Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Incivility by Ryulong

Yesterday I was indef blocked by Ryulong with the 3-word summary in the block log "Abusing multiple accounts", despite the fact that I had engaged in no disruptive or abusive behavior. Apparently he objected to my tagging of an image as needing a fair use rationale when it actually didn't. (This was my mistake and I would gladly have corrected it myself, given the opportunity.) No message was left on my talk page regarding the reason for the indefinite block.

I spent the day, on and off, attempting to resolve the issue by e-mail and IRC. The indefinite block was endorsed by SlimVirgin; I finally contacted Ryulong on #wikipedia-en-unblock; his behavior there toward me was incivil and he terminated the conversation after a brief time. That said, shortly afterward he unblocked me.

I twice attempted to post the log of our IRC conversation in my userspace as a temporary reference for this report (per the unblock channel notices, those logs may be published); but Ryulong deleted them as quickly as I could upload them.

I have no desire to beat a dead horse, or to get into a long discussion here. I just felt that Ryulong's behavior should be called to the attention of someone. Videmus Omnia 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though you may not be able to post the logs, could you explain what transpired in the channel, to the best of your recollection, and let Ryulong reply to it, and explain himself? --Haemo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, he wouldn't tell me how I deserved an indef block, and when I requested a review here at WP:ANI or at WP:AN, he said my request was "irrelevant", then said "I'm done with this" and terminated the conversation. Videmus Omnia 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound very civil; people who have problems with a block deserve to be treated with respect, especially when their concerns surround the block rationale being incorrect. However, let's wait for Ryulong's reponse. --Haemo 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a case of mistaken identity, for which Ryūlóng appologized.[1]

As for the the heavy-handed treatment Videmus endured in the IRC channel, I'm unclear on if Wikipedia policies extend to cover off-site conduct. –Gunslinger47 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the user in question was a sockpuppet of someone due to his immediate edits concerning {{nrd}} on various images. I blocked, and sought out a checkuser to see if this sort of sockpuppet was permitted. I was not able to procure one until this evening. Anyway, when Videmus Omnia made contact with Slim Virgin through unblock-en-l, he had said that he changed accounts as per his right to vanish. When I asked him if he could give me the name of his former account through a private message so I can confirm that the account did not violate policy, he did not comply, and simply continued to ask why I had blocked him. I left the channel at that point. Based on some of the information my IRC client gave me, I did some digging on Wikipedia, found what I believed was the account he was talking about, and unblocked him and removed the autoblock on his IP. His only actions in the past two hours have been posting the log in that subpage, and then making various complaints about my actions in the deletion, and the tone I had in the channel.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a case of mistaken identity, coupled with some raised hackles all around. However, SlimVirgin's comments are odd; they claim he admitted to using multiple accounts. I guess this is just another part of the misunderstanding going on here. Videmus, I think Ryulong understands that you were upset by what happened, and he apologized. You've also brought it up here, and I understand where you're coming from -- being accidentally blocked can be a real heart-stopper. However, as NewYorkBrad said on your talk page, it's probably best if you move on. In my opinion, I think it was borderline incivil what went on there, but it's understandable given what he explained. This is a real gray area, and I think you would do well to just put it behind you -- I don't think you're really going to get a lot more out of this process than the account you just got. Just remember that we're all friends here, and no one's out to get anyone - just smile, and move on. --Haemo 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHy can't IRC chats be publishd here like Videmus tried? That smacks of the IRC elitism often brought up (and quashed) here on AN/I. What's the deal? ThuranX 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freenode doesn't let anyone publish logs, for privacy reasons. We try to keep up our end of that bargain. --Haemo 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then move to another IRC provider, problem solved. Hypnosadist 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm sorry, but that just sounds like 'hey all, let's go talk in this place where no one can prove we ever said anything' and smacks of cabalism. Now that I understand this, count me among the masses opposed to IRC use by Admins to create 'consensus' for things on Wiki. Without transparency, there's no accountability. ThuranX 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Wikimedia Freenode channels do not permit the posting of logs publically. Now, #wikipedia-en-unblock is a grey area, in that public logging is permitted, but discouraged. Administrators can see the content of the discussion at Special:Undelete/User:Videmus Omnia/Ryulong. #wikipedia-en-unblock is a public channel, and anyone that was in there knew what went on, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an attempt to create "consensus" - it is a useful service, to help contact admins in real-time. It's a service. And if you've ever spent time on IRC, you know there is no cabal. --Haemo 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that there is 'no cabal', however, the secrecy protecting IRC from review doesn't help to dissuade those who feel that Admins gang up on them from having those feelings. My point is that IRC decisions cannot be reviewed like a Wikipedia Talk apge can, nor like a WP: page can, like this one. That's it. There are a few areas in which IRC has merit, but it's not universally great. ThuranX 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the problem here, this was the unblock channel, the editor in question joined that channel and discussed with the blocking admin, and the logs aren't published. That is no different to the normal practice of encouraging users to email the blocking admin (Indeed it's only a couple of years back that this was your only option), we don't allow publishing of private email correspondance either. --pgk 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, #wikipedia-en-unblock channel expressly permits public logging of what transpires in the channel. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may post IRC logs if you wish, James F's "IRC rules" (what you may (and may not) do) don't apply to Wikipedia. I'd also advise that you may start a request for comment into Ryulong's misuse of administrative powers, due to the nature of this being an on-going habbit (but, of course, Ryulong has cascade protected his RfC already -- irony, or what). Matthew 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like how we constantly get told that IRC is nothing to do with wikipedia and thus any problems with admins using it are nothing to do with Wikipedia. However if someone wants to publish logs, well that's against the rules of Freenode and should be removed. So what if it's against freenodes regs? That's freenodes business to enforce not wikipedia because (as we keep being told) the two are unconnected. --Fredrick day 10:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Public logging of Wikimedia channels is expressly prohibited on Meta and should not be done. Regular posting of logs is a blockable offence. There are legal issues with this as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps on meta it's prohibited... let us be thankful their policy doesn't extend here. Matthew 10:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It extends to each and every project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy on Meta seems to consist of "logging is prohibited because we've said that logging is prohibited". --Fredrick day 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then challenge policy, we have already have had these discussions a lot many times before on this very page. One of the major reasons of prohibiting public logging is that material becomes libel once published, and that is not one of the conditions with which users engage in multi-partite discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh so we need IRC channels to help protect admins from the libel they are spouting, very interesting. Hypnosadist 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to a page that says Meta policy trumps (local) wikipedia policy - because I cannot find such a thing either here or there - our own policy page doesn't even seem to mention Meta's involvement in the development of policy. --Fredrick day 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further checking seems to reveal that there is infact no policy against logging on META - there is 1) a guideline page which states that maybe it's not a good idea and 2) Because the Wikimedia IRC channels are not officially WMF material, this page could never be deemed any form of official policy. However, those who do "unofficially officially" run the channels have stated that they are official, and so, within #wikipedia at least, these rules are binding :-) - so as far as I can see - the state that "Meta prohibits logging" does not seem to be true or is badly worded - unless there is another policy page there I cannot find? --Fredrick day 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the no-public-logging rule comes from; it's in the topic of every Wikipedia-related IRC channel I've visited, but I'm not sure about the original source. I feel the lack of logging interferes with my ability to do anthing substantive on IRC (which I hardly ever use, by the way); if something isn't logged and you can't see where a decision was made, the decision may as well not have been made at all because you'll have to make it again to demonstrate where the consensus is (although this is preferable in my view to a situation in which private decisions could sensibly be binding, except in OFFICE and similar cases). Other channels on Freenode are logged; for instance, sometimes something on Esolang (another wiki) is discussed on #esoteric on Freenode, but there are two logging bots there constantly so that something can be referred to if necessary (Esolang doesn't get enough traffic for this to have been necessary, yet, and discussing the wiki isn't the prime purpose of the channel). I would like a logged channel to be available, possibly as an alternative to the current unlogged channel, but I'd be interested to hear where the no-public-logging rule (which I respect; I don't even have private logs of Wikipedia channels) comes from, and I'm interested as to what its rationale is. (Presumably it was discussed in an unlogged channel somewhere, so nobody can now find the original discussion...) --ais523 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears that ais523's work proves that the logs can be shown, so editors should not be blocked for sharing them with us. Hypnosadist 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I kind of think the topic of discussion has changed somewhat. If you have an issue with IRC or anything else, I'd really prefer it to be taken elsewhere, as it isn't very relevant to Ryulong specifically. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, thank you, Zero, for bringing some intelligence here)

What the hell went on here? Logging is discouraged with the unblock channel. I blocked him before he signed on there, and he was merely in there to get unblocked. I unblocked him after finding out what I asked him to begin with. Again, this is not an issue for WP:ANI. If I was slightly incivil in dealing with Videmus through the IRC channel, that was because he was:

1. Requesting that I ask for review of the block I made on a 4 day old account (his) here at ANI or at AN.
2. Asking why I blocked him (which I told him and I explained further up)

and I was getting exasperated trying to get the information I wanted out of him. The only administrative actions I performed in dealing with him were deleting of the log he took, because I was not aware of #wikipedia-en-unblock's permitance of such a fact. But honestly, anything beyond my unblock is beating a dead horse (damn I've used that term a lot this morning). If Videmus contributes, I'll have nothing else to do with him. If he disrupts, I'll block him. And the only reason Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong is cascade protected is because during the early days of my adminship, I was dealing with sockpuppets who repeatedly recreated that page because of a proper block I made on vandalism accounts (see User:CBDrunkerson). It can be taken off at any time, although I see no basis for any RfC with this situation (Matthew doesn't feel I'm an administrator anyway). Also, the guidelines are currently at meta:IRC guidelines: "Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. This is a good rule of thumb, but some channels do not have this restriction - if in doubt, check." If someone wants to restore the logs of that channel in his subspace, then they can, but nothing will come out of it being published or not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok just as long as we now know there is no policy to stop publishing logs and therefore no-one should be blocked for publishing them. Hypnosadist 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what this block was about, anyway. I had suspicions of sockpuppetry, and my "incivility" was after he would not reveal to me information I requested to unblock him, which I did in the long run. And per comments below this, I'll be unsalting the RfC page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong; this is flogging a dead horse. Misunderstanding resolved, no bad faith on Ryulong's part. Move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting against the creation of an RfC on yourself is the sort of thing that, regardless of the actual reasons behind it, certainly gives an appearance that you're making yourself immune to criticism, like the "untouchable caste" I've been lambasted for hypothesizing the existence of before. *Dan T.* 12:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the RfC page has been protected against creation since February as a temporary measure, I'm going to un-salt it. Any problem with that? MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong needs to face up to responsibility. He admits to incivility. He also admits a block was not right. He soiled someone else's record. He should pay compensation in the form of being blocked himself, say 2 hours minimum. This is only fair. Vectorsap 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How to stop User:DavidYork71 and others

He continues to create new user accounts after three edits in an article (see contributions of Progressoriser, Llangowen, Dyspareunia, User:RealismIncorporated) . Hence I cannot file a WP:3RR report. Filing checkuser report is useless because, he leave his old accounts after some edits. For example see Islam and children histroy [2]. I know check user will confirm my allegation but what the use when he will create another account in a second. Do we have some more useful and long-term solution? I suggest make creating account difficult may be? --- A. L. M. 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't make account creation any more difficult, there's nothing in the software to let us. I suggest you file a checkuser request, and also ask the checkuser to block and underlying IP addresses ACB. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it has been not done before. There is a long list of user banned, see his old check user log Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DavidYork71. We can make it neccessary to specify a valid email address. Hence each time he (and others like him) has to create a new email address. --- A. L. M. 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, we can't make account creation any more difficult. If you want new features, ask the developers at Bugzilla. None of us can make creating accounts more difficult. You need to try to relax a bit and not be so confrontational; I suggested checkuser because you never mentioned it had already been done. Make sure you state the situation clearly to get the best feedback, otherwise people will just suggest things you've done before. --Deskana (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with ALM's frustration - it seems he's been stalked by DY71 socks, as have I on obscure articles I'm working on. There's nothing that can be done really, but to just revert, revert and revert - one day he will get bored, and he's already had bored patches. The point is, that his edits are actually not on wikipedia that long at all before they get removed. Perhaps we can get a list together of people who are aware of DY71 and notify everyone when he comes on. The systems worked reasonably well tonight. There is also a suggestion on WP:3RR of an exemption to the rule of 3RR if it is to revert a banned user, but it is not clear. I suggest we seek to have that clarified for continuous reverts of DY71. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions too. There are some good admins who have been great in keeping him in check. It's like some illnesses you can't eradicate, you just need to manage.

It's a sad and pathetic case, i really wonder what motivates him to do it. Something is sadly wrong.Merbabu 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign - this about 15 mins late).

For the record, reverting edits of banned users is not covered under 3RR. You can revert edits of banned users as often as you want and not get blocked for 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? OK, I will give it a go. :) Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to a standard checkuser, you can go to the bottom of WP:RFCU and file a "Request for IP check" - this is an attempt to identify and block the underlying IP's DavidYork is using. Maybe this has also already been done - these IP checks are not archiving for the long-term - but if not, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, you could consider semi-protection of the target pages, rapid reporting of the socks, reverting their edits, and denying them the satisfaction of getting everyone worked up. Many, if not all, of these strategies are probably already being used here. Eventually, the torrent will subside. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

rapid reporting of socks? Where too? Normally, it takes a while to wait for a checkuser or an admin who knows the situation. Is there a place you can suggest to rapid report? thanks. --Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, ask that these pages be semi-protected. That will stop both IPs and newly-generated throwaway accounts from editing. - Merzbow 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record (although it sounds like this goes beyond simply WP:3RR), the three-revert rule applies to users, not accounts. If you can credibly show that two accounts belong to the same user, their edits count together for the 3RR, and, as noted above, edits made by a blocked user may then be reverted freely. A checkuser isn't necessary when it is trivially clear to any observer that someone is using a series of socks. --Aquillion 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps is needed is a place like WP:AIV to report ongoing transparent sockpuppetry of known sockpuppeteers. The system now is only (vaguely) effective against puppeteers who have trouble accessing another IP or who invest in their new usernames. For a case like this, RfCU isn't the right venue - we already know it's DavidYork71, why wait a day and waste checkuser time confirming it - and it would be bothersome to post every new puppet on this board. Yet it seems that some administrators now see the existence of RfCU as an excuse not to block obvious socks on sight, despite the clear language of RfCU: "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet: Block. No checkuser is necessary."Proabivouac 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Aquillion 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Several reports there appear to be several days old, and unlike AIV, they are often treated as matters requiring the careful investigation of an administrator.Proabivouac 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i like your suggestions, which let editors take on the issue themselves. Combined with the earlier suggestion above that reverting obvious disruptive socks exempts good faith editors from WP:3RR, this should see us getting around our tiresome and frustrating hamstringing in red tape that has been playing into DY71's hands. Thanks all. Merbabu 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Proabivouac - this seems an ignore rules situation to speedily report socks. Definitely improving the encyclopedia./ —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Parsecboy

Resolved

 – One or more IP addresses blocked after an edit war; possible sockpuppetry? Relist if further problems arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy is showing a double-standard. He removed some of the talk page text here, yet keeps reverting the page when others remove talk page text. [3] [4]

What gives? Should this be reported as a violation?

161.55.204.157 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... it's considered bad form to remove other people's comments. Even if User:Parsecboy went a bit too far there, though, there's a difference between removing extensive off-topic arguments, like he did in the link you provided, and removing relevant discussions related to an ongoing content dispute, as happened in the other links you provided. I probably would've speedy-archived the off-topic argument myself, rather than just delete it, but User:Parsecboy can hardly be blamed for not wanting it there; it's hard to have coherent discussion on an article when people are just throwing blind invective at each other. --Aquillion 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about the other off topic arguments accusing people of theft and a contination of the same by two other users? Should these remain in the record? If yes, what is the difference between one personal attack and another? I don't understand. And are you an admin, Aquillion? If not, could I have an admin's opinion here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

It's not a big difference. The difference between an admin and an experienced user like Aquillon is three extra buttons. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't really answer any questions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talk • contribs)

There's a clear difference between the text being removed, and the text being restored -- specifically, the text being removed is of little (if any) apparent usefulness to the goals of this project. Contrary to what some might have you believe, talk pages are not open forums for any purpose, but are intended specifically to coordinate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Comments and sections which do not further those goals can be subject to removal; that the user is or isn't an administrator (I haven't checked) doesn't seem to factor into this, either way, unless I'm missing something. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally addressing part of the problem here. I have attempted to remove accusations of theft made by several Wiki users against another user. Those sorts of statements are pure personal attacks and as you point out, have nothing to do with any usefullness to the article. Yet User:Parsecboy keeps reverting the text each time I try to remove the useless and false personal attack statements. What can be done about that? Thank you. 161.55.204.157 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text I removed was a tangential discussion, rife with personal attacks and incivility against those who disagreed with this anon, (who was Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), until he was indef blocked for said gross incivility) that did not belong on the talk page. The text this user is trying to delete is relevant discussions on links to external youtube videos. I have done nothing wrong here. Parsecboy 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text that I removed were also personal attacks, especially the ones that wrongly accused another user of theft. I would like to see ALL personal attacks removed, not just the ones that User:Parsecboy has posted. ALL personal attacks should be removed. What is the difference between one attack and another? 161.55.204.157 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon, lets stop pretending you're anyone other than Labyrinth13. Falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. The difference between what you deleted and what I deleted is that your comments, as Labyrinth13, were deliberately malicious and incivil, with no connection to the article itself. You were just telling everyone who disagreed with you to "fuck off" because you couldn't have your way. The discussions you deleted were relevant to the article. Parsecboy 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a wiki rule that says that falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. Standing by. 161.55.204.157 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, to show where WP:NPA states that accusing someone of theft (falsly or otherwise) constitutes a personal attack. Parsecboy 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, which I why I would like an admin to render an opinion here. Are there any actual admins around who can look at this dispute? I'd love to have this settled and will abide by an admin's word. 161.55.204.157 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. But you're wrong. I can't say "Here's WP:NPA, and it says right here, that accusations of theft do not constitute personal attacks". You can, however, do the opposite. Show where it says accusations of theft do constitute personal attacks, or drop your pointless crusade. And unless it's hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page, in legal print, it doesn't exist anywhere on WP:NPA. Parsecboy 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are so cute, but I'd rather hear what an admin has to say. 161.55.204.157 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are so condescendingly avoiding the argument. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What do you care about having the accusations of theft removed, anyway? Why do you feel so strongly about leaving that sort of thing there? Would you want comments accusing you of being a criminal or say, a pedophile left in a public forum? Obviously, the answer is "no" to the last question as you saw fit to remove part of the talk discussion accusing you of being a thief here. And that is not a double-standard because of what reason? 161.55.204.157 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed your rantings because they were just that, rantings. You were pissed because you couldn't have your way, and were being extremely incivil, which has no place in Wikipedia anywhere. Regardless, just because someone accused you of being a thief doesn't mean you get to blank all sections of a talk page relating to the dispute. The reason I have reverted you is because you apparently have this desire to whitewash the talk page, so there's no obvious record of the dispute. If you're going to make claims and argue your point, be a man about it and leave it for all to see. If you're ashamed of it, then you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion . . .

So, the way I read that statement above, what is or isn't a personal attack is open to interpretation, hence the reason why I have been trying so hard to get a seasoned admin who is familiar with the subject of personal attacks to answer my main question: Is accusing someone of theft on a Wikipedia talk page a personal attack?

If the answer is yes, then the statements in question should be removed. If the answer is no, then does that opens the door to being allowed to accuse people of all sorts of things, so long as it takes place within a relevant discussion? 161.55.204.157 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin does decide that accusations of theft are personal attacks, remove them. But use a scalpel, not a hatchet. My comments (and those of others who made no such accusations) should remain untouched. Or better yet, put a strike through the comments. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved -- I think we've gotten as much closure as we're going to, for the moment. I count two or more IPs blocked, apparently related to this in some way or another. Any chance of sock/meatpuppets, I guess? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna Santin. This guy's been a bit of an annoyance. I wouldn't exactly call them socks/meats; the original username, Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs) was blocked a few days ago for gross incivility, personal attacks, and removing relevant discussions from the talk page accusing him of thievery. The first IP, the one who started this vengeful post, was blocked for 3RR, and the other two were used to evade the block, and have apparently also been blocked. Again, thanks for your help in the matter. Parsecboy 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgile1991

Virgile1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This young user keeps replacing the current flags of the French regions with the old provincial flags from before the French Revolution. You can find an example of this here: Île-de-France (region) (check the page's history). The same is repeated across a majority of the 26 regions of France articles. This user was warned several times on his talk page that he should stop doing this. A discussion was also opened at Talk:Nord-Pas de Calais but he has refused to take part in it so far. It seems there's no way to discuss things with him, and I don't know what to do. This user's behvior forces me and others to watch and correct these articles on a daily base now, which is time consuming. Also note that this user's misbehavior is not limited to the French regions articles. I noticed he has also vandalized the Maine article by adding French as an official language in that US state infobox. Godefroy 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If they don't quit edit warring and start discussing, I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "they"? It's just Virgile1991 who refuses to discuss things and revert all these articles, despite having been asked to provide references for his changes by other users such as Kiwipete, ThePromenader, and myself. Anyway, if he continues to revert (which he'll probably do I'm afraid, given his past behavior), I'll report him here again. Godefroy 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"They" is simply a gender-free way to avoid using awkward constructions such as "he or she", "he/she", or artificial abominations such as "xir". --Calton | Talk 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What Calton said. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the 'artificial abominations' wording :P —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an IP who keeps removing templates from the Drew Barrymore talk page. Can someone either block the IP or protect the Talk page from unregistered users? Thank you. --David Shankbone 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. Because it is so recent, I'll take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I might have blocked, if I'd spotted this at the time; however, it seems they've stopped for now, and we don't know if they're even still on that same IP, so a block may not have much use, by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak's behavior

I'm sick of this. Consensus was reached about removing the Russian name of Podilsko-Voskresenska Line from the article (see hist). Then Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) showed up and decided to add Russian without discussion (diff). He only started discussing it after he was reverted. However, consensus on his version was not reached and he kept reverting back to his version. I had the article protected, and started a MedCab case about it. The user, not waiting for consensus to be reached at MedCab, decides to add Russian yet again (diff). Now I don't know, he's starting another edit war. Maybe the article needs to be protected, but I'm also sick of that user's behavior. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has a history of WP:3RR violations. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking hereI wonder why the position of one user (Akhristov's) is considered consensus. Another user (dima) wrote he [doesn't] mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both. Alæxis_¿question? 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My point there was that Kuban kazak was free to discuss it on the talk page, he chose not to. He only discussed it after he got reverted. I believe it could have been considered consensus since DDima and I were the only editors to the article at that time. If it was Kuban kazak's edit I would have been discussing originally, I'd wait for his input. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping. P.S. The last time I visited Kiev I heard Russian spoken as often as in Moscow. I can't see a reason for discriminating against one of the languages of this bilingual city. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the language issue, go to MedCab. I am talking about behavior here, starting a revert war while a discussion is going on is unacceptable, especially editing towards a disputed revision. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you should move your request to WP:RFP. I would support protection until the dispute is resolved. The matter does appear to be trivial, however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not move this discussion over there. I will, however, add a request for protection. This conversation stays here, it is about a user's behavior. I don't see others revert warring on that article while the MedCab discussion is taking place. Especially people who are involved in the MedCab case. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion for relevant information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#Repeated purging of text. Also I don't like the fact that another edit war is on the verge of breaking out right after the article became unprotected. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see who actually reverted first [5], not just the lead, but numerous factual corrections and grammatical mistakes (the so called low quality edits in the summary). Can I just also add that Akhristov actually left the medcab to find consensus, yet that did not prevent him from a total revert. Why should I not report this as a blatant violation of WP:HAR? After all I have the right for my work not to be reverted senselessly. --Kuban Cossack 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the edits low-quality, they introduced lots of run-on sentences that were easier to correct by reverting. Also stuff like "radius", which doesn't make any sense (at least to the common reader). If an admin feels that I'm not right, he/she is free to tell me that I'm not. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually radius is a term that is used officially, when describing complete segments, also is "low qulity" an alibi to avoid sensilessly purging the Russian from the lead? --Kuban Cossack 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that a "consensus was reached", when the issue is still under mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line? -- Petri Krohn 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was reached earlier, prior to Kuban kazak showing up. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to revert something, discuss it first. That is exactly what I did. However, Kuban kazak decided to revert without discussing first. Don't make me restate everything I stated in my first comment, please. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is reached when all parties agree, not one. --Kuban Cossack 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Will any administrators please comment on this? This is an administrators' noticeboard, and the only people that seem to try to resolve this particular dispute are regular users. Soon this will turn into a discussion board for something that was straightforward at first, and will be hard for administrators to follow. Administrators, please comment ASAP. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Akhristov's claims about Kuban kazak. But this page is nothing more than a chatroom for people who don't have admin rights, so Alex, don't take it so serious.AlexPU 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Speak for your own priceless contributions. --Kuban Cossack 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It was all parties at the time. You showed up a day later. You don't own all Metro articles per WP:OWN so please quit acting like you do. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't own articles in the same way, so please quit acting like you do. [6], You don't call the shots, and that goes irrespective of where the line is located, the Ukraine, Kiev, Zanzibar or in a pomoika. Although I would not object removing Russian from the latter ;) --Kuban Cossack 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't act like I own all articles. So you want Russian names everywhere they don't belong, including Zanzibar? My revert was valid, I believe it is one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines to agree on something without edit warring, and leave the version that consensus was reached on until discussion is over. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As the mediator in the medcom case, I feel I should probably say something here. Kuban's behavior has indeed been unacceptable, he has blatantly refused to see compromise, and instead stuck to his firm views in relation to this case. I asked Jossi to upgrade the article protection at fear of an event such as this one taking place, but this was rejected. I firmly believe that Kuban must be stopped in one way or another, and urge an administrator reading this to take appropriate actions. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Article full-protected for 2 weeks, or until some kind of consensus on this pressing issue can be reached on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, just discussing it on the talk page won't be enough. As for now, this WP:ANI report has been split to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth_seeker_69

Truth seeker 69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be all that one would expect form a user with that name. I have blocked this account, primarily for the creation of Joel Stuart Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a blatant POV fork of Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Joel Hayward maybe? Viridae^Talk 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Korp! Estonia on wheels

The Bronze Soldier controversy brought along a wave of new users from Estonia. Some of these are single-purpose-accounts, with an aim of waging the Russian-Estonian propaganda war on Wikipedia. This new community has a ringleader, User:Digwuren, who's contributions are limited to tendentious editing, disruptive editing, trolling and personal attacks. I cannot consider him a member of the Wikipedia community in good faith.

For the last two month I have been the largest foreign contributor (I am Finnish) to Estonia related articles. During this time I have created 11 new Estonia related articles (one in DYK) and significantly contributed to one In-the-News article. For my contributions I have been under constant attack by the ringleader and his puppets. Most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes.

The only solution I see, is that the ringleader is indefinitely blocked for total disregard of WP:NPOV, or given a community ban. I have been advised, that this issue will have to go to ArbCom, for this I have been collecting evidence.

From the talk pages, it will be extremely difficult to see which side is the vandal and POV-pusher. Digwuren has an excellent command of the English language. In his comments he manages to convey an impression of honesty. To understand the issue, one has to look deep into each party's edit histories. It will be easy to see, that Digwuren has contributed absolutely nothing of permanent value to Wikipedia. He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect. Worst of all, he has utterly failed to accept and understand Wikipedia's basic principle of neutral point of view.

After I first announced my intentions by asking for advise from User:Neil, Digwuren and his group of "volunteers" have been preparing to counterattack, by filing a WP:RFC/U against me. I find this action to be yet an other indication of bad faith. My edit history is clean from most, if not all wrongdoing. I have not reverted any of Digwuren's original contributions. In the "edit wars" I have defended my own edits from what I see as disruption and POV-pushing by him and his followers.

I interrupt this tirade to point out that Petri Krohn is lying about the timeline. The WP:RFC/U was first mentioned in [7], more than eight hours before this "asking for advice": [8]. I'm calling it a lie this boldly because this first mention happened on Petri Krohn's very own user talk page; in all reasonability, he must have known it.

Now, in a theatrical manner, I ask you: who is the one of bad faith? Digwuren 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I come here to ask for advice. Does this issue need to go to ArbCom? Do we have to wait for Digwuren to file his WP:RFC/U. Will some rouge admin just block him indefinitely? More important, if he is indefinitely blocked, is there some administrator around that would revert the decision? -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Why the title? The Korp! or korporatsioon are Estonian student nations, the most famous of these is Korp! Sakala. The Estonians in this dispute are most, if not all, classmates at the University of Tartu, as evident in this checkuser request. -- Petri Krohn 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This dellusion is becoming anoying... Prove it or stop it!--Alexia Death 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to repeat it here. Digwuren is obviously not a single-purpose account. He has created at least Kukly (not very insightful stub as of now, but really necessary), June deportation, March deportation, tagged articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia, wikified internal links etc. Yes, there are some problems with edit-warring, but obviously, one cannot be engaged in edit-warring by oneself. Another party is needed. The behavior of Petri during the last two months looks like harassment. Could you both please stop? Blaming people for their place of study is something. Colchicum 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos! This shows real improvement. All three articles are created in the last four days. Two of them clearly serve his single purpose. On the balace of things, they hardly change the picture. -- Petri Krohn 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change a picture in your mind, but I don't understand why the Wikipedia community should bother with it. The accusations He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect are clearly false, the rest of the story has also very limited credibility. Petri, you are a good editor (at least when it doesn't concern Soviet-East European relationships), but I don't appreciate your efforts to eliminate the Estonian community from en-Wiki. POV policy requires different significant points of view to be represented rather than the only "true" one. Colchicum 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will change that to He has not created a single article, not even a stub or a redirect before June 15. I have not been stalking, like he is. -- Petri Krohn 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bothering to verify your facts before making claims is not stalking. And since when there is a deadline on how long can someone be a member before creating a new article?--Alexia Death 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would classify this as harrasment based on nationality: As far as I know, none of the accused have never even seen eachother, and only relation between them is estonian nationality. Although you have contributed a lot to Estonian related articles, most of the edits are heavily biased Soviet POV. I do also agree that editwars is not a solution, but your smart manipulations are hard to fight on legal grounds aswell, specially counting the fact that you refuse of any normal cooperation and throw baseless accusations of trolling and puppetry instead. Suva 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like an attempt to get opposition banned before "S*it hits the fan"... First on Alex Bakharevs and Neils talkpages and now here. I hope the admin making a decision on this takes a deep hard look into the matters before making a decision. Just a note tho. The RFC/U is not a retaliation for anything. It just has become inevitable at this point. Even without Digwurren(should sanity be having a day off), it is going to happen.--Alexia Death 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would point out that the mass scale evidence-gathering associated with the RFC/U -- incidentally, a reason why filing it is not a matter of a single day but may take as long as a whole week -- makes it waaaay easy to map, and at times, even predict Petri Krohn's actions. For example, as Alexia Death points out here, this complaint here on WP:AN/I belongs to the rubric of clear pattern to try to avoid responsibility. It is not the first one, either; Petri Krohn has previously complained here. (Be sure to also check out the following, currently archived, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.) Digwuren 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to distance myself a bit during last few days, but it seems to be inevitable that I must get involved again.

While Digwuren has not been perhaps a paragon of a perfect Wikipedian, he has not done anything that would require blocking. In many cases he has just reacted to Petri's edits and edit summaries - that seem to be inserted in many cases just to provoke or insult other editors. My own first contact with Petri was when he reverted my removal of unsourced (and incorrect) claim here with edit summary reverted drive-by deletionist with POV agenda. Until lately - undoubtedly because of the upcoming WP:RFC/U - his edit summaries were often like Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.

Current claim of Korp! Estonia on wheels is clearly meant to intimidate his opponents - and get rid of Digwuren. Like it has been repeatedly shown, we are not sockpuppets, we do not know each other and do not communicate outside of Wikipedia (I did have one email from Digwuren while he was blocked, but I replied on his talk page - exactly because I wanted to avoid basis all such accusations). We are not from same class/university course (whole claim is silly - I finished biology, as far as I know, Digwuren and Alexia IT, but on different years. Suva is a musician, I think 3 Lövi has something to do with law and I suspect Erik Jesse is still in the university, studying law or philosophy. I have no idea about Staberinde).

To summarize this, accusations are clearly baseless and only meant to intimidate and hide Petri's own misjudgments.

DLX 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets look at facts for a moment. Petri is currently trying to push for block of Digwuren but also tries to get some admin to do it without Arbcom. Reason is simple, in ArbCom Petri's open racism aganist Estonians would be unavoidably be part of discussion. Also he would be actualy required to prove his numerous accusations(of course I do not deny that some of them may have some truth in them, but from my personal experience, Petri seems to be make quite serious accusations oftenly with practically non-existant evidence). I say, if Petri wants Arbcom, go for it.--Staberinde 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've actually said it before, prety please make this ArbCom happen, This sword tangling over someones head is nerve wrecking and starts to look more and more like intimidation.--Alexia Death 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent view

I have nothing to do with any of these articles. User:Petri Krohn has a high edit count, and a long history of constructive editing. I think Alexia Death deserves a 24 block for this rude comment posted above. User:Digwuren has a checkered history, at best, and should worry about himself before worrying about other users. This isn't the place to litigate a content dispute. Come here with specific complaints about user conduct and show diffs, and please don't make long winded arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My jaw dropped when I read this... I cant believe it. Ive been called a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet and a national extremist by this user without any finger pointing directed at him and now I'm being rude by simply stating that this constant and persistent claim is WRONG?--Alexia Death 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should apologize for calling the other editor insane. Feel free to refute him as strongly as you like, but maintain civility or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delusion does NOT imply insanity by default. I feel that I have nothing to apologize for.--Alexia Death 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when has delusion been a banned word? Is saying that one is mistaking also an insult? The text above is indeed a long-time belief of Petri (repeated twice today in different places). Claiming that it is false is not a crime, regardless of its holder's edit count. Colchicum 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As to checkered history, both contributors have experienced blocks for edit-warring, no reason for preferences here.Colchicum 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One block versus 21,000 edits over 23 months is very different from two blocks against 2500 edits in two months, and calling somebody insane is out of bounds. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And fame is everything? Old timers cant make mistakes? Cant have profusely false beliefs and biases?--Alexia Death 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in the complaint, you can take a look at this. I think this is way too much for a RfC, indeed, it would even make for an Arbitration, due to seriousness of the issues.
And please do note, that someone's high edit count is not a justification for misbehaviour. E.J. 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[9] - this is just to give you the idea of the dispute. Colchicum 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The complaint is not a good example of an investigation. There's no chance of this going to arbitration, in my opinion, because it's a simple content dispute. Arbcom generally doesn't hear content disputes. If you want help with investigations, leave a message on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Having seen your way of responding to complaints here (e.g removing others' comments), I doubt if any of us would need your 'help' with investigations (an offer which in itself is most kind of course).E.J. 14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

E.J. - that was a simple edit conflict, not an intentional deletion. I was copying my comments from the lower box to the top box and accidentally womped something. Your response is a fine example of tenditious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did write something in some of these articles. As far as the Bronze Soldier is concerned, any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text (which is relevant, since the last "German" defenders of Estonia were in fact an SS Walloonia detachment (check Leon Degrelle, he was a fascist), and among the defenders of the Narva there were SS regiments composed of fascists from Flanders, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries) was summarily reverted within minutes. On Lydia Koidula I not only tried to keep Livonia as part of the denomination of her birth place (which is in fact a compromise already, some people would argue that according to wiki conventions we should say that she was born in Russia) but tried to improve the general makeup of the text. I quickly noticed that a whole bunch of editors devoted much more energy to keeping out this one mention of Livonia than to the pertinent question whether about half of the second paragraph refers to Koidula or to Kreuzwald. But of course, I am still naive enough to believe that this is an encyclopedia, and not a repository of political pamphlets.--Pan Gerwazy 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve the community ban of Digwuren on account of his mind-boggling history of disruption, revert-warring, and trolling that destabilize a large segment of Wikipedia.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18][19] [20] [21] His meatpuppets (Alexia Death, DLX, Staberinde, Suva) should be placed on one-revert parole. Martintg, 3 Löwi and Colchicum should be cautioned and their activities closely scrutinized, as they routinely lend their support to disruption and trolling on the part of the Tartu accounts. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Any proofs for the accusations? If there is no specific piece of evidence, Ghirlandajo as an involved party should be subject to scrutiny as well. Colchicum 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the diffs of Digwuren you have just provided? Content dispute mostly. In one case you erased a comment by Digwuren on Alexia Death's talk page and Digwuren reverted it. I understand that you feel disrupted, but let's stop this.Colchicum 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to give the people sense of your involvement, Talk:Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia#Fraudulent edits. Colchicum 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The root cause of the problem is Petri Krohn. Despite his otherwise high edit count, he still regularly manages to insult Estonia and Estonians (see, just, e.g., this accusation of "terrorism" [22]. Put it simply, without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" (and, of course, there have not been any, and will never be nowhere near the same amount of insults flying the other way against "leftist pro-Soviet Finns"). Just my 2 cents, and please save your time by not accusing me of being one of Digwuren's meatpuppets. Cheers, --3 Löwi 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

without Petri Krohn's regular insults there would be no "problem" with Digwuren and other Estonian editors' alleged "edit-warring" I disagree. Digwuren started edit war on Monument of Lihula, repeatedly deleting referenced materials and denying link between Holocaust Denial and building monuments to Nazi collaborators and got 48 hr. ban for 3RR violation. After that he responded on comment about very POV error made in the source he provided with personal attack. RJ CG 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the Estonian Wiki-editors and real life Estonians I know support or openly engage in Holocaust denial. Nobody has built any monuments in Estonia to commemorate collaboration with the Nazis. Insinuating so is not only blatantly wrong, but also extremely (and personally) offensive. What you, RJ CG, are doing (see above) is the same kind of offensive word play which Digwuren, perhaps a bit less diplomatically and a bit more painfully, reacted to in the first place. By saying this, I have no intention to insult you or anyone. However, I am not, and the other Estonian and Estophile editors also are not, obligated to prove over and over again something that is rather obvious: we do not support Holocaust denial and we do not see collaboration with the Nazis as something deserving monuments. Over and out, --3 Löwi 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to familiarize yourself with Monument of Lihula page, it's edit history and talk page before chiming in. There was never any wholesale accusation of Estonians in Nazi sympaties or Holocaust denialism. There was, however, referenced data about Mayor being Holocaust denier (he actually published book about it). Memorial honoured those who fought in the army of Nazi Germany or the Waffen SS, this was never disputed in any of reference materials too (materials include article from Estonian newspaper translated by Digwuren). In any European country those who fought in the German Army or the Waffen SS are called collaborators, even if they had very valid reasons to do it. Digwuren started edit war trying to deny links of Holocaust denial and building monument to Nazi collaborators, even if both acts are from the same person. RJ CG 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion of Petri Krohn and Ghirla. I am also independant and arrived while surfing at a heavily biased page about an Estonian politician. An attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren. See [23]. I don't approve indefinite community bans, but a year is ok. Otto 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are obviously involved: [24]. So far the only non-involved party here has been Jahochman.

Colchicum 07:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I became involved after experiencing revert warring and rudeness as I just stated above. At the time I neutralized the POV lemma I was not involved. Anyone who takes the freedom to add a Soviet point of view to Baltic history is brutalized. That is hijacking of lemma's and destructive antisocial behavior. Otto 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla just managed to accuse 7 different editors(not counting Digwuren). I expect that accusations aganist me(meatpuppetry) are proved somehow, and I assume other editors who were called meatpuppets or were accused in disruption and trolling also have similar expectations. Also as I was accused by ghirla I think some of his own comments(all breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks) are appropriate here: campaign of persecution organized by a group of well-known extremist editors whose activities are coordinated from Estonian Wikipedia, group of Estonian extremist editors, including yourself, gang of trolls, Statements in support for extremist editors, a troll-free territory. I think this helps to understand "neutrality" of this user.--Staberinde 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that I can tell a troll from a reasonable user. You won't find many wikipedians who exposed more trolls than I did. I am also the only user holding this humorous award :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you read anything by Franz Kafka? Digwuren 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not care about your assurances. When someone accuses me in meatpuppetry and demands some kind of sanctions I expect them to put some serious evidence on table. Oh, and I also can tell Stalinist-POV-pusher from reasonable user, still for some reason I do not make any personal attacks on them.--Staberinde 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Petri Krohn and Ghirla. An example of Digwuren's "work" in the Wikipedia is unilateral rewriting the article, that involved removal of existing references to multiple sources. It could be understandable, if Digwuren rewrote it on their own, using multiple sources and incorporating existing references, but for their long article they just translated excerpts from one source. When I began reverting the article to the previous state Digwuren was accompanied by Alexia Death to avoid WP:3RR. Since then they stick to that "wikitranslation", satisfied with the fact, that they can always avoid 3RR using meatpuppets, while I can't. Cmapm 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages

I'm afraid this matter is too complex to evaluate fully without spending a lot of time looking through page histories, but I tend to trust Ghirla's judgement. He might be casting his troll net a bit too widely, but there's definitely some objectionable coordination of POV editing going on here. As an example we might look at the contributions to User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn; if that page does not result in an actual user conduct RfC in short order, I suggest that it be deleted as an attack page, because right now it seems like a forum for a group of editors to complain about Petri Krohn. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It will result in RFC/U within this day.--Alexia Death 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The page is a preparation of a WP:RFC/U case. The actual page of the case is already up; I'm expecting to consider it complete and ripe for listing in the appropriate list by around midnight local time, or around 21:00 UTC tonight. There's less than two hours left to that time. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been done: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn. Digwuren 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About attack pages, I suggest Akhilleus to check User:Petri Krohn/Evidence that has been up since 25 may and was blanked only at yesterday(earlier version [25]).--Staberinde 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable behavior on the part of another user should never be used to justify one's own. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Precedents tend to influence what is considered appropriate and what not. Digwuren 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes your page objectionable is not that it exist, nor its format, but that it clearly was created in bad faith in order to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution does not exist for creating disruption. It exists for preventing it. This page is preparation for dispute resolution.--Alexia Death 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but if User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn is turned to RfC soon(unlike Petri's own evidence page which has been up for long time) then I don't see any serious reason to complaine.--Staberinde 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Observations

Has anyone noticed that this incident is totally devoid of evidence? This case seems to be yet another phase in Petri Krohn's ongoing vendetta against a group of editors for no other reason than they happen to be ethnic Estonian, as tellingly revealed in the title of the case "Korp! Estonia". First he attempted to get this whole group perma blocked as sock puppets, that failed, now this. In my view, this is harrassment bordering on ethnic vilification. I say this because I have been closely involved in edit disputes with Petri Krohn as much as these other editors, often siding with these editors against Petri, yet I don't seem to be a part of Petri's complaints. The only difference between me and the others is that I am Australian, while the others are Estonian. In my view, if Petri had a real case, he could have brought it against an individual, however this case is rather sordid example of ethnic vilification. What next? A case called Korp! Jew ? Martintg 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice a load of evidence. It is hard to find a single article about Baltic history which has not been vandalized by suggestive terms like puppet regime. These articles are hijacked. There is no attempt made to keep distance and be objective. Otto 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding Martintg's concern. He's worried that Petri Krohn has not provided any evidence, only sweeping generalisations. And this, indeed, is true. A normal WP:AN/I report generally has diffs of the problematic actions; this one has none. Digwuren 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as to puppet government, these academic journals are also likely to be hijacked. Colchicum 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

sock of banned User:Arthur Ellis needs blocking

Resolved

 – Account blocked.

• User:Arthur Ellis is under community ban. See also partial log of blocks.
• Typically he creates throw-away socks to use until they are blocked and then use the next. For his socks, see here and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis.
• His attention is focussed on two pages: Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella, who once had a legal dispute over libelous statements of Bourrie's that Kinsella sued (or threatened to sue) over. Ellis' socks often try to insert links to a blog attacking Kinsella (see [26]) or insert negative material (some of which was the subject of the threatened lawsuit) into the Kinsella article [27]). (There are serious BLP concerns with this material.)
• He will also attack or harass editors who revert him (e.g. [28]).
• If a few admins can watch these pages, revert, and block, it would be greatly helpful. Eventually, I suspect, he'll get bored and move on. Bucketsofg 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar case pertaining to Falun Gong with User:Samuel Luo socks.. What has been decided is to follow WP:DENY. Revert, notify an adminstrator by putting the suspected sock in the proper category, and then it's blocked. No recignition anymore whatsoever. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not anyone's sock. I am concerned about errors in the Kinsella article and rerverted to a properly-sourced entry. Bucketsofg is a friend and political colleague of kinsella who has a vested interest in keeping an inaccurate entry. Nortel Survivor 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the version I reverted to is accurately sourced, and is amply footnoted. The links are tr5o articles in Canada's mainstream media and from sites such as the Government of Canada's Gomery Inquiry report. Nor is any of it a matter of litigation. In fact, the version that Buckets reverts to contains information that is subject to a pending lawsuit, Earnscliffe v. Kinsella. Buckets is lying when he suggests otherwise. I hope someone in authority will check my claims. Nortel Survivor 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article version reverted - slowly - to is the favourite of Arthur Ellis. Checkuser jpgordon (talk · contribs) stated here that this editor can be identified by the duck test. Now, Nortel Survivor has gone around TropicNord (talk · contribs)'s user and user talk page and tagged them with sockpuppet tags, stating that TropicNord - who was the last editor to deal with Ellis socks, and who clashed with them - is the subject of the article, and has been blocked indefinitely (false). There's a lot of quacking going on here. This is almost certainly Ellis, and needs a block. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen enough, between the strong suspicions of sockpuppetry and the vandalism of others' userspace, and blocked Nortel Survivor (talk · contribs) indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD G4 opinions please

Y Done This Image:Dorus-1-.jpg was again delete on the 16th June because the licensing of PD-old wasnt possible diff, after being tagged on the 8th June. Checking the logs it was also deleted on 2nd June after a series of challenges to licensing starting on the 17th April.

In this case could WP:CSD#G4 actually be applied or does it again need to be listed for 7 days. In each instance the uploader has been the same editor. Gnangarra 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

G4, people think if they copy something they can release it as PD, but not so. He needs to demonstrate that the artist died X years ago to make it public domain. Owning a painting necessarily does not mean you own the rights to it. ^(H) 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This image has again been uploaded as PD-self...and we've been warned not to delete it again without informing him. --OnoremDil 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper image

The problem is this picture and the comment under it. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been involved in a series of disputes and edit wars with several editors, and has [in my oppinion at least] vandalized several articles. A couple messages have been exchanged (by 3 people who question whether formal action should be taken next time User:Anonimu vandalizes) in the talk page of the latest article he kept vandalizing, Fântâna Albă massacre (the article is now pretected). I suspect that as a result of this open exchanges of oppinion, the user Anonimu has placed this photo and the comment underneath it.

Why is this image and comment offensive and inappropriate: Anonimu uses explicite Nazi symbols and symbols of a pro-fascist Romanian party during 1930s (green shirt, and the three-bars-by-three-bars cross) to imply that the people who want formal action against Anonimu's behavior in WP would be pro-fascist and Holocaust deniars. It is a disguised form of personal attack, especially offensive since the users that seek Anonimu to stop bad behavior are anti-fascist, and have contributed in WP in particular to telling the truth about the Holocaust, in both its size and horibility. Anonimu has been told many times that although some users have anti-communist views, while he is openly communist, his personal political views are not a problem for dialog with other users, and only the content of the edit can theoretically be, and if the later is a case, only the content of the edit can and must be judged, not the declarative political views, whatever extreme they could be.

Requested action: the user should remove the image and the comment from his user page, and should be warned that such actions on his part constitue a serios breach of civilized behavior on WP. :Dc76 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In essence, Anonimu is trying to convey the idea that whoever disagrees with him does it because he's a proud Communist, and is thus a Nazi-minded bully. This is only one -- so far, the most pictographic -- episode of a long series of accusations of Nazi-mindedness.

Everybody knows the long series of Nazi crimes. Anonimu's attempts to compare his editorial opponents with genocidal mass murderers over disagreements over tagging are extremely inappropriate, and lead towards hostile editing environment. Under WP:CIV, I support the request to remove this image, and express my general condemnation of throwing lightly around accusations of Nazism. Digwuren

I concur. I will delete the picture and give the user a warning. Sasquatch t|c 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Frequent Vandalism

Someone from IP 81.137.221.153 has engaged in ongoing vandalism for several months and has received warnings from bots and users alike.

I warned the user. If he/she continues to cause trouble, please notify WP:AIV. YechielMan 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but nonsense, WHOIS doesn't suggest it's shared, and it all looks similar enough that I might venture it's the same person, anyway. Either way, it's a drain on resources better spent elsewhere; blocked. If anybody disagrees, feel free to let me know or release the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian football clubs

All of the articles in Category:Slovenian football clubs are being hit by vandals, both anons and registered. Since I have no clue as to which of the seemingly nonsensical edits may or may not be true, could somebody with some knowledge take a look, or are we going to have to semi-protect all of the articles in the category? Corvus cornix 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From the ones I've investigated it looks like they were all nonsense. Oldelpaso 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

JDG (talk · contribs) has been harassing editors with a talk page message informing them that a bot will be collecting their names for "re-education": [29], [30], [31]. —Angr 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning to which he responded with this. Some neutral third-party admin input would be welcome. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, that is pretty bizarre. If they want to keep a hit list, they can do so just fine, off-wiki. Their current method seems to serve mainly to agitate other users, and should probably stop. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block per WP:USERNAME - too similar to User:JzG (indeed, I was wondering why the fuck Guy would be doing that). Will ^(talk) 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, he's been around since 2002 - I don't think a username block would be appropriate. Actions do seem rather POINTy, though. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I really need to check the contribs first. But still, give him a slap on the wrist for those notices, it's just not on. Will ^(talk) 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is so-oo out of control. This is what we feared in mid `03 during the debate that created the Admin position-- that we'd get a bunch of people who hung around all day looking for petty ways to use their petty powers. Especially ways to simply shut people up, as you are doing to me, under the guise of policy. And I actually voted to go ahead and create you! (smacks head, twice) JDG 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a "cease and desist" order seems a bit harsh, but they have a point. What is that "deletionist ahoy" message supposed to tell people?--Atlan (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having issued a cease and desist order. I just tried to be firm in my language to make sure he understood that what he was doing was unacceptable. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I think it's fair to say you guys and gals are deletionists. You should be aware that things are about to get very active between you and us, the Inclusionists [32] If we squawk about WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT the whole way, it's going to be a very boring exchange, you know? Allow a little passion-- it won't hurt you or W. JDG

I've always felt myself to belong to the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD camp. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Still at it - I suggest a short block, cannot say I'm impressed with the tone of the last message here - seems to be a veiled threat and an attempt to drive a wedge in the community. --Fredrick day 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin who blocks me for speaking my mind, politely but emphatically, and for tagging user pages for later bot processing, will be brought up on charges of abuse of admin powers. JDG 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What bot? Who is going to propose such a bot? what is the "re-eduction" goin to consist of? --Fredrick day 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No time for great detail at the moment, but the bot will simply harvest these usernames and then, in the fullness of time, send out a concise explanation of why the old policies regarding image use and retention are no longer in force, with directions on how best to reverse the thousands of mistakes that have been made. In instances where images have been blown away without even keeping old histories, the most strident deletionists will be given the job of tracing the original uploaders, apologizing to them for the period of paranoia just passed, and asking them if they still have a copy of the image. It will be slow, dull work abd it's only fit that the most voracious deletionists be the ones to do it. JDG 23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you're basically just trolling, since there's no way that's serious.--Atlan (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? How so? JDG 23:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I can't see any other reason for doing this than to annoy people.--Atlan (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes me think of reeducation through labor. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my warienss about Admins has been established here, but damn, dude. That's jsut dickish intimidation attempts. I support a reasonable (72hour to one week ban) by the admins against this user for hostility. His anger about image deletions is far less understandable than the big spoiler row, because image policy's been established for a long time, though only recently enforced. There's no sea change in policy here to find conflict in. ThuranX 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jumpin Jehosophat! My language has been nowhere near yours in "intimidation" and "anger", and you think you have a right to call for a 72h to one-week ban! Then you'd better ban yourself for a month or else the universe ain't right! I'm telling you, we've got to find a way to control these children. JDG 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. You're insisting other editors cease and desist, else they face your justice. That's your intimidation tactic. You promise revenge to those who offended you by their enforcement of policy. Further, I'm NOT an admin, I'm just a nosy editor who gets involved here sometimes. As for calling for a block, I'm just supporting the implementation of one. As for your condescending tone, it's not appreciated. ThuranX 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A fourth editor has now been harassed. —Angr 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OMFG, after this discussion has been opened here, AND after you've participated in it, you're still going to persist in this ridiculous campaign of yours? You certainly deserve to be smacked with the WP:POINT fish now. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, this is just trolling. These messages are misleading and ridiculous. JDG is clearly unimpressed by this report, seeing as he continues posting the messages. I'd still like to know what's gotten into him, but whatever. I guess a block is justified if he keeps this up.--Atlan (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's time for JDG to be blocked. Corvus cornix 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of his most recent act, ["Harveted when ripe"], reharassing that fourth editor, the block should be swiftly applied. ThuranX 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JDG has been here forever and is entitled to some respect by virtue of his experience. The fastest way to forfeit that respect is by expressing a condescending, back-when-I-joined-Wikipedia, you-newbies-just-don't-get-it attitude. Which is what seems to be happening here. Personally, I think a block is overkill - just remove the talk-page messages if they annoy you, and ignore him. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The Crotchety old man approaching senility defense. Gotcha. ThuranX 05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'm old! I get confused!" --Junior Soprano. howcheng {chat} 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When last I checked we didn't have a Wikipedia:Please do not bite the oldcomers guideline. The people who have been here longest are the people who should know better than to indulge in crap like this. Hesperian 06:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, an ANI thread concerning me that isn't complaining about my actions... I must be dreaming :) Will ^(talk) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

People here keep saying he deserves to be blocked, but no one was doing it, so I did. I know I'm not supposed to block when I'm personally involved, but the discussion here shows there's community consensus and I'm not just being a hothead. I blocked him for 96 hours (24 for each editor harassed), but if anyone thinks that's excessive, feel free to reduce it. —Angr 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment makes it sound as if you implemented the block as a punishment. Back-when-I-joined-Wikipedia, blocks were preventative, not punitive, so please unblock him after he cools down, not after the block he "deserves" expires. --Philosophus ^T 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with an unblock, once he agrees to stop the disruptive behhavior. But if he has no plans to do so, and thinks that there is going to some regime change in the future which is going to "get" the admins who are doings things he doesn't like, then the block should stay in place. Corvus cornix 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The block was intended to be preventive, not punitive. For the next four days (well, three and a half by now) he is prevented from harassing people whose wikiphilosophies differ from his own. But if another admin thinks my block is out of line, I won't wheelwar if the block is lifted or shortened. —Angr 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments he has added to his talk page since the block do not sound like he is planning on stopping the disruptive behavior any time soon. Now it seems I'm being warned that what happened to Jtkiefer may happen to me next. —Angr 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Jtkiefer was desysopped for being a puppetmaster and using his puppets to vote in different RFAs etc. I don't see how that's applicable here. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it makes sense, but his comment suggests he believes there is a direct line from Jtkiefer's blocking him for violating copyright policy to Jtkiefer's departure under a cloud from the project more than six months later. Anyway, JDG's threats themselves are all just paper tigers and not worth worrying about, but so far I don't see any reason to believe he'll stop the harassment when the block expires. —Angr 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

V Tech shooter vandal

I just stumbled across this, and thought it worth bringing to admin attentions. Clearly, this IP is shared, so a block on it isn't worthwhile, but the vandal is, and the image should probably be watched/deleted. The vandal is adding pictures of the Virginia tech shooter wielding a hammer to multiple articles. I've got little doubt the vandal will return, so we should probably be aware. ThuranX 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. See if they come back. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

IP resolves to a company in Calgary, AB... You'd think someone working for a chemical company would have better things to do with their time, eh? Point being though that I don't think IP blocks would be as problematic as if this were from an ISP pool so dealing with this by blocking should still be on the table (obviously not for the previous stuff, but going forward).--Isotope23 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I figured a block would be pointless, but maybe someone will notice it. Too bad we can't contact them and be like 'hey, WTFBBQ?' ThuranX 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We should contact that Calgary chemical company just saying what happened and giving the evidence, then the people who run the company can do our work for us (and better) in finding the vandal and repremanding him. PS we contact schools why not buisnesses. Hypnosadist 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott

ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We tried assuming good faith, his next action was to start trolling other people's talk pages, and to remove a strong suggestion that he not do that as trolling by me. He can go back in the sin bin. We unblocked him because part of the problem was his bad reaction to being trolled. Same with Jeff Merkey. Difference: Merkey is acting like an adult, ColScott is acting like an idiot. Maybe he is one, maybe not, I can't be bothered to mop up after him while we find out. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I endorse the block. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good action, SqueakBox 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I understand what Cary was trying to do here with the unblock, but my very brief interaction with this individual would seem to suggest to me that he isn't here to better the project. If he wants to stir the pot, let him do it on his own dime.--Isotope23 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. ColScott's comments range in tone from inappropriately hostile to outright threatening, and do nothing but damage to the project.Proabivouac 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should see the email he sent me a while back; he's the soul of politeness here compared to the off-wiki communication I received from him prior to his first block.--Isotope23 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block as well. With the threat of incivil behaviour at every interaction, this user was apparently using nastiness to replace the review of consensus over his edits. --Fire Star 火星 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... I see Cary has acted accordingly - Alison ☺ 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to delete and protect his Talk page, which currently outs several Wikipedians? Corvus cornix 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - I admin-deleted it, oversights should probably take a look at ColScott's last edits to fully wipe them out. MaxSem 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore - second albums

Resolved

 – JackLumber's edits to use "sophomore album" to be reverted. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JackLumber (talk · contribs) is making many edits to articles about musicians, changing references to "second album" to "sophomore album", based on a bogus justification of British usage and ignoring appeals on his talk page to desist. From his comment, this seems to be a response to some perceived slight or dispute in the past, so may be POINT. Andy Mabbett 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga started it all---he engaged in a crusade to wipe the word sophomore out of Wikipedia.[33] I just reverted to the *original versions*. A lot of those "sophomores" were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, Latin American, and even English editors; they used the word quite naturally, so why change? I didn't, however, revert to sophomore where it wasn't appropriate, that is, in articles on British, Irish, Australian, South African, etc. musicians. U.S.-related articles should use American English; sophomore is idiomatic and ubiquitous in music jargon. The English lexicon is made up of 500,000 words; you can't possibly know them all. UK-related articles are filled with Briticisms---and I'm plenty happy with it. This is not simple.wikipedia.org. Furthermore, Violetriga doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. Here, he substituted the British term petrol station for the region-free filling station. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of "sophomore" is discouraged as it's a peculiarly american term, and wikipedia is written to be of use to as wide a range of english speaking users as possible. This is especially true when considering those who for which english is not their first language. "Second" is much more widely used and comprehendable than the more esoteric "sophomore". exolon 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. Sophomore is narrowly American in usage, and may not even be understood elsewhere. It is also rather pretentious; as Djbrianuk says above, "second" is readily understood by anyone, worldwide, and so to be preferred. --John 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree - Second album is more accessible to a world audience than Sophomore. --Fredrick day 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK there are literally 100s of those edits performed today by this single edit - if we agree that Second is more suitable for our audience is there a quicker way than manual revert? --Fredrick day 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin can "rollback" the edits if he/she wants to. Any takers? exolon 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm British, and I had to look up the word sophomore when I saw those edits. It meant nothing to me. It reminded me of American universities. --Deskana (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What about all those whilsts, amongsts, different tos, petrol stations, and all the other Briticisms Wikipedia teems with? According to your logic, they should disappear. ---JackLumber 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe they should. Please feel free to remove them and replace them with clearer english where you find them. --Fredrick day 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the real world I have never heard "sophomore" refer to anything other than a second-year student, except in the form "sophomoric" which is used as an insult of one's maturity. Let's avoid colloquialisms like this wherever possible. —freak(talk) 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that they are easy to understand to non-British-English users. From an international perspective, "sophomore" is not, and is a needless substitute for its synonym "second". Secondly, I used to write for Nouse, which you quote as justification for your edits. It is quite clear to me that the title was just playful. Sophomore is most certainly not in common usage in British English - I have no idea for South African/NZ/Australian and other types English, but suspect the same. I have seen the term, am aware that it concerns a year in the American college system, but I did not know for certain that it was the second one - although I may have guessed. Having to guess at the meaning of words when other, more commonly known ones are perfectly suitable, is not a good situation to be in. Parmesan 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't change British, South African, New Zealand, or Australian articles. ---JackLumber 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When I come across an unfamiliar word, I usually look it up in a dictionary. ---JackLumber 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, Jack. —freak(talk) 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in music reviews, I often hear "sophomore" in reference to a second album, usually in the context of a musical artist wishing to avoid a "sophomore slump" (meaning, having a poor-selling second album after a breakout debut album). howcheng {chat} 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Howcheng, I'm not familiar with that usage (and I'm as "narrowly American" as one can get). Does the term apply even if the second album is released the same year as the first album, or postponed until two or more years later? —freak(talk) 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it applies to all second albums. I guess I read too much Entertainment Weekly. :) howcheng {chat} 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And looky here, we've even got a sophomore slump article. And the very second Google result for "sophomore album" comes from Billboard. It might be an Americanism, but it's certainly not unheard of. howcheng {chat} 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it is none of my business to comment here, but I tried to help you guys revert some of JackLumber's edits (only because I saw other user doing it also), so this is how the problem will be resolved right? By reverting his edits? Because if so, I will try and help some more maybe tomorrow if you guys aren't finished by then. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say, I find sophomore album to be a commonly used term in regards to second albums. (no matter what the timing: just the 2nd album released). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As would many americans - the point is that it means nothing to an international audience (I thought it was to do with university students) and that as an encyclopedia, that yes we tend to use american english for american articles and british english for british albums that if a term is confusing to the wider audience we should settle on a more netural or more widely used term - or is anyone willing to make the case that sophomore is better known that second? --Fredrick day 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since a lot of those were written by Dutch, German, Scandinavian, French, Latin American, etc. editors, I though the phrase was familiar enough---even to non-native speakers of English. Never mind. Forgive me. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul

I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems this is an escalation of the conflict between this user and User:Anonimu over some Romanian pages relating to the communist presence there. However, this seems more or less like a death threat (if not some sort of strange alegory involving the murder? strongly directed towards the above user in any case). I'm tempted to give a block for about a week. Just wanted thoughts and/or clarification on what the hell this is all about. Sasquatch t|c 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll issue an explanation here. If you read the context in which the above was written, you'll clearly see it was part of a story that bore no relation to reality, was pure fantasy (a nuclear-armed rowboat?), and expressed no actual desire to murder anyone. Of course, such writing has no relation to the business of Wikipedia and I promise, no questions asked, to cease writing further installments of this adventure. I apologise for any breach of policy that has been committed. But please let's not allow Anonimu to obscure the difference between a fictional attack in an outrageously bad story and the many actual attacks he has made on me. Biruitorul 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's all just a joke until somebody gets hurt. And if it was meant only as fiction, why is my username explicitly mentioned as the name of the one getting stabbed? "Anonimu" is not an English name and it's not even a Romanian one (and i doubt it's used as a name in any language) so it couldn't have come from nowhereAnonimu 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the outcry of Anonimu is somewhat discredited by his behaviour on other editors' talk pages, like here --KIDB 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the story, the names of all the characters are those of Wikipedians, but nobody is going to get hurt here. The story is an outrageous fiction, it was never meant to be taken seriously (nuclear rowboats?) (and its target audience, K. Lastochka, I'm sure did not). However, I have agreed to cease writing and I apologise for any violations I have committed. But yes, to those who have eyes to see, it is fiction, but your many attacks against me are not. Biruitorul 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if you feel attacked (albeit you have few proofs of it) you can go and "fictionally" kill (or threaten, that the same thing for me) users you don't like? Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been attacked repeatedly and viciously by you; do not attempt to deny it now. In the spirit of the new tone I've just pledged to you, I will not attempt to answer your question, which is an attempt to bait me. I have already offered you an apology, explained that no actual harm of any sort was or is meant, and am ready to move on to more productive work. Biruitorul 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of this and your promise to not do this again, I'll just issue a harsh warning. However, do not take this lightly. Fiction or not, you referred to a specific editor and it most definitely was a serious personal attack. Both sides on these romanian issues need to cease the ad hominen attacks and resolve your conflicts otherwise. I would start off by both of you apologizing for any offense you may have cause the other sides as I can see much to apologize for. Sasquatch t|c 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said so to Sasquatch personally, but let me reiterate: the story was a terrible mistake and I will cease writing fiction here. I've committed a serious error in judgment and deeply appreciate the second chance I've been offered. I'm certainly not taking this lightly and will remain civil in such disputes as they arise. Biruitorul 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no coercive measure have been taken, i request that Biruitorul's right to check an anonymous ip against mine through checkuser be taken.(i don't know if that's possible) I have a family, and i wouldn't want problems.Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator with checkuser rights, so this request is unfounded. Besides, as I have made clear: I never intended and do not intend to commit any physical harm, or harm of any other sort, to any Wikipedian. True, I gave that impression, and I'm sorry I did. But the fact remains: I am not a danger to others. Biruitorul 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Any punishment or harsh warning issued to Biruitorul must be issued in equal strength to me. I was 50% of the writing of that unbelievably retarded Horatio-Hornblower-meets-Dr.-Strangelove melodrama. It was my idea to crash both ships on a desert island. It was my idea to have the Anonimu character become the leader of a band of bloodthirsty island savages. It was my fault the story was ever written in the first place, since I was the one who took Biru's silly vignette and expanded it into a dumb epic. For the record, I am deeply ashamed and humiliated over the completely unprofessional and indefensible behavior I have been engaged in over the last few weeks, even after I made a promise to myself that I would henceforth be a model of good citizenship and trustworthiness. Clearly, I am none of those things. I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia for good, but before I go I must apologize for my unbelievably and indefensibly, atrociously poor judgement and bad taste. People like me should not be contributing to Wikipedia--if a ban is called for, I will sadly accept it. K. Lásztocska 04:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

safavid dynasty page vandlaised by suspected sock user:Tajik

There is heavy edit war on Safavid Dynasty launched by anonim IP 82.83.155.124 which is suspected sock of banned user:Tajik. Anyway, there are several rv's done by him during today .--Dacy69 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JupyMelon

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. howcheng {chat} 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this user attention. Even though this user has made only a few contributions so far, all of them have been made to a hoax article called Skipper: The Great One. Why am I reporting this user now? Well because Skipper: The Great One seems to fit the pattern and format of the many hoaxes created by User:Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets. It mentions Robert Cait, a person which was mentioned in some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes (User:Poppapop, a Danny Daniel sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser, edited Robert Cait). It also mentions a parody of Code Lyoko. The final point I want to bring up is JupyMelon's username. If you compare that username to the the sockpuppet usernames listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you can see that they are similar, especially when you compare it to User:Jugglemuggler. Anyways, do not block this user unless I find more evidence that this user may be a likely sockpuppet, which will be when JupyMelon makes more edits. I just wanted admins to be aware of this user. Pants^(T) 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The user has recently edited 2 Stupid Dogs, an article related to Secret Squirrel (recently, suspected Danny Daniel sockpuppets have edited the page). Pants^(T) 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this user should now be blocked. Just look at the hoax Jaden is Done / Speak No Evil / Dr.Crowlerbling and the Hip-Hop Mammoth. User:ShreddermanHides, an indef blocked sockpuppet, created a few pages related to Yu-Gi-Oh. It also contains references to Fairy Idol, The Fairly OddParents, and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy articles that checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets (and User:68.37.205.18, a confirmed IP sock) edit and The Mime Trio. Pants^(T) 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Smacked appropriately with a wet fish. howcheng {chat} 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

Can someone please take into consideration Ned Scott's editing of Wikipedia? I noticed that another editor is complaining about him above, I don't know the substance of that issue. I can say that he's been reverting work without going to talk. Perhaps a warning from an uninvolved admin might help here? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandal

IP 71.107.145.200 keeps blanking their talk page and spamming others talk pages. Link User talk:71.107.145.200 Hmrox 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

He's been blocked 24h by Wimt, and Alison is keeping an eye on the unblock request. YechielMan 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review of MagicalPhats

Resolved

MagicalPhats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been blocked by myself for a week. He was blocked yesterday (also by me) due to vandalism after a final warning. The user claimed he was just making test edits and another admin unblocked him after MagicalPhats promised to only edit in his own user space. He did this and created a bunch of user subpages that consisted of a bunch of redirects (1 redirected to 2 which redirected to 3, etc.). Another user tagged these for speedy deletion today (since they were popping up on a list of active double redirects I presume). MagicalPhats went on to blank the user's user page and replaced it with a "Please don't edit other people's pages" message (see this edit). I then blocked him, reinstating the orignial 48 hour block I had put in yesterday. After some personal attacks against me and a warning about those attacks by me, he was disruptive again so I extended it to a week. In response to that he added this to his talk page.

I haven't locked his talk page or anything, but could some other admins review this and weigh in to make sure I was acting appropriately and not "biting the noobs"? Thanks, Metros 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. It's the time-honored vandalize-block-personal attack circle. I'd even lengthen the block for the "piece of shit admin" remark right after.--Atlan (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fuck you. I'll just make another account" - sounds like it escalated and the editor has no desire to refrain from being disruptive. Endorsed block, however you should probably not have extended the block with "Congratulations" - that's just rubbing it in and precipitated the quoted comment here - Alison ☺ 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He had more than a fair share of patience yesterday, and given the history I think the block is reasonable. Based on his non-stellar debut here, starting a new account would be a good way to blank his slate. I'll encourage him to do so, and I'll also counsel the person who did the tagging that one should be cautious when tagging other users' pages for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Skipsievert

I have blocked Skipsievert (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for this edit. He later went on to give his retort a a header for some reason.[34] I've been trying to mediate over at Talk:Technocratic movement for a while, and Skip has already been blocked once for provoking another user by mass-quoting WP:CIVIL- I assume the fact that he did this implies that he has read through the policy. He's been very aggressive on the Technocratic Movement page, and I feel this was a tipping point. Since I've been quasi-involved in the article (mostly grammar and source advice though), I feel someone should check what I've done. Thanks.--Wafulz 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by another Arthur Ellis sockpuppet

Resolved

It would seem that that after a a short hiatus, Arthur Ellis has returned...sigh...

The sockpuppet which is currently under investigation for the 13th time,[35] this time as Nortel Survivor [36].

has without any authority placed a block on my discussion page and suggested for a 2nd time that I am a sockpuppet[37].

Words fail me at this point in time to try and explain the actions of such a person(s).

Could the admins remove (or permit me to remove) the illegal block and allegation of sock puppet which by the way was dealt with sometime ago.

Thanks TropicNord

I've indefinitely blocked this user both as a likely sockpuppet and for vandalizing your userpages. You can just revert the edits to your user page and user talk page; this user doesn't have the ability to block you from editing. Just remove the templates - see WP:REVERT for technical help if you need it. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IPs

I (and another user) have blocked a number of IPs that appear to be the same individual.

• 88.111.80.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.111.129.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.110.201.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.111.112.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.109.87.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.110.29.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am not entirely sure what to do about this range. Help from a more experienced admin would be greatly appreciated. ck lostsword • T • C 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on a dynamic DSL service (i.e. not really blockable). An admin could block the entire IP block being 88.108.0.0/ 14 but that would block quite a few addresses. Just be patient and monitor the pages. Request semi-protection if necessary. Sasquatch t|c 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NB: You can only block /16 IP ranges and smaller up to /32. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this is banned user Light current. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If they've targeted a specific page or set of pages, semi-protection might be helpful. I usually find this more effective than chasing dynamic IP sockpuppets. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; that's what we've tended to do. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring by User:Sefringle in Anti-Zionism

User:Sefringle has three times reverted an edit of mine to Anti-Zionism and then immediately slapped an edit war warning on my user page without any attempt to discuss the point aty issue. He has not posted to the discussion page despite my invitation to him to do so.

The change he is reverting has been discussed in Talk:Anti-Zionism and supported by the two people who commented on it. Sefringle has not commented there. Because I had reverted one change by one of the two people who supported my change before we agreed on this change, I cannot revert Sefringle's third change.

Could an Administrator please revert his change to my agreed text and direct him to discuss changes in the talk page. --Peter cohen 01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'll stay out of this. I read the talk page discussion, and I'm still having trouble to see the difference between Peter Cohen's version and Sefringle's version. I prefer Sefringle's as a matter of style, but I believe they are equivalent in their content. My advice: wait long enough to avoid 3RR technically, and revert per consensus on the talk page. Better yet, rewrite the paragraph from scratch if possible. YechielMan 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user edit-warring at Apostasy

Please see [38], it should probably be semi-protected. In fact all the controversial Islam-related articles should be. Arrow740 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Also Ibn Khaldun. Someone might be wikistalking me. Arrow740 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - some of those on first glance look like open proxies - Alison ☺ 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and Canvasing

User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [[39]] Heis knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([[40]]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:

1. [[41]]
2. [[42]]

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations. Administrative action is required. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate that. DPeterson^talk 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[43]] Should I file another incident here about this or can you include this here and interevene? DPeterson^talk 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user edit-warring at Ibn Khaldun

Like Apostasy. Arrow740 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Also at Jihad Watch. Arrow740 02:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - more open proxies, by the looks of things - Alison ☺ 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, the place for these is really WP:RFPP - Alison ☺ 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Raphaelaarchon sockpuppeting to avoid block

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (under yet another IP 68.84.254.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims in this instance to be KCooper) is disrupting the Glenn Greenwald talk page again despite a permanent ban. Evidence that 68.84.254.176 is Ralphaela is in The Princess Bride (film) history:

(1) The first edit on May 15 by the anon IP (diff here) and the follow-up re-insertion of material 4 days later on May 19, (diff here, scroll down a little).

(2) On the talk page more evidence they are the same user is in this section (here) of the talk page, where Raphaelaarchon picks up the discussion on May 19 where it was left off (initiated) by anon 68.84.254.176 four days earlier. This indicates that the account is a meatpuppet at the very least, and most probably a sock.

(3) Finally, the edits are from an account in Florida, similar to the locations of at least two other socks used (in the U.S., other open-proxy socks have been used internationally).

(4) Some (list not inclusive) of the other socks used by Raphaela to avoid blocks are listed here.

Also, if someone could check out this edit at the BLP noticeboard, I'd appreciate it. R. Baley 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on other evidence in this user's contribution logs than what is listed here, they are a clear sockpuppet of Raphaelarchon, and is editing not logged in to evade their block. This IP is now blocked for a long, long time. Nandesuka 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. Isn't a year kinda ... long ... for a dynamic Comcast pool IP? - Alison ☺ 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it dynamic? She's been editing from that address for over a month now (though not very many edits, my examples were from mid-May). R. Baley 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is. It's just a comcast high-speed pool IP from Florida with a long DHCP lease. All she has to do is ... um ... well - Alison ☺ 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pam55

Can someone of admins block the sock account User:Pam55, established by checkuser, see:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pam55

Thanks. Grandmaster 04:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - also User: Behmod - Alison ☺ 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abuse/harassment

Crossmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is conducting a harrassment spree against me. Every time I edit, he then "porks" me for something, and I am forced to defend myself. I am fed up with Crossmr's harassment spree. Here are the four comments I was forced to defend myself on: Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Once Crossmr finds someone to warn, he tends to harass every chance he gets. This is considered to be harassment as I speak. I condone Crossmr's actions as he engaged in harassment. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Crossmr also assumes that this edit which he removed an unneeded sentence was my idea—it was never my idea as I really never intended the sentence to be there in the first place—someone else placed the sentence first. I was accused of doing something that I never did in the first place. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• "porks" you??? That does sound serious! - Alison ☺ 05:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I should have taken this a bit more seriously. Just that I giggled a bit there :) As for the editor above, I'm not really seeing a campaign of harassment there. Can you provide more evidence? - Alison ☺ 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The perks of editing must be getting better if some editors can get porked for it. As for the 'horrible harassment'...there is none. You're turning a discussion in which you're in the wrong into an AN/I report based on the fact that your'e wrong, and don't like it? ThuranX 05:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For the curious, the full details of Mark Kim's behaviour is above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Mark_Kim_continues_uncivil_behaviour. Every time he continues to behave uncivily he is reminded not to. It is behaviour that has gone on for 2 years and shows no indication of stopping even though numerous editors have tried to help him. He believes himself to be above the policies guidelines (often complaining others break the same rules he's breaking). His position is well documented in my talk page archive User_talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive_06#RE:_Bose_corporation. (starting with that section and several more). Mark Kim has a long history of calling even the politest reminders to follow the rules "harassment" or "personally damaging to his persona".--Crossmr 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Crossmr's actions. Mark Kim was the first to be at fault here by bashing on an anon user and Crossmr simply warned him... His whole claim is ludicrous to me... Sasquatch t|c 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Mark Kim says, in his post above, that he condones Crossmr's porking. Though perhaps he meant to "condemn" it. That would make somewhat more sense. Anyhow, I condone Crossmr's actions. Could an imperfect command of English be an exacerbating factor here? MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a thing would make sense for an initial misunderstanding, but the inappropriateness of his behaviour has been explained to him in many ways by many editors. If his english were that bad for that long, I wouldn't really see him capable of making any quality edits here. Plus he maintains on his user page that he is a native speaker. This is more an issue of the fact that Mark Kim sees even the smallest question of his behaviour as a hardcore personal assault of the worst nature. He's demonstrated that repeatedly, and he's flat out stated he feels that he is right and if he needs to defend his position in an article he should be able to do it any way he sees fit.--Crossmr 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Andman8 (talk · contribs)

Minor serial spammer Andman8 (talk · contribs), apparent business partner of bigger serial spammer User:MyWikiBiz, seems to have a problem with following WP:NPA here. Was warned, and responded thusly. Between implicit admission of using Wikipedia to line his own pockets and the explicit incivility, perhaps someone could have a word with him? --Calton | Talk 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the guy for a short while. It's not so much the incivility but the fact that he sees nothing wrong with it. - Alison ☺ 05:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BDORT article taggs

Resolved

There is a problem with the article[45]. There is a long time problem. There was an arbitraton case about it. There is four edtiors involved now in it (one is myself I am second from most new). I read arbitraton notices, and one editor has personal involvement with person of the article. Other editor also made personal opinion about this technology in the article. The problem is now that these editors does not allow tagging of article - which I do not think is OK, as there is explained disagreement of content of this article. One editor: [46] make the same discussion as myself about this article and way it is written to 'make a point' and say what I see also that it is, "seeking to discredit something, as certain editors seem intent on doing"[47]. These two editors also in past made BLP problems in the article for had to be deleted by Administrator - it is in the archives I read it. There is major disagreement and I try for many weeks to argue these points. There is not neutral position in this article. I aks that at least article must be tagged until disagreement is finished or it is hierarchy who decides this. But two editors make reversions of all tagging by me and other editor GDallimore and say there is not problem with the article. I think it is basic right in WP to declare that there is disagreement in public forum and use tagging. Please help with this. My thank you for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1garden (talk • contribs)

What tags, and how does this relate to WP:BLP? Also, what are you asking for here, exactly? --Dynaflow babble 06:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this, a certain editor is banned from editing the article, and it also bans other accounts showing the same editing pattern, saying they may be reverted without limit. Is what you are saying that you are being reverted because you are displaying a similar pattern of edits, or is this something else? I'm assuming that you have limited English proficiency, but you need to make every effort to be as clear as possible so that administrators and other users here won't have to guess at what you want done or looked at. --Dynaflow babble 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BDORT is completely bogus, but the lack of independent sources makes it hard to document that. It is promoted by Yoshiaki Omura, and in Richard Gorringe was censured fur using it, which is I guess where the WP:BLP component comes in. Guy (Help!) 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what's going on now. Richardmalter was banned from editing that article by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yoshiaki_Omura#Remedies), so he put together a list of changes he wanted made to the article (User_talk:Richardmalter#WHAT_NEEDS_TO_BE_DONE_.28in_the_very_least.29TO_THE_BDORT_ARTICLE) and asked 1garden (talk · contribs) to implement them by proxy ([48]). This is doubleplus unkosher. --Dynaflow babble 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is some of what Richardmalter was apparently doing before he was blocked. This is what 1garden did in his/her last edit to the article. We seem to have a problem. Admins? --Dynaflow babble 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that 1garden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef-blocked last night for acting as Richardmalter's proxy on an article he was banned from editing, but I also see that Richardmalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been blocked from Wikipedia as a whole since 24 March. Should there be some sort of sanction here, based on the attempt to make a end-run around an Arbcom ruling, especially since it led to a third party being blocked indefinitely? --Dynaflow babble 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked 1garden for acting as a proxy for a banned editor. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I noticed that the editor at whose behest 1garden was acting is not blocked. Richardmalter was banned from editing that article or any other articles having to do with its subject matter by Arbcom. He was briefly blocked by SlimVirgin for allegedly trying to evade that ban, but as of now he continues to be free of any restrictions other than having standing orders not to interfere in BDORT-related articles. I'm just concerned that one (none too savvy) editor may have had to take a severe fall for another editor, who got away scot free. --Dynaflow babble 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. See note. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning

WHEELER (talk · contribs) I'm not involved in a content dispute with WHEELER, but I did recently try to mediate a solution between him/her and some other editors over at the Talk:Republic. WHEELER's tone quickly became unhelpful and, I think, uncivil, especially in the last few posts on that talk page. I posted a warning at User_talk:WHEELER#Wikipedia:Civility_Warning. I need to step away from this though (I think my last few replies to WHEELER might not have been the most constructive), so could somebody else keep an eye on this? Sancho 06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This person has become very, very disruptive. I don't know if there's a template for this, but we could put up a loud notice on Talk:Republic saying Do not feed the trolls. Try to ignore him, and pray that he makes good on his threat to leave Wikipedia. YechielMan 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WHEELER has been posting his complaints on the Village Pump pages, as well, and I've asked him on more than one occasion to take it to Dispute Resolution. Corvus cornix 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WHEELER is an old editor. He has an very strong PoV, and spent some time imposing it on articles on Greek history and political theory. (He contributed much of the long archives of Talk:Republic). He has always been like this, and it was a relief when he left for Wikinfo; but he says he's going back there, so his peculiar views on the unmanliness of civility (see the diff) probably won't require admin attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody be warned for taking a WP:POINT too far?

User:Rogerfgay generated mounds of litany defending an obviously replaceable fair use image, claimed image deletion was improper when I removed it from the article as the rfu+7 days was up [49], created a sockpuppet to help him argue for keeping it, and has opened a mediation case claiming the deletion was improper. Seriously, this is taking a bad point and dragging it out. Do we have any warnings at all for this kind of behavior? Perhaps for violating Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for "rejecting community input"? -N 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rogerfgay. This guy is getting himself in a heap of needless trouble. YechielMan 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should tell him about DRV :P -N 10:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That might help. And also, WP:SPIDER. Mangojuice^talk 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, although I think the user will just get mad at me for that. -N 16:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't think any further action was warranted here. After a number of others jumped into the discussion, he may have given up (he hasn't posted to FUR since TCC's "this is the way it is" post). He's new and the NFCC are probably the most arcane portion of Wikipedia's policies (outside the GFDL, which I don't really get either), so I'm not surprised he would put up a fuss. I would have waited to see what he did with his future image uploads before potentially pissing him off with the Reichstag thing. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Orangemarlin is reverting some of my edits because of vandalism when there is none, I warned him/her to stop but that edit was also reverted, his/her reason was “Deleting anonymous vandalism and trollish behavior.” 76.183.213.20 07:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't tell what you're talking about. Could you link to some examples of the vandalism you've been accused of? --Haemo 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is all on his/her talk page history and his/her talk page archives; everything I say on his/her talk page is treated as vandalism, just because I am an anonymous user. 76.183.213.20 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to dig deep to understand the problem. It seems to have started with the following exchange on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution:

• Oppose First of all I do not believe in evolution, second of all it will offend many. 76.183.213.20 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, irrelevant, second of all, irrelevant. Orangemarlin 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest. However, this process aims to assess if an article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, objections that are not actionable or based on these criteria are lkely to be ignored. TimVickers 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that 76 and Orangemarlin been hashing out their disagreement on Orangemarlin's talk page ever since then. Naturally, Orangemarlin has grown tired of this shpiel, so he calls it vandalism. It isn't, but 76 could use a more respectful tone also. There isn't any need for formal intervention (read: blocks). Everyone needs to settle down. YechielMan 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Very good then! --Haemo 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

… but that dispute has ended and was archived. 76.183.213.20 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SeiteNichtGefunden and how not to handle a content dispute

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation.

User:SeiteNichtGefunden feels that improvised explosive devices should not be associated directly with terrorism. I suppose this is a fair enough viewpoint. He also feels that current attacks by such weapons in Iraq should not be referred to as an insurgency, due to a lack of authority to, errr, insurge against, though he also feels that those carrying out those attacks should be referred to as freedom fighters. Possibly contradictory, but what the hey. However, the insistence that anyone who argues with these changes is an American pig-dog and should be reverted immediately as vandalism is annoying and unproductive. Yet it isn't really vandalism in itself (just a poorly carried-out content dispute). Such "correction" appears to be the sole use of this account and it's happened over a fair few articles in the last month, though it's not breaking 3RR. However, I'm not sure if it's worth the time raising an RfC for it. Is that the recommended route, or is there a quicker way? Chris Cunningham 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, by my count there were 4 reverts within 24h: [50][51][52][53].

SeiteNichtGefunden has been using improvised explosive device as a place to fight against American foreign policy and no good will come of this.--Father Goose 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Warned, any more of that crap and we should block him. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed a 3RR violation report about 30 minutes before you wrote this on ANI. He or she has previously been blocked and warned about the 3RR so a brief block seems to be in order, IMHO. --ElKevbo 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And I just added a 6th revert to the 3RR report. Admins, please take appropriate action. Protecting the article might not be out of line but something needs to be done to end the edit war. --ElKevbo 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation - the user has been previously warned and blocked for 3RR violations, and has tended to refer to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism". MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages stuck in bureaucratic, wheel-warring purgatory

On May 24, Shanel deleted several categories, like [54], [55], and [56] as "Does not further the project" or "nobody int his cat". Days later, Jc37 (talk · contribs) undeleted them, without WP:DRV, to make "Neutral" listings at WP:UCFD instead.[57] I closed them the same day, and redeleleted them as 1) Mass procedural nominations are a useless way to spend our time; don't nominate something you don't want deleted, 2) Making a "nomination" with no content or reason for deletion predisposes the discussion for keeping, even though an admin had already deleted them as unencyclopedic, and 3) procedurally speaking, contested deletions go to WP:DRV. In response, Jc37, very inappropriately, in my opinion, reverted my closure of his own nominations and moved my closing note to a comment in the discussion: [58]. The listing was then rightfully removed again (though not archived) as forum shopping, since they belonged at deletion review.[59]

A week later, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) undeleted them all, this time with dozens of other categories as well, without any discussion [60] as a "Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion; note that WP:DRV is not applicable, since it is for "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions", but there was no discussion of these categorie." Again, there is no such thing as a "procedural restoration," which amounts to wheel warring over a deletion she disagrees with, and the claim about DRV not being applicable has no relation to common practice. These, the third "procedural", "neutral" nominations stood and were unanimous for deletion when Krimpet closed them.[61] Then again Jc37, the original nominator, who undeleted them all and reverted the first closure, despite the unanimity, reverted several more of these closures of his own nomination asecond time [62], and edited the closure comments of the closing administrator. After the first time he reverted the closure of his own nomination, I was very clear to Jc37 that it was inappropriate[63] and now he's gone and done it again. Now WP:UCFD#Category:Dadaist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:BBW Wikipedians are having their fourth procedural nomination after two worthless summary undeletions. Someone please end the madness. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's always the question. When you have people with powers such as we admins have, it's difficult to stop people from using that power when it's not appropriate to use the power. I do think that this needs to stop. Jimbo has made it quite clear that he is not in favor of userboxes that categorize people based on looks and that sort of thing. Maybe he needs to be asked about this. I dunno. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's a pity that Dmcdevit didn't have the courtesy to notify me of this ANI complaint, particularly since he has posted two messages to my talk page this morning: I spotted this only by checking his contribs list.

Most of the rest of Dmcdevit's complaint is inaccurate. I did not (I hope) restore any of the categories reviewed at WP:DRV, although since that DRV did not actually list the categories, I may have been mistaken on some of them: I tried to take only the categories which were deleted after the DRV. Sorry if I restored any others.

It is also no misleading to say that the nominations have been closed: most are still open.

Finally, dmcdevit knows that it is simply untrue to say that I restored the categories "without any discussion". After these deletions were drawn to my attention by another editor, I asked dmcd what speedy deletion criteria applied[64], and dmcdevit's reply[65] made it clear that there were no applicable speedy deletion criteria. That's when I restored the categories and listed them at WP:UCFD.

The situation here is quite simple. Categories which meet the speedy deletion criteria may be speedy deleted, and those which do not meet the criteria may not be. A proposal to extend the speedy deletion criteria to include the type of categories deleted here has not so far gained consensus support, but dmcdevit is proceeding as if it was already in place, and is enthusiastically deleting categories which clearly do not meet the existing criteria.

The solution to all of this is very simple: only speedy delete categories if they meet the criteria, otherwise list them at WP:UCFD. Instead of following agreed process, dmcdevit appears to be trying to game the system by speedy deleting out of process, and then objecting at huge length if any admin reverses his actions, insisting on a DRV. It is an abuse of the system to try to bypass CFD in this way, and I am astonished both by the aggressiveness of dmcdevit's voluminous posts on my talk page and by dmcd's total refusal to consider the Crieria for speedy deletion, and instead blame anyone who challenges these breaches of process.

I have no axe to grind on the merits of these categories: on balance, I think that most (if not all) of the categories involved should be deleted, though I don't share dmcdevit's insistence that these categories are soe of immediate threat to the viability of the project. I am also concerned at the extent to which non-admins are understandably aggrieved by out-of-process deletions. Admins are entrusted with tools to use to help the encyclopedia, on a basis of trust; it is not a good use of that trust to set out to simply ignore the processes agreed by the community, and snarl at at anyone who objects.

Dmcdevit evidently believes sincerely that these categories are a terrible thing; I don't entirely agree, but I accept that as legitimate and reasonable belief. However, if they are so transparently awful, then there should be little difficulty in agreeing criteria for their speedy deletion. Unless and until that happens, please can dmcdebit agree not to jump the gun by behaving as if it had been already agreed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that dmcdevit did not have the courtsesy to notify Jc37 (talk · contribs), who is the other subject of this complaint. I have now notified jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) Shanel deletes a category, Jc37 process wonks the deletion and restores it, Dmcdevit process wonks the process wonkery and redeletes them, and BrownHairedGirl process wonks the process wonking of the process wonking, and now we are on to dmcdevit process wonking the process wonking something like 3 times removed? What the fuck? Kotepho 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reading the text above, I see what seems to me to be more than a bit of blurring of what-happened-when (or even what-actually-happened). However, unless this turns into something which I strongly hope that it doesn't, in the interests of minimising more finger pointing back-n-forth, I'm only going to add a link to the first discussion I attempted to have with User:Dmcdevit, and also ask two questions to the community:

• Should administrators be able to subjectively choose to speedily delete something, which is very clearly noted as not a Criteria for speedy deletion?

  (Noting that Dmcdevit has stated several times that his choice to delete was not due to WP:IAR.)

• Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)

Responses/thoughts are welcome. - jc37 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest we have a centralized discussion about these categories either at WP:UCFD (started by someone who wishes them deleted) or at WP:DRV (started by someone who does not). The existence of a few user categories does not seem like an emergency requiring urgent action. >Radiant< 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest what Radiant suggested. In most cases people accept discussions, however they end up. The original deletions were not covered by CSD, so when they were un-deleted they should never have been re-deleted without discussion (as jc37 put it above: "Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)". I really believe some admins have forgotten that they are servants to the community and insist on making editorial choices and imposing their will on the community with the use of admin tools. Community discussions are for the community (what wikipedia is supposedly made up of) and are not just a waste of time/object in achieving your paticular goal. Furthermore, a procedural nomination when a deletion has been overturned, is not all the evil you make it out to be - SOMEONE quite obviously wants it deleted and are therefore welcome to make their case. Viridae^Talk 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Curiously, Dmcdevit (the admin who wanted these categs deleted) has voted in only one the three CfDs at WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process. It's odd that someone so vociferous about the urgency of deletion didn't take the chance to discuss why they think that these categories are so bad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic IP blanking vandal

Resolvedvandalism subsided

A persistent vandal on a dynamic IP is blanking userpages and user talk pages at an alarming rate (see [66] for a small sampling). This vandal picks victims in an arbitrary fashion: almost every user who has warned or blocked the offending IP has had their userpage blanked. Whois data for the IPs reveal them to originate from Modesto, California, via Southwestern Bell Internet Services. All IPs start with 69.225.x.x or 69.110.x.x. Is there any way to identify the person behind these edits and get the ISP to do something about it? Alternately, would instituting a range block be an appropriate measure? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really that severe to require a range block. Blanking of a page is obvious vandalism, and a bot will probably revert it - as will several users. On the other hand, I think contacting the ISP is a good idea. Od Mishehu 10:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism itself is not that severe, it was the persistence that was troublesome. Things seem to have quited down for now. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IP disrupting page

I'm about to go out so cannot keep reverting edits by this vandal [67]. Can someone put a block on the IP. They appear to have moved to here now [68]. Darrenhusted 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They haven't vandalised since I warned them, so it's probably ok, I don't think any action needs to be taken at the moment. John Hayes^talk 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD needing univolved participation

Could some folks take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Going, about a you-tube user. We've got off-wiki links to the AFD, accusations (some justified, IMO) of puppetry, and an extremely argumentative discussion. While it has had long enough of a run to be closed, I think it would be best if some established and emotionally uninvolved Wikipedians chimed in first. And tone cautions to some of the existing participants may also be in order. GRBerry 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Crickey - that's one big puppetshow, it seems that people are linking to it all over the place, so I expect the situation to get worse. --Fredrick day 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think you wanted the established users to vote "keep" but I just don't like that article. PS:Block all the puppets. -N 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was watching this last night. I'd suggest blocking the puppets, but it's confusing to figure out who are the puppets and who is the puppeteer.--Ispy1981 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the following accounts as strikingly obvious, disruptive throwaway accounts created specifically to participate in this AfD:

Jillgobean0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

There are several more accounts which are highly suspicious but which I elected not to block without digging a little deeper. I'd recommend a checkuser at the conclusion of the AfD discussion to mop up the remaining socks, assuming they've affected the decision by virtue of their sheer number if nothing else. MastCell ^Talk 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • (Reply to N). Nope, I didn't have any particular desire for what the AFD established users did. I just thought the closer should have the benefit of some opinions from established user. If you look through the AFD, a couple days ago I put {{afd-anons}} on it and commented while explicitly declining to opine on the merits, because for this subject I can't bring myself to actually care about whether we have an article. As a closer of a prior DRV, I could be seen by some as too involved to be handing out any warnings/cautions. GRBerry 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Give me a few minutes, I'm going to close the AfD which should solve the issue, or at least foist it off on DRV...--Isotope23 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Closed as no consensus. I somehow suspect this will end up in another DRV, but as an uninvolved party who has never heard of this chap before, I didn't see any consensus/policy reason to delete. I didn't take any adminstrative actions against the participants; MastCell got the obvious socks and I'm hoping the established users will all cool off now that the AFD is closed.--Isotope23 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User willfully violating WP:NFCC item #9

On Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire I removed the image Image:New Hampshire state seal.png as violating Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9 [69], it being tagged as a fair use image. Item #9 forbids the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Some hours later, User:YellowTapedR reverted the removal, labelling it "teetering on vandalism" [70]. I removed the image again [71] and informed this editor of our policy and that this is most definitely not vandalism [72], and offering to answer any questions he may have regarding this policy. Without responding to my comments on his talk page, he again placed the image in violation of policy [73], further indicating that I was attempting to run Wikipedia. Earlier, he reverted a removal of album covers from a discography also accusing me of attempting to run Wikipedia [74]. In the last re-installment of the fair use image to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire, he claimed that the image is public domain. This is actually up for debate at the moment on Commons regarding all state seals (see [75]). Regardless, the image remains tagged as fair use. This editor was aware of the policy and chose to willfully violate the policy. I have removed the image yet again [76], and request this editor be blocked to prevent him from willfully violating the policy again. I recognize that I have been reverting this several times today, but based on discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Recommended_additional_exception it is rather clear this can not be construed as a 3RR violation, despite YellowTapedR's claims otherwise. Thank you, --Durin 17:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added my two cents on his talk page, and I've also issued a warning that he may be blocked for future reversions. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've done nothing wrong, but he has. He's been given a final warning, and if he reverts again to violate the fair use rules I will drop the banhammer. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the state seal is public domain; I'm not the one who tagged it. It is tagged as public domain on Wiki Commons. The fact that Durin claims it's up for debate doesn't change the fact that it's public domain. It either is or it isn't. --YellowTapedR 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, we presume things are copyrighted until proven otherwise. It's not been proven that these images are public domain. It's currently under debate. Until that debate resolves in favor of them being public domain, then this image is fair use. It can not be used outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• YellowTapedR, what's the rush? If it's cleared on Commons, you're fine, use it, print car stickers with it, use it as wallpaper... and if it's not, use a different symbol of New Hampshire. I don't understand what the fuss is. Durin is merely trying to enforce one of the simpler aspects of WP:NFCC. Riana ⁂ 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is it's a fictional debate that was started by Durin himself. The "debate" on Commons is just Durin on one side and several others on the other. It's the manner in which he does things that is annoying and could put him in violation of WP:POINT. --YellowTapedR 18:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, so far you've managed to accuse me of teetering on vandalism [77], potentially violating WP:3RR [78], and now verging on violating WP:POINT. Anything else you'd like to accuse me of? Maybe you should simply request I be banned from the project. If I could muster so many violations on the removal of a single image, certainly I'm a prime candidate for being banned, don't you think? Enough of this already.
• The image is tagged as fair use. Fair use images aren't allowed outside of the main article namespace. I removed it in accordance with policy, pure and simple. If you're able to ascertain that it is in fact in the public domain, then great. Include it on anything relevant that you want to have it. Paint it on the trash can in your kitchen if you like. I wouldn't care what you did with it. But, so long as it is fair use, it will not be on non-main namespace articles. If that is vandalism, if enforcing it is 3RR, if holding the line on this is violating being disruptive enough to warrant threatening me with WP:POINT, then get on with it and have me banned. --Durin 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? If you have proof that it's public domain, then that settles the matter. If you have no such proof, then you need to find it before the seal can be used in the manner in which you wish to use it. Corvus cornix 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Piddington, Northamptonshire

User:Noblefiction, having received a final warning for vandalism to Piddington, Northamptonshire, just moved the page to Piddington, N-town Piddington, N-Town. I've reverted the move. Is this considered blockable vandalism, or should he be warned for moving improperly? Nyttend 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given that he's now changed the N-Town redirect to point to Shittington, Northamptonshire, and has a nice collection of warnings, I think a block is order. I've reported him to WP:AIV. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible puppetry at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_World_Problems?

This AfD just opened this afternoon, and all of the keep votes have come from unsigned SPAs. Just doing some research on the contrib history, it appears all three account have made similar edits on numerous article. I'm wondering if there is a bit of sock/meatpuppetry going on here. Wildthing61476 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That AfD is definitely teeming with SPAs. --Folantin 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. One of those articles which would be OK if the sourcing extended beyond blogs...well, I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account when he sees the numerous SPA tags now decorating the AfD. Best, Moreschi ^Talk 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would also help if the authors had read their sources better than they do; Paul Krugman has been cited because he used the phrase "the First World's problems". Google cannot write articles.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

incorrect, Krugman uses the phrase "first world problems" in his article. read it again. I don't even know what "google cannot write articles" is supposed to mean. Imperialism_cola

Your last sentence seems clear: you have written an article by stringing together a set of google hits on a random phrase. I do not deny that Krugman was one of the hits; I deny that you have correctly represented what his article says. (But this does belong on the deletion discussion, while it lasts.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

no puppetry here, the people just know what they want. also, there are a number of peer-reviewed academic works cited as well, which hardly fall under the category of "blogs." Imperialism_cola

Well this isnt the place to talk about if the article is any good or not, SqueakBox 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Imperialism cola: Is this your sock? I can't help but notice the common interest in the McGriddle sandwich and its ... folds. If so you seem to have voted in the AfD twice in succession. --Dynaflow babble 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an off wiki discussion which discusses how to keep the article, attacks wikipedia editors etc, SqueakBox 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch SqueakBox! Wildthing61476 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott/Don Murphy

I've protected User_talk:ColScott to prevent its use as a soapbox by a blocked user to make personal attacks against other editors, including those with personally identifiable info. Also, the users legal threats and incitement to fabricate evidence for use in a legal suit on his BBS bring the user block directly into WP:NLT territory. Do not unblock or unprotect without corresponding w/ the blocking admin and/or posting here first, please, no matter how overcome with fan adoration you might be. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you remove the one remaining personal attack? Corvus cornix 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gracias, didn't notice that the first time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The links to his forum pages show that he is out to create off-Wikipedia, real-life harrassment against another editor both at his home and at his place of work. He should never be unblocked until all of that is removed. Corvus cornix 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its become a BADSITE and so should be removed from wikipedia, eg [79], SqueakBox 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to let Bastique know what's going on here. Corvus cornix 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think so, he distanced himself from the situation by removing himself from the talk page. No need to bring this up with him again. Saturday ^Contribs 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* "Could somebody who is not blocked create an account and email me it and the password at my hotmail?" -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors of this nature reveal themselves quickly no matter the disguise. If he creates a new account to avoid a block/ban, we'll all know soon enough. WilyD 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that ColScott has removed the troubling threads from his forum. That's a good first step. Corvus cornix 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User insists on linking his MySpace blog on César Franck, resorting to SockPuppet

Hello,

User:EccentricRichard appears to be a SockPuppet of User:Vox Humana 8' apparently to evade 3RR; he persists in putting his MySpace blog on this article even after the guidelines of WP:EL were pointed out to him on the Article talk page.

Your intervention is kindly requested, please. JGHowes ^talk - 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this situation on either User's Talk page. Corvus cornix 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Using socks (as in this case) to avoid 3RR is prohibited, period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Has either User ever been informed of WP:3RR? Corvus cornix 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why else would they go out of their way to switch accounts to revert one article, then switch back? This is not a new user, or even a new issue: [80]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP:AGF but I don't know how you can view account switching to make a 3rd revert any other way.--Isotope23 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I softblocked EccentricRichard (talk · contribs) per WP:SOCK. It won't effect his ability to edit from Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs) but given the edits to César Franck and the past history of this editor, I see no valid reason for 2 accounts here and the potential for further abuse.--Isotope23 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, redux

I am asking the community to discuss an appropriate sanction for Vintagekits (talk · contribs · logs).

I was already running out of patience with this passionately nationalistic Irish editor. Although he has contributed some good work, civility and adherence to our policies in general continue to elude him. It then turned out he has been using sock- and/or meatpuppets to votestack in AfDs.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits was recently closed by Will Beback, with the conclusion "Due to the pattern of editing, as well as off-Wiki forum postings, it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him." I too find the evidence compelling that Vintagekits has behaved inappropriately over a long period.

As Will says, "VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts. The disposition of that account is best handled on AN/I". So here we are.

Previous recent discussions may be found from AN/I here and here. My own feeling is that either a long block, or, if it can be made to stick, some kind of parole might be in order. What do others think? --John 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Parole sounds better to me than a long block (ie longer than a week which would be justified in itself). I do also wonder if the arbcom should examine the case and especially in terms of imposing other parole like sanctions, SqueakBox 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that both sides in the debate have reason to avoid ArbCom. SirFozzie 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor has been trying to bait me into incivility for some time, you have also encouraged other to be uncivil towards be. I feel that I need some time off wiki and I am going to take a week off wiki just so I can get some perspective on why the hell I put myself through this.

As for the sock and muppetpuppets - they are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down.

If anyone thinks my form has been poor on wiki recent then 1. they are probably right, but it is very infuriating when you are trying to be constructive on wiki but there are "cleeks" of editors who make this a difficult and unwelcome place to be. 2. I am sorry in I have offended anyone, it was not meant personally but would have been said in the heat of the moment.--Vintagekits 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not had the opportunity to edit material that Vintagekits has. After reading some of the history and previous filings I have to say that I think a long block to allow this editor to cool down, followed by Parole and close monitoring by an administrator would be best here now. DPeterson^talk 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits makes a speciality of annoying editors of Peerage articles; on the other hand, their courtesy has often been open to question. Will Beback blocked the meat puppets; I'm not sure more needs to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was just peerage articles, and among the small group of conflicting editors therein, then you might have a point. But the votestacking that led to this report had nothing to do with peerages, and neither has the subsequent attacks and incivility. VK's belligerent editing can be be found across range of articles he edits. Rockpocket 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a strong warning not to violate WP:Sock, and I'll formally offer to mentor him when he gets back from his WikiBreak? SirFozzie 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for a history of meat and sockpuppeteering is compelling. The refusal of VK to co-operate other than offer uncredible denials and accusations of bias against the Irish, simply exacerbates the issue. I firmly believe VK will not learn anything from this episode other than to be more subtle with his votestacking efforts in future, since it is completely clear to me that he sees the project as a battlefield from conflict between those, like him, who share strong Irish republican sentiments, and those who disagree with him in any way (labelled anti-Irish, Monarchist or bigoted). That is not to say that there are those who do edit from those biases, some of whom have clearly edited in an equally disruptive manner, but there are plenty of good faith editors simply trying to uphold our policies that are on the receiving end of VK's ire, time and time again.

A brief example, just yesterday, when I cleaned up Brother Walfrid for WP:MoS in a serious of entirely non controversial edits. Because I didn't display "respect for his holy orders" by using Walfrid's full name in each reference to him in the text, VK reverted the entire cleanup twice, then told me to "go and play with your central germanic mates", a clear reference to the pejorative term "Hun" and the suggestion the edits are religiously motivated. I could provide many tens of these sorts of comments aimed at good faith editors.

If this was a one off, or even occasional, then it would be tolerable, but this sort of poisonous attitude is utterly persuasive in VK's contributions. Therefore, taking this alongside the votestacking issues, I conclude that the net efffect of his contribution to the project is not constructive and would support a long block to allow him to geet perspective on the purpose of this project. If he was willing to significantly change his MO, then I would support a well monitored parole for both civility and !vote tampering. As for leaving it with the blocking the meatpuppets, I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. I would have thought the meatpuppeteer, not the meatpuppets themselves, would be the person most liable for the disruption and most likely to disrupt process again in the future. Rockpocket 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I started this sockpuppet report in the first place. I also don't think that an excessively long block would be particularly productive. Whilst VK does have definite civility problems and causes friction through his excessive POV pushing, the sock/meatpuppetry needs to be placed in the context of equally dubious editing practices by other parties on numerous XfDs. Some sort of civility parole sounds like a good way to go to me. VK needs to realise that the community doesn't have infinite patience, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits' statement above that "...the sock and muppetpuppets ... are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down" seems rather worrying here, although I am glad to see some contrition from him on the civility issue. No offence VK, but if User:Voice of All thinks it is "likely" that they are something to do with you, I trust his opinion on the subject more than I do yours.

To me it seems there are three main issues here.

The sockpuppetry; this is the second time VK has been caught doing this, but it seems to have been on a much larger scale this time. Vintagekits seems to have got off without any sanction the first time, on 7 December 2006, when he created User:DownDaRoad. Indeed, he wasn't above arguing ex post facto that it was a justified sock, even though User:Dmcdevit had confirmed it in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.

I propose a one week block (officially endorsing a break that VK has already said he would find helpful), with a guaranteed indefinite block if the offence is repeated a third time.

The incivility; as I see this has been a long-standing problem, I propose Vintagekits undertake a civility parole. Any breach of parole would lead to escalating blocks. Of course, as one (along with Rockpocket) who took the brunt of his accusations this time round (on article talk pages, an AfD, and on other users' talk pages), I am maybe not the best placed to monitor or enforce this.

Edit warring; I propose Vintagekits also be placed on WP:1RR. If we can find a taker for my proposed sanction above, they could also enforce this.

If it wasn't for the fact that Vintagekits is intelligent and knows a lot about certain subjects, which has enabled him to make some very worthwhile contributions to the project (here for example), I'd have argued for an indefinite block long ago. As it is, I think he has to consider himself on a last warning here. --John 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I definately do have a problem with you John (or as you were formerly called Gunniog). You have had a withhunt against me for a long time because I stand up to you. You expect me to bow down to you everytime just because you are an admin and you know that other admins will back you. I have never had an illegal sock - I breached no rules with the puppet I had called User:DownDaRoad that account was used within wiki rules and policy and I openly admitted that it was me, you can ask User:Cyde if you wish.

• Have I been uncivil - sure I have and I have apologised for that and I have you say that you created a lot of that with your bullying tactics and your goading by encouraging SqueakBox to goad me. That sent out all the wrong signals and made me think that things were not on a level playing field.

• I would agree to go on WP:1RR but that would be impossible when you are dealing with the likes of Astrotrain (who only logs on to revert), Gibnews and Sqeaukbox. There is a wider issue here that needs to be address and you are just sweeping it under the carpet and making me out to be the scapegoat.--Vintagekits 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good proposal to me, and one I would endorse. Perhaps, if Sir Fozzie agrees with this, he would be willing to oversee a civility parole? I would offer to do it myself, but it will have a greater chance of success if an editor without a history of interaction with VK would volunteer. Rockpocket 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via multiple accounts

• Mynglestine (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Wyington Duarm (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Biowiki (AfD discussion)
• Katrina PeopleFinder Project (AfD discussion)
• Galbijim Wiki (AfD discussion)
• Yellowikis (AfD discussion)

Wyington Duarm made several AFD nominations recently, but didn't complete the nominations properly. Nonetheless, Mynglestine managed to be the one editor to find all of that editor's nominations and comment on each discussion. Xe also began Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biowiki (q.v.). It seems that these two accounts are one single person. After reviewing this edit and this edit, and noting the fact that all bar one of the articles nominated are about wikis, it is clear that this is simple disruption, and is also clear whence it originates. I have therefore blocked both accounts and speedily closed the AFD discussions where only those two accounts have expressed opinions that articles should be deleted. I would not be surprised were CheckUser to reveal that Rllemsheep (talk · contribs), OldDirtyBtard (talk · contribs), Alfedhun (talk · contribs) and others were all this same single person too. Uncle G 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also suspecting Riboflavinl0l (talk · contribs) is a sock as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO trying to provoke another edit war

RookZERO, just recently blocked for 6RR is now again into edit war mode (Diff 1, Diff 2) including the "usual" WP:NPA. Can someone train this guy in WP policy, thanks. Misou 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: In avoidance of 3RR Stan En jumped in and vandalized, i.e. deleting sourced and relevant content, from the page, just as RookZERO did before. Misou 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Users A Jalil and Wikima and WP:POINT

Moroccan POV I've had several interactions with these users in the past over contentious issues related to Western Sahara and Morocco, and lately, they have been too unreasonable to talk and have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have lumped them together because they have been essentially tag-teaming to subvert 3RR and support one another on basically every edit the other makes (such as when he deleted a redundant tag on a redundant image that Wikima uploaded.) Some highlights of Jalil's recent edits:

• Reverted MENA with a substantial edit that deletes Malta from the list, in spite of citation
• Deleted many references in this article and others about the intifadas against Moroccan rule
• Reintroduced spelling and capitalization errors and took out important and relevant information (e.g. the UN Visiting Mission section
• Took out a cited source and changed the text of the article to read something different than its actual title
• Insists on inserting a link to a disambig page instead of the relevant article
• Re-added the category of Cities in Morocco to cities in Western Sahara, here and in other articles
• Deleted sourced, scholarly reference on Battle of Tirafiti. There was a lengthy discussion on talk about the napalm reference and he keeps on deleting it.
• Insists on inserting phrases such as "Algeria-back Polisario Front" and "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"
• Took out sourced citation, leaving an unsourced allegation; he did this twice.
• Insists on taking out relevant articles in this template and hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting
• Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages.
• Keeps on deleting portions of the Western Sahara Portal, claiming they are POV. I've tried to tell him that we can discuss each section individually, but not to delete them outright and then put the POV tag on the portal itself - he's deleted the sections he thinks are POV and then inserts the tag.
• The most frustrating for me: he keeps on deleting information in the WikiProject Western Sahara under a pretense of NPOV and then does things like put references to Morocco in bold. He's changing the scope and definition of the Project unilaterally and it smacks of entryism. Note that on this edit, he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well.

Wikima has done the following lately:

• Redirecting pages to a page that the user does not intend
• And that same page is a contentious move as well, which had no consensus and was moved three times in all; the issue is still not resolved
• Takes out scholarly citations of sources, in spite of several weeks of mediation and a consensus to include it
• He insists that Western Sahara is not occupied, when it clearly is and has been called as such by the United Nations
• Apparently copy-pasted text from an article to its redirect, knowing this was contentious and with no consensus or talk
• just as he and Jalil did at Template:Sahara conflict, he took out relevant links that might support he Sahrawi position. Note that at the other template, these were re-added by an admin, and they deleted them again.
• Uploaded several redundant images inexplicably, including three maps of Western Sahara and this flag.

Typically, his comments and edit summaries include sarcasm quotes and personal references or refer someone to another talk page. As you can see on Jalil's contribs, he also blind reverted a whole host of edits that I made; I suspect solely because I made them. In point of fact, while I was writing this very post, he did the same thing again, reinserting Wikima's redundant images, undo the edits of admins in the WikiProject, etc. Considering the speed with which he undid, it seems possible that he merely saw that I had edited them. Needless to say, these edits essentially help the Moroccan POV and serve to undermine the Sahrawi one. Every reference to Moroccan occupation and the intifadas are deleted, every reference to Polisario is made "Algeria-backed" (this example is one of many.) This is Moroccan POV-pushing. I have requested mediation, but the two editors have either gone on a break or where never free enough to mediate in the first place. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

User Koavf has a long history of edit-warring and aggressive POV pushing on Wikipedia on a whole range of articles and especially on Western Sahara. His block log speaks for itself. He was blocked indefinitely for his disruptive behaviour for more than half a year. For a couple of weeks ago, he was given another chance while being on 1RR parole for one year. He immediately started by reverting dozens of Western Sahara related articles to the miserable version he left them on. there are many editors who were involved in balancing the pro-Polisario POV he added. But, as he made it clear on his user page, he is on Wikipedia mainly for the defence of the position of the Polisario Front. Almost all his edits are reverts as can be seen from the diffs. To say that Western Sahara is disputed not occupied is considered by Koavf as a pro-Moroccan POV. One of his big troubles with a number of editors is his effort to make Western Sahara and the SADR (government-in-exile of the Polisario) be used interchangeably. This is the case of an activist highly engaged for the side of one of the parties to the WS conflict, who sees Wikipedia as a perfect mirror for propagandist ideas.

• Malta is in Europe not Africa or the Middle East. He insists on including it though on the WB page Malta is not found in the drop-down list of countries. It has been explained to koavf by myself (A Jalil), admin FayssalF and Collounsbury, without results.
• He misuses the word "Intifada" to describe some riots that involve a few teenagers rioting in a suburb of Elaiun. While the mention that riots occur by some independence-minded can be added, the use of intifada is over-dosed.
• in Koavf's version there is much more than correcting "spelling and capitalization errors". He claims the text of the Madrid Accords is secret and never made public, while the same integral text can be found on many pro-Polisario sites like this one. The visiting mission has its own article and is not related to the ICJ advisory opinion. He removed the fact that it was Morocco which got Spanish Sahara to be listed on the decolonization list. The role of the Moroccan Army of Liberation is downplayed in his edit. So that has nothing to do with correcting any spelling or capitalization errors.
• The flag of Western Sahara article was the subject of a RfC. Koavf went on to change the article in disregard to all the editors involved in the RfC. He even added some text taken stright from propagada material claiming the black color in the flag means the "Moroccan occupation", while the flag was supposedly created many years before a single Moroccan soldier set foot in Spanish/Western Sahara.
• The cities and towns in Western Sahara under Moroccan control are de facto part of the "Morocco and Western Sahara cities". What is wrong with that?. This is similar to the mention that Bir Lehlu is the temporary capital of the SADR.
• The so-called Battle of Tifariti. Where are the proofs of Napalm bombing killing hundreds of civilians of people without air cover against airplanes. This must have happened in 1975-1976, so how come that it has been left undocumented with images and videos?. Pro-Polisario sites are full of images of people alledgedly beaten by police during the riots (ther are whole pages for just the wounds of one person). How is it that the images of a much more dangerous "Napalm massacre" are inexistent??. That is the proof you should provide, not a reference to a book by a stunch pro-Polisario writer.
• The "Algeria-back Polisario Front" is not in all articles where Polisario is mentionned, maybe mentionned in 1% of the occurences of the Polisario. It is well established and no shame in saying it. I don't see why you try to hide something that Algeria itself is proud of. "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is also correct and again occurs only in a few places. What is wrong with it?. Self-declared means that the "Republic" was not born out of a settlement plan nor out of a referendum. It is simply a declaration by the Polisario that they declare themself a republic. What is wrong with the "self-declared" then?
• A look At this diff speaks for itself. It shows how to hijack an article and make the reference to the WS conflict takes more than half the article itself. My version mentions the exclusion of WS from the agremeent in one sentence. Needless to mention the use of the word "occupation" by koavf as a standard definition of the situation in Western Sahara.
• "hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting" No, no one is posting on talk everyday. once the arguments are explained to you, what is the meaning of posting everyday the same things as has been the case in many talk pages with you. The Wikiproject Western Sahara is for the community, and though you were the initiator, it does not make it a personal property for you to write whatever POV you want on it. It is about Western Sahara not about Koavf.
• "Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages." No, There are three member templates. the first one should be the neutral one not the Polisario one. It is quite simple to understand. Koavf is trying to make the Polisario flag as the primary member template. In addition, he adds "(SADR)" after the mention of "Western Sahara", to wrongly give the reader the impression that they are synonymous.
• The Western Sahara Portal in its version that I restore was the result of many editors' contributions. Your revert discards a lot of them.
• The WikiProject Western Sahara. Good that you call it Western Sahara and not your own personal project. It was edited by koavf to make it again give the impression that WS is the SADR and the SADR is WS. The first thing the reader meets when reading koavf's version is the flag of the SADR being presented as that of WS.
• "he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well." Good you mention it is not NPOV. Of course in Wikipedia everyone should strive to make everything NPOV. What is the rationale behind creating a Wikiproject named after a disputed region, and then stuff it with POV content and claim it is your personal territory where you can write whatever you want. No it does not work like that. The admin you refer to is your good friend Francis Tyers. He acted upon your request for him for "mediation", and started reverting without even paying attention to stupid edits like the explanation of the black color on the flag of the SADR.

In the end, apart from a couple of articles where some debate has taken place more or less peacefully, WS articles were quite calm in koavf's absence, and here we are now just after a couple of weeks after his indefinite block reduced to 1RR parole. Needless to mention that he went on his wave of reverts without going first to the talk page to explain himself in the vast majority of reverted articles. Those that hoped the long block would change his manners of editing must be disappointed--A Jalil 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a vandal.

Joe1691 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is really bumming me out. First, he created an attack page that I marked for speedy deletion. Then he has removed the deletion tag three times. Then he removed warnings from his talk page. Requesting assistance.--Flamgirlant 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you sent a notice to ARV yet? Wildthing61476 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Lol, sorry. I'm still learning. I just did.--Flamgirlant 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurch (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Gurch blocked, CharlotteWebb is not banned

This user is adding a banned tag to CharoletteWebb's page repeatedly.. request admin intervention. GDonato (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for three hours by Nick for "being a DICK"; the block, which surely prevents Gurch's continued disruption and may serve ancillarily to discourage him from resuming disruptive editing, is, IMHO, in order, although one might have been a bit more reserved in his blocking reasoning. Joe 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been trolling rfa's for the past few days. I doubt a 3 hour block will deter him.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yah, I protected the page for a day. Gurch being POINTy again ... - Alison ☺ 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with Matthew taunting Gurch after his block, here and here. Clearly, Gurch isn't the only one being a dick here.--Atlan (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's not on ... - Alison ☺ 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What a shame, Gurch was a well-respected editor and admin, who has grown bitter over the last several months. It's a shame that we lost such a good contributor.  :( Corvus cornix 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, CharlotteWebb is not banned. An arbitration committee member left a standing offer to unblock her if she is blocked, and I am sure other admins would also unblock her if she is blocked and requests it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed heated debate between two editors

Someone might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otto4711&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trampikey&action=history

There seems to be some revert-warring on Otto4711's (a user who has been blocked three times before for reverting and deletionist trolling) talk page and accusations of incivility as well. It might be good for a third party to step in before things get more heated. --172.168.147.215 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NE1fm

What on earth is going on here? I was asked to look at something, I did, I noticed one of the links was to this, which had launched the previous day and made no assertion of notability, so I deleted it. I watched the debate I was asked to look at, after a relisting it had snowballed delete, so I closed it about 6 hours early, as I had told another admin I'd deal with it and didn't want to forget.

Now I'm suddenly being told that I'm working for a company I've never heard of. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for proof of the claims of bias, or else a retraction of them. Corvus cornix 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

White Dragon (England) impersonator/scammer back

I can't find it in the archives, but this guy was active not too long ago.

He created a fake WP:FORK article of

White_Dragon_(England) (note warning at top that it had to be locked due to sockpuppet editing)

and named it:

White_Dragon_(England)­ (with invisible control characters at end)

And then went around changing the links that went to the real one to the fake one with the POV pushing he was opposed on on the main article.

And this time he is using the user name User:White43· (with semi-visible control character) to try to impersonate User:White43.

He needs a good banning for impersonation and as sock of previously banned editor. DreamGuy 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And some admins should put Dragon (disambiguation), List of dragons in mythology and folklore, and European dragon on heir watch lists to catch this person in the act of changing wiki links to newly created fork files for immediate undoing and blocking. DreamGuy 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WARNING - The scammer came in and edited my comments to point the blame at the wrong editor and to change my user name... we need to be all over this guy right now. DreamGuy 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedied, moved the text to Talk:White Dragon (England) as it does seem to have some usable information not in the original. Indef banned impersonating user. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the text was moved, i have restored the fork for GFDL complaiance, and protected it as a redirect to the original. It may also be useful so that diffs iof its creation work as evidence if this is taken farther. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I apoligise right off the bat for posting to the archives for the last incident. I hadn't realised it was archived, and should have checked the page title. The vandal has been trying to change the archives too, which is how I found them. To repost from there, he's using the username User:PeterJames2 to make edits and impersonating DreamGuy as User:DreamGuy·. Polenth 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right. The source that the white dragon is a symbol of Anglo-Saxon England comes from a jeweller, whose name we don't even know? Now, that's a reliable source. Corvus cornix 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Disruption?

Resolved

 – AfD closed; troll account blocked.

User Joe Rat (talk · contribs · email) has just AfD'd Ten Commandments for Drivers, but at the same time has added Ten Commandments and Luther's 95 Theses to the AfD. SPA's reason:

“ Another list of unrelated topics, POV of pastor of non-notable church, previous AfDs on similar listcruft from J. Ratzinger, Username Benedict16. Does not cite to any recognized source "Assoc Press" or alt. "Assok Press" not found in Google search of publishers, possible hoax.

Also AfDs proposed for deletion: "Ten Commandments" (purely opinion oriented list) and "Luther's 95 Theses" (Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for speculative ideas). WP:NOT

”

AfD is here. --Charlene 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD closed as speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. I've indefinitely blocked Joe Rat (talk · contribs) - jumping in to AfD right away, citing WP:NOT, etc suggest this is not a genuine newbie, and the account is clearly being used for trolling. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the nomination would be prime fodder for BJAODN, if there were such a thing. Corvus cornix 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing and Leonig Mig had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user. User:Vox Humana 8' talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he was perfectly justified in having the message, removing my messages completely unreasonably, and reverting at least seven times. Also relevent is his arbitration case, in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done? J Milburn 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonid is now also reverting his userpage, as well as vandalising Pigsonthewing's with links to page differences showing old personal attacks from Pig to himself himself to Pig. J Milburn 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remains Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack I cited was from you to him, but it was a long time ago. Check the diff. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. J Milburn 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not insist that there was no problem. There very much is a problem, as described on my user page. Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TheManWhoLaughs

I and an admin are having a time with this abusive individual, who has now taken to posting nasty accusations on my talk page and on the [3RR page]. He was blocked for 12 hours yesterday, he was asked by an admin at User talk:TheManWhoLaughs to try and listen to/work with me, and he is getting more and more incensed. His accusations are untrue. He is behaving fanatically. I ask for help. --Tenebrae 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is just a untrue claim. I ask you to look at our talk pages. HE constantly is calling me names and making accusations that he is doing.I have done nothing wrong.TheManWhoLaughs 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Marliesej

Jut to let you know, I have blanked this user's User page and have let them know that it was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)