Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Impersonating another user and religious attacks

    Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken text I wrote on one talk page and posted it on another talk page(midway down the mixed edit), effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the [1] talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Is there anything that can be done about this? I really feel he's trying to escalate a bad situation beyond a tenable discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming... We're dealing with blockable and bannable offenses here by a user who refuses to accomodate BLP and NPR concerns from several users (including myself) regarding Metta Bubble's behavior. If necessary I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard and try to get Metta Bubble sitebanned for gross impropriety. No need to waste time on a ArbCom RfArb, when any admin can simply make a block or ban. There are other users who will back up this effort. -- Fyslee/talk 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming..." The diffs I posted above speak for themselves. What possible legitimate reason could you have for posting my comments and signature to another page? How would you like it if I went around posting your signature to things?
    Your content issues do not warrant admin intervention. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand. It is your behavioral issues that may require blocking or banning. I never attached your signature to anything. I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) and my replies (thus preserving the context). You start out here by making it sound like I forged something and then added your signature to make it look like something you had written:
    • "... this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself."
    You did post that information yourself on my talk page. I only moved it in context. They are your words and signature and time. Don't try to make it sound otherwise. I would never "post(ing) your signature to things" you had not written, and I would not take them out of context and add them to another discussion of another subject. I was only keeping the discussion on the same page, especially since the context also involved other users and your accusations against them. As my response below explains, I am prepared to drop this matter if you don't restore you personal attacks and BLP violation. Otherwise I will go higher up and have a very strong case, since a previous editor who made the same false charges got banned, partially for showing intention (without even doing it) to out another user. That was the last straw after they had already repeatedly publicized private information about myself and made false and unproven COI allegations. You have already outed AvB, but since you may not have understood the seriousness of what you were doing, AvB is being very generous. If you heed his request and don't go there again you may be spared this time. -- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe you openly admit it and still don't see how it's wrong. Can someone please explain how Fyslees actions (in his own words "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) ") are inappropriate. I'd truly appreciate this. I'm really sick of this user harassing me and I thinks it's gonna get ugly if someone doesn't set him straight on the appropriateness of copy-and-pasting other users signatures. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to false charges and misuse of this board

    I see that Metta Bubble has continued her disruptions, personal attacks, and BLP violations against myself and User:AvB at the Talk:Stephen_Barrett page, and has now escalated the matter by making false charges here. This false charge concerns ONE word which Metta Bubble wrote about me, and which I refactored to a more accurate word (which makes Metta Bubble look more charitable!), and then noted why I did it. The word was a repetition of a false charge from a RfArb. (That RfArb resulted in a banning of my accuser.) That charge was never proven and a repetition is simply a gross BLP violation and personal attack against myself. Making COI charges is a serious matter. Rather than take the matter to the BLP Noticeboard, I simply changed it and explained why, since I saw "no need to make waves." Metta Bubble decided to escalate the matter and reverted it (restoring BLP violations is a blockable offense, IIRC, while deleting such isn't even covered by 3rr) and deleted my explanation. Metta Bubble then took the discussion to my talk page, which I felt was problematic as it split the discussion, removing it from the relevant spot, which also involved other editors. I therefore copied very precisely and carefully (no "impersonation" at all, so she is deceiving this board) Metta Bubble's ensuing comments (they were indeed her comments!) and my own replies and placed them in the existing thread where they belonged, so others would know what was going on. Otherwise it would not be understandable. I also wished other editors to help me keep the BLP violation out of Wikipedia, and I made such a request.

    She has also vandalized MY heading and is making a big issue out of it with another user (even claiming it was her heading).

    Now she is calling me a vandal here (by wikilinking my name to "vandal"). She is getting more and more agitated and is attacking other users as well. Please get her to calm down and just leave the more accurate "POV" instead of the false "conflict" (COI) word in place. That will settle the matter for me.

    In the meantime I will continue to remove the BLP violation against me in accordance with the requirement ("must") for any Wikipedia editor to do so if it pops up again. As of the time of this diff, the state of this word matter is acceptable to me.

    These edit histories tell part of the story:

    -- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fyslee considers it a BLP violation that it's my opinion his edits reveal a conflict of interest on the article. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Admin comment

    Both of you summarize your complaints in 100 words or less after my comment. Right now, this is an argument between the two of you that has spilled over onto this board. There is nothing we administrators can do without knowing what the hell is going on.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fyslee (talk · contribs) copied my user post to an article talkspace (replying, inserting my message, then making a religious attack)[2]. He admits his behaviour here, stating "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all)." He also deleted my posting about his Arbcom identified conflict of interest, claiming it is a BLP violation. I respected his refactoring though he was already cautioned. Some days later he continues to post religious attacks on me. I see his behaviour as wilfully inciting hostilities. I take impersonation and religious attacks to be critical community issues. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I see Metta Bubble continues to falsely charge me with "impersonation." If I had written a message and attached Metta's name to it, then that would indeed be impersonation, but I didn't. I simply copied a complete conversation, including sigs, to the existing thread on the article talk page so the discussion didn't get split up, and also because other editors were being attacked by Metta Bubble in that particular thread. Since everything related to that discussion was relevant for others to read, I just copied it. There was nothing remotely related to "impersonation" or any attempt to misrepresent, take out of context, or otherwise do anything improper. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other accusation about COI is misplaced. The RfArb listed my interests, but no COI was every proven. A shared POV does not a COI make, otherwise no one could edit here. Even a COI does not prevent editing if it doesn't affect the actual edits.
    Her COI accusation was clearly a personal attack, as defined by the NPA policy:
    • using "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [3]
    -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Religious attack"? Only pointing out the hypocrisy so evident. I admire the ideals of Buddhism, and when a Buddhist so evidently seeks and pursues conflict it seems rather hypocritical to me. She should live up to her ideals instead of making a mockery of them. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Fyslee's perspective: You can see in my second diff above (the insertion diff)[4] that Fyslee made no attempt to identify he was citing text from another talk page. To any other user it would have appeared as if I had posted the comments myself. He is not merely citing me as he states, he is making it appear as though I was conversing with him on that page. Need I also note he continues his religious attacks above? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thirdy party comments

    • Although not a party to this specific conflict, it is a bit of a spin-off of a conflict between Metta Bubble and me and I am mentioned above. Ryulong, if I can help, please let me know. I am still considering whether or not to ask an admin to step in and explain to Metta that "outing" and damaging another editor's real-life identity are blockable, sometimes bannable offenses. Apparently they do not accept this from me or other editors who have tried. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avb (talk · contribs) has a conflict with me and seems to be the reason his friend Fyslee (talk · contribs) started attacking me. I haven't outed anybody and never posted information beyond what is already public on wikipedia. If these users want to pursue their accusations I'm happy to answer with diffs to refute any and all claims. However, I see this behaviour as tag-team filibustering. I can't imagine any forthcoming context for justifying impersonation and religious attacks on me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that several points should be considered here. (1) Fyslee may be hypersensitive to the words like "conflict" or "COI" since the ArbCom findings of fact[5] he has been specifically ArbCom cautioned to "avoid the appearance of COI" (2) I think that it was not a good idea to involve religion in his discussion much less criticize another editor about it, (3) perhaps Metta should give more explanation of the form(s) or type of "conflict" meant or addressed, (4) I have questions about Fyslee's aggressive refactoring and claims of BLP on Metta when He [Fyslee] is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits.[6]. Fyslee may want to reconsider how others might perceive his rather totally involved status with things QW, related blogs, and conventional therapy (e.g vs QW counterparties and chiropratic) as to what constitutes COI vs pronounced POV.
    I am unclear (on a prospective basis, not hindsight) how much Metta could have improved Fyslee's citation method that is part of the impersonation complaint and his refactoring of her comment to make her point (quit aggressive refactoring, be even more careful, ask first) w/o getting some flashback from Fyslee. Perhaps he should have broached it with her first rather than *insisting* it was a BLP. His reverting the wording change w/o prior acknowledgement (from Metta or another editor/admin) seems a questionable approach under the circumstances. Hopefully both can draw a breath and consider patching this over.--I'clast 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) He was cautioned to prevent the appearance of COI-influenced editing of article pages, not talk pages. (2) Like any other editor he is not only allowed but expected to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, including himself. Hypersensitivity does not enter the equation. (3) If an editor believes content is a BLP violation, it has to go. Remove first, talk later. (4) Why is refactoring COI/conflict to POV per WP:BLP on a talk page "aggressive"? (5) I'clast writes: Fyslee may want to reconsider how others might perceive his rather totally involved status with things QW, related blogs, and conventional therapy (e.g vs QW counterparties and chiropratic) as to what constitutes COI vs pronounced POV. Am I reading this correctly when I think you're suggesting that Fyslee should view the ArbCom ruling as too lenient and that he should read it as also applicable to talk pages ? AvB ÷ talk 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that I'clast enjoys using the threat of a COI as a tool to suppress any discussion that he doesn't like. His disagreements with Fyslee is quite apparent in the ArbCom arguments and his use of a COI threat is just his latest technique, principally as it has had no repercussions onto the threatener (ie/ I'clast), to suppress those that he doesn’t like. Shot info 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued sniping, shot. I filed your COI paperwork long ago with the admins, the subject of most of our original dispute has been removed and presumably most of the COI rendered administratively moot. It is likely something of an administrative hot potato, you should now let it go too (I do not even dream that the filing would have repercussions for *me*). I am not "threatening" COI on Fyslee, if I were he would instantly know it. I am pointing out that there is a fundamental problem with his unilateral refactoring now (post RFAR) of Metta Bubble without more discussion of precise words and intent, and even then the record of discussion should usually be sufficient w/o "refactoring" Talk. Otherwise editors' discussion and meaning get highly distorted. There has been past refactoring to some of my edits (not Fyslee), and I now consider most refactoring extremely aggressive, vulnerable to severe intellectual dishonesty, and potentially, a hostile invitation that takes a lot of restraint to just let it pass w/o meaningful response. After Fyslee's refactoring, the discussion degenerated w/o really getting Metta Bubble's points properly developed and understood, where Fyslee has had cautions about perceived civility. Such haste to declare a BLP removal doesn't seem an optimal response since it risks early breakdown of AGF for the cautioned editor.--I'clast 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AvB, strictly speaking there is no literal limitation in the RFAR caution about "...edits" for Fyslee to just articles, rather that he should *seek consensus* on the Talk pages (which can also exhibit severe editorial "conflict" or COI). Further, Fyslee's finding of fact, above this caution, specifically included incivility etc, where he had tangled with others (e.g. Ilena), largely on the Talk pages, and the only remedy mentioned was this caution verbiage.
    If an editor is having a conflict or COI problem with a previously warned editor who can get aggressive and simply rewrite history/comments the way the latter cautioned editor likes it based on his unilateral claims of BLP, such "lenient" interpretation incites the skip-jump escalation to administrative proceedings from a very minor level. Further, one of the problems encountered around the QW-SB-NCAHF space is that some "pro" editors *had* previously acquired bad habits, to varying degrees, about rewriting others' edits in the guise of "refactoring" and for (sometimes numerously and trivially) alleged policy violations. Bad enough to the point of having received direct warning from ArbCom members about this behavior (not Fyslee) *after* the RFAR. Long time readers of QW-SB-NCAHF space should already know now that such refactoring is considered a highly aggressive (and provocative) move without *utmost* caution and civility. I would suggest that Fyslee practice his persuasive writing again (he's pretty good at it) and more often - I think it would have paid early dividends with Metta Bubble. I also think that you three here at various parts of this ANI page should chillout now for 24 hours about each other, just cease fire. Perhaps do a Q&A as you (AvB) and I did, then try to work out a modus vivendi and some reaffirmations of each other.--I'clast 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some points of order: cautioned editors are not fair game. They are allowed to edit exactly like other editors. The only difference is that other editors who feel they are ignoring the cautioning, may involve any admin to enforce anything that should enforced, and entered in a log if there is one. Regular editors are not supposed to edit war about what either is, or is not, a blockable or "warnable" offense. And since cautioning is nothing but a restating of normal policy, all (especially partisan) editors would do well to heed the same verbiage. I suggest that your rendering of what happened, clearly marks you as a partisan editor editing on the other side of the debate. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed regarding a chill out. I hope you don't mean I need one; I'm not involved in this particular report and only respond to what's written if I feel what I have to say will help - especially since the report is being ignored by uninvolved admins. In other words, if nothing's written, you won't see respond... At any rate, Metta has tried the "impersonation" trick before, and as far as I can see, it never worked. Perhaps an admin can close/archive this report straight away. It's been a discussion between parties for some time now, with only I'clast, Shot Info and me responding - and we're not admins. AvB ÷ talk 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Centrx and my sigs

    Centrx (talk · contribs)

    User:Centrx is mass reverting my modifications of my own signatures which is explicitly allowed as per Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. Centrx failed to convince Grutness that he has valid points. In addition a 3rd opinion was filed and was responded to, feel free to have a read of it.

    Centrx is engaged in a revert war over my sigs on multiple pages including ones inside my userpsace. Centrx believes that I have a malicious intent for modifying my sig. I believe that also violates WP:AGF.

    -- Cat chi? 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    The policy talks about removing personal information. It's not like you used to use your real name, so I see no way that you could call Cool Cat something personal and identifying. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly desire to change my sig. Thats all the policy expects. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think resources is an issue and its my time to waste. At least according to the devs I talked to. En.wiki receives several thousand edits per day. Centrx is wasting more of our resources by repetively revert waring over this. -- Cat chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    Once again, here's an exact quote of policy: "If you feel strongly about personal information no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." The username "Cool Cat" does in no way, reveal your personal information, so there is no personal info for you to feel strongly about. Because of that, policy doesn't allow you to do what you're doing. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets say you are right for the sake of argument, there still is nothing prohibiting from fixing my sigs. I am allowed to change my sigs and even comments on non-archived talk pages by default. Although discouraged, I am even allowed to remove my comments altogether if I do so desire - especially in my userspace. -- Cat chi? 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is there a reason in changing your past sigs other than aesthetic effect? —Kurykh 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I am sorting my sigs by year. It is particularly helpful for me. I can explain additional reasons in private if you like. Though, I would like to add (no offense), I shouldn't really need a reason aside from "my strong desire". :) -- Cat chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    Centrx did not say he believes you have a malicious intent for modifying your signature. Regardless, why is this topic back here? At least Centrx has been kind enough to keep this trivial matter off the AN and ANI. Seriously, why is this so darn important to you? (And, to Centrx as well, why is this so darn important?) It takes two to tango; one of you just stop already. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you move your mediation committee page? Is that really necessary? And what was the purpose of blanking the origin page and re-adding the same content? Was that in an attempt to make moving the page back more difficult? (If that was your intent, that doesn't do much). -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than allowed to move old references to my former username. I did this before with my first RFA. I forgot about the mediation case till recently. Why should I even need to provide an explanation? The complaint is Centrx's mass revers btw. -- Cat chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's still rather pointless to continue to 1) remove references to your old name and 2) revert war over it when all it is, is your signature. Damn near everyone realizes that Cool Cat = White Cat at this point. Even if people didn't realize it by the signature, they could equally just check the history of any page you edited and it says White Cat now. — Moe ε 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the MedCom nomination from editing and moves. I think it's generally best if closed nominations not be edited in any way, and this includes their location. Daniel 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? What difference does the title of a medcab nom have to its content. Who is the candidate? Is it a lie to say that the candidate is me? -- Cat chi? 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

    This wouldn't have been an issue if the second involved party hadn't started reverting harmless changes. I think going back and editing your old sigs isn't really useful, but any argument against it (server load, disruption, etc) can be equally made against reverting edits to old sigs.

    Anyhow, this isn't prohibited, and User:White Cat shouldn't have to justify themselves in re. this. It's a personal choice, not a community one, and there's no reason that a personal (albeit retroactive) aesthetic choice should be made by committee. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-06-25 01:03Z

    He's been warned about this, twice. Originally he had a bot doing the changes in mass. He is editing community talk pages, so it's not just up to him. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to butt in, but why oh why does anyone care what he does to his own sigs if he's not being incivil or disruptive or trying to hide who made the comments? (he's actually making it more clear who made the comments) Someguy1221 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he's repeatedly been disruptive about it, and repeatedly told not to do it. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for not being involved in the previous discussions concerning this, but....why has he been told not to do it? I am straining to rationalize the edit wars this is causing. Someguy1221 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Wikipedia and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish, if you look at his userpage. He's actually making it easier for anyone reading old archives to find out the username currently being used by Coolcat, as well as still being able to see Coolcat's contribs (linked to right from White Cat's userpage). I still believe a mere redirect from his old userpage to his new one would be oh so much easier (I'm not finding it possible to comprehend why that wasn't done, looking through old discussions), other users have done that upon changing username. Someguy1221 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish - Not what was claimed: he's clearly trying to whitewash his reputation, given that the simplest thing he could have done was put a redirect at User:Cool Cat -- which he not only hasn't done, but has had the page protected so it CAN'T be done. Presumably he's trying to obscure something like [this. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it was all to hide my block log. Man am I exposed...</sarcasm> Seriously have you actually seen my userpage? I link to that very log and far more (not that I am expected/required to do so). Also my sig does not link to my block log. Me fixing my sigs is more like "admitting guilt" if anything. Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.
    Zscout370 I am not making this hard on myself. There is a person reverting me on multiple pages. And not just any pages but discussion pages (article content isn't in jeopardy) including the ones in my userspace.
    If the precondition for me to fix my sigs is my leavening of the project, that can be arranged - though I believe such a demand would be out of proportion. I dispute the validity of those "variety of reasons".
    This is a complaint on Centrx's behaviour. Strangely almost no one seems to be commenting to that end. 3rd opinion and Grutness's conversation with Centrx is pretty clear on this. The policy is also clear on this even though people are interpreting stuff not written on it.
    I am not the first person to fix his/her sigs people...
    -- Cat chi? 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see the point, but I also don't see what the big fuss is about. If Cat wants to make a fresh start, great, as the old Cool Cat account had more blocks than a daycare full of toddlers, and I can thoroughly understand that. Is it obfuscating GFDL by changing all those talk page attributions? If it isn't, then Centrx, let him do what he likes. Neil ╦ 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I really need to give an explanation for it - just to set the record straight...
    • I desire not to be associated as "Cool Cat" from now on. I want to however be associated with the edits (good or bad) of "Cool Cat" since I am the same person. As you pointed out, I have a depressingly long block log. I made no attempt to hide it. In fact I advertise it more than I should. If I desired to "hide" anything I would merely register a new account without using any associated with this one.
    • Deletion of User:Cool Cat went to MfD and later deletion review only because User:Ned Scott repetitively recreated the page. He even revert wared with multiple admins over the closures of the MfD. You may not have noticed this but my former talk page is actually a redirect.
    • I intend to clear all of the material in the userspace of "Cool Cat" (all of them are redirects) but the talk page. This is maintenance related and does not have any other purpose at least not to my knowledge.
    The very point of a signature is to "identify" the person making the comment. Updating it is to better represent/identify the person making the comment. Mediawiki software currently does not have the capability to update users sigs as it is updating their contribution history after an account rename. I think of making a sig to match the username that appears in page history to be good practice.
    I also ask you to be civil. No one is "bitching" about anything.
    -- Cat chi? 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

    Edit point

    • Am I the only one who thinks this is getting really ridiculous? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is simply the case of a user trying to achieve legitimate intentions (look at User:White Cat if you doubt this) in an absurdly inefficient manner, leaving aside for a moment the bot issue. Please, please just redirect the old userpage before more WP:LAME worthy material is created, although I do believe that reverting White Cat's sig changes is utterly pointless, whatever policies say (aren't we supposed to ignore those?). Someguy1221 23:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not believe Centrix's action has any policy basis, on the contrary he is contradicting some such as Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username explicitly allowing what I am doing. I do not desire to have a redirect at my former userpage. I do have a redirect on my former talk page which should be adequate for people stumbling on my former userpage. -- Cat chi? 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      Although it applies by the spirit and not by the word, lets review m:Right to vanish
      "If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection."
      1. Green tickY "Change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you"
        • This is done as per my request. Page implies this is the "hard part".
      2. Red XN "Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username"
        • Centrx is reverting edits in parallel with this.
      3. Red XN "Delete your user and user talk subpages"
        • It is being implied above that I must have a redirect on my former userpage contradicting the logic behind this.
      4. Red XN "Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name"
        • It is being implied that I need to comply with this in order to be allowed to commit the two (#2&3) items above.
      What I desire to do is in parallel with the logic above minus #4.
      -- Cat chi? 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      Well, in case anyone is still reading this, I honestly find White Cat's actions to be perfectly reasonable though inefficient (aside from any allegations of unapproved bot edits, and the possible exception of editing another user's talk archive). I still fail to understand what would possess anyone to revert war over this, once one realizes that White Cat has never been trying to hide his past. Someguy1221 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I really think this whole drama is beyond logic. :) -- Cat chi? 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    User:Baseball Bugs and Wikistalking

    User:Baseball Bugs has been following me around and will not leave me alone. Some of his comments are rather benign, but his activity is very counter productive. He has commented on a number of articles that clearly have little to do with what he is interested in and everything to do with what edits I make. I just want the guy to leave me alone. Can someone please help? //Tecmobowl 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've examined the allegation, and it is legitimate: Baseball Bugs has edited several articles (not reverted, just edited) minutes after Tecmobowl has edited. ArbCom precedent in the RickK vs. TheRecyclingTroll case has established such behavior as a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.
    I'll give Baseball Bugs a stern warning. If he persists, please report him to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 or here again. Shalom Hello 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tecmobowl has a history of contentiousness with many users, with being blocked for edit warring, and for engaging in sockpuppetry to get around that block. We have both edited hundreds of articles on baseball, and our crossover has been on very few of them. He has filed numerous complaints against anyone who dares to challenge his edits, and none of his complaints have come to anything, once the admins learn the whole picture of his behavior. After being asked by Shalom (who has since decided he wants nothing to do with this matter) to stop "following" Tecmo (the same complaint Tecmo's sockpupper User:El redactor had made), I have further backed off from engaging him. However, I reserve the right to edit pages that are of interest to me, even if they happen to coincide with pages that Tecmobowl edits. Baseball Bugs 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Leave me alone. I am not a sock, you believe that I am ... those are two different things. Stop following me around. Editing pages that interest you is one thing, following me around is another thing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! //Tecmobowl 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence shows that you have engaged in sockpuppetry. And since you never have the courtesy to notify me directly about these complaints of yours, I have to monitor your "contributions" list to find out about them. Your goal, apparently, is to find a way to prevent me from editing any baseball articles that you also edit. In fact, there is very little crossover in our respective articles. But you do not have the right to "own" any page, nor to arbitrarily exclude someone from editing a page just because you don't like that editor. Baseball Bugs 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE READ WHAT I AM SAYING _ GET THIS GUY TO LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!! MY GOAL IS TO GET HIM TO STOP TALKING TO ME AND STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND>>>MY GOAL IS TO MOVE THE FUCK ON>>>AM I MAD - NO >>> AM I TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO GET ATTENTION -> YES!!!!! GET HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!! //Tecmobowl 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One curious recent incident is Tecmobowl's editing of the user page for User:El redactor to remove the information about El redactor being Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. This is in keeping with Tecmobowl's tendency to blank out his own talk page (this, for example[7]), which is considered impolite (and uncivil... see above) under wikipedia standards. Editing of user pages by anyone other than the page's owner is generally frowned upon, and removal of such notices is against the rules. However, Tecmobowl's editing of El redactor's user page in general is arguably OK, since he has been demonstrated to be that page's creator. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, I'm unwatching this bullshit. Nobody wants to stop it, fine, I'll just bite the guy back. //Tecmobowl 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metta Bubble refuses to acknowledge "outing" another editor

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonating_another_user_and_religious_attacks

    On Talk:Stephen Barrett Metta Bubble has "outed" my real-life identity, damaging both my Wikipedia and real-life reputations, brought assorted unwarranted COI accusations presented as "questions", also violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I responded to the questions and explained about the various blockable offenses. I hoped that my explanations would be understood and taken to heart and let it go, under the impression that Metta wanted the conflict to end (see my talk page e.g. here) and had realized there was, indeed, a problem with their behavior. I myself had also responded somewhat irritatedly, and I assumed this was more a question of temper than one of extreme policy violations - lessons learned all around (although I do not believe I have violated any policies here. If so, please let me know).

    However - I regularly look at problems here and on the BLP noticeboard to see if I can be of some help. Yesterday I noticed this AN/I report where Metta was accusing one of the other editors they had accused of a COI worthy of an ArbCom arbitration and tried to resolve the conflict. Being mentioned there, I posted some background in the Metta's report. Their responses opened my eyes to the fact that there is no discernible learning curve here.

    Here are some relevant diffs (a number of intermediate posts not included):

    I would appreciate it if an admin could explain the problems here to Metta and ask them not to "out" other editors?

    Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PS My user page history (the real-life info had been lifted from an old version) has just been deleted at my request in order to prevent repetition. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Metta Bubble, investigating a possible COI, finds information in your User Page history then mentions it in a discussion about a possible COI. You remove the information and delete your User page's history, and note that you want this information kept private. Has Metta revealed this information since you removed it? –Gunslinger47 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it probably a year ago by blanking the page/adding new contents. It was useful at the time as a declaration of my possible COI since I was editing related articles back then. But (as always) it remained somewhere at the bottom of the history. Other editors are not supposed to use it, and that's what I told Metta very early on. Instead of removing it from the article and disengaging from this specific line of questioning, they expanded on it. Regardless, simply editing user page info out should be sufficient. I never expected another editor to do dig up a very old version, let alone doing something like this. As a result of this experience I then had my user page history removed. I haven't heard from Metta since then. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Circular accusations of COI have been a staple of Stephen Barrett and related articles for some time. I must say that the "evidence" here is extremely weak (i.e. you are a health-care critic, so is Stephen Barrett, therefore you have a COI). And digging through year-old userpage diffs and then posting identifying information in article-talk space, in service of such a weak COI accusation, bothers me substantially. I've been previously heavily involved (and now very occasionally involved) in Barrett-related pages, so I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate this situation as an outside admin, but I would urge an uninvolved admin with patience and a streak of masochism to review this situation carefully. We've already had one such conflict on these pages end up in a prolonged and nasty ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Metta was being extremely silly there. The evidence proved the converse (example: it lists many chiropractors). For the rest, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". And the reverse is also true; I simply want this user to understand the situation and never do something like this again. Mastcell and others who have helped to explain this so far, thanks a lot. AvB ÷ talk 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to accusations
    • I have never posted information a user asked me not to. <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB>. It was me who first raised <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB> in a general question. In reply AvB outed him/herself by posting links to a website. I subsequently posted links also. <links removed by AvB> Then AvB urged me to reread his/her links. (see last paragraph). S/he was reluctant to discuss the issues and had hoped his/her links spoke for themselves. [8]. His/her explanation was more than enough for me and I was ready to move on. Over the ensuing days Fyslee (talk · contribs) got progressively more aggressive at me, attempting to fan discord about this issue and ultimately resulting in me filing an incident report here. It appears my incident report has fueled this incident report as though the two are related. They are not.
    My line of questioning AvB didn't come out of nowhere. We had been discussing each others neutrality for a few days. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Early on s/he said to me "I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them." [14].
    I know making COI assertions is a serious business and I don't shy away from this. However, there has already been at least one Arbcom case regarding the Stephen Barrett article involving COI (I think more than one) so I don't see it as breaking propriety to raise the issue during talk page discussion that civilly migrated towards the topic of COI. Thanks. p.s. Please don't split my post ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletions to my post above have little to do with sensitive information. The first phrase deleted by Avb was <unsourced info about an old user page deleted >1 year ago and oversighted yesterday removed by AvB> The second phrase deleted was "In reply". The words "Avb outed" ran together in my original post but have now been separated by a "refactored" notice. Why? There was nothing there to refactor. The net effect is to destroy the grammar of my post and render it unreadable. I'm not surprised Avb attempted this sabotage since my post clearly showed s/he actually outed her/himself. Here is my original defense to her/his accusations [15]. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I once again note that you were quoting information you lifted from a user page I deleted about a year ago. Deletion of information from one's user page (though retaining old versions in the history) is quite sufficient to convey overriding privacy concerns. It tells other users one no longer wishes the deleted information to be used. Quoting a year-old user page version to out another editor is frowned upon just as much as using information, old or recent, acquired off-site. And since that was not enough for you, I have also debated the point, and told you, and asked you, not to use it, and finally had the history deleted altogether. And still you're quoting from it.
    Apparently you do not see the common denominators in my changes to your edit. I have again refactored, this time in a way that you will hopefully understand better instead of using it to attack me once again. The following aspects played a role in my refactoring:
    (1) Please stop identifying my supposed gender. I no longer wish to be associated with a specific gender or lack of one. When I joined Wikipedia, I self-identified as a male, but I no longer do. This was one of the reasons why I deleted the gender information from my user page about a year ago. I have accepted being addressed as a male by many users as a convenience, and will probably continue to do so, but I will not accept it from you. I regard my gender, phenotype and genotype, as a very private aspect of my identity. I have awarded you the same courtesy until very recently; then I decided to address you as a female like some other editors. Please forgive me if that has angered you and feel free to refactor it like I have refactored your edit above.
    (2) Please address me as AvB, not Avb.
    (3) The web site you referred to is not mine, and it has never been mine. It is owned and mostly run by its webmaster. Regardless, it shows the same problems with Barrett I had already conveyed earlier, not a positive COI but a slightly negative POV. You are inserting new accusations as you go. Are you done now? AvB ÷ talk 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin comment

    "Outing" (linking someone's real life identity with their Wikipedia user name) anywhere on Wikipedia is not allowed. Doing so to make accusations is worse. Doing so to make unfounded COI accusations is even worse. Quite clearly, Metta Bubble still does not understand the problems caused by outing (esp. linked with accusations like "smell a rat" - "COI" - "Arbcom"). She still denies any wrongdoing, and feels free to do this again, even on AN/I (I've removed some of it). This flies in the face of current Wikipedia practice. Metta Bubble also removed the explanation given by User:Hypnosadist on her talk page here with the edit summary (Thanks for letting me know but actually you're relying on gossip and heresay. Good luck with the policy).

    Hypnosadist, thanks for explaining to Metta. Would you agree with Metta that you were relying on gossip and hearsay? If you simply responded to my request to explain why outing is not a good idea, could you or an uninvolved admin click through to my diffs given above and give an opinion whether or not this type of public investigative journalism/OR/advertising is acceptable behavior?

    The point is not that real-life info can be found somewhere in a corner of the internet; it's being advertised on a live page on Wikipedia, the world's #10 website. Should I be monitoring all Metta's contributions here on Wikipedia now for a repeat? She thinks doing so would be OK. When something similar or worse stays up for too long, banning Metta will not repair it. We really need to hear her say she won't do anything like this again. AvB ÷ talk 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial rebuttal

    (1) Everyone is invited to read my diffs which tell the full story before MB rewrote it. (2) The COI assertions came out of the blue. MB had been questioning my neutrality for days [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], not vice versa as claimed. (3) The "outing" was done by info in Metta Bubble's (unsourced = BLP violation) "general question" (=COI attack #1) linking me with a history at a domain name. Note that mere links are not a problem; it's the context of someone saying e.g. "his website" and unjustified criticism that makes it dangerous. And Metta's freely quoting from privacy-related user page information (containing personal affiliations and a real-life name) removed a long time ago is a blockable offense.

    Some concerns

    Editors should not make things easy for the dark side. Seeing a searchable page of the world's #10 website connecting my real-life ID with "where you vacation" suddenly makes such details (scattered throughout Wikipedia) dangerous. The mention by Metta of these and other details, such as "the size of your family," sounds quite ominous. Suddenly there's the possibility that lunatics who hate my guts on Wikipedia could be waiting for me with a gun around every corner. Also note that this outing goes two ways. It informs lunatics editing Wikipedia about my real-life ID just as readily as it informs lunatics from both the past (now dug up by Metta) and the present about my Wikipedia ID. AvB ÷ talk 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please block this user?

    I've had enough. All I asked for was for Metta to say they wouldn't do this again to me or other editors, and still they continue. Can someone please block User:Metta_Bubble for repeatedly restoring unsourced BLP information about myself, here and on the Barrett talk page? The sources offered are a long deleted user page I had also oversighted last Monday because Metta kept quoting from it (diff). Some hours later Metta again quoted from it on this AN/I page, and today again, repeating something I had reverted. Diffs: First reinsertion. Refactored by AvB. Second reinsertion. This is mainly about linking my Wikipedia ID with with my real-life identity and a specific web site. These reinsertions simply repeated earlier accusations, did not add anything and were quite unnecessary for the AN/I process. Editors who were there already know due to Metta's insistence that this is allowed, and I say that should be quite enough. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't do anything to you in the first place. Quit lying. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NPAs, reverts, sock/meatpuppetry, pseudoscience continued

    Continuing this archived thread, I am really disappointed to see that things are again escalating:

    Alexander the great1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka "alexander veliki" in maknews) is now:

    • persistently reverting/adding un-encyclopedic information on the previously stated articles, sometimes obviously unlogged.[21] [22],
    • also here where he is removing bot html comments for unknown copyright images (among others) and calling people "vandals" for reverting his edits [23] [24], [25] [26]
    • spamming across 3 talks some totally unworthy sources as "western references".[27] [28] [29] (commentary on the source here)
    • has the firm belief that countries dictate what should be written in history books (or Wikipedia), which leads in absurd claims... See Template talk:History of the Republic of Macedonia for an example (and a laugh -sorry).
    • calling people names off-wiki repeatedly [30]
    • and soliciting organized reverts (link above)
    • and asking for lawyers in their site (having seen our previous ANI thread linked in the beginning of this comment -again the same link as right above)

    I just described how my evening was like today. There is really very little I can do to stop what is an apparent case of rampant nationalistic edits ad absurdium. I'm going to bed. NikoSilver 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I have not persistently reverted anything within a reasonable time period. I have reverted articles twice maximum.
    I only reverted the Alexander the Great article twice because it sounded more neutral and once because someone deleted my source.
    I did not create the History of Macedonia template
    I have not spammed anything. That link was related to the talk pages.
    I have nothing to do with the forum you posted
    Alexander the great1 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user "alexander veliki", which btw means "alexander the great" (lit. "ancient alexander") in your language, says otherwise:

    He posted on:

    • Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:54 am: "They have now banned me from editing articles on Wikipedia because they don’t like the fact that I correct articles." [31] -and-
    • Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:55 pm: "They just banned me from Wikipedia for "correcting an article more then 3 times in 24 hours"." [32]

    Your block log[33] reads:

    • 22:45, June 19, 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Alexander the great1 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (revert-warring continued)
    • 16:38, June 18, 2007 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Alexander the great1 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation)

    And the log [34] of one of your proven sockpuppets user Balkan balkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reads:

    • 16:26, June 23, 2007 Akhilleus (Talk | contribs) blocked "Balkan balkan (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of User:Alexander the great1 used for edit warring)

    Which means those "announcements" you made in that site were 17 minutes (in the first case) and 9 hours (in the second) after your received blocks. I fail to see why he would lie about you (or even how he could have a clue about block logs).

    The particular user "alexander veliki" made an off-wiki legal threat in that forum (among many other on-wiki and off-wiki violations). That threat was after he was already informed of that policy and looking at the previous AN/Incident (which he linked in that forum as well). His denying of the identity proves that he now understands the gravity of the situation. The full text of the legal threat follows:

    Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:42 pm: [35]
    "lol, I think we crossed a nerve with the Greek/Bulgarian propagandists on Wikipedia!
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Low_lives.22...
    It seems that some of them have been spying on us hear at the forum and are outraged that they cannot control what we say as they can on Wikipedia. They have made a list of Macedonians that they want removed from the site for correcting articles. They also seem to believe that Wikipedia has a “policy for off-wiki collaboration and insults” they believe that Wikipedia can control what we say anywhere on the internet! They never cease to amaze me.
    They are also upset that “The discussion there continues unobstructed” on Maknews (as if Wikipedia was supposed to due something about their complaints). They are also upset that we want to promote Macedonian academics to moderator status, isn’t that racist? They also seem to be afraid that we might organize “a class-action lawsuit “.
    Are there any lawyers on the forum?" [emphasis added]

    I see no room for doubt that alexander the great1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the maknews user "alexander veliki" who made those off-wiki legal threats (and other violations, including off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppetry by even posting lists of articles concerned for organized reverts, extensive on-wiki sockpuppetry, off-wiki personal attacks, previous 3RRs, off-wiki POV-fork suggestions, and repeated POV inserts in various articles). NikoSilver 10:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is indeed disturbing. Wikipedians are not expected to recruit supporters on their nation's off-wiki forums in order to promote their all-too-predictable agenda in this project. Such actions fuel incessant revert-warring that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to inform you NikoSilver but Wikipedia’s job is not to police what individuals write on forums on the Internet. Besides the fact the I already stated that I am not connected to the forum you posted, you continue making allegations. I also question your motive for posting your complaint, as I have not broken any Wikipedia rules. What’s more is that in your previous complaint as you alluded to, you singled out all of the Macedonian users that have contributed to a Macedonian article and in affect asked for them to be banned for some top secret “collaboration” that they might be planning. That was a crazy accusation as that has never happened and there is no record of them ever planning to do so. So all of this leads one to believe that you are attempting to silence any user that is Macedonian and contributes to a Macedonian Article. This is quite apparent as one can easily sense the prejudice in the tone of your writing.I really hope that this stops as it goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Alexander the great1 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the criticism, I'll seek to ameliorate myself using your advice. In the meantime, do you care to respond why the guy in that site says "I was blocked" twice right after you were indeed blocked? Why he has essentially the same username? Why he edits in the same articles? ... NikoSilver 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you that I have nothing to do with that forum
    Alexander the Great is a popular Macedonain name
    Many people edit articles, you and Mr.Neutron edit the same articles
    Besides all of this, It is not Wikipedia’s place to monitor forums, as they are not related to Wikimedia Alexander the great1 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia does not of course police other sites, it polices itself from organized pov-push though. Read the linked policies. You forgot to respond on "Why the guy in that site says "I was blocked" twice right after you were indeed blocked?" NikoSilver 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have yet to see any “organized” POV-pushing, people edit articles when they feel the need to fix them. You are again making accusations with no evidence to back them up, which leads one to believe that your accusations are an act of prejudice.
    I do not know what the person said on the site, because it does not concern me. Anyone can view user pages and talk pages and see when someone has been blocked.Alexander the great1 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So some other compatriot of yours (who btw shares entirely the same views and discusses there about the same articles) decided to frame you? What would that serve? And how would he find out about your new existence here; or worse about your blocks and those of your proven socks in 17 minutes?? NikoSilver 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read the whole thread and you will find that everyone there shares the same views.
    No one decided to frame me because no one said they were me.
    Again it is not my concern as to how people know of my “new existence here”, how do you know of my “new existence here”?Alexander the great1 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious omission: Nobody else editing Macedonia-related articles was blocked; apart User:Alexander the great1 and his socks. NikoSilver 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t understand why you are so concerned about what someone wrote on some forum as they said that they are myself, and I have never claimed to be anyone on that site. Alexander the great1 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's patently obvious that you're "alexander veliki". I'm really not impressed by your protestations, and your editing record speaks for itself (unfortunately). To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll make this clear to you: if you continue edit warring, POV-pushing, repeatedly reverting articles and generally disrupting Wikipedia, you will be blocked again for a substantial period. It's not acceptable conduct for any contributor, and right now you're not contributing anything of value. I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Five pillars and take note of what it says. -- ChrisO 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To Alexander the great1: Perhaps then we should obtain the IP address of "Alexander Veliki" from Maknews and compare it with your IP here on wikipedia (which we already know by the way). Mr. Neutron 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law. Maknews is a distinguished and principled forum, I really doubt that they would give away information related to the privacy of others. Besides all of this I think you people do not understand that Wikipedia has no business trying to find out what its members may be saying on other forums. Alexander the great1 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law: This is personal attack and a legal threat. Mr. Neutron 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After this last comment, does anybody seriously think there's anything salvageable from this business to keep it going on eternally? NikoSilver 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I made no personal attack, just a suggestion, and I did not make a legal threat I simply informed you of what problems we might run into because I would not like to support illegal activities as you suggested.Alexander the great1 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As it is apparent there is concentrated prejudiced attempt going on that even promotes illegal methods to reach its goal. Alexander the great1 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You made numerous personal attacks in that site and here, and you made 2 legal threats, one in that site (after having been shown the relevant policy which is proved by you quoting the link to the previous ANI thread that included it) and again one right 2 comments above. You also keep saying "illegal" (what? an IP?), as in you'll do something about it... NikoSilver 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please show me were I have made any legal threats or personal attacks. I already told you so many times that I have nothing to do with the forum posted. What I said was illegal was to invade the privacy of others and that I would not support it, as Mr.Neutron was promoting such a move. Although I do not know where he was planning on getting that information considering it is not available to the public, it is reasonable to assume he had more sketchy ideas in mind.

    Alexander the great1 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to go with it the old fasioned way, explaining the situation through email correspondence with the system administrator, providing appropriate links to content, and stressing the importance of the situation while asking for assistance. By the way, disclosing an IP is not

    "illegal" as you think. It is justified in certain circumstances as this one, when there are clear policy violations. Mr. Neutron 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is justified in Government matters, legal matters, not open source websites. Alexander the great1 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what you posted before Mr.Neutron. And to say that I have made legal threats is absolute ridiculous, lets not get into the whole issue of libel again. I said I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ILLIGAL ACTIVITIES. I never said I would sue anyone. Alexander the great1 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You also said: "They also seem to be afraid that we might organize “a class-action lawsuit “. Are there any lawyers on the forum?". Now you're saying "we should mind our own business and not go around violating the privacy of others as it is valued and punishable under law", and you're shouting "ILLIGAL" [sic] not to mention "libel" again. NikoSilver 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its funny that you mention libel because Mr.Neutron is much more familiar with using that term then I am (see my user page). Saying “Legal” does not constitute a legal threat. I said that something is punishable under law as many things are, I did not say I was going to sue. That is a miss-representation of what I said. Again I have nothing to do with that forum. I really suggest that you do not start arguing over legal matters as I am most likely more familiar with this field then anyone here. Alexander the great1 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose the last pompous sentence is a "suggestion", not a threat either, huh? NikoSilver 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A legal threat is saying “I will sue you”. I never said that. If I was going to sue someone do you think I would bother announcing it for everyone on Wikipedia to see. And yes with the experience that I have I really doubt anyone here is more knowledgeable in the field of law then I am. This is reflected in the posts some people have made. Alexander the great1 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation

    Recently a rash of pseudo-Hindu users have propped up on the map. These users have been masquerading as Hkelkar socks and seem to be assisted (or the same as) some anti-Hindu socks. Here are a list of users that are suspiciously new and way too knowledgeable on wikipolicy and which users to contact for their POV-feuds. These users should be blocked anyways, so I will not take spurious allegations of facilitating meat/socking by sympathizers of User:Rama's Arrow very lightly.Bakaman 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a large scale impersonation, sock, and vandalism operation. These users are all masquerading as other people or attempting to shed their identities. Something dirtier than Hkelkar is afoot, and Hkelkar stopped socking (at the behest of AMbroodEY (talk · contribs)) several weeks ago.Bakaman 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's very simple. Genuine Kelkarsocks should be blocked under the terms of his ArbComm-issued ban. Ersatz Kelkarsocks should be blocked because they're only here to cause trouble. JFD 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these accounts should be blocked. But see, right now Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is paying for a crime he did not commit. His excellency (talk · contribs) (arbcom on him right now I think) and Kuntan (talk · contribs) are getting away with impersonation. And Hkelkar's ban is reset under false pretenses, meaning he wont be back until next June instead of next May.Bakaman 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the block/ban is indefinite now. I have no opinion on this matter, but merely commenting on an inaccuracy in the above post. —Kurykh 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That shouldn't be so... ArbCom doesn't allow for indefinite bans. Riana (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind me, I seem to have missed some key discussion somewhere... Riana (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It all depends... on how Kelkar behaves after the one year ban gets over. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kurykh, I was not aware it was indef. The issue now is not about kelkar, but the people impersonating him.Bakaman 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Baka is correct. Especially when comparing Kathanar edits.--D-Boy 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Overzealous "linkspam" deletion

    Requestion (talk · contribs) has been deleting all "External Links" entries on all pages that link to pages on eserver.org, claiming that these are "linkspam". Alas, these links are typically to original source material and scholarly articles (typically concerning 19th Century American abolitionists) that are exactly what Wikipedia encourages people to use the "External Links" section of a page for. In response to complaints about these overzealous deletions, Requestion does not engage in honest give-and-take, but instead claims that his actions are justified based on discussions "at WPSPAM and COIN" (which may be true for all I know, but they certainly aren't justified by the current Wikipedia external links policy), obliquely threatens to have people who revert his deletions blocked, and leaves unjustified spam warning boilerplate on their talk pages. Requestion has also said, in frustration at these reversions, "I'm going to build a bot that will do the maintenance deletion automatically".

    See, for instance, the Slavery in Massachusetts page.

    This is harming dozens of Wikipedia pages by removing some very useful content of the sort that is encouraged by current Wikipedia guidelines. It seems difficult to correct using the normal peer editing and discussion of Wikipedia. And it threatens to become a greater problem if Requestion's already overzealous deletions become robotic. For these reasons, I raise this as an incident here. -Moorlock 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a participant in this discussion, so not a neutral bystander, but I agree with Moorlock's summary. Requestion has left unjustified spam warnings and repeatedly failed to respond to substantive comments about the suitability of these links, and has been repeatedly reverting without discussion at numerous pages (e.g. tax resistance). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per COI and SPAM policies once coordinating linkfarming has been detected, the proper procedure is to remove all the links and then see if the editors on the individual articles who are actually there to edit the article and not there just to promote a site restore them one by one for actual, honest to goodness encyclopedic reasons. A bot in this case would be extremely helpful. DreamGuy 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message to this effect at User talk:Requestion. Chick Bowen 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rbellin and User:Moorlock have been blanket reverting my eserver.org spam deletions. This is not a careful and considerate restoration of valuable links. The spam removal has been thoroughly discussed and sanctioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#eserver.org and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#EServer.org. Next time I'm going to build a bot to handle this maintenance cleanup and avoid all this grief. (Requestion 20:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    That's my understanding of the spam policy as well. The question is what is appropriate behavior once disinterested editors have reviewed the deleted links and concluded that they do belong in the article. Continued threats of blocking, as though any disagreement with Requestion's opinion were equivalent to spamming, would seem not to be it. (There has been no discussion or attempt to communicate about the deletions, other than these threats, despite the numerous requests for clarification on User talk:Requestion.) -- Rbellin|Talk 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And rather than participate in any further discussion of the deletions, Requestion has now left spam warning templates on both my and Moorlock's Talk pages. This seems completely out of line to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Context

    The complaints here neglected to mention the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#EServer.org and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#eserver.org discussions. — Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC) & 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Antoni Gaudí

    Can some admin please take a look at Antoni Gaudí article?

    There's a debate about the infobox and the field "Nationality" among users Maurice27 Xtv and me.

    Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that besides the content dispute Maurice has been engaging on gross disruption to prove his point by continuing to tag the article as a hoax when it is blatantly not, then reverting everyone who removes the hoax tag. Content disputes is one thing, incivility and gross disruption and edit warring is another thing. Hence this post on ANI rather than dispute resolution. MartinDK 08:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real".

    Those users have edited the article to add false facts, as shown here:

    If it wasn't for the hoax tag, the article would have remained stating this gentleman was catalonian national, which is false as catalan nationality does not exist. Therefore, if hoax is to define "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real", I believe the tag to be correctly added.

    In any case I may be called incivil as I haven't insulted anybody

    In any case I may be accused of edit warring as I haven't touched the content of the article for 4 days, limiting myself at arguing my points on the talk page and adding the dispute tags.

    --Maurice27 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry, Maurice27, I won't cp your derogatory comments here. Let's wait for the admins to read the talk page and they'll judge for themselves.
    Then they'll notice your lack of respect and your insults which have brought you to be blocked several times before.
    --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maurice you seem to misunderstand what a hoax is. This person is blatantly real and not a hoax. You are using the wrong tag which is why you are being reverted. Please do not cause further disruption by inserting the hoax tag. As I explained to you it adds the article to the category of possible hoaxes which is disruptive because it wastes the time of those of us who monitor that category. Your incivility does not exactly help either and this article is not the only one where you continue to insert/change information that is apparently against what the majority believes to be true. Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you feel that the majority is wrong then all you have to do is provide reliable sources to support that. Repeatedly adding a hoax tag when told not to do so and why is futile disruption. MartinDK 10:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin is right, Maurice. The {{hoax}} template is used for articles that are patent nonsense as a whole, not for articles that may contain factual inaccuracies. For those articles, we have the {{disputed}} tag. AecisBrievenbus 10:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maurice27 is a user who, despite making some good edits, has too strong feelings about some facts. This, makes him loose (sometimes) respect to other users and he starts making personal attacks (last example, or just see his rich block log, in fact I already decided once not talking with him anymore until he apologised, but that day never came) in spite of bringing references. His answers to many discussions are simply "this are lies, try again" without justifying himself nor answering the questions. He usually doesn't try to find a consensus solution: his solution is the only possible, and even if everybody agree in a consensus but him, he continues reverting (last 3RR broken) or/and discussing (trolling?), which makes loose much, much time to many other users. Examples can be found in Gaudí, Talk:Catalonia or Talk:Valencian Community talk pages, among others.
    I am really sorry for writting in this way about another user, but I think I (we) have lost enough time before reporting his way to contribute.
    About Gaudí's nationality, I have already exposed my reasons in the talk page. I think the solution that Aecis is already NPOV and it can be a good solution. If however most of the people thinks different (which until now it is not the case), I will accept it and I won't continue discussing.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread and the attention from uninvolved editors seems to have resolved the issue without the need for further preventive blocks or protection of the article. If any further issues should arise make sure that you take it to dispute resolution before the incivility gets out of hand. MartinDK 10:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets

    I have been documenting a case of sock/meatpuppets against a user in the sandbox User talk:72.75.70.147/sockpuppets (started before my IP was reset by a power failure), but as 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) they have been posting personal attacks against me on article talk pages (see Talk:Gary Coull and Talk:Jing Ulrich) and the deletion review for an article that I tagged for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 23#CLSA), accusing me of intentionally changing my IP address/username, when both my talk page and others linked to it make it very clear that my DSL connection changes at random intervals (as it did just a few days ago).

    OTOH, this edit shows that they have been using both a registered account and an IP account to make their malicious edits against me at the same time ... I have tried to move our discussions into user space, but they (a) have not left any messages on my talk page, and (b) have not responded to messages left on any of their various talk pages.

    Throughout this incident, I have tried to maintain Civility, but after their latest attack, I decided that I should probably post something here. —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note asking the user to please discontinue making any attacks or personal remarks. Sometimes, that is enough to defuse a situation. If problems continue please let me know. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Newyorkbrad, but they have already been warned by myself and others, and I doubt that they will even notice your warning ... given that the content of their continued personal attacks indicates that they have not read any of the messages I have left on article discussion pages or their own (and sockpuppet) user talk pages, e.g., I have explained about my IP changing randomly, but they still accuse me of using multiple IP accounts to circumvent admin blocks and to be a "TROLL," I don't think that they even realize that messages are even being left for them in user space ... except for vandalizing and deleting warnings from user talk pages, all of their communications have been on article discussion pages or the DRV project page. —72.75.85.234 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: User:867xx5209 has tried to delete their attacks from the talk page (including one from their sock account, Chance in HK (talk · contribs)), but they still have not offered any comments or apology for their actions. —72.75.85.234 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YK47 and Formula Rus

    A couple of days ago I noticed the creation of four new pages. Formula Rus, 2007 Formula Rus season, Full formula specification, and Winners formula champioship (sic). All four pages were created by User:YK47. All four discuss the same Russian racing series, but the titles are clearly undescriptive and the text within them is, at best, broken English. I attempted to message YK47 to attempt to tell him how to fix things, but there has been no response.

    All of the images on the pages, which were all uploaded by User:YK47 claiming that they were his own work, were actually taken from the Formula Rus official website ([38]), including technical drawings, CGI images, and cropped versions of publicity photos. I marked the ones that I could find copies of on the Formula Rus website and marked them for Speedy Delete.

    However, today he has decided to upload nearly 50 some odd pictures, again from the Formula Rus website, and has literally turned 2007 Formula Rus season into a gallery for these pictures. Unregistered user 85.21.89.226 has also done some editing to all four pages, and appears to either be YK47 or someone assisting YK47.

    Due to his apparent lack of understand of English and the sheer number of pictures uploaded under an incorrect usage claim, I bring this here simply because I think someone higher up needs to help curb this as well as delete the large number of images, since it would create a huge backlog in Speedy Delete. The359 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite possible he is the administrator of the Formula Rus website and these are indeed his own pictures. -- Petri Krohn 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely, I'd say, even with Good Faith. He uploaded pictures of CGI models of the cars, engines, and other technical drawings claiming they were again his own work. Those were Speedy Deleted by an administrator when I pointed out that the photos were from the Formula Rus website. Unless he is a photographer, 3D modeler, engineer, and website administrator, there's no way every type of file he's uploaded could be his own. The359 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this technical 3D render is also claimed to be his own work. The359 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromised account

    Resolved
     – A fluke situation, nothing more to worry about. Glad to have you still with us, AndonicO. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm...we may have a rouge admin or compromised account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=140792037&oldid=139821505. Since this is serious, I'm brining it here first. If it happens again, someone should get on the steward channel. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only a single incident, so it might just be a mistake. Still, worth keeping an eye on... thanks for the report, R. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ryan has reverted it. If only I could do that myself :). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the message at the top of his talk page, he's on vacation right now. So either somebody else is using his home computer while he's gone (a sibling perhaps), or he left his account logged in from a cyber cafe he was using, and somebody else found it. Either way, I'd recommend a warning to him to be more careful with account security, especially as an admin. And perhaps a preventative de-admining until his return from vacation in July/August (though for that I'd wait until we see if it continues to happen, or just the once). --Maelwys 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, though it seems the person I conflicted has the same idea) And my best guess would be a compromised account, because the message on his talk page says he may be editing through WiFi networks and cybercafes. Maybe (s)he forgot to log in.
    Account temporarily desysoped by Shanel. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Looking at his/her contributions suggests this might be possible, as the mainpage vandalism occured some two hours after some typical contributions. And I see he's been de-sysopped. Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins should be able to force an account to log out, not effecting the actual account. This would help recover accounts where the usurper does not know the password. Until(1 == 2) 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interesting idea, but if he does know the password we've done nothing, and temporary blocks have pretty much the same effect. One day we might have it so anyone on wikiholiday can't edit to prevent this kind of thing, who knows? SGGH speak! 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has now been dealt with, AndonicO has regained full control of his account and has been resysopped. Luckily there was no lasting damage. I also changed the title of this section to something more appropriate. Majorly (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So it's a Bad Idea to ever edit with an admin account on a public computer? 201.81.193.237 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (Fvasconcellos (t·c), at an Internet café, checking before I log in :)—will somehow "validate" this comment when I get home) —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In a way, yes. Probably it's best to create an alternate account. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for what has happened. Apparently, someone overrided the password on my laptop when I wasn't there (I don't know how exactly, but something to do with pressing shift and typing "administrator" somewhere), and saw that my wikipedia account was logged in (with "Remember me"). He vandalized the Main Page, and then stopped. He does not know either my password to my computer or wikipedia, which are both according to policy (over 20 characters comprised of random letters,—both capital and lower-case—numbers, symbols, and spaces). Even so, I will no longer use "Remember me", as it seems the computer's password can be bypassed. Once again, my deepest apologies for the trouble. · AndonicO Talk 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So a button that admins can use to force someone to log out would have helped. Until(1 == 2) 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A security tip (for Windows, not WP): at the login screen, press CTRL+ALT+DEL twice if using the Welcome screen to get a logon box up. Log in as Administrator, no password. Change the password for this account when you're in, and write it down. This is something of a "security hole" in Windows XP. This, that and the other [talk] 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Small Problem two

    Resolved
     – Not an appropriate problem for this page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I never really got a answer to my post I'm posting it again,Small Problem we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.Marioman12 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Marioman12 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an appropriate problem for this page; what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent stalking

    I logged on today to be greeted by a surprising message from Matt57 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. While Matt is usually an edit warrior on Islam-related articles, he has now decided to oppose me in a content dispute on Cuteness. And to my greater surprise, I find he also has decided to oppose (and revert) my edits on a number of articles that he really hasn't frequented. I know it isn't nice to say but I'm inclined to consider this stalking. Aside from the pattern of reverts alone, he has also made comments that suggest this is some sort of dispute against me.

    His major edits today so far, in order:

    1. [39] "This editor Behnam has given me problems too"
    2. [40] - Re-adds the image subject of my content dispute, calling me a vandal at the same time ("Behnam, please dont vandalize this article")
    3. [41] - Section titled "Protect articles against POV vandalism" related to the Cuteness content dispute.
    4. [42] - Restores a claim at an article that he does actually edit - this one really isn't stalking, though it is definitely warring against me.
    5. [43] - Restores an image I removed at Black people, an article he probably has never edited until now. He explains this with the "I mind it, the picture is relevant to the article," which taken with the lack of a talk page case or anything else, seems best described as a "blind revert." He undid my edit awhile back where I "hope nobody minds" [44].
    6. [45] - Now follows my edits to Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment with a warning to other editors about my previous edits there.
    7. [46] - Asks for the other disputant's email to be enabled. I wonder what that is about...

    Some of these edits seem to be blatant stalking, in addition to violations of AGF and perhaps other conduct rules. The key distinction according to WP:HAR is whether or not these edits intend to harass me. If I was really some vandal, spammer, or SPA I wouldn't argue that this is stalking as such users are regularly checked upon. But Matt has called me a vandal here, and has undone a variety of my edits on unrelated pages. He and I have had reasonable content disputes on articles of common interest before - perhaps he is still sore about those. What is certain is that I feel harassed by this.

    In any case it may be that I'm taking this wrong, so I'd like others to review the apparent stalking here, and if it does seem that stalking is the case here, please enforce an appropriate remedy to discourage this kind of behavior. Thanks and sorry for the lengthy post. The Behnam 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, let's take a look... Georgewilliamherbert 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. I'll try to carry on with the content issues in the meantime. I didn't want to get dragged into edit warring out of frustration over his reverts so I figured I'd bring the matter up here. The Behnam 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this technically violates WP:STALK but seems pretty innocuous so far. I have asked him to explain on his user talk page, and pointed out the policy. We'll see how the discussion goes from here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the help. Hopefully this will resolve without further incident. The Behnam 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate wasting admin time over small stuff like this but since he raised this issue, I'll jump in. STALK does not apply: "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them". I didnt do that. What am I expected to do? He's removing valid sourced stuff and forcing other editors to give up. This is basically an aggressive and contentious editor if you look at their contribs. You guys tell me what I should do. Here he removed the picture of Knut saying "source does not suppose this". Who here agrees with that? Then he removed the picture a 2nd and a 3rd time until the poor editor who put these pictures in said "I am retiring from this dispute". He accuses me of edit warring? He's been blocked for edit waring 2 times in April. I've had problems with him/her before where he edit-warred and removed relevant information which lead to me making a separate article for Parvin's sister (which was a good result so thats ok). Anyway, you guys tell me if he was wrong to remove Knut's picture and see how that poor editor gave up defending the very valid insertion of that picture there. I consider this matter resolved and am willing to discuss his picture removal issue at the talk page there. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt, searching through ANI history it seems you have a history of stalking. I think you should WP:AGF, don't violate WP:STALK, and just calm down.--Flamgirlant 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Flam, I was about to mention that. Likewise, I was accused of stalking by Kirbytime two times on ANI. He was the only one who made that claim against me and he is now an indef banned troll. That explains his claims of stalking. Anyway, I'll AGF and all that stuff now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter if the devil himself accused you of Wikistalking. If you do something that annoys other editors, maybe you should stop doing that. Looking through your contribs it is obvious you have an agenda to push here. I recommend editing articles that don't relate to Islam. That's still Wikipedia too.--Flamgirlant 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You just started editing 6 days ago so I dont think you're aware of this website much. If I was "annoying" someone and in the end they got banned as a troll, who is most likely the annoyer here, me or the troll? Quoting many admins here, the troll "exhausted the community's patience". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After a dispute at Islamofascism on June 2, Matt stalked me to The Holocaust, an article I've edited a lot and he had never edited. He reverted me after I removed an unreliable source. [47] Matt restored the poor source, and added another one, which would have been great, except the new source didn't say what he claimed it was saying. I don't mind someone checking my contribs and turning up to edit helpfully, but when someone follows me because of a dispute, then reverts me in an area they clearly aren't familiar with, involving more work for me or other editors, it falls within the definition of stalking. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that incident have to do with this case? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that you have a history of getting into disputes with users, then following them around and generally reverting their changes on other articles. Regardless of validity of your changes, which have in at least some cases been good and in others bad, this violates at the very least the heart of what "Wikistalking" is, if not the wording. --Haemo 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalking means that I pursued that editor or article, just to harrass them. I didnt do that. If I see a bad edit, and that happens to be from an editor with which I've had disputes with recently, how should I proceed in order to not cause an allegation of 'stalking'? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that you're following other editors around and often being "trigger-happy" in reverting their edits, because of your prior dispute with them. You also appear to be pulling in your dispute with them to unrelated pages. I would suggest not tracking the edits of users who you are in a dispute with -- you should recognize that your personal judgment is probably compromised to some degree, and just disengage. --Haemo 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I see your point. Thanks for the nuetral input. Alright then, I think I just have to be more careful from now next time I'm in dispute with these editors so I dont cause an allegation of stalking. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is one thing to call an edit bad, but when you reverted Behnam and accused him of vandalism, there is definitely something wrong. And then you proceed to gang up on the talk page and poison the well. There is much more to this than meets the eye, it seems.--Flamgirlant 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its certain you're someone I've met before or you wouldnt be saying this with all this ferocity. I wish I knew what your original username was (I have a hunch). Anyway. I'm talking to Behnam about this on cuteness and this should be resolved now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What in the world are you talking about? Please WP:AGF as I had never heard of you before this. This is a problem between you and behnam, please don't try to drag me into it. It isn't my fault that it is easy to find tendentious edits in your contribs.--Flamgirlant 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone for that matter who edits Islam related articles has 'tendentious' edits. Thats how it is there. Its just a big POV mess (e.g.). I think this matter is closed now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really should apologize and promise not to continue this behavior. It amazes me that even after this ANI post was active you dug up one of my insignificant edits from two weeks ago and have been interrogating me about it quite extensively on my talk page. And do you really think that you can avoid responsibility here by bringing up Kirbytime? Kirbytime may have complained about you, but he got banned for repeatedly requesting child porn and leaving little rude messages in the hidden text on his user page. He didn't get banned for having problems with you alone, so don't think that his end justifies your continuing behavior. It is completely baseless to compare my complaint about your behavior here today to Kirbytime. I don't understand what clicked in your head today that you woke up and started wikistalking me, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop, apologize, and not do it again. I don't know why you needed to stress me but you shouldn't have. Thank you. The Behnam 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rockstar915

    This person believes that the current wording of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is bad because it can be used to justify any arbitrary, consensus-defying edit, so he/she decided to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by applying this interpretation to the policy page itself (in the form of a patently ridiculous edit previously performed by Kim Bruning as a joke). Not yet recognizing Rockstar915's motive, I reverted and posted a polite request on his/her talk page that he/she "please refrain from performing joke edits to policy pages." Rockstar915 once again vandalised the policy page, this time with the edit summary "if your shortsightedness stops you from maintaining or improving wikipedia, close your eyes." He/she then removed my request (with the edit summary "not a joke edit"), but immediately self-reverted and added a similar reply. I once again reverted the vandalism to the policy page and politely requested that Rockstar915 stop. On my talk page, he/she asked whether I'm "afraid of fun." On his/her own talk page, he/she claimed that Tony Sidaway and I were the ones who actually vandalised the policy page. He/she then vandalised the policy page once more.
    As the conversation continued, I replied to the post from my talk page by noting that "policy pages exist to assist the project, not for [Rockstar915] to have 'fun,'" and Rockstar915 replied by implying that he/she hadn't used the word "fun" (which obviously isn't true). Having reverted the policy page vandalism yet again, I posted a standard warning message (my first and only use of a template during the exchange). In response to my request for elaboration on the statement regarding Tony and me, Rockstar915 then referenced his/her real objection to the policy (previously explained in great detail at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules) by stating that "this pathetic bullshit nonsense of 'the page is too fat' and reverting back to the 'solid' 'consensus' version is a load of crap. If people really think that this page is supposed to be set in stone, completely unchangeable and untouchable, then they should leave Wikipedia immediately." He/she then called me an "asshole" for using a warning template, but quickly switched to "funny guy" (with edit summary "if it looks like a duck, no need to call it a duck. everyone knows it's one. WP:SPADE.").
    Skipping ahead (and feel free to consult the revision history for the intervening messages), I eventually encountered an edit conflict. It turned out that this was because he/she archived the entire discussion earlier in the minute (indirectly referring to me as a "troll" in the edit summary). As I had not yet been able to reply to the questions and comments directed toward me by Rockstar915, I saved my attempted edit anyway. Rockstar915 immediately reverted, deeming my edit "trolling." Please see the discussion that followed.

    All of the above is merely background information. The remaining problem is that Rockstar915 refuses to allow my last messages from the first thread to be archived. I did so myself, but Rockstar915 reverted (claiming that it was "trollish" of me to edit an archive). In fact, I was using the page for precisely its intended purpose: to archive messages from the discussion. (I wasn't inserting new material that had never been posted on Rockstar915's talk page or altering the existent text in any way.) I performed a dummy edit (the insertion of whitespace) with the summary "Why are you wiki-lawyering about the rules of archiving while deliberately omitting my replies? Are you trying to create the false appearance that I never responded to your questions?". Later in the day, Rockstar915 responded by removing the whitespace. Per the second discussion (linked in bold above), I once again archived the missing posts. Rockstar915 reverted, falsely claiming that "the conversations never took place on [his/her] talk page" and warning that I was "playing with fire." He/she then archived the second thread (again before I'd had an opportunity to reply to his/her latest post). I once again restored the missing messages, noting the fact that they had been posted on Rockstar915's talk page and asking "what, other than misleading readers to believe that I ignored [his/her] questions, [he/she sought] to accomplish." I also posted another message on his/her talk page, noting that it was Rockstar915 who was "changing the contents of the discussion by deliberately omitting my replies from the archive (which is tantamount to altering my words)" and requesting that he/she "please archive the discussion in its entirety or not at all." Rockstar915 removed my message (with the edit summary "actually, you wrote those comments after i had archived it. this is a warning. do not speak to me on my talk page again. well, i guess you can but i'll just revert it." He/she then removed the posts from the archive.
    Rockstar915 is arguing that an editor is entitled to prohibit another user from responding to questions/comments explicitly directed toward him/her simply by archiving them before he/she is able to (in this instance, less than a minute before). If the user replies anyway, this is "trolling" and "being obnoxious." The thread remains archived without the newest posts, thereby creating the false appearance that the questions/comments were ignored (and if the user attempts to archive the messages, that's "trolling" too). So if someone posts a message in which he/she rebuts another user's points, he/she can then immediately archive the thread, and the arguments cannot be countered (because doing so is "trolling"). To someone reading the archive, it will appear as though the other party conceded the debate. Heck, the archiving editor could even throw in a statement to that effect (e.g. "If you don't reply, I'll assume that you're acknowledging that I was right and you were wrong."), and there isn't a thing that anyone can do about it.
    Obviously, I disagree. Rockstar915 has cited absolutely no logical reason to exclude my posts from the archive, and their inclusion is all that I seek. Editors are under absolutely no obligation to archive talk page threads at all, but they mustn't deliberately distort the ones that they do choose to archive. Just as it's inappropriate to substantially edit another user's messages, it's inappropriate to selectively omit them. —David Levy 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected Rockstar's archive 2 with the replies included. To Rockstar: stop violating m:Don't be a dick. To David: this is a 9,000 byte tempest in a teacup. – Steel 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I fully realize that this is a relatively minor issue, but I always try to be thorough when explaining situations. I don't want to be accused of failing to provide the relevant context. —David Levy 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, there's enough info up there to write a book. Oh, and thanks for not notifying me about this, it's not like I matter in this minor dispute. The only thing I'm guilty of is feeding a troll. Oh, and to Steel, thanks for protecting the wrong version, not that I actually care or anything... Rockstar (T/C) 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not notifying you?! Wow. I would have, but you demanded that I "not speak to [you] on [your] talk page again." —David Levy 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comprehensive info and cute responses! Man, publishing companies would eat you up. Again, I'm not the dick in this argument. Sure, I called David a dick, but I call it how I see it, which doesn't make me one. Rockstar (T/C) 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be cute. I'm completely serious in stating that I would have left a message on your talk page if you hadn't told me not to. I attempted to e-mail you, but your account isn't set up to receive e-mail. How was I supposed to notify you? —David Levy 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (To no-one in particular) Apparently over 2,000 articles need copyediting. Just saying. – Steel 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments are much more important. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. :) Rockstar (T/C) 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion on an action of mine, please.

    I've redirected User:Ursasapien/Userboxes/antiDIME to Template:User incl due to the polemical nature (which is not allowed) of the userbox (a thinly veiled attack on deletionists, immediatists, mergists, and exclusionists). It's not meta-humour either, the creator is actually using it as an attack. Furthermore, the two users of the template are self-proclaimed inclusionists anyway, thus it is redundant to the much more neutral inclusionist template. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That template does seem uncomfortably combatative. "Inclusionist" means the same thing, but less divisive, so I think it's a good replacement. --Masamage ♫ 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nominator of the MfD, I don't think you should have personally taken any action. Riana (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other battles. Personally, I dislike userboxen, but I dislike userbox fighting even more. Was it really that bad? Moreschi Talk 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    T1 was meant to delete this crap, not shift it into userspace. Will (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "DIMEist" mean? Is this someone's name? --BigDT 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said, "deletionist immediatist mergist exlusionist". I might be biased, though, as I am a DIM at any rate. Will (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok ... I didn't make the connection. I don't see how this one is particularly bothersome, particularly not in userspace. --BigDT 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Classic T1. Just delete it. --Tony Sidaway 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TomitakePrincess (talk · contribs) - again

    She's back in business, unfortunately, posting the same links to the same articles. She'd been previously blocked, then unblocked to be given another chance[48]. Now she's threatened to report me for rolling back her links. I was the admin who lifted her autoblock which, unfortunately, revealed an anon account which was blocked previously for doing the exact same thing as before[49]. Anyone care to take a look, as I've been previously involved here? - Alison ☺ 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Final warning has been given. Naconkantari 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now resorting to personal attacks - [50]. I have reported him/her at WP:AIV. I am a completely uninvolved party. Corvus cornix 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the personal attack there...? --OnoremDil 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascist prick isn't a personal attack? Corvus cornix 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the title of the section above that they clearly edited to add their own new section...--OnoremDil 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I apologize, I completely misread that. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x 100) I'm not taking that as a personal attack, so it's okay. However, I was not "vandalizing" :) - Alison ☺ 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. You are lying, and I won't stand for it. I have made no attempts to readd the link to the Higurashi section. The link I added, I did the things I was told to do. I posted about it on the talk page for the article, where the main contribute to the three articles I wanted to add the link to agreed that it should be kept. I did what the admins here told me to do, so I should not get in trouble for that. And as for Alison, I threatened to report her for deleting my comments on another user's talkpage, which were in no way violating Wiki policy. It is a severe offense to delete another user's comments, isn't it? Alison is quite clearly lying. Check the history for the Higurashi page, if you do not believe me. I have not attempted to readd the link since my ban was lifted.TomitakePrincess 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evaunit666 did not give approval, and even if he had, his opinion does not trump Wikipedia policy on external links. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to assume a little good faith here on my part. I was not 'lying' above. Now, try to remain civil, please - Alison ☺ 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing my "deleting [..] comments on another user's talkpage". Can you point that out, please? If I have, I'd like to apologise - Alison ☺ 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have reblocked the account. Nothing but personal attacks, bad-faithed accusations, and the everpresent spam. We have other things to deal with right now. Riana (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now requesting unblock. Riana (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is obviously not here to contribute; along with being a previously indef-blocked IP account, the sum bulk of their "contributions" have been spamming links to their fansites. They have been wildly and generally abusive to anyone who has had contact with them, and seem to show only the most facile and legalistic regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Haemo 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the situation, I have denied her unblock request; your block was completely justified, as there's no indication that she's going to cease her incivility and disruption anytime soon. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now she's editing the unblock request to remove your denial. *sigh* --Haemo 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Her talk page has been protected by another admin, so I think we're done here. MastCell Talk 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't believe I'm doing this. I've unprotected her talk page to give her one last chance at this, in the interests of fairness. She had been previously editing a closed {{unblock}} so that might have been a mistake on her part. I've asked her to be nice and state her case. One last go, ok? Any more abuse and the prot goes back on - Alison ☺ 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we just put that link on the spam blacklist and be done with it? I see TomitakePrincess claiming in this edit [51], with a lot of capitals, that someone had agreed to it, but she never even commented on that article's talk at all. The only place I can find she actually did ask about it, here, seems to have resulted in a pretty resounding "no". I see nothing but a spammer here, just a very vocal one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The aforementioned IP address has now been blocked for a year by another admin. For the record, I actually never blocked any of these accounts. I did, however, lift the autoblock[52] on that IP address - Alison ☺ 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Naconkantari running amok

    Admin Naconkantari had been quite, say, liberal with the delete button as of late and is ignoring others' attempts to approach him about it (see [53] and [54]). One glance at his Talk page reveals that he is leaving a wake of confused users. Some of his deletions are kosher, but he is deleting a number of pages with incorrect deletion reasons or with quite loose interpretations of speedy criteria. Editors who question his deletions are just told to go away to DRV.

    This of course started with his 3000+ deletions of fair use images without checking to see if a rationale was provided (see User:TomTheHand/Fair use for the list); perhaps a mistake, but his unwillingness to help clean it up or communicate about it is no mistake. He is now deleting articles in the same slipshod manner, including one today within a minute of when the editor created it, despite the editor's obvious intent to expand the article. Not every editor instantly craps out a perfect article.

    I intend to block this user if his behavior continues unabated and undiscussed just to prevent the hours of admin time to clean up his messes. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how this is related to the fair use image deletions. I have dealt with those separately. The recent deletions are of articles that fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and I will continue to delete articles that fail these criteria. Naconkantari 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that you don't see. But both the image and articles share two common aspects: 1) You are sloppy. Going through and deleting thousands of images without checking for fair use rationales and not removing them from their articles is sloppy. You are also deleting articles for speedy reasons that don't even apply. Also sloppy. Both cases, someone has to clean up after you. 2) You are downright rude to anyone who approaches you about your actions, or you ignore them outright. Unacceptable. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice that your example was deleted by another admin almost 45 minutes later because it still met the same speedy criteria? Use dispute resolution if you feel there's an issue; your incivility and threats of blocking are completely unwarranted. Shell babelfish 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to the article later is moot and you know it. The point is that he deleted it instantly and then told the editor to take a hike. Dispute resolution is well under way, I assure you, but I am posting here to gauge support for a block just so I and others and stop playing cleanup. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look I just created the Gayla Earlene page and within 2 minutes it was deleted. Did not give me a chance to return to the article to update it and bring it to a notability place. I asked him to give me a minute and he treated me rudely. If he has the right to remove article that fast, then there would be no articles on Wikipedia! Articles are works in progress. I have created other articles and I have gotten the to notabilty. Whats the guys problem? I think he needs to take a chill and let other editors accomplish what Wikipedia is all about. "Being a community that works together!" Junebug52 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion gives admin the rights to delete crap in less than a minute after creation if they are extremely fast. Also to the person who created this thread, Requests for comment is that way. FunPika 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nacon's doing a fine job. You should be uploading non-free images with rationales; it is policy, after all. It only takes two minutes. Will (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I do not think my article was "CRAP" and second, if that be the way we are to act as a community, I do not know if I want to be a part of it! Articles are placed by the thousands on here daily. If everyone of them were deleted before the editors could work on them, then there would be no articles! All I asked for was some time to get it up and cited. He did not give me that opportunity. That to me does not seem like a good admin, but someone who has a power issue. Just my opinion, but it's the one that counts! Junebug52 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If every article on Wikipedia were crap, they would all be deleted. As it is, they're not because not all of them are crap. As for the power issue, I find it interesting that someone who's so inexperienced in the Wikipedia community is apparently knowledgable enough to recognize an admin power trip. What, exactly constitutes one?⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do all that in ONE edit. FunPika 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Amooooook, amok amok amok!!!!! Admins gone wild! College admins exposed! Admins doing the WILDEST deletions, the SPEEDIEST deletions, the dirtiest, nastiest, RAUNCHIEST DELETIONS!!!! Articles so bad you'll just want to spank them!

    Oh wait. This isn't a late night TV commercial. If a page isn't notable, it's not notable. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse Spike Wilbury's intentions to block Naconkantari for the stated reasons. --172.162.201.79 03:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly a very civil remark. Even if you do think that this does not belong on ANI and that new editors are too ignorant about Wikipedia to know admin abuse when they experience it themselves you should be able to phrase yourself in more appropriate ways. It is these kinds of responses that drive editors off the project. Maybe you should try reading WP:BITE MartinDK 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very good example of this page being used as a substitute for dispute resolution. Please, if you and several others have an issue with this fellow's deletions, take the time to gather evidence and enumerate policy violation, in RFC format on Requests for Comment. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is in process. But since this involves use of admin powers, other admins might want to take a look at the relevant delete logs from time to time, pending the result of any dispute resolution process. DES (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    POV-pushing, vandalism after final warning & constant reversion of legitimate edits

    Re:User:GiorgioOrsini - Multiple offences in a few articles and talk pages: removing legitimate tags after final warning; blatant POV-pushing; destroying absolutely necessary corrections of grammar, formatting and POV problems; personal attacks (mostly by describing other editors' legitimate edits as vandalism). IP check request for this editor is here. I originally posted this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but someone removed it, saying I should post it here. Please see the individual's edit history for a full account of his infractions. Spylab 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This person did contribute absolutely nothing to the Neo-Nazism - Section Croatia nor to the Ante Starcevic entries. Both articles are heavily referenced in Serbo-Croatian language which (s)he does not know ('Can someone explain it in plain English? Spylab January 13 2007' [55]) - which means that (s)he cannot read references nor pass any valid claim about POV-pushing. As to his(her) understanding of the modern English language grammar - my comment is not necessary - here are two examples of his (her) knowledge ([56], [57]). Also (s)he never ever elaborated disqualifications (s)he was throwing on the Edit summary lines nor ever supported them by any valid and verifiable knowledge of the subject (s)he wanted to 'handle'. When facing with direct requests to elaborate other editors work disqualifications - (s)he regularly avoids it by diverting discussion or throwing threats ("you'll be blocked"), accusations like 'removing legitimate tags' (who made them legitimate - may I ask him(her)?), self-praising his(her) work like here [58] ('What you see as your "superior" version (both here and on several other fascism-related pages) reveals a lack of consideration that others may not see your edits as "superior."')

    --Giorgio Orsini 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd for a new user, yes?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.132.198.186

    You'll see in there he blatantly attacks me, even though said user has only made 2 edits, and has never come in contact with me. Let me come straight to the point: this is CINEGroup, no ifs ands or buts. I'm not sure if a checkuser would be valid, given the length of time CINEGroup has been gone. Any suggestions? Oh, expect him to show up shortly as he has a pattern of following me. --Ispy1981 03:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally changing a single word in an article is not sufficient to warrant a 24h block, but that's one heck of a nasty edit summary. Ispy, I'm sorry you had to endure that.
    However, it's really impossible to guess from a single edit who the sockpuppeteer is. There isn't a pattern of evidence. I'd say the only thing to do is block the IP and hope he doesn't bother you anymore. Shalom Hello 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very unusual indeed. I've got no problem thinking that the anon is another editor acting anonymously, but at this time, at most I think they should be warned (which has already happened). If they make a similar edit summary, block them for 24 hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal standpoint is this. The personal attack is secondary. I get attacked and my userpage vandalized on occasion because I am a newpage patroller and recent changes patroller. The feeling I get is due to this [59], which I know is a personal essay and not really beholden to the same standards as policy. However, in looking, this IP comes from the same place (generally) as the other IPs in that group, including one who impersonated Julianna Mauriello, the actress who is the subject of the article where the edit summary comes from. I can't call that coincidence. However, I'll drop this as it doesn't seem as though it has escalated yet, with the understanding that I may be able to bring it up at a future time. Thanks. --Ispy1981 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VladimirGotShot

    Resolved
     – Sockpuppets dealt with, spam reverted.

    This is a serious and highly active case of a user who has used several IP addresses to add spamlinks to dozens of prominent articles. I'd like to ask an admin to roll back the edits and block everyone who needs to be blocked. Shalom Hello 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I got all of 'em (the spam edits). At least those from those users currently identified as sock. Fast intervention would still be useful, especially if it helps uncover more spam by unnoticed socks. Coren 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be handled - check Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VladimirGotShot. I blocked the puppeteer for 72 hours, the puppet account indefinitely, and the 2 spamming IP's for 24 hours each. That should stem the tide, hopefully. If Vladimir resumes his behavior, an indefinite block would be appropriate. MastCell Talk 03:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    I would like to complain user HanzoHattori who on 20 May 2007 wrote this. I have added some text to Anna Politkovskaya article and he called it "truly idiotic writing". I am tired of this "My sources are better and you are an idiot" approach. Vlad fedorov 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay... And what do you expect us to do for a single comment made a month ago? If it's an ongoing issue, you could try dispute resolution or third opinion. Grandmasterka 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to complain because I was blocked due to friends of HanzoHattori. And looking into block history of HanzoHattori, I see it is not the first time he abuses other editors calling them "fags" and falsely accusing other of violations. Vlad fedorov 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    False sockpuppet accusations

    I am here to formally object to activities by User:Elonka, a longtime harasser of mine (who in the past was at one time permanently banned for it), as well as User:SlimVirgin.

    For a while I was using the IP address of User:216.165.158.7 and not signing in to try to avoid frequent harassment from User:Elonka and others over past conflicts. I made no attempt to pretend that the account was another account or to unfairly influence votes or any objectionable activity that would make such an account a sockpuppet account. In fact there are absolutely no rules against simply not signing in if you have an account, nor against giving up an old account and starting fresh. As part of a conflict, some editors made some accusations that were untrue, and the IP address was blocked with the (entirely false) explanation of "Sockpuppet of banned user". This was explicitly undone, because I was not a banned user at all, and no sockpuppet use was happening.

    Elonka, who has a long history of making false accusations against me (still obsessed over an incident that happened years back in which she was banned for inappropriate behavior), jumped on this opportunity and placed a sockpuppet tag on that user page. This was as false by an admin. Then later Elonka, instead of returning the false sockpuppet tag, snuck in a category of "Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy" which is also false, but apparently was not spotted. She also then specifically created a page called "proven sockpuppets of DreamGuy" to place that IP there, to try to use as evidence against me. I have tried unsuccessfully to remove these pages, but she keeps adding them back. (This crusade of Elonka's to try to accuse me of sockpuppeting is especially ironic considering her request for adminship failed thanks to removal of proven sockpuppet accounts, as well as a backlash against a sudden influx of meatpuppet accounts with little to no active history on this site.)

    Now User:SlimVirgin, an admin who also has a long history of personal conflict with me (stemming from years back when she decided she was going to put her full support behind complaints raised by another editor, User:Gabrielsimon, against me, only to discover that she was backing the wrong horse, and the guy she was protecting eventually had to be blocked for POV-pushing, personal attacks, and frequent use of sockpuppet accounts -- and renewed recently when she made sweeping changes to the WP:EL project page without consensus and was reverted by myself and other editors), has shown up to protect the user page with the false category tag about sockpuppets there.

    I would like an unbiased admin to remove the false accusation. The permanent block that was placed there can also be removed because my local DSL has probably switched the IP on me several times now, and in any event that was completely out of process and totally pointless to begin with. DreamGuy 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You've spent a year trolling and stalking her. Preemptive dickery on ANI is unlikely to be a winning move - David Gerard 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to me like a fairly typical protection due to a revert war. It may be meta:the wrong version, but SV was following the protection guidelines and not editing the page. So I'm not too concerned about SlimVirgin's actions, but Elonka's are another story; she certainly seems to be beating a dead horse with this sockpuppet thing. Other opinions? Mangojuicetalk 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering how few reverts got in there, and SlimVirgin's history, it really does not at all look like a standard protection due to a revert war, but if we want to give her the opportunity to explain herself and undo the action, that's fine too.
    Elonka's efforts here go beyond merely beating a dead horse into knowingly making false accusations to try to damage another editor's reputation... it is also worth noting that she made a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy in which she wrote "This category lists confirmed abusive accounts (sockpuppets) used by DreamGuy." which is absolutely false. The user page in question is the only account that gets listed on this category, so without that tag the category would have to be removed. She has also gone around tagging all sorts of IP addresses (some I found quick are [60], [61], [62], [63]), many of which are merely standard AOL proxy IPs (used to be my ISP), a few were IPs my new local DSL hooked me into, some are completely unknown people who crossed her path at some point, and none qualify as any sort of sockpuppet. She has also gone so far as accusing all sorts of random people as sockpuppets of mine, most recently User:2005. DreamGuy 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Jayjg's block message is most instructive here: "Jayjg (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.165.158.7 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Re-blocking. He's using his IP to go wild, and to avoid scrutiny)". It seems like you're trying to shift the subject away from the abuse that's occurred to nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged. - Merzbow
    Jayjg's block message is simply false... there was no going wild or any attempt to avoid scrutiny. There simply was no sockpuppeting involved in any way, shape or form. I think some admins got personal messages from Elonka making certain accusations that they took at face value and acted on them before realizing that they were completely false. I suspect that the compromise to keep the IP blocked but to have me just sign on was merely some face-saving involved, as the block had been based upon the idea that I was a banned user using the IP to get around the block, which is false. The end result here is that that tag gives an entirely incorrect description of events and is being used solely to try to lash out against an editor she has a history of harassing. Andf the phrase " nit-picking over how the sockpuppet should be tagged" completely misses the point that no sockpuppeting was involved at all. DreamGuy 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, quite a few editors agreed that that was exactly why you were editing via IP, to avoid scrutiny. See User talk:216.165.158.7 Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's not a CheckUser request to back up the sock puppetry claim, it shouldn't be pushed around like that. It's one thing to suspect and gather evidence (which should then be presented at the CU), but another entirely to arbitrarily act on it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He admitted the IP was his. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was addressing more DreamGuy's statement about Elonka declaring random people sockpuppets (the given example being User:2005). It's fine to think 2005 is a sock, but outright declarations about it should be avoided unless a CheckUser proves it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DreamGuy, as you know, I followed the events surrounding your latest block, and am familiar with the background further back in time, too. I'm sorry to see Elonka pursuing her old resentments yet again. Per my edit summary from last time round, I'm removing the sockpuppet category she added. Meanwhile, it doesn't make any sense to bring SlimVirgin into this, even if there is unfinished business between the two of you. Slim is in my experience never one to nurse ancient grievances, and I hope you won't, either. It rather weakens your complaint about Elonka's long memory for a slight. I see nothing wrong with Slim's protection, and am leaving it in place.
    I don't want to be the one to meddle with the now empty category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. Could somebody please speedy it, or does it have to go via WP:CFD? I'm not familiar with the niceties of categories, but keeping empty cats around seems counter-intuitive. Bishonen | talk 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks, Zscout370. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    DreamGuy, I have to admit confusion as to why you're accusing me of harassment, considering we have practically no contact. We don't edit the same articles, we don't post on each other's talkpages. Could you please provide some diffs of how exactly I'm harassing you? --Elonka 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be some serious misconceptions here about what Checkuser is for. Please, review the page at WP:RFCU, in the table where it says "Obvious sockpuppet" and the solution is, "Block. No checkuser is necessary." In DreamGuy's case, he routinely admits that the accounts are his. Just read his posts at User talk:216.165.158.7. Or check this other recent account, 69.19.14.42 (talk · contribs), where he logs on anonymously to issue personal attacks[64] from an IP at a highway rest stop.[65] Also, in terms of harassment, I would point out that DreamGuy has been making a series of false statements here. I'm not harassing him, I actually have minimal contact with him. However, I do feel that he seems to routinely blame me for different things, regardless of whether or not I'm even involved in that particular dispute. For example, see this recent post,[66] where he called me a "moron" in a dispute that I had nothing to do with. Or this one, where he's attacking me in another dispute with which I have zero involvement.[67] Or here where he's accusing me of "getting Slimvirgin to do something,"[68] which is again completely false. Please folks, look at things clearly here. Just because DreamGuy says I'm harassing him, doesn't mean that I am. For my part, I'd be happy if DreamGuy would just remove any Elonka-related page from his watchlist, delete my name from his memory, and move on. That's definitely what I'd like to do. --Elonka 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it necessary to make sure that DreamGuy's IPs are publically marked as sockpuppets? Does he continue to use them? I think this is at the core of the issue. If marking those accounts as sockpuppets is right, it's right, and we should do it regardless of who does it. But at the moment it looks like calling those IPs "abusive sockpuppets" is not widely agreed upon, and in that case I wouldn't think marking them as sockpuppets is right. And in such a circumstance, marking them as sockpuppets is pushing towards a particular conclusion... which, given your extensive prior history, must feel like unwelcome attention. Mangojuicetalk 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm at it, let me say those comments Elonka pointed out from DreamGuy recently are unacceptable, even considering he's under stress. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." Elonka’s Sockpuppet Evidence Page suggests that she is tracking Dreamguy's movements very closely, whether he is logged in or not. Mooneye 216.91.240.14 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    (reply to Mango) Someone who is systematically using anonymous IPs to avoid scrutiny (and yes, DreamGuy is continuing to use anons as recently as this week), is of course going to rebel against the idea that there's a central repository showing all the accounts in one place. Especially because some of his anons have been independently blocked for incivility, personal attacks and revert wars.[69][70](related ANI thread) I would also point out that these blocks have been reviewed and upheld by multiple people.[71][72][73][74]
    The reason it's an issue, is because it's an effective tactic on DreamGuy's part. He spreads out his policy-breaking behavior on multiple anon IDs, gets small blocks here and there, but they all look like "first-time offenses" because it's not clear that they're all from the same person. In this way, he has been able to dodge an extensive block on his main account, because he spreads out the blocks on other IPs.
    As these anons are being identified and blocked, his behavior seems to have been understandably escalating. What he seems to be doing now (in my opinion) is trying to confuse the issue, edit war to remove the tags from his confirmed sockpuppets, and then systematically clean things up to try and get the IPs unblocked so that he can continue using them.
    As far as this ANI thread goes, I think that instead of the community questioning me as to why the tags are on the anon accounts (especially as I'm definitely not the only person adding sockpuppet tags to DreamGuy's IPs), I'd say it's an equally fair question as to why DreamGuy is even removing tags from his accounts in the first place, which seems like a clear COI,[75][76][77][78][79][80][81] especially on the one where he's openly admitted to using the account.[82] Also, I'd like to point out that me adding tags is not a recent provocation on my part -- The tags that I added, were done back in April 2007 when that particular account was blocked. It's just this week, that DreamGuy has been going through and trying to remove tags from some of his anon IDs. My guess is that this is because he was recently blocked on the core "DreamGuy" account on June 17 for some disruption,[83] which is why he's now trying to re-activate some of the other IPs.
    As for DreamGuy's recent charge of harassment against me, I'd like to point out that this is his standard reply when anyone tries to rein him in, is to immediately cry, "Harassment!" It's his primary response. [84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] Either that, or deleting warnings off his talkpage, along with an uncivil edit summary,[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111] and/or insisting that those who are warning him should be punished instead of him.[112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]
    In summary: DreamGuy has been clearly told by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs) that he is no longer allowed to use anon IPs, because it'as a violation of WP:SOCK "using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny".[120] But DreamGuy not only continues this practice, he is now trying to whitewash the records of the previous IPs that he has used, sometimes even using one sock to try and clean up the record of another sock.[121][122][123] It is my feeling that a record of his sockpuppets should most definitely continue to be maintained, to discourage him from continuing this "shell game" practice in the future. The easiest way to do this, in my opinion, is simply to add a category to each of the accounts, so that they can all be seen via Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. We do this with other sockmasters, we should do it with DreamGuy as well. --Elonka 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Matrix Prime

    The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) has a few troubling tendencies in their editing that might be worth an administrator taking a look at it. I realize that pointing out this kind of stuff can sometimes just antagonize and engender this kind of annoying behavior, but, here goes.

    There ya go. Am I being too sensitive to this because it's 3:30am and I can't sleep, or should someone step in and try again to help this editor out? --EEMeltonIV 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have reviewed the information submitted by EEMeltonIV. I certainly would not consider The Matrix Prime a model citizen on Wikipedia, but it's not yet time to block him. I'll leave him a message. Shalom Hello 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Deletion of Elan School

    Resolved Resolved

    Kappa (talk · contribs) contacted me yesterday to ask me about the deletion of Elan School - an article that Kappa created. I speedied the article as spam becuase the tagged version read like a brochure - hardly surprising given that I later discovered that large chunks of ther article were actualy copyvios from the school website. I left Kappa a message to the effect that I would happily undelete (the was a safe version to revert to) but asked him to make sure that he kept an eye on the article to prevent the copyvios creeping in. I woke up this morning to find the article was at DRV and that Kappa had left an exceedingly uncivil message for me on his talk page [124].

    I'm a very new admin and would appreciate some feedback on this. Clearly the article shouldn't have been speedied because there was a safe article to fall back to but was it unreasonable for me to ask Kappa to make sure he kept an eye on the article before I undeleted it? I'm sure I saw something somewhere that we shouldn't keep articles if they weren't being maintained but I can't remember whether this was official. I'd appreciate some guidence for the next time I run into this kind of situation. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just undelete it now, and the problem is over. Kappa's comments with the profanity were unhelpful, but it's peanuts compared to the stuff you will face later as an admin (many people tend to be a bit touchy with things you can do as an admin, and which they can't easily reverse, and reactions to this vary from the understanding, to the annoyed, to the downright rude). :-) Don't take it too hard that you deleted something by mistake, admins do make mistakes, and that's OK as long as they acknowledge them, as you have done. Kappa is semi-retired from Wikipedia, and has been for a few months, and it is not really his responsibility (or anyone else's) to maintain and watch over articles, on an all-volunteer project that is a community responsibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the speedy deletion was a mistake, but you seem to have acknowledged that and so it doesn't really matter. The incivility is definitely uncalled for, but I would probably shy away from placing any sort of requirement, even informal, on an editor to maintain a page — it sort of implies that you're apportioning some degree of blame, even if that's not your intention, and can be taken the wrong way. --Haemo 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Well, I'm not going to comment on the speedy (too late here!) but that comment was uncalled for. I left a message on their talk page & we'll see what happens. You might, as a courtesy, maybe point out this conversation on ANI, so they can weigh in - Alison ☺ 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    - :*I notifed Kappa four minutes after raising this thread. I have now restored the article. Thanks everyone for the support and advice. Spartaz Humbug! 09:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lamename3000 -- off-site mediation appropriateness and other issues

    I was wondering if this attempt to hold mediation off-site is acceptable? I've observed other problems with this user, such as attempts at "forum shopping" to ensure the inclusion of Wii Points in the article[125][126]. One attempt at "forum shopping" was a template that he created linking to the article, which I nominated for deletion and which was successfully deleted[127][128]. He even has a page calculating who holds to which viewpoints[129]. He made a mediation case recently, but selectively chose who participated in it and deleted someone else's comment because he didn't deem it "wise" to mention it, even though Neo Samus was involved in the discussion (as a matter of fact, so was I)[130]. I also see he has resorted to vandalism on at least one occassion. Drumpler 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not review this case. However, I have a couple of quick comments:
    1. The "vandalism" diff above is not vandalism.
    2. It is permitted for users to seek mediation offline if that's what they want to do. Shalom Hello 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly, if that's Wikipedia rules, then there's nothing I can argue, however, I have not found one rule in the dispute resolution process that allows such a thing and I can also see a potential for abuse here, as their "mock mediation" seems to relate both to the article itself and its content. I will continue to track the case, however, the vandalism noted above was posted on a user page, not the talk page itself, and was removed by another user. Drumpler 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a simple mistake, and not on purpose. I think you can cut me some slack on that incident, since it is easy to confuse User pages and talk pages. LN3000 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it was an accident, then you certainly have my apologies. However, I do have legitimate concerns beyond that and do not even feel that is the focus. What I'm mostly concern with is why you feel you have the need to have an off-site mediation process (your's was rejected and you only included a selective handful of whom to include as is), what the purpose of the process is, what your intention for the process is and why the process can't be followed through on Wikipedia (as it seems to reflect article content). I'd also like to know why you deleted the comment off of Neo Samus' page informing him of the mediation case, even though he himself was involved in the discussion? I'd have preferred you followed the dispute resolution process if you had concerns with other editors, but that's entirely out of my hands. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you often come off on article talk pages with an "authoritative" and "argumentative" tone and it makes it hard for others to discuss with you. Drumpler 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained myself. But I'll do it again. The mediation request was NOT mine. I deleted the comment off of Neo_Samus' page after talking to him about the issue, and he agreed that he should not get involved in the mediation until all the original people accepted. I was not the one to choose who to be involved in Mediation, or else I would have asked for people who had not previously denied mediation. My suggestion for mediation was open to everyone. The reason why I thought it'd be best to do a semi-offsite mediation was because obviously no other on-site method of resolving this has worked. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you seem to be coming off as a bully, with some weird agenda. Stop attacking me, as I have not done anything wrong. LN3000 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was this discussed with Neo Samus? Perhaps I missed the diff. Drumpler 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't miss it, it's just not available to you because Neo_Samus emailed me in private. I'm sure if you ask him, he'll back me up on my claim.LN3000 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lamename3000, Drumpler: this isn't an admin matter. Admins have no special concern with regard to mediation, onsite or otherwise. The cited "vandalism", if it was that, is old and trivial. The rest of your discussion does not belong on this page, so take it elsewhere. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would take it elsewhere if only I knew where to take it. :) It has been my assumption that this is the correct place to take it, but since I'm assuming it isn't, I will cease posting on this page. Good day. Drumpler 20:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have one comment on this matter: Lamename made 2 user space pages (which Drumpler put speedy delete tags on, and they were deleted). Yet lamename wasn't warned about this. I would like to know why he wasn't warned. Both user space pages were clearly not acceptable. RobJ1981 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained that, and it is not needed to keep trying to dig things up to get me into trouble. LN3000 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wherebot suspicious bot behavior

    User:Wherebot is a bot designed to search for possible copyright violations. It produced a Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations report for the The Humanoid Project page, which has since been tagged for speedy deletion. The suspected violation consists of links to www material used as reference. There is no copyrighted material on the Wikipedia page (and actually nothing with copyright notice in the linked material). --Rogerfgay 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first sentence seems to come from this site. Od Mishehu 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the {{db-copyvio}} tag. The question of whether or not it's a copyvio needs to be looked into - it's not blatant. Od Mishehu 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a malfunctioning bot, Wherebot produces some false positives by nature. That's why it only reports, humans must do the actual tagging. It does seem like the first sentence of the article was a copy and paste. The entire "goals" section was lifted from [131]. I'll remove that right now. --W.marsh 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those amount to small quotes that are properly cited. It's unimaginable that such a thing would produce a copyright problem; or the entire practice of writing non-fiction would cease. Websites that allow posting of complete articles have dealt with this problem extensively. In response to the very few web publishers that objected, specific guidelines were set up by the courts for the amount of material that can be copy-pasted - republished without permission. I really don't see any chance at all that the material on the page could be a copyright violation; even if as you said elsewhere - the fact that there is no copyright notice on the source pages doesn't prove it's not copyrighted (although I don't think it's evidence that it is copyrighted either. --Rogerfgay 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't presented as quotes, but as core parts of the article's prose, such as the "goals" section (which was not cited). This is simply not acceptable... Wikipedia articles are not to be cobbled together prose copied directly from various copyrighted articles. --W.marsh 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here we go. The article will remain as is - I mean after you've made the edits you prefer. I'm a writer with a lot of experience in non-fiction writing - not a bureacrat. I know that when "the facts" are being re-written to suit an argument, that I have better things to do. The goals were in fact cited. That's why it was so easy for you to find the source material. --Rogerfgay 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was uncited when the tag was added, and it was still uncited when I removed the section. The presence of citation tags still doesn't make it okay to copy and paste, but they weren't even there as you claim. --W.marsh 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    82.10.209.215 -- POV pushing and uncited, weasel-worded changes, refused to back down and consistent reverts

    This user has made a number of POV and weasel worded edits to a number of pages in the ever-raging EMFs and health related articles (Electrosmog, Electrical sensitivity, Electromagnetic radiation and health). User reverts any attempts to restore an attempt of NPOV to the article, and consistently fails to cite and/or support his statements. User also has removed existing cited reference material that differs from his/her POV. I am sure that intent is good, but consistent reverts and re-edits appears to be bordering on vandalism. Would appreciate warning and redirection to Wikipedia policies in the short term. Topazg 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism, but certainly stubborness. I think s/he is already familiar with Wikipedia's policies, given the acronym use of NPOV, NOR, etc. I've left a friendly suggestion on the IP's talk page to cool off and discuss the issues on the talk page instead of making rapid-fire edits to the articles. We'll see. MastCell Talk 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    202.6.146.39 messing with Mythbusters

    Resolved
     – Article semi protected.

    202.6.146.39 has repeatedly edited the Mythbusters article, adding in a highly POV, unsourced alternate history and claims of fraud, etc. The mess has been reverted several times by several people, only to have it return. User has recieved warnings, including being told not to counter the reverts, but has continued. The wording of the additions suggests that the user might be writing about themself. This needs to stop. Jax184 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest issuing a block to cool the user off, because all other communication methods have failed, judging by the user's contributions and the article history. Maybe 24 hours? --Evilclown93(talk) 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected the article for 24 hours. I'll keep an eye on the IP and take further preventative action if it becomes disruptive. Shadow1 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Blahman1985

    After reverting his vandalism of John Kim (his first edits), Blahman1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harrasing me, undoing some of my edits and leaving block-warnings on my talk page (all other of his edits). Lars T. 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a note on his talk page, so we'll see how he responds. It looks like he may have logged out to continue anonymously though. Leebo T/C 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) :This is a valid complaint. I would recommend a 24h block for harassment of Lars T. and 3RR even though the user has not been warned. In the future, Lars T., please warn users before you notify us. Believe it or not, it sometimes gets them to stop, and it's the right thing to do. Shalom Hello 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected a user who throws around block warnings won't care if he received one. Lars T. 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still worth saying something, and it's probably better to write a personalized warning, rather than a templated one. Leebo T/C 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skymac207 operating under an IP?

    Apparently Skymac207 (talk · contribs · block log) is under an indefinite block for vandalism and incivility. An IP user, 74.75.120.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), recently signed comments on Talk:Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) with "[[User:Skymac207|Skymac207]]" The editing pattern looks similar enough that I doubt it's impersonation. The IP has had several questionable edits of late, though I don't know enough about them to know if they should be reverted. Powers T 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked for 24 hours for incivility and suspected sockpuppetry. You're right, the editing patterns DO look similar, although I'm wondering if it's someone trying to get Skymac in more trouble than he already is. Shadow1 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well either way he/she shouldn't be doing it, right? =) Should I revert the IP's recent edits? Powers T 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks on editors on external sites?

    skipsievert (talk · contribs) has created a sort of "diss blog", if you will, insulting editors who disagree with him on Talk:Technocracy movement. It makes attacks on Hibernian (talk · contribs), Kolzene (talk · contribs), and Isenhand (talk · contribs). Here's his profile. Skip has been blocked twice already for incivility and making personal attacks, and he has been edit warring on Technocracy movement pretty much nonstop for months, regardless of how valid the claims of others are. Since he's showing pretty much every sign of tendentious editing, while doing little to improve the articles he works on, I'm considering an indefinite block, but I feel I need a separate opinion.--Wafulz 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just took a quick glance, but it doesn't look pretty. If the user has made some positive contributions in the past, I would probably just go with a block that is longer than the last one issued with a stern warning that block lengths will increase if behaviour doesn't change. If there are no positive contributions, just go straight to indef, but be prepared to deal with unblock templates to follow that. (Note that I can't past my firewall to the external sites, my comments are only based on the on-wiki activity.) --After Midnight 0001 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two sentences on the blog are "We are a group of second and third rate thinkers that are trying to find our place in the world. Someone named Kolzene brainwashed us (he is a Wiccan) so now we promote some stuff he wrote." It just goes downhill from there. Since he not done anything but edit-war, I'm going with the indefinite block.-Wafulz 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The off-wiki stuff is somewhat unpleasant (though far from the worst that's out there), but I'm a little uncomfortable placing too much emphasis on it. After all, off-wiki conduct isn't subject to the same policies (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc) as on-wiki conduct. That said, I suppose it is worth noting as supporting evidence, and Skip's on-wiki conduct has been sorely lacking as well. Indefinite's a long time; I might go with a week, but I don't feel strongly as I think the chance of reform here is relatively low. MastCell Talk 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I (and other users) have repeatedly tried to calm him down, but he definitely has a bone to pick with some organizations/websites out there. He often goes out and removes content just because other editors have added it, such as this (which he labeled an original conclusion), but was quickly sourced once I reinserted it saying just a citation was enough. He'll also regularly go through and wholesale revert content over a series of consecutive edits regardless of relevance or discussion, and his usual reasons involve talking about how the people who inserted it are "just some bloggers" or something similar.Example 1 Example 2. It's gotten to the point the collective patience of myself and of other editors who are working to source and improve the article has been exhausted. He's just been unproductive in his two months here, and I don't see it improving at all.-Wafulz 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now there's a new bit of data I missed. You should not personally perform the block, especially not indef, if you are involved in the dispute. Is this the case? If so, you need to convince another admin (or the community) to perform the block, or proceed to dispute resolution as if you were not an admin. --After Midnight 0001 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not actually involved. I've been mediating for several weeks and trying to guide the users- I haven't actually contributed to the article except minor suggestions here and there. Anyway, I've reverted the block pending further discussion.-Wafulz 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should clarify my comments above: I'm not against blocking him for a longer period of time, given his ongoing problems and lack of learning curve after the prior incidents. I did think indefinite was a little long, but that's just me. As to recusing yourself, I trust your judgement as to whether you are sufficiently disengaged to utilize the tools yourself. Perhaps others could chime in with their thoughts about the length of a block, if any? MastCell Talk 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with MastCell. As far as block length, I figure that if you indef if will probably end up getting shortened later anyways, so I would do 1 week with a 0 tolerance policy after that, and make sure that they know that you will be watching when they return. --After Midnight 0001 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've set it for one week, with this warning.-Wafulz 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets contributions and contributions

    Resolved
     – Spamming (temporarily) halted; sockpuppet blocked.

    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser says that no checkuser is needed for disruptive throwaway account used only for a few edits, so I am posting this here.

    I noticed an anonymous linkspammer contributions adding an external link to a community forum site on three different Asian music pages. I reverted these per WP:EL and posted warnings. Shortly after the final warning, another user account contributions appeared and posted the same links to the same pages again, and this account has been used only for linkspamming.

    I suspect the account was created to evade the warnings and avoid potential blocking. Please investigate. =Axlq 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, seems pretty obvious. I've indefinitely blocked the named (sockpuppet) account, and blocked the IP for 72 hours for both egregious spamming and using multiple accounts to do so. In the future, you can go to suspected sock puppets, but in clear-cut cases with ongoing spamming that needs to be stopped, I guess this is faster. MastCell Talk 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was quick. I didn't know about the WP:SSP page; I was going by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Dealing with violations which said to post here or at WP:AIV - and because vandalism wasn't involved, the only choice left was to post here. =Axlq 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem; for really obvious ones like that, AN/I is fine (and probably faster). More complex cases, requiring some investigation, are best handled at WP:SSP. MastCell Talk 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.252.64.50

    Resolved

    I’m not sure how to report these sorts of things, so I apologize if this is the wrong venue, but someone should check out the edits from User:71.252.64.50. This users' edits border on everything from nonsense to racism to character assassination. User has been twice warned, but not blocked, and is still editing as of today.

    Here are some diffs:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamma_Mia%21_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=140986721

    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=140541379

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=140521444

    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedding_anniversary&diff=prev&oldid=139471943

    5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim&diff=prev&oldid=139458835

    6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longwood_University&diff=prev&oldid=139457124

    7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York_High_School_%28Virginia%29&diff=prev&oldid=139450677

    8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Major_League_Baseball_Draft&diff=prev&oldid=136649360

    9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=135873332

    10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEMeltonIV/Archive3&diff=prev&oldid=135142526

    11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=135137941

    12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longwood_University&diff=prev&oldid=135130648

    13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Gilmore&diff=prev&oldid=134828957

    14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=116273259

    In the future these types of problems should be reported to WP:AIV. If the vandalism continues this editors will be blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colintj

    Colintj (talk · contribs) has made exactly one edit, which was accusing Crum375 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of being a sock puppet, citing an anonymous message on a blog as "proof". I've reverted the edit and given a stern warning, but this entire affair smells an awful lot like a sock account of a banned user. Valentinian T / C 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw, Colintj's edit doesn't show up on the contribs list. I guess the toolserver must be busy again. The edit was made to User:Crum375's user page, see the edit history there. Valentinian T / C 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit is there, you had a typo in your post. Thatcher131 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help, Thatcher131. I'm not a regular on this page. :) Valentinian T / C 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    the wild, wild west of wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&curid=2805368&diff=141012848&oldid=141001864

    MaxPont has personally attacked me. My behaviour is not being disruptive. MaxPont is the one who is being disruptive. Read the comments. He is insulting me and attacking my integrity as an editor. He is telling everybody to ignore me. This is discussing. QuackGuru 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneaky deletion

    Certain users have proposed a "merge" of Controversy in parapsychology into Parapsychology, but what they have described doing is completely deleting the content and creating a redirect. This is not a merge, it is back-door deletion. The controversy article has already undergone one failed AFD, and I feel that those disgruntled with the Keep are inappropriately trying to delete content they dislike by proposing this "merge", especially as they advocate for simply deleting a large portion of the controversy article not found elsewhere entirely. VanTucky 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can they cite an applicable Wikipedia:Criteria for sneaky deletion? --tjstrf talk 19:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that Parapsychology is already 43kb long, and that it's section on controversy does not reach the same level of depth that the controversy article does. On length reasons I believe the split was appropriate. --tjstrf talk 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate a word to that affect on the Parapsychology talk page. Also, after I have brought up this circumvention of the deletion process, User:Nealparr has stated that he simply doesn't care if it's deleted outside the proscribed system for deletion. VanTucky 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible spam

    Lvmtridas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be spamming. The vast majority (if not all) of his edits are to add links to www.newmedia.ufm.edu. I cannot tell if the links themselves are worth keeping as they aren't in English. IrishGuy talk 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Vandalism

    The Peter Nordin page is being tagged with a resume tag - three times today. I originally built the page, and researched other Wikipedia pages with similar subject before creating it. I note that no other similar page that I found was tagged as a resume (and most often not as biography either - see Peter Nordin talk page). I've tried to engage in a constructive discussion on the biography classification. It appeared as though someone who was trying to best me in another discussion posted the resume tag in an effort to irritate me. Then another editor jumped in to repost the tag twice when it was removed. The biography classifications are informal. The resume tag is inappropriate and distracting. --Rogerfgay 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to be an article ownership (WP:OWN) issue, with Rogerfgay stubbornly refusing to listen to criticism. The article is resume-like and 2 people so far have pointed that out. At any rate the adding of the tag isn't vandalism. The removal of it may be edit warring. --W.marsh 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doubtful AfD closes

    The Sunshine Man (talk · contribs) has been performing a lot of non-admin "closes" at AfD. I would not complain if he were doing it properly, but the one with which I was concerned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfhart Grote, had two Weak Keeps, several Deletes, and a lot of anon sock-puppetry. It may be no consensus; it is not consensus to keep. I reopened; could someone check his others? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It would have been polite to consult me about this before starting an ANI discussion, yes I admit I was wrong about that close but non admins can close deletion debates as keep (per this part of the deletion proccess), you did not bother to reply on the article talk page so I think you are looking for trouble by bringing it to admins and not responding to legitamite comments, yes I was wrong about that closure but you are forgetting to assume good faith of editors and to stay cool when the editing gets hot. The Sunshine Man 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything that looks like Septentrionalis is not cool, though I will agree that you should have been told that this discussion was started. I think that this page is the correct place to bring this topic. Septentrionalis did not ask that you be censured nor attack you, he just stated a concern and asked that someone check it out. --After Midnight 0001 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a quick glance at the others and I will likely revert the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III in a short time (10-15 minutes) if no one posts anything here to the contrary. --After Midnight 0001 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP range vandalising user pages

    This IP range 69.225.*.* has been constantly page blanking userpages and their talk pages for over a week now. I think this is getting out of hand. The range traces back to AT&T Internet services in California, this is from the WHOIS report PPPoX Pool - bras2#.skt2ca 69.225.48.0 - 69.225.63.255, here's another range 69.225.32.0 - 69.225.47.255. So I think the range is 69.225.32.0 to 69.225.63.255. Any ideas what should be done here? Momusufan 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HanzoHattori removing {{Nrd}} from images he's uploaded

    Hi, HanzoHattori, who has had problems inthe past with copyright issues, is removing tags from images he's created (e.g., [132]). Someone please ask him (once again) to stop. He's had a history of doing this with images before. The Evil Spartan 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'd suggest just having someone else revert those edits (someone other than you or me, for that matter); both of us have had enough negative dealings with him that I doubt it would be well received for either of us to revert, regardless of policy being on our side. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional account

    J-publicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be doing promotional work for various Chicago-based journals (hence the name). He/she is creating various articles that are are really nothing more than brief adverts for the journals. Can anyone take a look? IrishGuy talk 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdistan

    The page is under heavy vandal attack. Please investigate. (I do not have the time, this is a rush msg) -- Cat chi? 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=141059483"