Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PSPMario (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 16 February 2007 (→‎I think I see a sockpuppet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks.

    User fys has been abusive towards me:

    So I left him a warning using the standard template.

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

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

    It's perfectly acceptable to remove anything from a talk page. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what it says here [5]. While some people on the talk page argue that users should be able to remove warnings immediately, as to remove them they must have read and hopefully understood them, in doing so saying "revert new user test" and "(fmt)" doesn't demonstrate good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    "What it says here" (Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings) was a proposal, not a policy or guideline. It was not adopted. A note at top now clarifies this: "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." On the talk page, please note the comment: "Several proposed policies to forbid warning removal were defeated. As such, people remain allowed to remove things that they don't like from their talk page, and that includes warnings. Revert warring to replace a warning is bad form. One may assume that a user removing a warning has read said warning".... -- Ben 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying he shouldn't remove it, I'm saying that when a user removes a warning by saying "revert new user test", it is quite reasonable to add it back saying "it was not a test". He can remove whatever he like, but in saying revert test and "fmt", he is showing a deliberate deceit which does his cause no favours. Nssdfdsfds

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

    • Pretty standard behaviour for Fys. You need to realise that Fys is absolutely right about absolutely everything and therefore any warnings are necessarily invalid. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Might have known you'd show up in your usual provocative way - not actually arguing that I'm wrong, just insinuating that I must be. I might remind you that I still have my 100% record: whenever I kick up a fuss, it always turns out in the end that I'm right. If I'm not right, I don't kick up a fuss. That simple enough for you? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This being the admins' noticeboard, and me being an admin, and one of the more active ones at that, I didn't "show up", I was here all along. "Revert new user test?" How about "I have read your comment and do not wish to engage in debate" or some such? And "fmt" (minor)? What's that if not a misleading edit summary? Has it ever occurred to you to be anything other than aggressive and provocative? Oh, and hey! You're edit warring on Anne Milton again! You need to chill. Why not ask your man Cameron if you can bum a spliff? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't have to interpose yourself in this section, you chose to, in what is a fairly blatant provocation. I was a better admin on an off day than you've ever been, with your personalising of everything. You should resign. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am rapidly running out of patience for this user, continually involved in incidents similar to this. I would support an indefinate time out. ViridaeTalk 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also [7] with its rude edit summary, and [8], vexatious use of a standard template warning on an established editor, which by common consent is rude and provocative. I think Fys is often a good editor but is very very combative and his reaction to any challenge is frequently rude and obnoxious. He's a political activist and a Usenet veteran so this is pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, who's "stalking" whom? This started out not involving JzG, then he leaps in to revive a dispute long considered settled, and misused his admin rollback button in a content dispute. And the corollary to "don't template the regulars" is that you use a specific individual message: when I do this, he removed it. The reason I have learned to be combative with JzG is that he is a personal, vindictive and combative person who pays no regard to logical, well constructed arguments. He is unsuited to the role of admin. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You will note that when I removed your comments on my Talk I acknowledged them with civil edit summaries. The second was redundant anyway. But please don't try to change the subject. You have been rude and obnoxious with your comments and edit summaries, and this is part of a long-term pattern of rude and obnoxious comments and summaries. You should urgently consider changing this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Actually that was a mistake; I immediately made a null edit to add a summary (which was: taking it to Talk, which I did), but it did not show up for some reason. No big deal, I think, given that I gave justifications for the original edit in the summary and I took it to Talk. This is a sideshow which should not distract from the original topic. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make up. Also, I definitely think from [10] that Fys should use more moderate language, as a lot of his edit summaries seem to be provocative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Ok, I just read that as "I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make out." Not a pleasant mental image... AecisBrievenbus 12:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is one of a long string of incidents involving fys and and his absoloutely uncompromising POV. There has to be a limit. ViridaeTalk 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of POV editing. You have caught this disease of JzG. I want this blog mentioned because it makes the article better, not because it accords with my POV. Withdraw that unfounded allegation. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that was directed at me. I wasn't reffering to your editing, I was reffering to your interactions with other users, your uncompromising position that you are always right, as clearly demonstrated in my past dealings with you. You never seem to have learnt from any of the disputes to which you have been a party and consequently you seem to be rapidly running out of chances for redemption. ViridaeTalk 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks in edit summaries in the last 50 edits today: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Many many users have been blocked for much less. What is it going to take for you to be civil? ViridaeTalk 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, if I wasn't already involved in this discussion/had a history with you and I came across that lot I would have blocked you on the spot. Unacceptable. ViridaeTalk 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Mackensen, with respect, it's not a content dispute. Fys has changed the subject, and that happened because I mentioned that one of the articles involved is Anne Milton, the article where I blocked Fys for edit-warring before, but the problem is not the edit warring (although that is part of the problem), it's Fys' repeatable use of insulting comments in text and in edit summaries. As Viridae says, it's a long-term issue with this editor.
    I'm not going to press this further because I am "involved" (in the sense that one who does something to prevent Fys from doing what he wants is immediately "involved", since he seems entirely incapable of taking no for an answer) but you will see that the edit summaries and comments linked above use terms like "liar" and "idiot". He removed abusive comments instead of striking them and apologising (did he apologise for his rudeness? I didn't see it) and he posted blatant personal attacks, including evidently trawling through my Talk to find a disgruntled editor and stirring up dissent there.
    In short: Fys is a troublemaker. His reaction to being called a troublemaker is precisely as one would expect from a politician and Usenet veteran: deflection and denial. Seems that's what's being tried again here. "Look at this horrible admin abuse, see this terrible edit warring". How about "Sorry, I should not have called this editor an idiot?" Or "sorry, I got carried away?"
    Sooner or later we (for values of we which do not include me) are going to have to deal with this. Fys was desysopped for unapologetically edit warring on a political biography, and overall the one word that I think characterises Fys' behaviour generally is unapologetic. Like most politicians, he is entirely convinced of his own rectitude and he seems, from my limited interactions with him, to be absolutely unwilling to accept even the suggestion that he may be in the wrong. He is also not prepared to drop it, as we see form the fact that he is still evidently beating the dead horse of his 3RR block months ago. Of course the project can live with bullheaded and opinionated people, if it could not then I'd be out of here, but when they refuse to countenance the possibility they may be wrong, then we have a problem. WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to waste time drawing attention to JzG's blatant personal attacks and reference to off-wiki behaviour above; merely to point out that he says on his user page "If you act like a dick, I'll call you a dick". I'm merely doing the same, and "they don't like it up 'em". If this editing dispute has become heated, then JzG's contribution has been to bring much of the petrol. Where I am right I stick to my guns. Where I am wrong, I back down. The wiki would be rendered useless if editors backed down when they were in the right. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a whole world of difference between telling someone hey are acting like a dick and posting egregious personal attacks, which is what you did. Plus, the events whihc started this thread had nothing to do with me, you were insulting and attacking another editor entirely. Oh, and you're acting like a dick. Again. Like the man says lower down, put down the stick and back away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It was an organised attempt to recruit Wikipedians by POV. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Articles I have written are NPOV. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think it's rather silly to claim everything you've written is NPOV. Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [18] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neturality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective han overt bias. Of course everyone will do this, nobody is without opinions and bias, and to claim that you are an impartial observer, infallible and completely without bias is just silly. This is consistent with other recent edits of yours to the effect that you are always right, and doesnt' do you any favours. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wasn't and you know damn well it wasn't. I even offered you the chance to act as an NPOV checker. No article I have ever written has contained POV either, so your insinuation that I have is a fallacy. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing - you have been desysopped for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    No, I think it should run for a while. Fys is very skilled at diverting discussion of his problematic behaviour down blind alleys, but he does keep on with the problematic behaviour and, as noted above, he has an unshakeable belief in his own neutrality, which is a pressing problem given that he is a party political activist; it is unwise in the extreme not to acknowledge even the possibility that you might have bias. Add to that the extremely unhelpful nature of some of his comments, and we have a problem editor. With a history of blocks, an ArbCom sanction and a desysopping behind him. Every time he diverts the discussion by poking sharp sticks at everybody who disagrees with him, we all say "oh, content dispute" and wander off. How many content disputes do you have to have, with how many editors, before it;s considered a problem? Fys will not accept criticism, even when it is seen by outsiders as well founded. Anybody who criticises him gets a shitstorm. Do we need that? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I add that this particular incident report took not less than five insults by him calling me an "idiot", which I repeatedly asked him not to do (and which he ignored), and then two removals of my warning template about his abuse (which I only added after he had slapped a warning template on my own page about reverting (something, which of course takes two, and that second person was Fys) - in other words he wanted to warn me (and I responded), but refused to listen to my own warnings, firstly in the edit summary, then in the page itself, and then on his user page). In other words from the issue of whether or not this text
    "In February 2006, Milton was among a minority of Conservative MPs to oppose exceptions for private clubs from the proposed Smoking ban in England. The next month, she was the first Conservative MP to sign an early day motion tabled by Labour MP Chris Mullin calling for fake fur to be used in the bearskin hats worn by some regiments of the British Army."
    is notable enough to include in the article on Anne Milton, it escalated into this. This escalation took, by my count, NINE acts of abusive and/or arrogant behaviour against me by Fys. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] And this despite my requests to the contrary. I can't help thinking that it could have been stopped long before this. Nssdfdsfds 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And by my reckoning this is pretty standard behaviour for Fys, certainly not unusual or unprecedented. Which is why I think we ought to consider what, if anything, to do about it. It's the complete lack of openness to the idea that he is anything other than completely neutral in his editing that bugs me here. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My last contribution yesterday before 4 PM, and then JzG and others come back several times later to jump all over my reputation and then accuse me of "flogging a dead horse" when I did not respond. This is unacceptable. What exactly is the 'horse' in question? Does JzG think it is fair for him and his allies to issue constant insults against me, including unworthy suggestions which have no supporting evidence, and then object that I have no right to disagree? JzG is unworthy of being an administrator and should resign. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I somehow see this ending in an ArbCom.--Isotope23 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not participate but would welcome an ArbCom hearing which resulted in desysopping JzG. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may say this, though: if JzG undertakes never again to make the claim that my wish to see the Tim Ireland blog mentioned in Anne Milton is derived from my own point of view on her politics, and agrees that I have not been sanctioned for point of view editing, then I will let the matter drop so far as he is concerned (and he need not apologise for having done so in the past). Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That blog is in no way a reliable source. It should be removed from the article.--Isotope23 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the blog as a source and all of the information sourced from the blog. Someguysblog is never an acceptable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been added back now by Fys and Catchpole, who reverted it saying 'rv attempts to whitewash criticism of Milton behind hysterical "attack blog" assertions'. This doesn't seem to be according with policy. See also the talk page.Nssdfdsfds 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of clarity, Hipocrite, blogs can be used as a source, like any self-published site. According to WP:V, Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. I don't know what kind of blog this was, but it's just not accurate to say blogs are not usable as sources 100% of the time. Jeffpw 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in there as a source, as would be fairly clear if you knew the background. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Someguysblog is not the blog of a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." If they were, they wouldn't be "Someguy." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mighty generous offer there: "If he will promise to surrender unconditionally, I promise to accept his surrender unconditionally also." --Calton | Talk 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh do come off it. I'm merely asking that he stop making unfounded allegations which he has never substantiated. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would 'any page' include this one? Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that's not article probation (article probation applies to articles) but a one year ordinary probation which expires in August. Please note the "for reasonable cause". Please note that it's been accepted that I can remove warnings from my userpage (which I note JzG does all the time). If JzG would accept the very reasonable offer made above, which merely asks him not to make unfounded accusations (something he should not be doing anyway) then this would be a big pile of nothing and everyone could go away. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said above, these issues would not blow up to such a degree if you would ever accept that you are wrong. Renoving warnings is accepted yes, but in doing so saying "new user test" and "fmt" was wrong. Perhaps I should have added a Wrongsummary3 template as well. :-) Nssdfdsfds 11:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or everyone could just go away, and you could take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to go to dispute resolution. I have raised this issue with JzG many times but he removes anything I ask him on his talk page. An RfC is not possible unless two users are involved and I don't see him waiving his privilege. And I am definitely not going to Arbitration as the whole process is unacceptable. So what should I do to stop JzG making unfounded allegations? Because, let me make it absolutely clear, a great deal of my irritation with him (which may come across as disruption) is because of his continual unwarranted accusations. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom and ALoan... I would say 'any page' could indeed include this one, but perhaps that might not be the most productive thing to do. What I am seeing is a pattern of contentious behaviour from an editor that has been warned before and perhaps some community sanctioning is in order here... what would be the list of pages that we'd want to restrict this behaviour on? Do we really need ArbCom to sanction? Or could previously uninvolved admins just take care of this on their own? ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we could make a list of pages and ban him from them under the existing remedy for disruptive incivility. But I'm not sure a focus on particular pages is what we need. The problem seems to be a pattern of behavior with other editors: unwillingness to be civil with people who disagree with him, to the point of interfering with his and others' work. As a disclaimer, while I don't follow these pages I have blocked Fys in the past, and he has called me an idiot. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What in fact happened, a year ago this week, was that you blocked me for a totally fictitious 3RR violation. As I understand it no-one now believes that that block was justified. It did, however, lead indirectly to my desysopping when I self un-blocked at 1 AM: I was just about to finish an edit that had taken me an hour to work on. Just for the sake of full disclosure. I mean what I say about JzG accepting the deal proposed above, and that would be far, far simpler than anything anyone else has proposed. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocked

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

    Fys chose to respond without an unblock notice, but rather with more direct commentary, and I see you responded in turn. I hope the block, which I support, gives Fys a chance to reflect on how to more positively contribute in future, and I hope you don't get too drawn into sparring over the block with Fys as your reasoning is sound in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. I see no point in further sparring with Fys, he is quite obviously just "spoiling for a fight". Thanks for the support. ViridaeTalk 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiStalking by PageantUpdater

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

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

    With these last four edits:

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

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

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

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

    Seems like you are violating WP:POINT evrik. Reality contest contestants aren't considered automatically notable if their only accomplishment is the actual show, yet after an argument about this on PageantUpdater's page, you go and create two very short stubs about it to see if there is any reaction, and then go and wikilink redlinks for non-articles which are traditionally held to not be notable, which is why they are left unlinked, much like failed politcal candidates on election pages. Looks like you've been blocked a lot as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as you have awarded PU a barnstar in the past, are you really being objective?
    Actually, I have text for all of the candidates in this season as this is the All Star season. I was going to load the bio pages from the articles when PageantUpdater started reverting my edits. I went away for a couple of hours and then loaded the Mary Conley and David Conley, Jr. pages. PU nominated them for deletion within minutes. Stalking. --evrik (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that she did good work. It's not as though it was the other way around, like I've been the target of some kind of charm campaign. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


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

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

    That last comment of mine has just been deleted from his talk page as "abusive". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS if I was truly wikistalking him, wouldn't I be messing with all his edits, rather than just those we share a common interest in? Lol -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Evrik you are violating WP:POINT by the creation of those stubs, if you keep on creating more stubs I will block you Jaranda wat's sup 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Evrik's defense (and I may not be objective), PageantUpdater had never edited the four articles she initially reverted (until Evrik did) she then revertd him in the name of Wiki Quality. It seems to me that she must have been monitoring what he was editing and then edited right after him. This is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. PageantUpdater seems to have caused by this whole mess and Evrik has merely defended himself. --South Philly 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really scary

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

    I just looked at that, Evrik, and it seems a rational response by someone who feels she is being harassed. Document document document--you never know when you'll need the stuff in a hurry. Jeffpw 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Evrik, considering the (false) accusations you have made against me and your persecution and harassment of me, this was, as Jeff put it, a rational response, not to mention stress relief. It was particularly warranted because you were claiming things were done in an order that they were not, and seem to ignore the fact that I did in fact deal with the articles in Category: Amazing Race contestants. The page is far from complete but I will continue to work on it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PageantUpdater is keeping a journal on the issue in userspace, you're in essence documenting the conflict here. How is one inappropriate if the other is not? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She's keeping ajournal of the whole interaction. As I said, I think it's perfectly justified. If this ever goes to arbitration, all of her prep work is done and ready to submit. It's what's recommended during employment conflicts, and I think it's perfectly appropriate here. Jeffpw 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment from an outsider's view. Should this go to requests for comment first, and maybe arbitration later, if there's a need for it?? Keeping documentation on conflicts seems appropriate as evidence, and Jeffpw's point above says it all.

    --sunstar nettalk 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JarlaxleArtemis sock to block

    Grarg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of of the banned vandal JarlaxleArtemis (see WP:JARLAXLE). His edits fit the pattern of JarlaxleArtemis's latest behaviour, namely, posting what he believes to be personal information about me,[35] and mass addition or removal of template notices almost exclusively on articles which I've created.[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] Please block. —Psychonaut 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

    • Hi there, I am a recently new Wiki Editor. I made a page about someone I belieive to be notable, with the hopes that others would come to work on it too. A lot of craziness happened, by my concern is over user Jeffrey_O._Gustafsone. Please look at his talk/discussion history in relation to me, Ebony Anpu, and Ebony's AfD page. It appears he is spreading propaganda. On one post he will write, no vote, then list many reasons why one should delete the page. This seems dishonest. Then he took out some observtions I made, calling them slander, and threatened me. Then he turned right around and insulted me, after tellnig me not to. I do not know what is going on, but it obvious by his postings that is is taking a serious stand on an issue then denying it. Also, he has just been totally rude to me. If he treats other new editors like this, I am saddened. Captain Barrett 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. Jkelly 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two relevant discussions already on this board that may help for background: #Review request and #Need another admin to have a chat with a user. WjBscribe 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange. #Review request was deleted and noted as "Shadowbot malfunction". See ANI history. Captain Barrett 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More Jeffrey O. Gustafson

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

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

    • I could, but that would take up a lot of space and further confuse the matter. I will see if I can find some representative samples though. 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    To save space, you could use the above text and add in in this fashion. [http://www.urlhere texthere] . I believe this would further clarify the matter allowing us to easily see the edits in question. Navou banter / review me 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I see Jeffs point, it appears valid. I see CPT's point, it appears valid. At first glance, and assuming good faith edits on both parties; However, it appears that there was good deal of latitude in what occurred. Everyone is different, I might have re listed the debate with the previous discussion included. And I only refactor formatting errors or outright egregious personal attacks with caution. But this is only my behavior, everyone is different. I think perhaps the perception is different from the intent intent in this case. Perhaps we chock this one up to good experience and move on? I would suggest caution in the future. I would also suggest Jeff recuse from this AFD, ultimately it is Jeffs call as far as recuse. If I have missed something in this, please call me on it. Navou banter / contribs 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I recused myself from it from the beginning: right at the top I say "No Vote." I'm only babysitting it to keep the same crap that bogged down the first one, plus all this new crap, from happening here. Obviously I won't close it, that goes without saying. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But after that you said many things like "This Page is Not Notable," that indicate you were taking a position. Captain Barrett 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Learn how to read: I say, "...here are the issues addressed by the anons..." the issues being that they felt the subject was non-notable, among other things, and that that was "valid reasons to initiate an AfD." You see an irrational conspiracy where there simply is none. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No argument there. I do think it is correct to express the opinions of the Anons. However, you did not express the opinions of those non-anon editors who gave reasons to "Keep." Expressing only one side is a bias. I'm sure you meant well. Maybe you just didn't read the AfD close enough. Whatever the case, this is how it looks to me. Captain Barrett 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents is this. Because this thing has been so mucked up, there seems to be only one fair thing to do: Leave the page up, for say, two months. Give time for data to be reassembled, rephrased, etc. Then, when everone is cooler, submit it for a final AfD. I have not been able to work on the page since J protected it. I have had no fair chance to make it better and neither has anyone else. Both AfDs are totally tainted, for different reasons. To delete now only gives in to the vandals. Proving that they can force a page down through manipulation. That's all I can think of, but I am very new to all this and will accept whatever the experienced admins think is appropriate. Captain Barrett 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, we don't work like that. Second, all the individuals who voted delete on the AfD are not vandals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think closing the original AFD is going to be possible. If you can agree not to include that image, I think we can have it unprotected so that you can attempt to address the issues and improve the article before AFD closure. Thoughts? Navou banter / contribs 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not know if this may be related :"Also, it is becoming clear that NSLE is a member of a powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique that also definitely includes members Ambi, William M Connolly, and Ral315, and possibly many others as well, such as Joke137, Ems57fcva, Todfox, and Jeffrey O Gustafson. A user conduct RfC would also provide more evidence to implicate such wikiclique members, as NSLE's policy violations are so extreme and cut-and-dry that no honest user could possibly discount them." Captain Barrett 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of the powerful POV-pushing policy-violating wikiclique, I can say that like myself, Jeffrey O. Gustafson only appeared there because he took some action that SEWilco didn't like- for example, I was one of the admins who blocked SEWilco from commenting on the actions of another user that he was harassing. Trust me, neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor myself have any significant influence :) Ral315 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shh! You'll ruin my image! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still do not understand why I may not use a picture of him? I have tried 2 different versions, both with permission. What needs to be done to prove that the use of these pictures is completely legal?Captain Barrett 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Oh, and my supposed "personal attack" on him? Telling him to read WP:OWN. If that was a personal attack far too many people would be blocked presently. – Chacor 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked him to be nice. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at his (rather uncivil) "olive branch": "i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar)", "If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs", and best of all "If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one)."
    I see no reason why after being told to be civil he veils it in an "apology". Can someone please do the necessary? – Chacor 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please look at his further uncivil comments to Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and Capitalistroadster. Seriously, should we be condoning this? – Chacor 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    *Keeping section artificially alive for an unblock-en-l request. – Chacor 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"

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

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

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

    RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a lengthy block record for a pattern of incivility, edit warring, and block evasion.
    The 'harassment' sign that RunedChozo is complaining about is a notice that he has operated sockpuppets. While I don't think we should be using these banners as a 'scarlet letter' for editors who haven't gotten themselves permanently banned, RunedChozo is certainly not the aggrieved innocent that he's painting himself as here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look. I stayed out long past the bad faith and unsupported by the rules "block" that was placed in bad faith on my account. I've put up with lies and harassment behavior, and no I've never used "sockpuppets" despite what the liars say. I want one thing, to make this a better encyclopedia. You can look at my contributions since my return, I'm staying in the rules and have every intention of doing so. But if you want to call me names, fine. Go ahead. I really can't stop you. That seems to be what wikipedia is for to you people, beating up on anyone who comes in good faith to make a better encyclopedia so you can feel powerful.RunedChozo 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are your actions, such as here and here making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? ChazBeckett 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mad at being harassed and insulted. I sent emails. I don't know what "spams" these two are talking about, because the only emails I ever sent were to the wikipedia mailing list. As for the "block log", that's a joke of how the wikipedia system is messed up, a bunch of Muslim POV writers have admin rights and decided to harass me, and Asterion near as I can tell was a friend of someone else who wanted to get me. I'm not going near any of them, and I've already served warning to some of the writers on a page that's nothing but propaganda that I'll be suggesting corrections but I want their promise first that they won't make an edit war again like they did last time. If they won't make that promise, I won't bother with anything other than keeping the disputed and unencyclopedic tags on that page, because that is what it is, completely disputed and unencyclopedic. I have NO desire, repeat NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER, to get into a major conflict with anyone, because I've already seen how the administrators here will just use that as a tool to beat someone up for their own sick amusement. RunedChozo 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Get over yourself. -- Steel 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Comment: It does seem rather bad to say such a thing on a talk page. I could go to a random user and accuse them of spamming me - and this would cause ire. On the other hand, RunedChozo, chill...
    Since User:Timwi has not released his email on his userpage, it has possibly been sent through Special:Emailuser (but would it be legal to check?). x42bn6 Talk 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It is imperitive that everyone read the above presented diff and consider what utility it provided the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still following me, thought I got rid of that homing tracker by now? Damn you batman!!! --NuclearZer0 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    it doesn't look like you're done at all. you've simply resumed your uncivil remarks again ([61][62]). ITAQALLAH 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Come on folks, this was bound to happen. --Asteriontalk 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RunedChozo blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment: A little worried here. Not only did we not investigate User:RunedChozo's complaint fully, we incriminated him before this happened. Isn't it a legitimate complaint if someone complains about me telling them to stop spamming them on their talk page? If I didn't spam, I have nothing to worry about; and if I did, then why raise it here and risk incriminating myself?
    The indef block is a different matter - but I was kind of hoping that when a user raises a complaint, he doesn't get blocked for it.  :-/
    I don't want to cause any problems, but... I am kind of worried. x42bn6 Talk 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He wasn't blocked for raising a complaint. He was blocked for personal attacks and grossly uncivil behavior. He was, by far, a net negative to the project and a lengthy block was fully justified. ChazBeckett 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not directly - but indirectly. He rose a complaint and instead of his complaint being looked at, he was blocked for something slightly unrelated. x42bn6 Talk 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I protest the closing of this discussion

    None of the questions of the admin behavior here, or what actually happened, have been answered. I posted my concern yesterday nd yet someone comes along and closes the discussion with no answers? This is not proper. PSPMario 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam link, possibly to child porn

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

    No child porn fortunately (yes, I looked). I trust the IP is blocked and the domain added to the link blacklist? --Edokter (Talk) 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't block the IP, since the edit was made four days ago. I have to admit I don't know where the blacklist lives. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    m:Talk:Spam blacklist x42bn6 Talk 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so anyone can report. Shouldn't there be a link in the help pages somewhere? --Edokter (Talk) 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is mentioned (at Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming with bots) but under a bot-only heading. Also, the blacklist is for spammed links only - it doesn't censor things that are illegal (in fact, I think the Foundation may be able to get into trouble if they put, say, a child pornography link into the blacklist because, ironically, it makes it available to the public). Such things are probably best Oversighted. x42bn6 Talk 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought - say "8teen" out loud. 8teen. eight-teen. eighteen. 18. while this is clearly linkspam, the suspicion that it's child porn seems unfounded. --Random832(tc) 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because porn links are always logical? I saw "teen" and figured it wasn't worth the chance. Even viewing those images may be illegal in the U.S., and I was on a work computer when I saw the link. No reason to take that risk, and I think that from Wikipedia's perspective, it doesn't matter if it's child porn or adult porn - we're not going to link to it. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban evasion by starwars1955

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

    INDEF'D! Oh, and if anyone had doubts about his ban, this edit should help you sleep at night. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PSUMark just suggested on my talk page that we look at an IP range block. I haven't done one of those before, so I thought I should post it here to see if anyone had suggestions on duration. Starwars1955 appears to have always edited from IPs in the 4.245.120/121.x range. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would obviously support such a ban, if it also prevented those IPs from creating accounts. –King Bee (T • C) 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, over the past two months Starwars1955 has been associated with edits from the following IP addresses and probably more:

    4.245.120.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    4.245.120.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.120.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    4.245.121.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Those are just the addresses that have edited Brett Favre and WP:CN - I'd wager that additional IPs from that range have also been responsible for removing comments and discussion over this issue on the talk pages of the user's various identities. I'll provide specific diffs if necessary, but I think a very quick glance at the contribs will be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those IPs have been used more than once, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've used dozens of other similar IPs while logged in under their multiple personalities. If you're talking about a range block of 4.245.120.* and 4.245.121.*, then I think that length of a block would be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PSUMark2006's analysis of the IP addresses is correct. Oh, and MrDarcy - that incest edit gave me a chuckle. Thanks. =) –King Bee (T • C) 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for completeness, I added/sorted some additional IPs from that range that had edited talk pages of the socks. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have to differ: Starwars1955 has caused so many problems, especially for you, King Bee, and Aviper2k7. Not only that, but he has created more sockpuppets than any other user I've encountered. He has used multiple personal attacks, and blanked his talk page several times. He has evaded his ban, and continued to vandalize and attack. A six-month block would ensure this doesn't happen for that length of time. After the block, we'll see what happens then. Acalamari 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing in my 2cents here, being a nuetral editor and looking at all the evidence, i think a 6month block is needed. If not this user will continue to vandalize pages and cause many editors much stress. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking for a rangeblock on 4.245.120.0/24 and 4.245.121.0/24. To find out if it is safe to block these ranges, post the question in the IP Check section of WP:RFCU. Thatcher131 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was just going to suggest that. It is a Level3 IP range and possibly there are non-Favre obsessed fans out there who may possibly be editing, but if not I would say a 3-6 month range block isn't out of the question based on this guy's behavior and the fact that I've noticed him employing some more "advanced" trolling techniques lately. Time to nip this in the bud if we can.--Isotope23 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed a request for IP check here. My first one, so let me know if I did anything wrong. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at it. May as well consider 4.245.122.0/24 also. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the registered users are showing up under that range, I'd be in favor of that. We didn't discuss it previously because none of the user's anon edits came within that range. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All three range-blocks enacted. That is some list of socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is. Aren't you wishing you had your very own starwars1955 sockpuppet imitator? :-) Thanks for your help in getting that block in place. Hopefully it'll do some good. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked both 4.425.120.0/24 and 4.425.121.0/24 for on-top contribs, and few minutes ago, and found only these: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. Looks like these ranges are currently used by -- at most -- two people. Some of these edits to comics-related pages stand out from the rest, but I'm not familiar enough with the user in question to know for sure whether those are made by the same person. Whatever the case, it doesn't seem like there will be very much (if any) collateral damage involved in a range block. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Booshakla is going around, and removing every single iteration of the expression "the late" he finds in Wikipedia to describe people who have passed away, to the annoyance of editors on several pages. Please see his contribution list here, which pretty much speaks for itself: [74]. He's been getting in 3RR trouble at least over the PETA article that I know of. Can someone explain to him that his crusade is needless and in many cases unwelcome, and that he should at least stop long enough to get proper feedback on his deletions? Thanks!--Ramdrake 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Content disputes are that way and 3RR violations should be reported over there. But I will admit that I think using "the late" in and article is just bad form. --Farix (Talk) 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. That's something for a magazine, not an encyclopedia. Write as if you're writing for posterity, not for today. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at Booshakia's contributes to PETA and while he does skirts close to violating WP:3RR, he still didn't go over the line to fill out a report at WP:AN/3RR. I would insist that you both continue to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid where a discussion over the phrase is already in progress and not engage in a further edit war on PETA or any other article. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, not everybody is going to know what "the late" means in that context. Instances of this phrase should be replaced with clearer language, and maybe sparingly, as the person's death might not be relevant to the text in which their name is mentioned in brief passing (no pun intended). — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm sorry if I've caused any problems, I was just trying to help improve the articles. I've made a lengthy statement at the PETA page (which I still hope will be improved/trimmed) about why "the late" should not be added, so I won't say much here. I guess this hasn't been an issue tackled here on a wide-scale (although at WP:PW, we did make a conscious effort to remove that phrase from wrestlers). Hopefully, something can be made concrete soon and we can know what to do. Thanks for all the input.Booshakla 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Booshakla, I'm very concerned by your statement No, I will make sure that will be removed permanently. You cited WP:OWN in your comments on that talk page; you should read that policy more carefully yourself, because the comment I just quoted is a very strong example of page ownership. You've expressed your opinion on the matter, but you're getting significant pushback from other editors. In the short term, cease making these edits and discuss the matter with the objecting editors. If the consensus goes against your edits - and you can add me to the list of folks who don't see your logic - then you need to accept it and stop deleting "the late" until and unless consensus changes in the other direction. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just on a little power trip. Consensus has not been reached on that page yet, and personally, I feel that my arguments are stronger than their "bookshakla is a jerk/saves a click" theory. It's not done yet, and there are discussions going on several places with all sorts of opinions/views. Booshakla 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    doesn't your userpage need a bit of a revamp to reflect reality? --Fredrick day 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think "the late" is just plain silly to add to encyclopedia articles (and it always males me think of the white rabbit from Alice in Wonderland). Further, at least one of bookshakla's deletions was grounded in common sense: in his edit summary, he points out that "the late" Peter Jennings wasn't actually dead when he narrated a documentary the article was discussing. Jeffpw 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Booshakla for removing "the late" from all of these articles, a needed improvement. (jarbarf) 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No prob, appreciate the kind words. Booshakla 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do remove it from articles, it is stylistically not useful, and it implies fairly recent death, thereby uselessly dating all articles that include it. Go for it, please do. KP Botany 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing

    User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see [75] for the diff. Please see [76] for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article ([77]), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts [78], and discussion [79]), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts [80])

    He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits [81], and the discussion [82]). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

    Another example of his POV pushing is [83].

    He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" [84]. Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit [85]).

    When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" [86].

    On the [Khatami] article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits [87]).

    Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See [88], [89], [90], and [91]. Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

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

    • "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"[117]
    • And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:
    "Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Wikipedia in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Wikipedia."[118]

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

    If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Technical request

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

    I'm working on it. Duja► 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta very much. yandman 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I put a {{uw-npa2}} warning on his talk page. Hopefully this will put a stop to it. PeaceNT 11:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like so, but if the doesn't stop contributing to such articles strictly related to his business(es), he should be indefinitely blocked, or blocked each time he attempts to edit articles relevant to his business.Dr. Who 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm have no authority over blocking, and as I see it, the case isn't serious enough to get an editor indefinitely blocked. Please use dispute resolution PeaceNT 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of dispute resolutions only, his general behaviour and his userpage are blatant violation of many Wikipedia policies.Dr. Who 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does his user page violate every Wikipedia policy? PeaceNT 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm rephrasing, I meant: his userpage violates mostly WP:COI, his general behavior is often in serious conflict with many WP policies.Dr. Who 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Well, to be perfectly fair, I can understand his frustration; you have been particularly aggressive in the Ultima Thule Ambient Music AfD (including posting to my talk page with an obvious "this should be deleted" attitude when I started to open an AfD, but then decided against it), and even added a speedy deletion tag on the article while the AfD was going on (which was a poor choice on your part, though I believe you understand that now).
    It doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does provide at least some explanation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, actually, I haven't had enough time to explain my point: I believe that that article had (has) to be deleted becouse of WP:AUTO, such episodes are slowly seriously damaging Wikipedia. After deletion, the article could/should be recreated by a different, indipendent editor. His harrassment began a few days ago after I posted questions at Talk:Ambient music and talk Space music. He's almost notable, and should definitely stop editing such articles, though he's welcome to explain his point in talk pages. Dr. Who 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't see why the article, of a notable subject, should be deleted and then recreated; what's the point? Why reinvent the wheel? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HAR serious issue: Gene Poole and Gardener of Geda (again)

    Please see here for evidence. Despite recent warnings, Gardener of Geda is still supporting Gene Poole's misbehaviour, terms used by both users include: "idiot" "He sounds paranoid" "nutter" "the guy obviously needs medical attention" "Medical attention indeed; I'm thinking a retrospective abortion" "hysteria" "COI noticeboard nonsense" "He's probably never been paid so much attention in his life". The problem is not, 'can the dispute be resolved?', but, 'can these editors be persuaded to behave appropriately?'.Dr. Who 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Folken de Fanel

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

    Bad-faith: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

    Incivility and lack of calm: [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]

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

    He also has a history of incivility, POV and attitude problems: [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]

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

    I admit freely that I, and a number of other editors are in content dispute with him on the discussion page for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That is not the issue here. If that particular issue can be solved by talking, it will be, and if it can't, more appropriate action (e.g. mediation) will be taken. I certainly don't want to prevent de Fanel from contributing there (although he wants to prevent others from editing, having threatened to prolong the edit-lock for the next five months [158]). But his attitude makes him impossible to work with, and is profoundly unhelpful to wikipedia. I want an admin to take notice, and to persuade him - either with words or actions - to behave appropriately. No more than that. I don't care if he sticks around. But his attitude and behaviour are intolerable. Michaelsanders 12:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute resolution? PeaceNT 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above link takes me to the reference desk - do you mean WP:DR? Michaelsanders 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, it was merely a typo ;) PeaceNT 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that would be appropriate - he's been making accusations against a number of editors, and the main issue is his behaviour and attitude, rather than the content dispute. The problem is not, 'can the dispute be resolved?', but, 'can this editor be persuaded to behave appropriately?'. Michaelsanders 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have said earlier to Michaelsanders himself, I have nothing against him, I don't want him to be warned or anything, and I'm not upset because content disputes on a HP article. However I will not let him spread lies about me. So I'm going to rectify every insidious lies he has written here, and for the last time, ask him to leave me alone. Because, my dear Michaelsanders, your current behavior will never make me leave Wikipedia, or force me to adopt your point of view about the content dispute (no, you do not force others to agree to your opinion. Either you convince them, or you fail, and if you fail, just stop, otherwise you're going to create a lot of problems of which you'll be the only one responsible).

    First lie: bad faith accusations

    If you look to my talk page history in its globality (and not only the little bits Michaelsander has shown), you will all be able to notice that I merely removed from my own talk page, comments that I found inappropriate or undue.

    Just to be clear, as per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism , "on a user's own talk page this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion".

    That's merely what I did, I "removed comments at my own discretion".

    However, Michaelsanders has shown a certain insistence in reinstating comments from him and from other users on my talk page, threatening me of being banned from Wikipedia if I removed them, in an extremely authoritative tone, certainly not appropriate for a mere user without any administration right ("Revert - read the rules. That is not vandalism, and your talk page is wikipedia space, which you hold only by submission to the rules. Obey them, or leave")

    He has reverted my talk page 12, 3, ignoring me when I told him about the "at the user's own discretion" principle.

    That there was bad faith from his part makes no doubt. When I finally warned him for what I concidered Talk page vandalism, he just started going mad with his "bad faith assumption" thing, will I was merely warning him for his violation of the rules (and of my rights to manage my talk page as I want).

    I have not assumed any "bad faith", his behavior was just obvious, and I just tried to make my opinion clear to him (because after 3 reverts he still wouldn't let me remove comments from my talk page at my own discretion).

    Second lie: Incivility and lack of calm

    Well, no need to explain anything here. his claims are perfectly ridiculous, and he is nitpicking over everything I said just to try to harm me.

    There is absolutely no incivility in my speech, or lack or calm.

    Third lie: history of incivility, POV and attitude problems

    I have had no history of incivility, POV and attitude problems.

    Perhaps Michaelsanders would like to be reminded of his own attitude problems, when he was involved in an edit-war and POV dispute ? Or that he was accused of not being willing to let other users alone - a form of harassment ?? Which leads us to something interesting, as Michealsanders has been blocked twice for violation of 3RR and edit warring. I can also mention several examples of incivility of which I was the victim ("self-righteous and conceited", "pathetically juvenile" and "behaving like an ape dancing in a judges robes")

    Fourth lie: me, wanting to prevent others from editing, having threatened to prolong the edit-lock for the next five months

    One can only wonder where he could have seen that.

    Obviously Michaelsanders doesn't know what the word "threat" means. As I have noticed earlier, he is merely screaming on everything I would say, and distorting the meaning of my words in order to be harmful towards me.

    What I have originally written is pretty clear: "There is no possible consensus. I think it's best for the article to stay blocked for the remaining 5 months. In this way we won't have any edit wars, we won't argue for weeks about which speculations should be added, etc. We will wait for the book to be published, and finally we will reach the perfect consensus since we'll have all the answers we're waiting for, there'll be no need for speculations and no disputes about it. Currently we have nothing more to add to the article, and actually, we won't have much until the book is published (except perhaps an extract from the book, later on, or the covers). So it's better to wait the book, which will end any debate about those speculations. It can be avoided if we can find a consensus, but as I see it, it's not possible. We're only repeating the same things all over again. Folken de Fanel 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) "

    Again, where does he sees threats or anything ?

    Fifth lie: "But my attitude makes me impossible to work with"

    Well, that he hates me because I don't have the same opinion as me is one thing. That he utterly failed to convince me and 7 other editors of the relevance of his point of view in yet another thing.

    But saying "it's impossible to work with me" is an all-together different thing. Wouldn't it me more realistic that it's impossible to work with Michaelsanders ?

    The thing is, Michaelsanders seems to regard any divergence of opinion as a crime and a sin. He failed to convince me and others, and seeing this, to avenge himself, he has resorted to a personal crusade against me, first attempting to vandalise my talk page, and then tracking me down everywhere on Wikipedia, using every occasions to spread lies about me and to say to the world that i am the devil ( and he has already shown an obsessive behavior when involved in a POV dispute, as proven by his 2 blockings for 3RR)...

    He wants "an admin to take notice, and to persuade him - either with words or actions - to behave appropriately". However, as I have undisputably proven, the one how has behavior problems is really Michaelsanders and not me, and the only problem that Michaelsanders has with me, is in fact that I don't agree with him in an opinion debate about the content of a Harry Potter article.

    Which means that he "wants an admin to persuade me, either with words or actions, to agree to his opinion".

    Really, where does he think he is going with this...

    However, I'm really wondering if Michaelsander could be persuaded to leave me alone...because actually, he is the only one stirring things up, making false accusations on this notice board and all...He is really drawing unnecessary attention on him, and his attitude can only prolong any dispute that exist between him and me.

    I have asked him several times to let me alone, and just not to talk to me anymore, however he has proven to be really insistent in NOT letting things calm down by themselves, and in challenging me perpetually...Folken de Fanel 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    He's spamming, but it is inconsequential.--Docg 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    article re re recreation

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

    Done. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox News Channel

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

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

    CroDome

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

    An unjust 3RR accusation and block for Daizus

    I have recently been blocked by InShaneee for no real reason. On 13th February as I logged to Wikipedia I first noted I have a message on my talk page. Going there I saw a 3RR block message signed by InShaneee. I knew I had some reverts on that page regarding a controversy related to WP:NC but I remembered I had avoided falling under the incidence of 3RR rule, hence my first reaction was to protest with a reply in my talk page. But then immediately I checked the page history for the article on Albert Wass and I noticed I had 4 reverting edits in a 24 hour interval (11 February 20:48 - 12 February 16:45; I'm using server time as reference) and then, in good faith, I thought I rushed in denying the accusation and withdrew my reply. Amazed by the difference between what I knew I had done and what I saw in that first glance, I proceeded to analyze the situation. And I discovered my 4 reverts were actually about two different things:

    11 Feb, 20:48 - revert names
    11 Feb, 21:12 - revert names
    11 Feb, 21:19 - add tags
    12 Feb, 16:45 - revert names, revert tags

    As such, I was not under the incidence of 3RR rule and I requested an unblock. However, my request was denied by Arjun because apparently, my block was registered for another article: Burzenland. This can be seen in my block log and in the first edit InShaneee performed in my talk page, a edit which he later corrected. And here I want to mention I couldn't find a 3RR report issued on me (and thus the evidence for the accusation and the block). True, I have performed a lot of edits in the article on Burzenland, but there were not even 2 edits reverting the same content. Furthermore I protested in my talk page and I requested evidence for the 3RR accusation. I have not received responses or apologies, though both administrators were active since then, as easily anyone can see in their contributions history.

    I have added this complain also in a RfC opened on his behavior. Daizus 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You've apparantly already been unblocked. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I might not have been very clear about my motives. Of course I am unblocked. But it was an abusive action with apparently no justification, an action which frustrated me. Isn't power abuse a worrying thing here? Can an administrator block someone for no reason and then simply all things continue as nothing ever happened? Didn't I deserve at least an informal apology? Doesn't that administrator deserve at least an informal warning? Daizus 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    more webcomics stuff

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

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

    Geni 14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the socks mentioned in the article

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

    It’s not so great that nobody (myself included; I participated quite a bit in the AFD) noticed this and quite a reminder to pay more attention to both sides of an AFD in the future. Does anyone see the need for DRV? (The article didn’t have much potential, but given the circumstances, the deletion was not necessarily within the usual process.) —xyzzyn 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If admins did not view AfD as a vote, this sort of activity would bear no weight. Kyaa the Catlord 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never viewed the AfD as a vote. I applied common sense and policy. The artile explicitly failed WP:N. Take it to WP:DRV if you dispute this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't addressed at you in particular. Just a general comment, gomen for any misinterpretted aggro-ness. Kyaa the Catlord 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRV discussion has been initiated, someone needs to fix it though – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15#Starslip Crisis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Based on the admission, does anyone have a big problem with a sock-block?--Isotope23 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dora the Explorer

    This page is being vandalized by anonymous editors nearly every day:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=108239930&oldid=108230632

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108230527

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108221309

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108137401

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108112857

    I'd like to recommend that the page is blocked from edits from anonymous editors. Thanks! Steve8675309 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosniak resuming disruptive activity

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

    • continued POV edit warring on Serbophobia [165][166][167]. (He had previously tried to have the article deleted, and tampered with other users' votes. Here he tried to move and retitle the article.)
    • making comments or judgments about editors and their contributions on the basis of what he believes to be the editors' ethnicities, or imputing anti-Bosniak sentiment to other editors [168][169][170]. This includes posting WP:ANI complaints against "Indian" administrators who blocked a user for 3RR and personal attacks [171][172][173][174][175].

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

    • advising other users not to heed warnings unless they come from an administrator [182]

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

    Tried RfC? Take him to ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll consider that option if the consensus here is that the above-noted behaviour doesn't warrant another (longer) block. There's no point in bothering the already-overworked ArbCom if it's simply a matter of enforcing existing policies. —Psychonaut 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who first noted the "message box" issue, I believe that it may not warrant consideration in regards to this matter. When I became aware of the box on Bosniak's pages, I asked him to adjust it and he did so quickly and without complaint. The discussion on Village Pump was not initiated on the basis of his actions. --Ckatzchatspy 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, he started (slowly) being more constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, and regarding the accusations re "Indian administrators", he acted as a proxy for 2-week blocked User talk:Emir Arven, who has an enormous cabal against him. And, yes, he does hold a grudge against Psychonaut (I did exchange few, mostly friendly, e-mails with Bosniak ). I'm not saying he's a model wikipedian, but I believe that he's corrigible. Alas, there is a lot of WP:ABF on all sides in the wider conflict. Balkans, y'know. Duja► 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he was becoming more polite and constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre. However, at the same time he was continuing his edit warring on the article proper. —Psychonaut 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi friends. I was invited to come and state my side. Psychonaut was blocked in the past for disruptive behavior. He has been reverting Srebrenica Massacre constantly. There is no established principle with regards to disputed terms @ Srebrenica Massacre article. Disputed terms include: "alternative views", "controversial views", "revisionist views", and more recently "dissenting views". We are attempting to improve the article, but disruptive users are constantly reverting article to their Point of Views which is (I believe) wrong. User Psychonaut does not assume faith. This is probably 10th or 11th time that he is complaining against me. He seems to side with revisionist views @ Srebrenica Massacre, and he wants to get rid off me and other progressive editors who want to improve the article as opposed to constantly disrupt it. User Psychonaut is using old tactics by pointing out to my old edits, etc. Administrators should take notice that he is not assuming good faith and that he is constantly complaining. He treats wikipedia as his own personal page and he is complaining against people who he does not agree with. As you can see from my contributions, I have slowed down my editing at Srebrenica Massacre article and even compromised with disruptive editors (Osli73) that we should not focus on Gen. MacKenzie, as he is not a central player in the massacre (you can read this at Srebrenica Massacre discussion page). I call upon administrators to stop Psychonaut from his fully biased approach, constant complaints, and him not assuming good faith when it comes to users he does not agree with. As I said -- Srebrenica Massacre article is slowly, but steadily becoming improved. We are using compromise and good faith as the best approach to improve the article. Things are getting better and by working together, we can achieve much better results. Thank you for your time, and I wish you peaceful day friends. All the best, and assume good faith at all times.
    Update: User Psychonaut does have a grudge against me and I don't appreciate his constant complaints, constant reverts (he is starting edit wars and reverting "revisionist" to 'whatever term he sees appropriate', even though there is no concensus which term to use). His goal is to achieve "moral equivalency" with respect to the Srebrenica Genocide article (which is wrong and biased). I would like to thank user (admin) Ckatz, user Duja and user Opbeith for their opinions. Psychonaut should learn to assume faith and stop using old tricks and old edits as an evil tool to block me. He is starting revert wars, he reverts my good faith contributions, and then he comes here and complains against me. Unfortunately, user Psychonaut is not constructive. Don't fall for his tricks. This is not his first time. Bosniak 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update 2: It is not legitimate to describe anything as an "alternative" view when it's been contradicted by legal findings (that was the relevance of the MacKenzie discussions), and that's exactly what user Psychonaut does with his constant disruptive behavior, edit wars, and reverts. He is trying to maintain and enforce his point of view in the face of interventions that the administrators have been very reluctant to respond to and he is making me appear the guilty / aggressive party because of the way the ground has been moved by other people's changes. Bosniak 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I'm not sure what opinion of mine Bosniak is referring to, as I'm not involved in the AN/I. If it is in regards to my earlier note about Bosniak's user page message, please note that the comment should not be taken as a complaint against Psychonaut. It was merely to clarify what I thought could be an honest misunderstanding with regards to a very minor issue. (Oh, and while it's a nice compliment, I'm actually not an administrator - not sure where that came from.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Cia123454321

    I would like to request a review of my indefinite block of Cia123454321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account belongs to RexJudicata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Agwiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and his IP address seem to be 67.191.71.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His original accounts were indefinitely blocked for off-wiki death threats against SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after being blocked by Linuxbeak for 1 month for "Legal threats, disruption, impersonation, sockpuppet activity, POV pushing, user-baiting, etc.". --cesarb 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just curious - how do you know that it's the same user? Even so, I don't see any evidence he's here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and his tone ranges from strident to threatening. The block looks OK to me; I'm just curious whether you had a checkuser or something along those lines. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He created again the article about himself, and edited the closed VfD on it (the things he says on that edit also show it's him). The edit patterns tell the rest of the history. --cesarb 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is worse - copyright violations, or spam?

    Today User:The Argonaut went around and tagged at least 7 articles that he had previously made extensive edits to as copyvios (random diff, diff from copyvio log). Checking out the history of a couple of these articles it seems he is responsible for almost all of the content (history of one of them). The alleged copyright violations all come from the same website; Questmagazine.com, and all have the same author - one Hal Siemer. All the Questmagazine articles have this copyright notice on the bottom,

    Reprints

    This article may be reproduced online in whole or part if credit is given to both the author and Quest Magazine and a link is included to the web address from which the article was taken. Copyright © 2006 Quest TM Magazine

    Immediately prior to Argonaut tagging as copyvios an IP, User:86.129.166.136 had removed all the references to Quest Magazine (random diff) with an edit summary of

    Removed Vanity Reference - To: The Argonaut / Hal Siemer, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your magazine. Stop with these countless uneccessary references.

    I asked about it on both editor's talk pages and got the following responses from The Argonaut

    I copied these from Quest since they give permission on their site as long as the author, magazine, and a link are included. ... I thought it would be OK since the cites and link were included, but these have been removed.

    and from the IP

    The reason why I removed the reference as I feel user:The Argonaut (very likely to be Hal Siemer) has been using Wikipedia to promote himself and his magazine. ... I see the use of these articles to as yet another attempt at self promotion. As it now appears the articles are identical to another website. If the text in these articles is made GFPL, then the situation does change, but as far as I can see the author of this text has not made this GFPL.

    It seems that about a year ago someone wrote articles on Quest Magazine and Hal Siemer which were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest Magazine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal Siemer), and the IP thinks that The Argonaut is the same person and is spamming.

    Reading what Quest Magazine has to say about copyrights, it looks to me like the material is licensed in such a way that it is compatable with Wikipedia's GFDL license, especially since we're supposed to be citing out sources anyhow. It's not a copyvio if it's cited.

    On the otherhand, the IP believes all these citations are spam. Hence it seems to boil down to Cited = spam, uncited=copyvio. Which do we like less, copyvios or spam?

    Frankly I'm inclined to go through and revert to the version prior to the IP's removal of the citations. What do other people think? (I'm crossposting this to the Admin's noticeboard and to the Assistance board on the Villiage Pump.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Of course we revert to before the IP removed it. This seems to within the GFDL parameters. JoshuaZ 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the material isn't released under the GFDL, then would it be legal for editors to make changes to it? I wouldn't think we could copy the material and credit the magazine, while at the same time allow editors to change the credited material. If the pages are completely copied, It's my opinion that they be deleted. I'm sure there are many people with a better idea on how copyrights work, and I'd gladly change my opinion if someone explained to me why this would be alright. --Onorem 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has to be deleted; that licence doesn't specifically allow for 'creation of derivative works', so it's a nonderivative licence (all rights are reserved by default unless they're specifically released). Wikipedia deletes images with nonderivative licences (unless they're fair use), and is stricter on article copyright than image copyright, due to the need to edit. So unless a small quote is taken that could be fair use, the article's a copyvio and has to be deleted. --ais523 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wouldn't the "in whole or part" cover derivative works? If we copy it then we're reproducing it "in whole". If we then change it so it's not exactly the same, we're then copying it "in part", which is still allowed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think of "in whole" as the entire unchanged text, and "in part" as an unchanged section of the text. --Onorem 10:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sock puppetry at Jung Myung Seok

    Following at request for third opinion that was taken by Cyrus XIII, two new editors, User:HJen and User:SteelFeather and registered and began to support the position of User:QCA. HJen has two posts to date, the first to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection asking that page protection on Jung Myung Seok be removed - a rather amazing first post for a brand new user. HJen's second posting was to Talk:Jung Myung Seok, as have been all four of SteelFeather's four postings to date.

    Cyrus XIII's comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Jung Myung Seok in response to HJen's request that page protection be removed was:

    Given that the HJen account has only been used for this unprotection request and to provide another (apparently never requested) "third opinion", I'd rather suggest to compare the IPs of QCA and HJen to rule out sock puppetry.- Cyrus XIII 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    He also mentioned sock puppetry in this edit, and noted that the QCA account is a SPA, editing only this article and its talk page.

    QCA has denied that he is HJen. The two are, at minimal, clearly connected - in his/her second edit, in the edit summary, HJen said As Requested By QCA. Moreover, in that edit, HJen said With that being said, I have read the before and after edits that QCA has made. - again, remarkable that a new user understands diffs.

    I request admin review of these two new accounts, including checkuser if necessary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why wasn't my request taken care of?

    According to this, only one person commented on the anon IPs and neither one was blocked by an administrator. I request that these two IP users be blocked for 1-2 weeks immediately since they were damaging the encyclopedia! Block also the ones in the same block as 125.etc. Please block them NOW! Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    HELLO?!!!!!! THEY"RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOCK THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's User:125.164.161.204, User:125.164.161.33, and any others that are identical to them that need a soft block NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have hit level 4 warnings, then you get faster responses at WP:AIV. x42bn6 Talk 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know. a long term block of User:125.164.161.33 would probably be a bad idea. There are many good edits from this ip, including some categorizations and sub-categorizations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BOTH IPS ARE BEING DENSE AND ARE REMOVING CONTENT FROM THE ARTICLES, SUCH AS PLACING A CATEGORY THAT DOESN'T EXISTS OVER A CATEGORY THAT DOES. THEY ARE CLEARLY COPYING EACH OTHER;S ACTIONS AND ARE RUINING MORE THINGS THEN THEY ARE FIXING, BLOCK THEM NOW!!!!! I HAD ENOUGH OF THESE EXCUSES!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The person even made a Category:Dragon Ball villains for some of the characters for no reason when there is Category:Dragon Ball characters. I mean, c'mon!, can't you see it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PLEASE BLOCK THEM AND ANY OTHER IDENTICAL ONE'S IN THE SAME BLOCK. Thank you. Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ←I am going to highley reccomend that you calm down a little. They will do no damage that cannot be reversed. I have not seen any horribly blatant acts of vandalism. I will peruse them again but i saw several good edits that would make me uncomfterable with a long term block. I am going to highley reccomend that you stop "screaming in caps" for somebody to do something. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cant really block them. They have several good contributions (i am assuming it is a shared ip). And neither of the above lsited IP's has edited in the past 10 hours. I will not enforce a punitive block, and the so called vandalism is not currently on going. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and might I add that showing up at WP:AN/I demanding that someone else be blocked for everal weeks in all caps doesn't really incline anyone to act here. WP:COOL down.--Isotope23 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Covering tracks

    I notice that a person I was in conflict with some time ago - a person with an academic career, by the way - is now going to extraordinary lengths to cover his tracks, hiding some very intemperate remarks that he made. I will refrain from mentioning his name, but I question the ethics of these "concealing" edits. As one of the parties involved in the (past) dispute, I am mentioning the matter here, and suggesting that someone may want either to revert, or to make some indication on these talk pages that considerable matter has been cut. Please note that I am avoiding linking the material that is liable to reveal his identity: that is, I am not linking to where a username was related to his actual name.

    • [183]: Throwaway account changes a name (which was already changed from his own name) to something else unrelated.
    • [184]: Another throwaway account then removes massive material without archiving.
    • [185]: Similarly, on another (related) article, after his original name had earlier been changed to something innocuous, a throwaway account now removes massive material without archiving.

    There are two reasons I have a particular problem with this (beyond general principles):

    • Several remarks of mine were removed in the process
    • Other remarks of mine are left hanging, so that my annoyed but temperate response to his vituperation now appears to be directed at other people.

    - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you want us to do? Yuser31415 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like the editor is leaving Wikipedia. If so perhaps no action is needed. -Will Beback · † · 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have issues with them removing their own statements (at least without context). They can of course exercise their RTV and remove their user pages, rename their accounts, and retroactively go back and reattribute their comments, but to my knowledge they're not allowed to remove them outright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviving this discussion

    Reviving this discussion, which was archived.

    If you examine the edits linked above, he's not even just removing his own remarks (nor is he marking the pages to show that anything is removed). He is also removing mine and others'.

    I am reviving this discussion because I now see that he also, as Usrdltd (talk · contribs) removed someone else's comments about him - and, again, he had earlier changed his name here, so that was already long since covered - on one of my archive pages. Unlike the other cases, I have reverted this, since he clearly has no right to remove a third party's remarks from my archives. That same account was used to remove other discussion (see, for example [186], which was discussion of, among other things, his own sockpuppetry).

    What do I want done? I'd like to see these edits reverted, but I don't think I'm the appropriate person to do so, since I was involved in the dispute. Failing that, I'd like to see at least a clear notation as to where material has been deleted from talk pages, even if that material has not been restored. And possibly someone may want to check IPs to verify (what seems to me to be obvious): that all of these one-edit throwaway accounts come from a single place (sock puppetry supreme) and see if someone who is still an active editor appears to be doing this. Because the "right to disappear" does not include the right to hide your past and keep participating. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You absolutely have the right to revert deletions of postings on article talk pages; removal of postings (not archiving, just removal) is a violation of WP:TP and WP:TPG. This isn't a matter of opinion; removal of talk page comments (exceptions - vandalism, personal attacks, wikichat, rants about the subject of the article - none of which apply here) is absolutely wrong.
    I've reverted one of the article talk page (massive) deletions, and I noticed that another editor had (I believe) reverted another large deletion. If we've missed something, please feel free to handle this yourself (or post a note on my talk page; I'll be happy to do more cleanup if you're still unwilling to do so.) I've also posted notes on the talk pages of two editors, informing them of policy regarding this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Young Adult Fiction

    Nearly the entire article was deleted and replaced with some stupid statement. Anyway to revert back to a former version or does it need to be written again? User:Million Moments

    Someone reverted it and I left a message on your (logged in) user talk page explaining how to revert. —Dgiest c 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More targetted harassment and threats

    Hi. Some may remember I reported a set of incidents about 11 days ago about anons giving me some really bad harassment (threats which considering my Northern Irish background are incredibly serious), see [187]. Well this evening I checked my mail to discover I'd received this email through Wikipedia.

    YOU FUCKING NORTHERN IRISH BIGOT PROTESTANT BASTARD...WE HAVE OUR EYE ON =

    YOU...YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A CUNT..A BIGOT DISCRIMINATING GAY BASTARD...GO =

    FUCK YOURSELF...')

    The mail was seemingly sent through the account of User:Perdy80 from the headers (email and addresses etc available on request). Now this is too similar to the Brazilian based IP abuse I was getting in the above mentioned incident and I have no choice but to take this seriously given my Northern Irish background and the kinds of people that could be involved in that sort of matter. Any thoughts, suggestions, advice? Ben W Bell talk 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how effective it would be, but if there is an IP in the headers, you could try and report it to the abuse-at-ISP.--Isotope23 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, considering some of the edits to User talk:Perdy80 while he is currently on a 1 week block, I've extended this to 1 month. I was wavering between that and an indef because I see very little in the way of non-vandalism from this editor.--Isotope23 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can try checkuser. If Perdy80 is editing from the same range in Brazil that might be enough confirmation to block his account. Thatcher131 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the circumstances I would say an indef block is more appropriate. It doesn't solve the problem though. - Kittybrewster 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I received this email today, and since he hasn't edited anything to do with Northern Ireland I'm inclined to believe him and leave it at the appropriate block.

    I just want to take the time to say how sorry i am about that. I copied and pasted something that someone else had said to you before that i thought would anoy you because i was annoyed at being blocked, i should have known that you would find the cut and pasted comment to be insensitive.

    I just find it's so easy to go a bit overboard on this site when someone blocks you for what wasn't that bad. I think it best if i leave this website to people who really have a passion for it, i feel that there are to many cat fights and arguments. Once again i apologise for cutting and pasting what i did to you, it was in very poor taste. I came to this website with good intentions but have found there is to much bias involved in articles and to many arguments and subsequent personal attacks on people which are really not called for {mine included}. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me and i wish you luck with this site, i think i get a bit too worked up to contribute again. ps: i'm actually from English/Protestant heritage myself and can see why it upset you.

    regards

    Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    page move and other vandalism - not sure what to do

    Over at Anthrax, a user has been vandalizing, then moved the page, and has been vandalizing some more. I'm not really sure how to fix this - can I just move it back and then revert? Natalie 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken care of it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of figured someone would have. What do you have to do to fix this sort of thing? Natalie 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being somebody recreated the page after the move (without the history), i had to delete the re-incarnation and remove the old one back to the new one. I also had to revert the specific vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexico123

    Sorry to bring this back here, but he seems to be back uploading unsourced images. He's been blocked for a week for this before, and I warned him back in January, and I warned him back in January. Perhaps it's time for a lengthier block. David Mestel(Talk) 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Newyorkbrad has now given him a final warning. Sandstein 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I plan to look in on this again in a couple of days, but in the interim please let me know if there is any more of this from him. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-consensus removal of joke banners

    Main pages: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/UI_spoofing and Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29 § Straw_poll

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

    So the discussion is taking place in three separate places now? Wonderful. Warning: incidentally, extreme caution is advised in clicking on the links in my own page banner. Bishzilla is waiting to give you a Swedish massage at the other end. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I count two. But even that's too many. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why again are we discussing this at all? Aren't there userboxes to delete or something? Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that bout of stupid that's going around. -- Steel 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem to happen every February...Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL? --Onorem 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a fan. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism at Jun Choi

    A few IP's, notably 63.211.67.127[188], have been vandalizing the Jun Choi article by repeatedly reverting to a version with slanted, politically motivated information filled with POV, OR, and unreferenced facts. I had reported this earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Protection from anon users at Jun_Choi but I was told there wasn't enough reason to implement partial locking, but the vandalism has picked up... there have been 4 or 5 edits by anonymous users reinserting slanted information in the last day. Jolb 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a second user who's vandalizing in the opposite direction, taking away balanced, referenced information in favor of Jun Choi, with the IP 69.115.147.56 [189] Jolb 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief ...

    CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a troll I had a good deal of trouble with a few days ago - with an attack userpage etc. He got into an "argument", which I, well, won, and then took it into his head to nominate Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for adminship. He badgered Kubura into accepting the nom statement by saying this (please note he hates Serbs, see [190], for example). I was about to speedy close the RfA before realizing that would not be the most tactful thing to do. Yuser31415 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've offered User:Kubura a deletion of the RfA since he has refused the nom an apparently had no participation in this whatsoever.--Isotope23 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am proposing to community ban CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for blatant POV-warring, disruptive RfA creation, attempting to force users to accept his RfA by saying that otherwise they will be "Serbs", ... etc. The list goes on. Yuser31415 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the background here to really comment on that, but I'd suggest posting a proposal over on WP:CN along with evidence diffs.--Isotope23 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore, proposed on WP:CN. Yuser31415 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy is here for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia does not need more disruption in an already controversial range of subjects. I find very difficult to assume good faith in this case. Not sure though whether a community ban is premature but I will also keep a close eye. --Asteriontalk 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A final salvo from Jefferson Anderson - request for uninvolved admin

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

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

    functioning Bot

    D6 is adding a Living people category to people seemingly based on birth dates. There's already one error report on the user's page before I went to add Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), I think blocking it might be best for now. One Night In Hackney 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked it based on its edit rate ( more then 14 some edits per minute at some points), especially since the bot is not flagged. If the bot needs a flag, please bring it up at WP:BRFA. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the categorization of Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), it had the year of death category missing. Most of the 160000 articles in Category:Living people had been added in the same way. BTW the bot is flagged, it's listed at Special:Listusers -- User:Docu

    WP:FAIL

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

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

    Sounds like a content dispute, probably doesn't belong here. On a side note, perhaps WP:OWN would be of relevance in determining the propriety of the edits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Chairboy... this is why you userspace things if you don't want them edited mercilessly.--Isotope23 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free web-based encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Proto ► 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they wanted to keep their essay their own they should have put it at User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing. Thatcher131 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the same reaction that userfication might be the best solution here. Personally, given the overall situation and the time that Worldtraveller has been editing here without apparent 3RR problems, I probably would have given a 3RR warning to him and his counterpart before blocking. He hasn't requested an unblock, though. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem was that no warning was given first to the two editors who have been excellent contributors; they were just blocked. MetsFan76 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unblocking both of them. Since the essay is now in userspace these blocks no long serve any purpose. JoshuaZ 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you JoshuaZ. You have renewed my faith in WP. MetsFan76 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse the unblocks. (Although I hope Worldtravel's first edit isn't to move the essay back to WP space.) Newyorkbrad 04:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Request for block of blatant sock

    Planetary Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a blatant sock of indef blocked Piratesofsml (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been edit warring on some manual of style issues, using IPs to circumvent the 3RR. Checkuser was declined as unnecessary given the evidence. I'd rather not do the blocking myself because of my history with the editor. I had been waiting until someone gets around to closing the case on SSP, but the editor has now taken to vandalizing from one of the IP addresses named in the report, reverting the vandalism with the account, and citing those edits as evidence that he is unrelated to the IPs, claiming to have run across the vandalism while on rc patrol. Friar Will tells me otherwise. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The content of article Dingity had been mostly deleted by 207.233.122.189

    The content was deleted with insulting comment, and the irrelevant material added. Please revert the content. I wrote to the talk of 207.233.122.189 to stop vandalism. I wanted to restore it myself, but didn't know how. Abuhar 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Help:Reverting. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's taken care of, and I left a message on the original poster's page. Jeffpw 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Child with personal info posted

    Jacob valliere (talk · contribs) presumably his real name is indentifying himself as 9-year old.--BirgitteSB 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked apparently for posting WP:NFT stuff. I've removed the year of birth from his userpage for the time being. Sandstein 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Several "hoax" AFDs

    Quibbvlw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mariegisellerafferty1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Carlawhitnash1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated famous books for deletion as hoaxes. I closed them as speedy keeps. They should probably be blocked to prevent the creation of more sockpuppets. --NE2 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request assistance

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

    Ispy1981 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

    Need a reversion with personal info deleted.

    I never manage to do reversion deletion correctly, so if someone else would do it I'd appreciate it. Need this this dif deleted. JoshuaZ 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've pushed that revision out of the way for now. request for oversight gives the details on contacting users with oversight privileges to delete these out of history in the clean way. --pgk 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think oversight is necessary. That should be enough thanks. JoshuaZ 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3 sockpuppets

    Here are three users i suspect of being sockpuppets but i am not sure who:

    The reason i suspect them is that they have placed deletion tags for no apparent reason, some the same, and all within minutes of each other.

    For evidence:

    The above are just examples. The results of the AfDs were "speedy keep - not a hoax" and "speedy keep - bad-faith nomination". Simply south 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RFCU ..................... Yuser31415 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)l[reply]
    In the meantime I indefblocked all of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mortigi tempo

    Sorry to bother, but there are about a dozen different IP contributors infesting this article (if you can call it that) right now. I've tried tagging it as a db-attack page a few times to no avail. (jarbarf) 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, it's already gone? Yuser31415 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{db-attack}} worked, the article has been deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Mortigi tempo" is also a bad butchering of Esperanto grammar; "mortigi tempon" means "to kill time" and has the noun in the accusative case. (But ignore this comment if you're a normal human rather than a grammar-nazi like me.) Michael Hardy 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scythians

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

    Block evasion, edit warring.

    User:Top Gun who has a history of blocks and edit warring has recently been blocked for one week due to repeated copyright violations. [[191]] however it seems that he has decided to deliberately flaunt the block, using a Ip address confirmed by check user to be a sock of him[[192]] under it he has continued to reinsert the disputed content and engage in constant editwaring in direct defiance of administrators rullings [[193]]. Marshalbannana 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I see a sockpuppet

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

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

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

    Sockpuppetry seems very unlikely: both SynergyBlades (talk · contribs) and Bladestorm (talk · contribs) have over 500 edits. However, it is possible that User:PSPMario is another sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:RunedChozo due to identical additions of info [194] [195] Trebor 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    But they are acting in completely different ways. User:SynergyBlades oppose the addition of the information [196] [197] whereas User:Bladestorm reverted once because the information was poorly written but then can be seen improving the information you added. Your actions are far more suspect, however, as you are adding back the same information of indef-blocked User:RunedChozo, and show up at a discussion about him. I'd like an admin to have a look at this. Trebor 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    page move vandalism of Decompression sickness now living at Arie Waz here

    I'm not sure I know how to fix this vandalism. The article has been suffering page move vandalism. Now the article exists under its proper name, but the edit history is attached to the vandal version. Please help! I'm sorry if I made things worse in trying to fix it, but now I see I am in over my head. MKoltnow 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Bbatsell, can you explain how you did it to MKoltnow so he can do it next time? Cheers :P, Yuser31415 03:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless something has changed in MediaWiki (which is entirely possible, I haven't kept up), he can't, because a redirect will exist at the correct location that has to be deleted first. Just tap an admin on the shoulder to take care of it, or tag the redirect (the correct location) as a speedy candidate and then anyone can move it back once the redirect is deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mumble mumble ... It's all very well asking a sysop, but, well, you know, doing so is kind of hard when you all go off to have a coffee ;). This morning, one of my AIV reports stayed for about 20 minutes before being taken care of :P. Yuser31415 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and MKoltnow, from what I can tell you did all you can do; someone else copy/pasted the text into the redirect (that was missing the history) and tagged the page with all of the history with a db. That is very much the wrong way to do it :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the reason that the page couldn't simply be moved back. Any user capable of moving a page can move a page back to its original name, assuming that the redirect has has no other edits made to it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha :) Thanks for the correction; I don't think we could do that back when I didn't have the mop. If we did, I have an awful memory. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Bradles 01

    Bradles 01 was blocked indefinately for hoaxing and as a likely sockpuppet of Jane 01. Afer several unsuccessful requests to have the block lifted Bradles 01 appears to have created a further sockpuppet Bradles 02. I posted a message at Suspected sock puppets/Bradles 01 describing the situation. I posted a suspected sockpuppet notice on Bradles 02's userpage and advised Bradles 01 via his/her talk page. Bradles 02 has since removed the sockpuppet notice [198] and placed an abusive message on my talk page [199]. Gimboid13 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dora Nichov

    User:Dora Nichov posted a death threat on an anon talk page [200]. This is bad, right? --- RockMFR 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is bad, and I just gave him a {{uw-legal2}} warning for that action. PeaceNT 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this user has been doing similar things to other anons. [201] [202] [203] [204] Completely unacceptable behavior. I am going to block this user for two weeks. It is the very least I could do.--Jersey Devil 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the threat perhaps this should be expanded to an indefinite block. I'll let other administrators pass judgment.--Jersey Devil 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended to indef. ViridaeTalk 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, everyone, just block users indefinitely on sight when they make death threats. No questions need to be asked. Yuser31415 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiStalking and blind reverting by Smeelgova

    This editor has been incessantly stalking and blindly reverting my edits for a while now, depite repeated request that he stop. His edit warring is constant, but it tends to carry over into WP:STALK behavior as well. See [205] [206] [207] [208][209][210][211](reversing his attempt to restore to an earlier version with miseladeing explanation)(reverting clearly non WP:RD source)here acting in tandem with a team of POV edit warriors--led to article rotection(gain restoring non WP:RS that was ultimately removed)9characterizing removal of non WP:RS as "vandalism")(blind reversion of inappropriate links that were ultimately removed)waits a few days to restore absurdly inappropritae EL) These are just some of his reverts; he generally works together with others in a group of highly vociferous Scientology critics, most notable Tilman (I have been trying to balance the more overt biases in some of those articles--removing clearly non-WP:RS sources, fixing gross misquotes, etc). These editors usually filibuster with absurd explanations in summaries and talk pages (claiming, eg, clearly non WP:RS sourced material should be reverted because it is "properly suorced" is a common time wasting tactic). I have warned Smeelgova a number of times that I would report him, although i am disinclined to take actions of that sort unless extreme, and despite his groups campaign against me (which has included outright false and distorted complaints about me). Anyway, its getting silly, annoying and a bit creepy. BabyDweezil 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This clearly is not a case of wikistalking nor blind reverting (as you put it). Smeelgova has edited the subject matter in your diffs for a long time, and his edit summaries appear to be attempting to engage you in a discussion regarding your edits. However, I'd like to remind both of you about edit warring - and encourage you to following WP:1RR; if someone reverts your edits do not simply revert them - discuss the subject and attempt to reach middle ground Glen 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly the editor's own personal interpretation of my edits. I have many if not all of the related articles on my watchlist, and have for some time now. This entire rant above amounts to a vicious violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, especially the allegations that I work in tandem with other editors - which I do not. This is not new, as BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of personal attacks against other editors. The user has also made a habit of inappropriately utilizing the edit summary space for personal attacks as well - instead of attempting to resolve conflicts on article talk pages and at least try to come to a consensus. Smee 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't see anything in the diffs you provided to show you being stalked or otherwise harassed by Smeelgova. I have edited controversial articles with Smeelgova in the past, and have found him to be both hard working and careful in his edits to maintain NPOV. Jeffpw 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think BabyDweezil ought to look at his own conduct - as this page history demonstrates, he has a record of edit warring and disruptive behaviour which on this occasion forced me to protect a page. I'd not encountered BD before this week but frankly, I haven't been impressed by his confrontational approach - he doesn't seem to have understood that Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative project. I note that he's already been cited and blocked for this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive163#Personal attacks and formal warnings and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive196#Text removal ban: BabyDweezil). It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to have taken the hint. -- ChrisO 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    More Starwars1955 socks?

    I recently blocked Mr. Dercy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of the recently blocked User:Starwars1955 (see WP:CN for ban discussion). In particular, SW'95 has repeatedly caused trouble at Brett Favre and harassed User:Mr. Darcy -- this user seems to fit that description like a glove. We've recently put out some range blocks to stop SW'95 from editing, which indicates either that I've made an error, or the blocks aren't quite as effective as we anticipated (they could be using another web connection, of course). Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bismarck State College and copyrights

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

    User: King_of_Hearts - Wikistalking and Personal Page Vandalism and Protection

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

    I do not see Wikistalking anywhere. I remember having to protect your page two weeks ago for the same reasons King of Hearts did tonight. There is no complaint against you removing anything from the user talk that belongs to the IP you use. I do not see any threats of Wikistalking at all, and was more than likely alerted to your actions through recent changes patrolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you have no penchant for the truth. The user King of Hearts says he will "watch my edits for vanadlism" (slander in and of itself) AND he has blocked me blanking my own user page. Call it want you want, but it seems to be homophobic bullying from power-hungry editors. Guess NPOV is a pipe-dream because the only NPOV is the one you enforce on all others. Guess that means no rooms for the gays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not blocked as you are editting this page right now. There is no slander. There is no homophobic bullying, just something in your head. No one is paying any attention to the content of the user talk other than you. NPOV doesn't really apply to user talk pages. The page also does not belong to you but the Wikimedia Foundation. Please, also, sign your posts with only four tildes, not five.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JBAK white supremacist abusive message on talk page

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

    Not just everyday racism, but incitement to murder people of Sub-Saharan African descent.[212]. Indef block recommended.Proabivouac 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user indefinitely. That's a very shocking edit, and highly similar to the one that got the other editor you mentioned blocked indefinitely... This is weird though, because JBAK has a solid contribution history. Everyone else, please jump in and review... I think I'm going to bed soon. But I think this qualifies somewhat as a "death threat" and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior under any circumstances anyway. Grandmasterka 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block, based on the severity of the comment, his editing through other accounts, and likely sockpuppetry (which is even more likely now). I've got no tolerance for shit like this myself. However, the edit almost makes it sound as though he wanted to be blocked, which might imply some sibling rivalry or something. That shouldn't be our problem, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have given him a week's vacation, enough for him to see what happened and claim that the rogue edit was made by a retard who happened to come across a computer from which he hadn't logged out, or that he has some psychiatric disorder in which (for example) one personality is embarrassed by and apologizes for the behavior of the other personality. If that claim were made, I'd read it very sceptically; if such a thing happened again, I'd ban him permanently. One thing's for sure: the author of those comments (whether a child, a retard, or a mock-retard) isn't worth anyone's time. -- Hoary 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... But If that's the case, I'd rather have the real owner of the account come back whenever and have to say "OMG I'M SORRY" to get unblocked, personally. Grandmasterka 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If there's a good unblock reasoning given, I would probably be okay with giving him one more shot. Along those lines (i.e. to inform him of {{unblock}}), I just sent a uw-block3; hopefully you don't mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    194.90.125.208

    I was wondering if someone could look into 194.90.125.208's edits. I came accross this IP editor after [213] this edit popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at the user's contribution list, and almost all of this users edits are to some sort of link section (extrenal links, sources, etc.)

    These edits look suspicious--they all go to the same website, but I can't tell whether or not they are spam because they are all in Hebrew.

    Here's 194.90.125.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for your convience, because even though I'm fairly sure there's another IP something that provides info that doesn't label the person as a vandal, I have no idea what it is. Thanks ~~Miss Mondegreen 09:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    66.244.194.186 Vandalism IP

    The user User:66.244.194.186 is using his editing privileges for nothing but vandalism. See his Contribs for more information.

    Some most recent examples: 1 2 3 Nemilar 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://66.244.194.186/. It's a school. Makes sense, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use WP:AIV for such requests. Conscious 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ogoing block evasion and abusive behaviour

    User:24.167.107.118 has been identified (see [214] and [215]) as User:Woodstock2010.

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

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

    I believe this user has also edited as ShitakiMan, who was blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry on January 9. Also, 24.26.237.251 has edits which are consistent with Woodstock2010's. --Onorem 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely correct. Jakew 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MediaWiki vandalism?

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=108590671"