a poor match with Hindu fundamentalism, so the redirect you want does not make much sense. Finally, I agree with ThuranX and HBWS about the use of "myth." JChap2007 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are too eager to assign motives to me and challenge my good faith..OK, Go on build the trashopedia.Neptunion

Its your world mate..Enjoy Neptunion 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

After reverting one of this editor's edits because I could see the value of thie redirect as edited by others, he decided either I'm clueless, or I'm a part of the 'cabal'. Further, stating that my voice has no substance, and the subsequent calls of 'subversive', and 'trashopedia'... I'm suggesting this user take a cool-off period, before his incivility earns him a brief block. ThuranX 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Resetting the indents(The following was first posted on Neptunion's UserTalk page)::::I think you're still unclear as to the differences between good faith edits and vandalism. For one, good faith edits are those which can be rationally explained by the editor making the change; his reasons may be falsely held beliefs, or even patently demonstrable as outright falsehoods, but teh edit was made in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. A vandalous edit would be soemthing in which vulgarity is added, information is randomly removed (this is often referred to as 'blanking', when applied to a large quantity of text), or in which malicious changes are made. Seen in this light, redirecting Hindu fundamentalism to the larger article on Religious Fundamentalism, instead of one of the Right-Wing groups in India would be a Good Faith edit, especially since directly tying only ONE group in India to Hindu Fundamentalism makes numerous fallacious constructs, including:

• Ignoring any and all other right-wing indian groups IN India
• Ignoring any and all other Hindu Fundamentalist groups outside India
• Suggesting that the agenda of the group it linked to was ONLY Hinduism in it's reactionary ways, and not nationalistic or possessed of any other agendas.

As such, the edit in question is CLEARLY a Good Faith edit. ThuranX 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Neptunion is the banned user TerryJ-Ho - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert and User:Wbrz

I made a minor edit to the Claudette Colbert page, removing "Mrs. Pressman" from the first sentence of the article. User:Wbrz readded the information and called my edit vandalism. I asked them on their Talk page to please not call my good faith edit vandalism, and opened a discussion on the article's Talk page, then re-removed "Mrs. Pressman". Wbrz has added a threatening vandalism template to my Talk page, which I consider a personal attack and inappropriate. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, and have asked Wbrz to please discuss it on the Talk page, what more can I do? Corvus cornix 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding diffs of removals and reverts regarding to the discussion? Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This was my initial edit. This was Wbrz's claim that my edit was vandalism. I at that point went to his Talk page and asked him not to call my good-faith edit vandalism, and then I returned and re-removed the "Mrs. Pressman" here. At that point, Wbrz wrote on my Talk Page: [22]. When I told him again that my edit was not vandalism and was not to a User page, and that I had opened a discussion on the article's Talk page, he replied with: [23]. He has still not edited the Talk page to address my question as to why it should be there, nor has he addressed any of my other questions on his Talk page: [24]. Corvus cornix 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the warning on your talk page and am looking into this matter further. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He/she continues to revert with the summary of "username an admirer of Vivien Leigh → Get out here!)". I'm not familiar enough with the subject to understand the reference, but it's just weird. Some more insight would be helpful. John Reaves (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please se Talk:Vivien Leigh. I have provided diffs on that page where Wbrz added an edit to the Vivien Leigh page, then went to the Talk page, and forged the signature of an anon, asking why the edit was added. Odd behavior. Corvus cornix 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[25] looks like a removal of that name, not an addition of it. That's not to say that plenty of the other things he's doing aren't odd. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll really appreciate this sweet diff ;). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for edit warring etc - 03:28, 8 February 2007 Kafziel (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wbrz (contribs)" () with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, edit warring, vandalism). He's out of our hair for the time being.Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the first post on the user's talk page was a comment about some strange and unsourced statements he had added to the article about Vivien Leigh, a comment which he removed from the page. Perhaps he thinks you are all trying to exact some kind of vengeance.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that was my comment on his talk page that seems to have started all of this. He made some edits to Vivien Leigh about a week ago. I reverted them. I then started reverting some edits on the Claudette Colbert article, and he started putting "Rossrs, an admirer of Vivien Leigh" in edit summaries, on talk pages, on my user page, my talk page and the talk pages of other users. In the last day or so he's been directing the same comment at other users. I don't quite get the connection, but perhaps anyone who makes an edit to Claudette Colbert that he disagrees with, is motivated by the fact that they are a fan of Vivien Leigh. Not that it makes sense, but I can't see anything else. Who knows what he thinks. Just look at the edit summaries in the Claudette Colbert and Talk:Claudette Colbert. Rossrs 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

JB196 socks that need blocking

A checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Damastakilla has uncovered a couple dozen more sockpuppet accounts of JB196 (talk · contribs · block log). Could an admin come by and indef the lot of them? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just seconding the request to get this latest set blocked. The underlying IP has been blocked as a open proxy, but the accounts still need to get the Broom. SirFozzie 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet behavior

A user editing Mega Man Battle Network-related pages as well as voice actor pages for the series' anime continuously and deliberately mispells the Japanese name of the series (mispelling "Rockman" as "RockMan" despite having been directed to sources in the past proving the proper spelling, even though it should seem unnecessary), among other disruptive behaviors (vandalizing rōmaji to fit his/her edits for example).

As the actions of this user do not technically constitute obvious vandalism, he/she has evaded blocks, but also continues to cause problems and evade blocks with several sockpuppets. Below is the most recent account, as well as three others that were salvaged from page histories. --Benten 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 68.205.146.8
• 70.118.65.87
• 70.121.57.221
• 70.118.114.238

Could you list the articles in question and perhaps a couple of diffs? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, for articles (not all of them; the user has vandalized many pages, just check the contributions): MegaMan NT Warrior, Bass.EXE, Susumu Chiba

Some examples of the diffs:

[[26]] (MegaMan NT Warrior) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," vandalism of rōmaji, addition of superfluous/redundant bracketed "Japan only" text which was removed previously on account of such things already being mentioned under the Anime section of the article. (User's edits on the left, Urutapu's revert on the right)

[[27]] (Bass.EXE) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," See Also section full of random nonsense, creating redirects where there were none previously ("Computer and video games" to "video games"), changing the "fictional character" link to "video game character" despite the character in question appearing in fictional works beyond the video game, deliberately mispelling the word "villain" as "villian" in categories. (User's edits on the left, my revert at the time on the right).

[[28]] (Susumu Chiba) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," mispelling of the Japanese character names "Airman" and "Metalman" as the English version's "AirMan.EXE" and "MetalMan.EXE," despite Chiba acting in the original version of the series and not the English language adaptation.

--Benten 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence of block evasion? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unless I have misunderstood, and at first glance, additionally I am not a subject matter expert in this area; the edits appear legitimate attempts to edit the articles. Assuming good faith and lacking evidence of other "vandalism" (term used loosely) I would attempt to talk to the ip talk page and see if you can't get a response. If those corrections are reverted back to the disputed version (mispelled version) and the IP user is not going to the talk page, consider Semi-Protecting the article until disputes are worked out. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:HyperSonicBoom

Okay, this guy probably deserves an indef block, I'm just not doing it due to conflict of interest.

[29] is the violations after my block. Anyway, Mecu originally reverted his userbox due to a fair use image being used (which is not allowed). After he violated the 3RR on two userboxes, I blocked him. He has since been attacking me (and deleting all warnings and his other attacks if you check his history). If someone can take care of this user it would be great.--Wizardman 03:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the userboxes he's angry about: User:HyperSonicBoom/Userboxes/Shop/WinVistaWant and User:HyperSonicBoom/Userboxes/Shop/FSX.--Wizardman 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. I'm personally not certain that an indefinite block is necessary, but I'll hand him a somewhat extended one if he continues following the current block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looking through the contribs at random, I do see what appears to be some contributions to the project. I would say, let him be for the duration of this 72 hour block, and if he comes back with disruption or incivility, explore DR or in the case of policy violations after he understand the policy, a longer block. A protection of the talk page may be warranted if the user is attacking via talk, or introducing vandalism into the talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Silly dispute. The user needs to simply accept the things that he can't change, which would include copyright law. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Got an issue...

A user has decided to make it their objective to get all 5400+ highway articles deleted. Just now, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 got created, which is a GA for crying out loud. Any ideas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I closed it, the debate seems obviously WP:SNOW PeaceNT 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think this is an attempt to delete all highway articles? Is the user active in other places with this goal in mind?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that California State Route 37 isn't an ordinary highway, but a major highway of the state. PeaceNT 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick! Call SPUI! Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per comments left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block - User:Vintagekits

Vintagekits has broken WP:3RR with blatant WP:POV after a warning. He has been edit-warring on Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. Also taunting new editor User:Couter-revolutionary who sought my guidance on my talk page. - Kittybrewster 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He was already reported to WP:AN/3RR. PeaceNT 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"new editor"? User:Couter-revolutionary has been editing on wiki longer than me!--Vintagekits 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, along with Astrotrain and Couter-revolutionary, were involved in harassing Vintagekits over articles about IRA terrorists. Astrotrain AfD'd a whole bunch of them, and Kittybrewster and Couter-revolutionary were among the meatpuppet chorus who kept voting WP:IDONTLIKEIT and making rude comments to any user who !voted keep. Kittybrewster was blocked for personal attacks on Vintagekits during an earlier dispute. So take anything he says about Vintagekits with a BIG grain of salt. Argyriou (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically he didn't break 3RR, but he has been warned about edit warring. Other than that, Argyriou is fairly correct here, this is a much bigger dispute between various editors, not just a one-off isolated incident.--Isotope23 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous complaint and a waste of space. I dealt, somewhat severely I must confess, with Vintagekits yesterday re. 3RR, which he did not actually violate, although there was a minor spat of edit warring taking place. I have also warned Vintagekits about the "taunt", which again was fairly minor, but unhelpful in an overall antagonistic situation. Argyriou is quite correct in his observations, and Vintagekits is far more sinned against than sinning. Case closed. Tyrenius 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I alone in finding it amusing to hear Sir William Arbuthnot, second Baronet of Kittybrewster, described as "a meatpuppet chorus"? Guy (Help!) 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated creation of nonsense pages

Is this the right place to report a user who keeps creating nonsense pages and deleting db-nonsense tags? It doesn't sound like "vandalism" so AIV seems to be the wrong place. Tanaats 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism. Take to AIV if you deem it necessary. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User blocked 48h. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.--Jersey Devil 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism - extensive harmful edits

I hope someone can help with this difficult problem. I would describe this as sneaky vandalism, which includes "adding plausible misinformation" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." This behavior has persisted off and on for many months or possibly years.

I and some other editors have been working to improve the Interlingua article, and maybe get it to Good Article or Featured Article status. A few supporters of other auxiliary languages keep introducing and re-introducing incorrect information, jargon, personal observations, links to competing languages, and sometimes just bad writing. They say they are improving the article or removing subjectivity, but they are deleting sound, mostly sourced information and replacing it with unencyclopedic material. One of these people has somehow become an administrator of the Interlingua Wikipedia.

They tend to dominate the discussion page, so the good faith editors mainly comment in the edit summaries. And the whole situation has had a chilling effect, so that many of the good faith folks have stopped editing.

Now, someone (Dissident) has put up a series of tags reading "dubious," "neutrality disputed," and the like. The article is littered with tags and signs. Most of the challenged information is either sourced or is just basic grammatical material. In one case it's a quote from a book. The poster has demanded in the talk section, "Don't remove [the signs] without discussing it here…." But the talk section is kind of off-limits.

With all the interference, I don't see how we can ever get to Featured Article or Good Article status.

I would greatly appreciate any help!! Cal Evans 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would start by removing any claims that it is easy to learn, easily understood if you don't know it, and makes learning other languages easier. Or give them hard factual citations, backed up by scientific study. And then give references for every fact in the vocab and grammar section, which at present have not a single reference. That seems to be the major contention in the talk page. Just reference everything, preferably across multiple sources. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Need admin with rollback button

Could an admin please rollback all edits by Praveen100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's spamming Bollywood-related pages with links to a commercial site. Zora 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits are the most recent for their articles, which means they are probably already gone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick action on some admin's part :) Thanks for checking. Zora 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be User:Blnguyen. Grandmasterka 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With an indefinite block by Ryulong for good measure. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Glen_S

The first act of an admin in an edit disagreement is a reminder that he is an admin and that similar edits get people indef blocked [30]. He says nothing should be read into the blocking remark [31]. Just smalltalk I suppose?

Discussing it is, according to the admin, childish sheesh trolling. According to him, "your conclusions are childish" is perfectly acceptable because it discusses the conclusions, not the editor.

Is this a model of how an admin is supposed to behave? I am worried because User:Glen_S appears to be left with the impression that his behaviour is perfectly fine. Weregerbil 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Glen and I are cool about this. Just a bad day, not indicative of a systematic problem. Weregerbil 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Blnguyen

This is one interesting admin, his very controversial moves within the past week includes:

• Use of administrator powers with respect to a dispute he was engaged in:
  • Blocking me for 48 hours while not assuming good faith of my contributions. This was my first and it was without any prior warnings. The reason given was that for (correctly) changing the place of two pictures in Stan McCabe, which also accidentally removed a grammar correction; and that I asked for citations. User_talk:Gerash77#Hello
  • Stating a racist and false accusation that "Iran does not play cricket whatsoever", as to why I shouldn't be editing cricket articles. User_talk:Blnguyen#Block_review
• Also see his false assumption about sockpuppetry: User_talk:Blnguyen#Thank_you_for_locking_Belgaum
• Also see Re-blocking a user, after an initial invalid block cleared, see:User_talk:Blnguyen#Frater_Xyzzy

I think sooner or later he has to be reported to the arbitration committee --Gerash77 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) has been notified as to this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Provide diffs as to accusation No. 1
• Iran does not play cricket whatsoever is not a racist comment.
• Sarvabhaum is a block-evading troll and this is not the first time he has done it.
• You were blocked because you were stalking Blnguyen's contributions and editing the articles he had edited. There was no content dispute, you were following his contributions and trying to confront him for one reason or the other. Please review WP:STALK and Wikipedia:Harrassment.
• If one user is a suspected sockpuppet, then checkuser need not prove it. However, I would let Blnguyen comment on this issue.

— Nearly Headless Nick 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Acc-No#1: Acting in bad faith towards my contributions to the cricket article, and blocking me as a result of my contributions which he did not take kindly of; whereas this dispute should have not been setteled by his use of administrator powers.
• It is as racist as saying a Jew shouldn't contribute to Manual Labour article, or Africans shouldn't edit engineering articles.
• "Stalking" is following someone around, whereas I went to read the cricket articles from Blnguyen own user page. Editting those articles for improving the imagery and asking for citations that I did not find in the cited refs, is not stalking. Even if Blnguyen thought my edits had not merit, he clearly misused his blocking power.

--Gerash77 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, Iran does have the sport of cricket. See [[32]] and Iranian cricket team. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Saying that Iran doesn't play cricket is not racist, nor is it a literal comment - it is meant to say that it is of a negligible standard with no popular following, as can be seen from the fact that the first cricket organisation was only registered in 2003. I am not placing restrictions on ethnic or religious groups to edit any kind of article whatsoever, I am simply stating that the fact that Gerash has taken an interest in these two articles is out of place with his pattern of only editing Iran and Islam articles, and that the articles he edited were clearly marked GAs on my userpage, of all possible cricket articles. Anybody is free to edit cricket articles, but the fact that you went and picked out my most thorough cricket articles, both GA, properly referenced etc, straight after reverting me on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the charming edit summary "zioattack", and then undoing my self grammar corrections, referencing, prose polishing on Stan McCabe and then tagging things which are already explicitly cited in Irfan Pathan seems to be more than a coincidence. The imagery was not improved. The image is dated 1938, yet you moved it from the 1936 section to the 1934 section, which is even more inaccurate. Besides, it was not an original edit, you simply mechanically undid my edits. Err, no I didn't make any false assumptions about Belgaum, Rashtrakuta, Seuna, etc, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvabhaum, and as for Frater, he clearly bragged to his opponents on-wiki that he was evading his block, which had a technical approval at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• • What is amazing is that you still are defending the assumption of bad faith on your part. You say I only edit Iran and Islam related articles, which is totally false. While surfing wiki I try to improve any article, including those that are so interesting that none dares to edit them out [33]. Your statements that Iran's [c]ricket is of a negligible standard with no popular following as to why you are assuming bad faith is so outrageous that is not even worthy of a response. Your comments are very controversial and have no basis in Wikipedia's policies, and I believe its in the interest of yourself that you take some time apart from administration, or be given some temporary hold on your blocking previligies, to elevate yourself to standards expected from a Wikipedia administrator. --Gerash77 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Light current - again evading block

User:Light current has again evaded his 1 month block, this time with a sockpuppet called User:Wii-Marrs.

He created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pschemp, but it's been deleted. He admitted in his edit summaries he was a sockpuppet. --Taljan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the account. See also WP:AN/I#Any_remaining_objections_to_a_community_ban_for_Light_current? above. -- SCZenz 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulley

After an article about a UK wrestling promotion was involved in was deleted yesterday, he's now gone on a mass prodding spree of other wrestling promotions. There seems to be no reasoning behind his choices, some have been recently prodded (and one that just survived Afd and is referenced) so he's not checking page histories. It seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. One Night In Hackney 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to my defence i am infact following a suggestion made by One Night In Hackney on the said afd. I admit i did prod one article i shouldnt have, and after checking history of some of the articles i realised there where previous attempts.. but they are only prods and if they were saved before they will be saved again. No harm, no foul -- Paulley

In my defence I'd have hoped you'd have given each article a thorough inspection before decided to prod, but 33 articles prodded in 10 minutes tends to suggest otherwise. One Night In Hackney 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

32 in 13 minutes to be exac (PCW Uncut Championship was a category change not a prod)... and even you must admit so far you have found only around two which you believe should be contested meaning 30 of those prods you agree with ... Its not a point it's a nasty job someone has to be cold hearted enough to do -- Paulley

Sparkzilla

Sparkzilla (talk · contribs) is engaged in personal attacks here and here. He has been involved in medcab requests here and here. Please keep an eye on him. --Ideogram 14:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Matt_Crypto

I received a perminant ban (User_talk:MikeURL) from this Admin, without warning. The reason given was "trolling" and I can find no support for a permanent block on the grounds he gave. Further, we were involved in a civil discourse on the talk page and I think his block was intended, at least partially, to stifle civil debate (User_talk:Matt_Crypto#User:MikeURL). I have since been unbanned so I don't think a fomal complaint is needed but I did want to make note of this behavior.MikeURL 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

William Oefelein

Needs sprotection. Gwen Gale 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. x42bn6 Talk 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry. Gwen Gale 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

I couldn't find a better place to put this, as Wikipedia:No_personal_attacksstates: "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported on the administrators' noticeboard."

A number of users have been attacking me, I have asked them to stop but they keep doing it. User:Xx236 started calling me a "Canadian Prussian" referring to the bad reputation Prussians have in Poland. My ancestry is not anywhere close to Prussia or Poland, so it is obviously a personal attack. I asked him to not call me that and he made a point to do it again! here. Then when I changed the links on battle articles regarding the Invasion of Poland (1939) to that article's title, it was called "vandalism" by User:Halibutt and User:Space Cadet and deleted. [34][35].

as you can see on User_talk:Halibutt#jadger and User_talk:Space_Cadet#Nomina_odiosa.2C_editio_misteriosa they are talking in some code, referring to their actions against me as "FPS"(first person shooter) which I interpret as ganging up on me. they also call me Corvus Negris Canadiensis and Nomina sunt odiosa. As I am the only Canadian wikipedian that they both have been attacking, I assume this is meant about me.

what is even more intolerable despite there personal attacks and going even farther over the line once I ask them to stop, is what Space Cadet did on my user page and talk page. [36] see User_talk:Jadger#Your_note and User_talk:Jadger#re:jadger

--Jadger 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• User:Space Cadet has been warned against WP:NPA. I've asked User:Halibutt not to call content reversions "vandalism reverting" as it is not necessarily a true characterization. I didn't see anythign about User:Xx236 calling you that after you stopped, so I'd suggest seeing if this takes care of it. That said I would urge you to not make changes to the articles in question without first discussing those changes as these appear to be somewhat controversial articles. If you feel the sourcing isn't sufficient or there are other concerns here I'd suggest WP:DR where a Request for Comment or Request for Mediation might be helpful on the content disputes that are apparently happening on these articles.--Isotope23 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you, but I must mention that these edits were discussed a while ago on talk:Invasion of Poland (1939) and consensus supported me that Polish Defensive War is inherently POV and wrong. the only people who supported the term were the two editors who are now calling me a vandal. What is wrong with calling the article by its actual title anyways? Halibutt calls it counter-productive, I don't see how

--Jadger 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but like I said, it would probably be beneficial to open an WP:RfC on the articles in question and mention the consensus at talk:Invasion of Poland (1939) to see if a consensus can't form at the other articles. IMO at least it seems silly to mask an article name with another simply to rebrand it, but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirelan aka 70.104.126.193 ongoing vandal of Dave Winer

Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 70.104.126.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) got final warnings yesterday on both accounts.But today Nirelan is again busy vandalizing Dave Winer.

I reported this on the vandalism page, and they sent me here, saying they deal only with "simple vandalism."

Since first taking an interest in Dave Winer in late January, this user has blanked out the article, blanked entire paragraphs of the article, replaced the article with his own comments, etc. Now he has gotten more clever and is trying to diguise his POV attacks as a "content dispute."

There is consensus among all the other editors of this piece that Nirelan is working to remove information from the article that is accurate and verifiable, with good references from encyclopedia-quality sources, at the same time that he works to insert statements that have a much less firm foundation--for example, that Ramanatha V Guhan invented RSS (based on one interview with Guhan himself).

His heavily POV edit attempts are not improving the information content of Wikipedia. betsythedevine 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot is a bot which keeps making the same edits after they get reverted (see [37] and, less severely, [38]). Unfortunately, its talk page is redirected to a page which is not checked regularly. I tried leaving a message for its owner following the suggested instructions (see discussion at Wiktionary:User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie, which suggests a greater pervasiveness to the problem). I'm hoping you'll block it until the issue is resolved. Matchups 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jrapidfire

I have just reverted personal attacks and profane messages from this disruptive user [39]. I think it should be deeply considered that this user be blocked indefinitely because I see no useful contributions coming from him and he continues to edit war over the Broly article. Please decide this thouroughly, cheers! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. He's repeated the behaviour that got him blocked last time, and he hasn't improved his behaviour at all. I'm also going to lock his talk page for a couple of weeks, since he often carries on his behaviour on his talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain, vandalism, and User:White mojo and User:Sandstorm79

This article has suffered numerous anopnymous IP vandalising attempts recently. I puit in a request for semi-protection. Whereupon, the two non-anon users suddenly appeared and have vandalised the article using similar themes for the vandalising attempts. Their only contribution (as of posting this message) has been to vandalise Mark Twain on one occasion each. Can I ask whether they should have their ids deleted and/or their originating IP addresses blocked (otherwise they may simply re-register and carry on)?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I was editing the above message, yet another registered user, User:Muffinman519 has vandalised Mark Twain, and so I wonder whether complete protection should be immediately done.  DDStretch  (talk)

I have blocked those three users, preventing account creation. That should put an end to it at least for a little while. Also, the IP address has already been blocked for a month by Alphachimp. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

allegations of 'racist thugery'

67.83.90.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who does little else other than advocate has inclusion of unsourced/libelous criticism on this page Yisroel_Dovid_Weiss, & abuse editors who won't do so (the page is soft-blocked) has now resorted to abuse such as 'racist thug' [40]. request something be done about this, & possibly one or two other disruptive editors there. (or advice on what to do, already rfc, wikkette etc.)  ⇒ bsnowball  18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Looks complicated, may be able to get some use out of the mediation cabal. For now, I've posted to the talk, requesting some calmer discussion. Luna Santin 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzone 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Graffiti or Vandalism?

Alright, I have read the posts above and I guess this is the right place to post this. If not, then point me in the right direction.

I just wanted to know if anyone can copy/paste any of the warning templates anywhere? I would think that only people with admin rights could/should be doing that. If anyone can, then it doesn't make any sense to me. If not, then this is clearly a case of vandalism. This User User:Peter_johnson4 (talk about redundancy of terms in a name), obviously a fake name has vandalized my talk page here --> User_Talk:Fuzzone and a page that I edited here --> Martial_Race#Modern_usage. Judging from the syntax and apparent limited vocabulary. This person hails from London, UK at IP 81.131.17.180. You can see this incident here -->[[41]]. I would appreciate your time and the effort it will take to look into this and tell me if I am not getting it right. Fuzzone 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can issue a warning but that one was a bit much and I have told them that. At the same time saying the user in question has a fake name is in a bit odd in that I assume Fuzzone, as is CambridgeBayWeather, a fake name as well. Nor can I see why the IP should be Peter_johnson4. I would suspect that Peter_johnson4 was reacting to the IP's tags, which I have removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to take care of this in such a prompt and timely manner. As for the IP and the connection to Peter Johnson4, maybe I should have included this earlier incident of the same manner here--> [42]. As for the term fake name, I guess what I was trying to make a distinction between given names and pseudonyms or rather a Screen name (computing). Obviously you would not find anyone with a given name like Fuzzone nor CambridgeBayWeather, but you would not find someone with a nickname like "Peter Johnson" or "Jonathan Stewart Leibowitz" (Jon Stewart, now there's a funny guy) either. Maybe I have to work on my wit some more. Thanks again for the prompt action. Fuzzone 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection of main page FA necessary?

Vancouver, today's main page FA, has been semi-protected. Is this really necessary? The vandalism by IPs was reasonably high but was being reverted quickly and I've seen past FA vandalism that was far worse and no protection resulted. It just looks bad if one of the first articles people see of free encyclopedia anyone can edit cannot in fact be edited by them. I thought there was a general consesus against protection of the main page FA? WjBscribe 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree -- protecting TFA is usually a net loss for our ideals, for a number of reasons (see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, which I now see is disputed, but it covers the general pros and cons pretty briefly). Vandalism is bad, but being "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" is worth some sacrifices, I think. On the other hand, I prefer not to unprotect a page unless I'll be around to deal with potential problems, and I'll be heading off in about ten minutes... Luna Santin 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the protection; as Luna pointed out, protecting it is contrary to one of our main tenants. I can understand protecting it for a short period if there is heavy vandalism, but it had been protected for a couple of hours when I turned it off; that's a bit too long, in my book. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought cascading protection applied here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, cascading protection only applies to pages transcluded from the Main Page (or any other cascade-protected page, by that matter). Titoxd^(?!?) 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. One learns something new every day ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith

Administrators, please take notice of what is currently going on with the Anna Nicole Smith article. Thanks, (jarbarf) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism as news of her death percolate throughout by anons. Request Semi-Protection.--71.194.34.62 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been semi'ed by RyanGerbil10. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection isn't really "working" right now it seems. (jarbarf) 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the page for 2 days. This is two-fold reasoned: one, the page has been FARKED and sleeper accounts are vandalizing; two, maintains a stability for a couple days to prevent further speculatory edits. The protection is welcomed to be lengthened or shortened, but please don't remove it. Speculation discussion is welcomed on the talk page. Teke ^(talk) 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User Pschemp

Could user Pschemp please stop blocking me. I am not a sockpuppet of the user 'Light current'

I have brought the subject up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=106666348&oldid=106666121

And here on User_Talk:Pschemp#Hello

I provided a list of things I have edited here [[43]] in an attempt to prove that I am a genuine user.

Currently Pschemp is following me and blocking me after every thing I do - and deleting my requests for help.87.102.13.220 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to this user multiple times [44] [45] [46] to use {{unblock}} to get the block reviewed and stop evading it with new IP's. I've left the message on the original IP and various other socks. The complaints were removed (and not just by me) because they were posted inappropriately to the ref desk after these multiple message attempts. Plus this user started editing the ref desk almost immediately from the same range (87.102) that LC has been using. pschemp | talk 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment (yes I realise I have logged out again) - This is the first time I have seen the 'unblock' message - All I keep getting is a 'red' page with 'this user has been blocked' on it.

Also I can't currently work out how to use the template 'unblock'.

The reason why I posted to the ref desk was to find out how to complain - that took several attempts - User:Pschemp kept removing my request for infomation on the misc. desk before I could get and answer - how does that help.

Also I have looked at your list of suspected 'socks' of light-current (from Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Light_current_evading_block?

these (all) are my edits: (as far as I can tell without checking each one - all of these are my edits)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=87.102.8.103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.100.174.70

These are not my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.109.41.162

Also seeing as you are comparing IP's I have made a small list of IP's I have used on the science reference desk during the first half of dec 2006 :

83.100.250.215, 87.102.32.183, 87.102.32.250, 87.102.32.7, 83.100.138.168, 83.100.174.147, 87.102.36.136, 83.100.174.70, 83.100.254.21, 87.102.8.6, 87.102.8.141, 87.102.3.159, 87.102.4.180, 87.102.13.235, 83.100.132.121, 83.100.250.252, 87.102.4.227

If you can do a 'IP trace' I think you will find that all these connect to the same place. Karoo ISP

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current especially User:Jpgordon's comments - two of the references connect to Karoo ISP these ones are my edits. I think you can easily guess that the Tiscali UK connections are not mine. I hope this may convince you.87.102.36.25 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to reconsider. Please take my word on the above edits. In the meantime I need to look at how to use the template. I assume you will respond to this. Thank you for an exciting evening (no sarcasm intended). I apologise for 'evading' 'my' block but I honestly can't work out the template at the moment. Also I did not see the explanations Pschemp posted (mentioned above) until they mentioned it here. 87.102.14.43 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps I will assure you that I will not make any further edits to wikipedia until this issue has been sorted out to avoid any further confusion.(no edits except on this section)87.102.14.43 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't kept changing your IP to evade the block, you would have gotten the message immediately. pschemp | talk 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that now - but at the time I was changing the IP so that I could ask why I was being blocked - I hope you can understand this.87.102.36.25 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I told you why you were blocked at the outset. The reply is still on my talk page. You then kept using subsequent IP's to argue about it. I had told you how to appeal it a long time before that. It is not my fault you decided to use 6 IP's to evade the block. If you had used your original IP, you would have seen the instructions on how to appeal. pschemp | talk 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you blocked the User, and when he used anon IP addresses to ask how to appeal, you deleted his questions and blocked the IPs because ... he ... was ... evading ... the ... block? Tell me that's not what you did... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope it isn't. He's been an anon IP the whole time. First, I replied to his original message on my talk page. (Which is still there). Then, I left a message on his original IP telling him what to do to appeal the block rather than resorting to block evasion, and then left messages on the subsequent ones but he changed IP's so fast he never saw them. The questions were deleted because, 1. - they weren't questions, they were complaints and they were 2 - posted on the ref desk where they don't belong and 3 - not all deleted by me. Then yes, I blocked the subsequent IP's for block evasion. The instructions on what to do were sitting there on his original blocked IP the entire time he ran through 6 IP sockpuppets. I had already told him why he was blocked at the outset and how to seek an appeal, he just didn't like the reason and wanted to keep arguing. pschemp | talk 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lashing and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelvinc

User:Lashing appears to be unsigned IP 209.29.23.243, which has been doing numerous POV edits on CityPlace (Toronto), Income trust, and Stephen Harper. My recent revert and request for him to stop accusing editors of being Concord employees has apparently riled him into filing an RfC against me, but curiously enough he didn't follow through with posting the request in the appropriate page! Since I'm not actually filing an RfC against myself, I thought someone can look into it from here.  ;-) Kelvinc 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think I will file the RfC against myself. I'd like to see justice served. Kelvinc 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan Article

I have added factual information to the Japan article and yet it is constantly being reverted without any reason being given and they are not discussing it in the Talk:Japan page either. I have asked in the talk page why the information is being reverted and yet no reply is given. Considering that the information which is constantly being reverted is just well known facts I can't see any reason why it would be reverted other than for anti-Japanese sentiments, which I have concluded for myself is probably the reason after looking at the users talk pages and past contributions. Can someone please stop this 'vandalism' of the Japan article as it's being done to hinder the article in as much of a way as they think they can get away with, not to mention that this anti-Japanese sentiment has no place on Wikipedia. Somethingoranother 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You want WP:DR, not this page. WP:V might also help. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs oversighting

I never know where to put these, but some personal info was pasted here and needs to be removed. I'm not even sure that the information is accurate, which would only make the situation worse if it stuck around. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Should go to WP:RFO. I'll email them. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the page was completely deleted. PTO 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Picaroon9288, just deleted the revisions with the private info until an oversight can remove them. Prodego ^talk 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh, I would've said that three minutes ago, but there were too many edit conflicts! Picaroon 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As Prodego says, I've hidden it via deletion and restoration, and was going to come mention rfo as the permanent solution, but Yuser beat me. PTO, you can check the deletion log to verify that I wasn't going to leave the article deleted. :-) Picaroon 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Too fast...my brain be dizzy... Anyway, I looked at the deletion logs before Picaroon had undeleted it. My bad :). PTO 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision removed. Wow, these oversight guys are fast :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do make sure that in the future, oversights are done by e-mail. In this case, it was done rather quickly, but the private process at WP:RFO ensures that malefactors are much less likely to view the libelous revisions. Ral315 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporting incident of Wikistalking

Many of you are well aware of this long-running feud. I ask your indulgence.

On the advice of JzG, for the past couple of days I've been trying to stay away from the Free Republic article. It has been the scene of many arguments and a lot of baiting and badgering by BenBurch and FAAFA. JzG also advised the two of them, in the strongest possible terms, to leave me alone. I thought that moving to a different article might make a difference.

They have now abandoned that article and followed me to the Peter Roskam article, where their baiting and badgering continues unabated, directed at myself and at others. Review of the article's history proves that I started editing it and then they did. This is not a coincidence. Please take note of the consistent tone of mockery in these diffs, such as the frequent interjection of "LOL!" [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Here's a case where FAAFA edited another user's post: [63]

I informed FAAFA that I did not appreciate his Wikistalking, that he no longer had an excuse for it since I had provided the answer he had repeatedly demanded, and asked him to stop: [64] But the baiting and badgering continued from both of them, unabated: [65] [66] [67] I again advised FAAFA that he had his answer, added more material that should have been the end of the matter and gave him a final warning about his Wikistalking: [68]

BenBurch got another cheap shot in: [69]

At that point, I posted an unequivocal final warning about their Wikistalking on both of their User Talk pages: [70] [71] Then I wandered off and edited a few more articles, hoping that would be the end of it. FAAFA just kept coming back for more, but I ignored it for an hour or two: [72]

'Bring it on'

But then both of them started baiting and badgering again, so I came here: [73] [74] [75] And BenBurch even said, "By the way, Dino, you want to complain that I am Wikistalking? 'Bring it on.' " [76]

Note that I've previously attempted RfM but was rejected almost immediately. [77]

Would anyone care to do something about this? Or am I on my own? Both of them have archives on their User Talk pages that are wallpapered with warnings and both of them have recently returned from 24-hour blocks: BenBurch for "incivility and misrepresentation," FAAFA for "personal attacks." Is there a solution to be had? Is there a doctor in the house? Here's the relevant Wikipedia policy page for guidance. Notice the incident where a 24-hour block was extended to an indefinite block, because it was a response to a continuous pattern of misconduct. This misconduct extends back through hundreds of posts through previous weeks on the Free Republic Talk page. Dino 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino'sconduct isn't without fault either. Posting ultimatums, such as this [78] do NOTHING to support his position that he was 'innocently walking down wikipedia boulevard' and got wikimugged. He's displaying at the least significant incivility, and probably bad faith or tendentious editing tendencies.

That said, FAAFA and BB do seem to have followed him there. In light of ALL parties' desire to perpetuate this fight, I think an admin SHOULD block them all for a period to cool off, buy a 6, drink, chill, and maybe realphabetize their CD collections. ThuranX 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool-off blocks don't really work. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I had absolutely zero "desire to perpetuate this fight," ThuranX. I requested mediation. They refused. I left. The fight followed me. Any perceived incivility in my subsequent remarks was directed at the non-NPOV condition of the Peter Roskam article, which they had never touched until I showed up. WP:STALK is clear and previous ArbCom rulings provide harsh remedies. I disengaged. They followed. I gave them warnings. They ignored them. Dino 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to ask you, ThuranX: do you believe that you could remain a paragon of civility in the face of such relentless harassment and baiting? Dino 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My response

COMMENT : Dino quit editing the Free Republic article (he claims to be part of Free Republic's 'legal team') because he got banned as a sockpuppet, and one of the provisions he agreed to to get unbanned was that he would not edit that article. His own actions were what got me to visit, then edit the Peter Roskam article. He claimed on the Free Republic talk page that Free Republic members were 'instrumental' in Roskam's victory. I looked at the Roskam article for any mention of this (there isn't any) and immediatly saw POV problems including editors trying to hide and obfuscate Roskam's position on abortion - then DEMANDING that I find ANY Democratic politician whose abortion stance was similarly 'picked apart'. When I found two RIGHT off the bat - Dino changed his 'demand' to any 'Pro-choice Democratic politician'! (I kid you NOT!) I plan on keeping a close eye on Dino's edits as long as he's on Wiki. As an admin correctly observed - he attempts to scrub any and all well-sourced criticism of subjects he supports with 'alphabet soups' of argumentative WP claims. (and prior to that, vieled and not-so-vieled legal threats of libel lawsuits against Wikipedia- until he was ORDERED to curtail the legal threats) - FAAFA 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any diffs to support this spin? Dino 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys. Enough. Calm down. Diffs help. And FAAFA, I respectfully suggest you do not stalk Dino on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I remain remarkably calm. I simply seek a resolution of this dispute. I tried to walk away and was followed. That's really all there is to it, and WP:STALK is crystal clear about what to do when someone walks away from a dispute and is followed. Both FAAFA and BB were warned by an administrator to stay away from me. Your respectful suggestions will do no good at all. As I've said, the archives of his Talk page are wallpapered with warnings and he has just returned from a 24-hour block for incivility. The same can be said for BenBurch with the minor distinction that he returned from his 24-hour block for incivility and misrepresentations about ten days ago. At this time, I'm not going to invest the massive amount of time it would take to refute each and every distortion in that "response." If he posts diffs, I'll point out all of his distortions using those diffs. Dino 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs Yuser:

FR's 'instrumental'

Demand for dem politician

Answer with proof

Dino 'moves the goalposts' - FAAFA 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NO Admin comments? - FAAFA

FR's 'instrumental' contains no invitation to follow me to the Peter Roskam article and, as I've said, both of them were warned to stay the hell away from me.

Demand for dem politician was not directed to either of these two in particular.

Answer with proof - Very weaselly as it produces two Dem politicians who are pro-life.

Dino 'moves the goalposts' I should have just ignored him and come over here at that moment. Nevertheless, my response was civil. I observed then, and I observe now, that the partisanship isn't Democrat attacking Republican. It's Left attacking Right. Dino

(outdented again) Dino, to some degree, you are bringing this on yourself because you are editing in a biased manner. That said, I think this situation would be considerably clearer if FAAFA and Ben completely and permanently disengage from you and let others keep an eye on what you're doing. Georgewilliamherbert 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's only one way to convince them to "completely and permanently disengage." The archives of their Talk pages are wallpapered with warnings and there are more warnings addressed to them on the Free Republic Talk page and its archives. I haven't looked yet, but there are probably even more warnings addressed to them on the Protest Warrior Talk page and its archives. How many more times are they going to be given a final warning? The ArbCom rulings described in WP:STALK are clear about this. Dino 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is standing in the way of you filing an Arbcom case. I personally suspect that all three accounts would end up regretting an Arbcom ruling if one is sought, but it's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Admission of provocative efforts by BenBurch

"I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him."[79] here, on my talk, BenBurch ADMITS to deliberate provocation of Dino. This alone should be proof enough of BenBurch's Bad Faith and ill-will to substantiate a block. Beyond that, however, I concur whole-heartedly with GeorgeWilliamHerbert's assessment of the edit style of Dino. He does edit in an agenda oriented way, and his freely admitted close association and pro-bono employment by FreeRepublic make his conservative bias plain as day. This inability to work towards NPOV on so many political pages is no doubt going to continue to provoke editors to engage in tendentious editing with Dino. He's been spoken to about this issue, which is separate from the BB/FAAFA thing, before. I bring it up here agian because it is a sgnificant underlying cause of so much hostility. Further, I think it's likely that the obverse applies to BenBurch and FAAFA, that they edit from a DU based Vista on the world, and their edit style also provokes conflict. I'm not sure how this should be handled. A long term block for all three on editing political articles, and historical articles with US Gov't focuses? ThuranX 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He does edit in an agenda oriented way, and his freely admitted close association and pro-bono employment by FreeRepublic make his conservative bias plain as day.

I do not edit the Free Republic article. I only recommend edits on its Talk page. I have already remedied my COI problem; and I wish others would be as proactive in dealing with their own. On other articles, I am not attempting to introduce a conservative POV, but trying to remedy a left-wing POV that clearly violates not only WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, but also WP:BLP. One of the things I said in Unblock-en-l is that I recognize that "our side" has certain warts and blemishes; that I do not want a whitewash, and Free Republic doesn't want a whitewash either; that all I want is a fair and balanced NPOV article; but these two (and others) are putting all the warts and blemishes under a microscope, and seeking to make any article about "our side" all about the warts and blemishes. Go to your printer, print out a copy of the Peter Roskam article and a copy of the Melissa Bean article (using a Roskam version from just before I started editing it), lay them side by side and you'll see what I mean. You can't miss it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Dino 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim that you're only or merely editing in an entirely biased and nonconstructive way. You do have a clear and evident personal bias in your editing targets and style, however. If you were just being disruptive nobody would be standing up for you at all and you'd have been blocked permanently ages ago by now.

That said, I stand by my opinion that you have an agenda and are editing in a biased manner. In many cases, cooperation between opposing biased editors works fine and produced unbiased neutral articles. You, Ben, and FAAFA are obviously not such a cooperative collaborative dynamic tension. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER said you edit Free Republic, do NOT distract with smoke and mirrors. Do not misrepresent me to create the sense that I am attacking you. You are associated with them by your own free admissions, this was covered in your recent set of problems before, related to FR.

Further, your determination that Wikipedia is a battleground between " 'our side' " and " these two and others" (AKA THEIR SIDE) means you are fully aware that your editing is tendentious. NPOV is not determined by YOUR views on the subject, it's determined by accurate sourcing of information. If someone finds significant sources for including criticism, and writes it up with reasonably NPOV language, it's in. Your attitude comes off as that FACTS which are critical are the same as NPOV language which is critical but sources solidly, and so you remove both. This is a problem, and one which antagonizes the other side. Frankly, were I an admin, I'd be sorely tempted to find a way to give both sides a lengthy block for tendentious editing, edit warring, provactive edits in vio of bad faith and inciv. But as with so many of my AN/I edits, I remind all, I am just a user, not an admin. I have no power to act on this stuff, and may lack suitable familiarity with some facets of Wikipolicy. that said, i'ma go get me some sushi for dinner. ThuranX 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone finds significant sources for including criticism, and writes it up with reasonably NPOV language, it's in.

ThuranX, I respectfully and cordially suggest that you review WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. If you need help locating the specific sections I'm thinking of, say the word. Wikipedia is not a list of all the bad things and criticisms they can find about conservative politicians and organizations. Even WP:RS is just the first step. Dino 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, I respectfully and cordially suggest that you review your tone and attitude. You're here because of an ongoing dispute. Picking apart my statements for 'chinks in their armor' instead of assessing my point and moving on seems like more of the same bad faith that this entire mess is painted with. My point is that you edit in a highly POV way. So do they. Neither side gets the very sections of policy you jsut tried to throw into MY face. That your instant reaction is to run to those very sections as shields against criticisms of your editing shows me you don't get them, and have never seen the other side, the front of your own shield. Three editors are here for extremely partisan motivations and behaviors, and for the resultant policy violations that their behaviors engendered. Focus on that, not on some percieved failure of mine to properly append subsections to subsections to cut off the appeals options of opposing counsel. ThuranX 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me. Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here. I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this. And this wikistalking thing! Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." - at least quote in context, please --BenBurch 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was psoted OUT OF ORDER to abridge the text and flow and push BenBurch's view of things. If he can't follow the natural flow of the conversation, per wikipedia's conventional ways of chatting, then he should consider staying out of this. This is more incivility on BenBurch's part, and should be considered a part of his pattern of behavior. ThuranX 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth did I ever do to you that you; A. take something I posted to communicate with you because I am frustrated as hell and post it here and B. deliberately quote it out of context in a way to twist what I said? I can only say that I am very disappointed. And I think that anybody can read time stamps of interpolated comments, this was no attempt to be uncivil.

And as I said, go on an ban me or block me. It really does not matter; I've had my say on what is going on here; BryanFromPalatine and DeanHinnen are either the same person or one is simply using the other's name when it is convenient. He is here evading a block. He is uncivil at all times and all places. He thinks he can edit anything he wants no mater what the consensus of other editors says. He leaves dire threats and pronouncements on people's user talk pages. He attempts to bully people with his sock puppets and threats of lawsuits. He even bullied the bookkeeper at Wikimedia Foundation in to editing an article for him by lying to her about the status of an article that he wanted removed as a citation!

Were it not for him doing all this I'd be editing articles about narrow gauge railroads and radio phenomena, but this was all so blatant. And everybody else who seems to see what is going on has decided to just take hands off and watch! So, I'm sorry if I cannot make myself do that. --BenBurch 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You were told in the previous dispute to do just that: Edit other stuff, like Z gauge and RF Design. Instead, you went right after DeanHinnen. You went out of your way to find a new way to hassle and harrass him. Both GeorgeWilliamHerbert and myself have tried, as reasonable people, to engage the three of you. Instead, each of you is so entrenched in your own position that none of you can see beyond. I will not advocate a ban on you, as you have 'requested' above; I believe you are angry and upset and speaking in haste. However, such tempermental statements certainly support the idea that you need to take a cool off. I've already once said it's time for an ADMIN, I repeat that now. ThuranX 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And I did. And I have not been to the FR article since then. And then he went right to an article in my watchlist. So I decided that I could engage even him in a civil fashion and have been very careful to do so. When he made edits I disagreed with I went immediately to talk and tried to engage him in a dialog. However, I will let the Roskam article be what ever it is going to be; Likely a campaign brochure for that esteemed gentleman as long as Dino keeps editing it. However the facts are the Dino escalated into mega-incivility as soon as it was obvious to him that the only means of having his way with this article was to drive everybody else away! You will note that I compromised on a number of edits there, BTW. I cannot think of one point he has ever compromised on. But I'm done with it, and maybe with Wikipedia too. I'm sorry for wasting your time. --BenBurch 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino posting from sockpuppet's IP

This is troubling. Dino posted from 209.221.240.193 before he signed his name

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) VERY troubling. - FAAFA 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That issue was thoroughly explored in exhaustive detail, and fully resolved by Unblock-en-l. Give it up and address the merits of the case against you, sir. Dino 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

'case'? 'merits'? LOL! I'll sit back and let the admins do their job. Unlike certain other unnamed editors, I think they're capable, fair, unbiased and certainly not out to 'get me' - FAAFA 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're comfortable not putting up any evidence, I await the decision of the admins. I would welcome being the first with a permanent block from all politically related articles, if BB and FAAFA are the second and the third. But that doesn't resolve the stalking issue. I argue that there is only one effective resolution for that, and it's clearly spelled out in the related ArbCom rulings if admins will just follow those precedents. That resolution is also directed by the tall stacks of warnings, 24-hour blocks and final warnings that they've already received. Dino 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA, please lay off. Yes, we know he edits from a family IP address at times. We knew that prior to the initial sock claims and resolution. Anyone who wants clarification on this point can ask anyone on unblock-en-l.

Continuously jumping up and waving "new" claims regarding Dean like this is not constructive. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support for GWH. FAAFA, that's bad faith and distraction on your part, and is highly distasteful, and even disruptive to the current AN/I. ThuranX 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - considering that that IP has been used to field a small ARMY of separate sockpuppet accounts - I have a hard time keeping them all apart. My bad. - FAAFA 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheap digs at the editors you're involved in a dispute with are also unwelcome. ThuranX 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that a number of Bryan sockpuppets were there; it's also true that we have already rather thoroughly verified that Dean isn't Bryan and that they're neither socks nor truly meatpuppeting, though they are related. We know that. It's on the record. Unless someone does something truly new and different and abusive on this point, it's settled and should be dropped. Georgewilliamherbert 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. - FAAFA 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All right

My purpose is to make Wikipedia better and safer. You may find this hard to believe, but in real life I have a reputation as a Peace Maker. That side of me was shown at Unblock-en-l. Maybe in real life it comes down to my tone of voice and body language. I have always advised the Free Republic legal team to allow me to seek amicable resolutions, and I have always been successful; even in this case, I successfully convinced FAAFA to remove the libelous material from the Free Republic article that I was originally concerned about. It is a demonstration of the propensity for needling and harassment by these two editors, and their consummate skill at getting under the skin of otherwise level-headed people, that I am now being accused of incivility. I want NPOV articles. I want to turn bad articles into Featured Articles. And I don't want any more Siegenthaler cases. I have taken steps toward all of those goals and I have been harassed every inch of the way. Dino 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1)You didn't convince me of anything. 2)The article still documents the death threats (against a sitting president) by Free Republic members. 3) Do you really think you should still be claiming that an article by a notable published author is 'libelous' in light of the numeous admins warnings about legal threats? - FAAFA 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Knock. It. Off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So what happens now? Sit back and wait for Dino to explode or start making legal threats, so that you can have a good excuse to ban all three of us? I'm happy to disappoint you. That's not going to happen. The evidence I've presented is bulletproof; the evidence for the defense consists of distortions, an attempted resurrection of a false accusation long since cremated by the truth, and childish attempts at further provocation. Enforce WP:STALK. ArbCom has clearly prescribed a harsh remedy for cases such as this one. Dino 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have all recieved appropriate feedback and warnings here for things which several of us agree you're respectively doing wrong. Simply having everyone stop beating each other up and leaving each other alone is the preferred outcome as far as I'm concerned. If they simply drop it or remain engaged only in a productive and constructive manner then I don't see any reason for further preventive actions against any of you. If you don't think this is acceptable, as I said earlier, nothing's in the way of you filing an Arbcom case. I think that's a mutual assured destruction option, but I can't stop you from pulling that trigger.

An admin reading this may also chose to act more forcefully in response to some or all of the above, but I hope not.

Please don't dissapoint those of us who have been putting effort in under the presumption that all three of you can continue to be productive Wikipedia editors in the future. Georgewilliamherbert 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, more warnings. That's sure to work. They've worked so well in the past. Dino 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's incivility to an editor who is here trying to help you. This is not the first act of hostility by one of the three editors involved in this AN/I. This is ridiculous, and I think it's time for an Admin to get involved. (I had a longer comment, referencing Solomon and Shazam!, but I'll hold my tongue. Admins, please get involved post-haste. thank you. ThuranX 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM of putting Czechs' ethnicity as ethnic Lechs

West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavic languages because all Slavic peoples used more or less the same Slavic language 1000 years ago and were already partitioned into these western, southern and eastern groups. We Slavic peoples call these ethnic partitions amongst us Slavic peoples for "Lechs" (ethnic Western Slavic peoples), "Czechs" (ethnic Southern Slavic peoples) and "Rusins" (ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples) for a good reason. Common sense tells one that if even Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Ethnic Czechs during entire written history never were ethnic Lechs. This ethnic partition is older then any possible differentiation of Proto-Slavic language. However when they put all over the Wikipedia that Czechs and Slovak are together with Polish the Western Slavic peoples, then it is just not the truth... Even if Czechs, Slovak and Polish would be speaking the same language they still would belonged to different Slavic ethnicities. Lechs are not Czechs and every child in Poland knows that.

I found these false entires in Slavic peoples, West Slavs and Czechs pages. I consider them to be ethnically incorrect and to be an ethnic vandalism on Wikipedia. I suspect some scientific paper about similiarities amongst Slavic languages is used by some crazy fringe nationalistic political elements to cause all those ethnical errors and lies about true Slavic Lechitic ethnic identity. I made couple edits to correct these errors on these pages, but I found myself overwhelmed, when they proved to be very extensive. I did also notify about my findings of this vandalism in the talk pages of these pages. How should I procede, as my edits are almost instantly reverted by other users? Pan Piotr Glownia 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A better place for this, Pan Piotr, would probably be to generate discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question. Discuss the changes you'd like to make with other editors by providing sources and references for your arguments, and try to reach a consensus. Don't go in there accusing everyone of racism and don't be surprised or offended if your viewpoints are not immediately accepted by everyone; these subjects tend to be contentious. A Train ^{take the} 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endroit

If you look at Endroit (talk · contribs)'s contribs he seems to be engaged in creating every possible territorial dispute template and slapping them on every possible related article, all with edit summaries inviting comments on one particular TfD. I swear to God I have never accused anyone of this before, but this is the clearest example of WP:POINT I have ever seen. --Ideogram 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note especially from the discussion he is trying to get one territorial dispute template deleted and in order to make his point he is creating all possible territorial dispute templates and slapping them everywhere. --Ideogram 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates were added, per TfD discussion for {{Territorial disputes involving Japan}}. It started out as a template which singled out a particular country: JAPAN. Per discussion in the aforementioned TfD, people suggested that the template does not violate WP:NPOV, and encouraged everyone to create similar templates for other countries. If there is any reason to delete any particular country template, please give the reason in the aforementioned TfD, per Wikipedia procedure. If an admin feels strongly that these templates are a bad idea, and have good reasons that WP:POINT were breached, let us know also there also. Thank you.--Endroit 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to draw attention to your little fight by slapping invitations on every article you can think of is a really bad idea. --Ideogram 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this is an admin notice board, I guess I should point out that User:Ideogram unilaterally deleted ALL templates in Taiwan and simply explained in Talk:Taiwan that "I hate these things". That is the only potential WP:POINT violation I see. You cannot unilaterally go around deleting templates just because you hate them. Please go ahead an give your reasons in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan. Thank you.--Endroit 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no intent of getting into a content dispute with you. I am telling you to stop your disruptive behavior. --Ideogram 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now he's accusing me of vandalism. --Ideogram 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I was already discussing the validity of a particular type of template in WP:TfD, I WAS following Wikipedia procedures. Ideogram, you have sidestepped TfD altogether and unilaterally deleted templates in Taiwan. You CANNOT delete templates just because you "hate them". Please discuss in the specified TfD, and give your reasons why these are bad templates. Also, depending on the way you delete templates, like you did in Taiwan, I will consider reporting you for vandalism next time. Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan was nominated for deletion by User:Endroit. He objected to the template because it was the only one in existence at the time, specifically centered around Japan. Firstly, this an example of WP:BIAS, which is not grounds for a template deletion, and he incorrectly considered it as a violation of WP:NPOV. He then created numerous similar templates and added them to a number of different articles. If he had created these templates in the thought that they deserve to exist, one has to ask why he does not withdraw the nomination for the original template in question, the one he still maintains should be deleted. Check his contrib history[80], basically he is creating templates similar to one which he believes ought to be deleted, adding them to articles and specifically mentioning the template deletion in his edit summary. Clear violation of WP:POINT. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that HongQiGong created the first one of these templates, LordAmeth created 2, and I created 4, why accuse only me? If these templates do not violate WP:NPOV as discussed in the aforementioned TfD, where's the WP:POINT violation, HongQiGong? Why is it so bad to create these templates all of a sudden, and what is your premise for accusing me now, after creating the first of these batch?--Endroit 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't even understand the issue that User:Ideogram brought up, do you? Neither I or LordAmeth used these templates to invite editors to discuss the deletion of the Japan template, a template that you nominated for deletion, and neither I or LordAmeth voted to delete that template. We created those templates as navigational tools. And I had even asked you to withdraw the nomination after you created these other templates, but you refused. Why did you create these templates if you still think the Japan one ought to be deleted? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions, HongQiGong. I never said that the template should be unconditionally deleted. I said that if the template cannot be salvaged in an NPOV fasion, it should be deleted. We are still discussing how the template can be salvaged in an NPOV fasion. Why withdraw that TfD request when we are having an ongoing and productive discussion? More people are involved now, and that's a good thing.--Endroit 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The template is not POV to begin with. It does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims, and it does not state that Japan is the only country ever to have territorial dispute. There is a WP:BIAS problem, but that is not grounds for deletion. It's a problem which, by the way, you and LordAmeth have subsequently solved with the creation of those other templates. Regardless of all this, what you did recently is probably the most blatant display of WP:POINT I've ever seen. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that HongQiGong's initial creation of a template FOR ONE COUNTRY ONLY (Japan) WAS a WP:NPOV violation as I also stated in WP:TfD. This was in the beginning only, and the situation changed as people got involved and revised the template. Everything was being discussed in a cordial manner, in the TfD discussion.

Then I mentioned that the only way I can support this template was to verify there are no complaints when similar templates are created for Japan, Israel and the United Kingdom, and their rivals PRC, Syria, and Argentina. I went ahead and created templates for PRC, United Kingdom, and Argentina. Subsequently, there was a complaint regarding the PRC template, mentioning that there should be a template for PRC's rival ROC as well, which I then created.

That's when User:Ideogram started this discussion. Anyways, we disagree about the WP:POINT violation.

Will an admin please respond and tell us whether there was any WP:POINT violation here?

If there's no WP:POINT violation, I'd like to go ahead and apply the templates for Israel and Syria as well. Thank you very much.--Endroit 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as I believe the templates were ill-advised and non-NPOV in that they singled out a specific state, I think Endroit's behavior has gone way over the line. If another admin concurs I do believe some sanctions are in order. In the meantime please stop creating these templates and sticking them all over the place, you've made your point, now let the discussion on TfD run its course. -Loren 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endroit has agreed to stop for now. Unless anyone else has any further objections I'd like to consider this issue closed.-Loren 05:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I've semi-protected the article because some IP and newly registered editors are continuing to insert text about the subject being a millionaire with a rather flimsy source of a celebrity gossip site. WP:DUCK, the editors adding this have a WP:COI as they are tied to the subject. I've removed the statement. I'm fairly certain I'm going to be accused of all sorts of malfeasance for doing this so I'm just posting this here in case anyone disagrees with my actions.--Isotope23 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA?

I warned an editor about adding a userbox to another users page calling him a name he's asked not to be called [81] and got this response on my talk page. Anyone else think this is out of line? I'm hesitent to act on it because I'm involved in it.--Isotope23 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I support you not acting yourself, but I'd call that a threat, and I'm going to go tell him to knock it off. If someone who has admin bit wants to block him, that might work too. Georgewilliamherbert 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw it that way too, but since it is directed at me I don't think I'm in a position to be acting on this in a fair and balanced manner.--Isotope23 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It initially struck me as a very childish way to try to say something, more than as any kind of threat that they'd actually take some action. Not sure what level of reprimand is warranted. --Sean Martin 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FredguyII (talk · contribs)

FredguyII (talk · contribs) is going around adding sockpuppet templates to user pages. This is probably some vandal... -- Scientizzle 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) blocked this user. But a lot of the user pages vandalized were created by FredguyII and should be deleted, right? -- Scientizzle 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, all taken care of... -- Scientizzle 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirelan responding to "final warning" for vandalism on his page and his IP page just switched to a new IP

After having received a "final warning" both on his own talk page and on his IP at 70.104.126.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started deleting material from Dave Winer using a new IP address, 71.244.175.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All article edits by this new IP have been reverted ([82]), edits by this new IP address to that talk page are signed with "Nirelan" ([83]), please somebody stop warning this vandal and start blocking him. betsythedevine 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a handful of 3RR blocks and whatnot for these individuals.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Spambots on Talk:Lonelygirl15

I've just had to revert two spambots in quick succession which both posted huge amounts of Italian spam on this talk page, and - looking through the history - it's been happening quite a bit, from a variety of unrelated IPs. Most of the editing to the page in the last few days has been spam reversion, in fact; is semiprotection in order? (IP blocking won't help - this looks like a botnet - and the URLs are too diverse for URL-based blocking to be effective.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

URLs are helpful to see if other IPs had been spamming around. Maybe the article could be semiprotected, but it would not stop them if they are testing it out. -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue's actually the talk page, not the article. And, as I mentioned, the URLs are too diverse to block - the most recent run used a bunch of sites from a free Russian webhost (hotmail.ru), but previous runs have included hundreds of randomly generated domains. Semiprotection on the talk page will probably fix things, though; all the edits are coming from one-shot IPs. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

talk pages are all "nofollow" anyway, aren't they? - brenneman 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All pages are nofollow; that doesn't stop people completely, though. Ral315 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversation/vandalism on Special K article

A few unregistered users seem to be having a converstation via the Special K article, repeatedly undoing reverts of their edits. Is some sort of block or protection appropriate? JamJar 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty much resolved, at least for now -- the page is sprotected, most of the IPs involved have been blocked. I checked the diffs between today's vandalism and Jan 31 (the most recent editing), and there's not much change -- one paragraph that looks alright, and the protection template. Will try to keep an eye on it, but don't be shy about asking for more help if you need it. Thanks. Luna Santin 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) update. Incivility and continued suppression of information

Hello all. The recent ANI notices seem to be helping to maintain the basic science facts in the Neurolinguistic programming article. There still seems to be a strong and coordinated resistance to collaboration or presenting the main criticisms in a summarized form “in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[84].

Similar to IP user 58’s edits, [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] Comaze (who seems to have a clear and definite COI) is continuing removing the main criticisms from the lead section [93].

They are still removing reliable published peer review sourced edits by persistently and often uncivilly calling me a sockpuppet and a troll. I've complied with the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppeting [94] and not taken this personally. I also believe my edit record is sound [95] and speaks for itself and shows that I am editing constructively long term on my own whilst appealing for civility and collaboration. This has already been discussed here with Guy giving his view [96] [97] and then Woohookitty (who has long experience of mentoring the article) giving encouragement to continue summarizing according to NPOV on my talkpage [98].

Meatpuppetry looks more probable within the pro NLP group. There are single or virtually single use accounts eg [99] [100] using similar arguments and language. They are definitely ignoring my voice and some have stated they deliberately intend to. I am also complying with the relevant sockpuppetry guidelines in this regard [101].

Regarding the constant allegations of sockpuppetry. I understand that neutral administrators can block sockpuppets at their own discretion [102]. If any neutral administrator considers me to be contravening sockpuppetry regulations then feel free to block me. Similarly if any neutral administrator considers me to be trolling please take the appropriate action or notify me here or on my talkpage. Also if any neutral editor feels that I am dong anything that is not constructive – again feel free to post here or on my talkpage.

Pro NLP editors seem to include views – yet present them in a selective and often non-sequitur order in order to negate criticism [103]. Thus they tend to edit defensively as has been identified in the Cleanuptaskforce assessment. The pro NLP arguments have been presented using OR and are certainly unencyclopedic. Critical views are being suppressed from the lead and the main body of the article. I have had a look at the other subsidiary NLP articles and they follow the same pattern. They also tend to spread critical comments around which makes the article look even more like an argument or debate and less encyclopedic. There seems to me to be a strong reluctance to make straight reports of NLP. They are still reluctant to remove debate or argumentative edits from the article [104]. As shown above they are also persistent in suppressing the critical science point of view [105][106]. There is a strong tendency for pro NLP editors to present research speculation as conclusion (selective editing) [107].

Despite the currently dismissive and uncivil actions of the pro NLP group – I would not ban or block them or apply page protection. I would give them another opportunity to make some effort to get along without intervention from outside. I believe that its more constructive (actually necessary) to continue to apply scrutiny and to encourage editors to get along and edit in a more collaborative fashion long term. AlanBarnet 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 7th effort gaming WP:AN/I [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. No-one has corroborated any of his highly creative stories -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to other editors indepedently conceding that the only way to deal with AlanBarnet is to ignore. AlanBarnet's talk page shows him exhausting all user patience one-by-one over the course of two months. It seems to be a game to AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown to play with people's sincerities. 203.212.143.167 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 203.212.143.167. I'm glad you replied. I believe you havn't quite grasped the reality of the situation. Of the six editors you present above, one is just a single use IP user (74.38.250.5) as is yourself (I'm assuming your present IP is also 58.179.191.108). JBhood is not a regular editor at all and could well be a meatpuppet also. Fainites is a single use account and seems to me to be strongly averse to admin suggestions. Comaze and Doc pato seem to have obvious conflicts of interests. Your edits seem to be the most argumentative and OR in order to suppress criticism. Your edits seem to show that you are calling me a sockpuppet and a troll in order that the article is prevented from being presented "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[120].

Even though you seem to be persistently and quite incivilly suppressing information in order to promote NLP, I am doing my best to collaborate both here and on the NLP talkpage in the spirit of Wikipedia in order to get on with editors of various worldviews. I see no problem at all with pro NLP argument as long as it is sourced and "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability" as per NPOV policies. You and other editors on the NLP article really do seem to have a problem with summarizing the critical science views towards NLP though. I encourage you to collaborate with myself and any other constructive editor in presenting the article according to NPOV policies. AlanBarnet 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More Billy Byars

There have been a couple posts here already about the problems related to User:Ballog and Billy Byars Jr. and its afd. Now User:Chapado has appeared and is pushing Ballog's points, but with a gloss of civility. Nonetheless, the writing style is unmistakably similar, and this new user has edited solely these related pages. This is exactly the kind of stuff the infamous User:LorenzoPerosi1898 would do on his pet articles. Just something else I think an admin should keep an eye on as it transpires...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ballog (talk · contribs) Chapado (talk · contribs) LorenzoPerosi1898 (talk · contribs) --Exarion 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I tried to do that but left out the "|". To clarify, I am not suggesting these guys are LorenzoPerosi socks, I'm just pointing out that the behavior is very similar to the sort of thing a known vandal have done in a very similar situation.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thucydides411 disrupting mediation process

The Juan Cole page is under mediation, and several contentious topics are being sorted out on the mediation page. All parties to the mediation have agreed in good faith not to edit the contentious sections while the mediation is on-going. Recently, a new user, who is not party to the mediation has appeared on the scene, and after delivering an ultimatum to the effect that he will start unilaterally making changes to the page, proceeded and made those changes, blanking out large portions of the text that were not to his liking, despite being asked by several editors not to do so, but to make his comments on the mediation page, instead. [121][122]. His edits were then removed by several editors, all of whom reminded him that the page is under mediation, but to no avail - he now continues to edit the contentious sections, edit warring while gaming the 3RR rule by making exactly 3 reverts in 24 hours, and a fourth revert shortly thereafter.[123][124][125][126]

Isarig should not be complaining about other users "gaming" the 3RR since that is something Isarig does constantly. Nearly every edit of Isarig's is a revert, and he constantly reverts three times a day, and will report anyone who does it a fourth time even when Isarig started the edit war; more than a few times, I have found him reverting a fourth time at exactly 24 hours and ten minutes (I have reported him for this two or three times and been told simply that four reverts are needed to incur a block). While I share Isarig's concern about changing text that is under mediation, I think his reaction to Thucydides, which was extremely hostile, was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. At one point Isarig refused to respond to extremely legitimate concerns - concerns agreed upon by other parties in the mediation - and simply threatened an AN/I report. I am very concerned that Isarig seems to use AN/I reports to avoid content discussions -- trying to take his opponent out of play rather than responding to his concerns in the discussion. I feel this is an abuse of wikipedia process.csloat 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are in dire need of reading Tu quoque. My reaction to Thucydides's ultimatum was "You are welcome to your personal opinions, but as you can see, they are hotly contested and this issue is currently in mediation. Please don't edit the contorversial sections on theJuan Cole page while this mediation is in progress" - see this. there was nothing hostile about it - it was a polite request that he not unilaterally edit a page under mediation. You are misrepresenting your true position on editing pages under mediation - you do not share my concern over this, you have encouraged Thucydides to so edit, saying "I don't think there is any harm in removing the entire disputed section until mediation is done". My particpation in the mediation page is well documented, please don't lie about that, too. Isarig 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of lying; as I explained on that page, my concern is about changing the page without discussion, but I don't think there is a harm in agreeing to remove the disputed text until it is no longer disputed. Please see WP:AGF rather than assuming people are lying when you encounter opinions that are more complex than black-and-white. And I consider this quite hostile, not at all "polite." csloat 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Username (jarbarf) warning

In light of a controversy of my last username block, I thought I'd drop a note. I've advised User:(jarbarf) to change usernames or risk a block in a few days. The user has made good vandalism reversion contributions, and I'd like to see a name change followup. However, I don't think that "(jarbarf)" is an acceptable username. Please comment if you wish. Teke ^(talk) 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is that an unacceptable username? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a jar of barf seems to imply an excretory function. Teke ^(talk) 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to restrain my comments, but in my humble opinion, that's a ridiculous application of WP:U (something that has gradually become more and more of a problem lately). That policy is meant to restrict usernames that have an actual risk of being inflammatory. Our use of "excretory" in that policy is a euphemism for "shitting", pardon my French. If my username were "SweatingMan", would you say that it should be banned because perspiration is an excretory function? I really hope the answer is no; please, let's stop the slow creep of that policy to cover nearly any possible name. It's really unnecessary. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are good points. It's why I posted here. I do appreciate the input, and it's why I took the time with this. Teke ^(talk) 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this a violation of WP:U.--Jersey Devil 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism noticed on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

Dear Sir,

I noticed that under "Assemblies and magistrates" someone has ended the section with "mr. beudet is really large and gay". I am not certain as to how to correct this issue, but I did discover that the IP address of the "editor" is 216.107.203.2. If you go to the history page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.107.203.2, you will find there is more that has been edited.

I rather enjoy the information and knowledge that is shared on this site, it's a shame that others use it as a pathetic attempt to get attention.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.213.112.38 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

It looks like another user has reverted that vandalism already. You can also revert vandalism, see Help:Reverting for a tutorial on how to revert. You may also want to consider registering to Wikipedia. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Egunthry -- repeatedly re-creating articles

Egunthry (talk · contribs)

• Re-created Sore Thumbs twice, once after full AfD, then thirty seconds after a speedy delete.

*Re-created Superosity after full AfD.

User has been warned repeatedly and shows no sign of good faith. Probably a puppet (account created today). Block & salt requested. /Blaxthos 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

72.228.13.225

Repeat Vandals of Anna Nicole Smith and related pages.

-- OverlordQ 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

75.55.51.64

Continued Vandalism of Various pages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OverlordQ (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Shadowbot(bot) is misbehaving]]

Shadowbot just reverted an edit of mine that added a nonsense template to Gdawg 69. It complains on my talk page that I'm making linkspam, but I didn't even add any links. 209.30.160.174 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I've blocked the bot. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Puppet Filled Mess

Hi

Where is the best place to report a string of sock/meat puppets these days? I've been editing as anon for years now, and am not familiar with the current meta practices on en.

I noticed some serious disruption in an AfD. Somebody with checkuser needs to sort this out. Just as my luck would have it, I happen to get into a passionate AfD right after I leave the IPs behind, and now I can't bring this up in the AfD itself, as it has moved to semiprot (as it should be) to stop the puppetry.

Thanks, NetOracle 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GunZ the Duel, persistent IP vandal.

After this comment from 201.34.85.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), there have been many edits to the page, along the same lines, although it's not the same IP, so I don't think I can nominate them for AIV, even though they're most likely socks.

• 1 from 201.34.91.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 2 from 200.96.100.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 3 from 200.203.67.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 4 from 201.34.85.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and as you can see in their contribs, more than one from most of them. I don't think this is suitable for AIV, 3RR, or requests for prot, really need assistance here, it's getting stupid -- feb^talk 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Renegadeviking

I just came across this user's talk page, which is a string of warnings and questions about the copyright status of the innumerable computer and video game screen shots he has uploaded. I do not have as much experience with image/copyright stuff as other admins, so I was hoping you might want to take a look at this user's contributions. A vast number of this user's images have no copyright information, let alone source or fair use details, and many others have incorrect tags, in which the user claims to own the copyright. Please take a look at this. I should be asleep right now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to ban User:Sarvabhaum

I think the time is up to ban Sarvabhaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has persistently edit-warred on Kannada-Marathi pages such as Belgaum, Seuna, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, and has been blocked for 3RR many times. However, he has continually created sockpuppets whilst under block - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvabhaum - persistently, and continually uses his IP range 59.95.... to revert the same articles over and over again. His block has been renewed and lengthen many times, but it is simply obvious that he will keep on coming back. see Sarvabhaum back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vishu123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Itihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvabhaum000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

An editor is repeatedly removing POV and disputed tags during a dispute, instead of following dispute resolution and discussion. Also, he is insulting me when he removes the tags.-MsHyde 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this user has been warned several times about the misuse of such tags (see User talk:MsHyde), and has tried to use at least four different versions on this one article after encountering resistance. I have removed the tags because they have no need to be there. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)