Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Harrassment

Moved to subpage. --Random832 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Indef block of User:DoDoBirds and User:Rajsingam

Resolved

I had blocked Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account DoDoBirds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates 1

I've been contacted lately by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming he is the owner of both above-mentioned accounts and that he was betrayed by 2 of his friends with whom he shared the password of his accounts. After further explanations i decided to unblock the main account User:Rajsingam after being assured that it won't happen again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His accusations

He has accused me of using his blocked account which is totally untrue. All my IP's are known and any check user will determine whether I really did misuse his account or not. I am sure his accusations are against WP:LIBEL. Please let me know what is a the process to clear my name from such silly accusations. Thanks RaveenS 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide us w/ a link to the accusations you are refering to? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and his socks

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year. But he has been disrupting wikipedia ever since. He came back as Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) and later as Lionheart5 (talk · contribs). I was able to identify both these socks and block them. Lately Hkelkar has taken to editing anonymously. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hkelkar. I have got most of the pages he used to edit on my watchlist. All his edits are of the same type - reverting articles to his own POV. But I cannot continue watching literally hundreds of articles and block IPs everyday. Is it possible under wikipedia rules and legal under US laws to contact his ISP and/or University and inform them of his disruption? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the IPs are from the University of Texas. Their network admins can be contacted regarding the abuse. --Ragib 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I might add, Hkelkar had his computer privileges revoked for 2 weeks at the University of Texas. He got an entire class blocked. I only know about it because I tried to edit some articles, and there was some block message with an "X" sign.

Some people at the University of Texas know his real name, but I can't give it out (for obvious reasons).

I know this seems a bit odd, a new user editing this page, but I did try and edit as an anon, but couldn't.

Any problems, just contact the University of Texas's technical department at abuse@utexas.edu and they will try to resolve it. Just be aware, there's no official policy on students editing Wikipedia.

As regards ISP complaints, well, don't go there. Legal minefield, so I'm told by a friend who does computer studies.

Well, there you go. Explanation given. --Trudiruddsen 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info. I will contact the abuse department soon to inform them of his disruption of wikipedia. I am sure I know his name too, but have not revealed it yet on wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee too is aware of his real name. You must have been blocked from editing as many IPs used by Hkelkar have been blocked due to his ban evasion. Also, I do think it odd for you to have edited this page as your first edit. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what of the socks of Sundaram7 (talk · contribs), BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs), and His excellency (talk · contribs). If you smell Hkelkar, one of these users is not far away.Bakaman 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are suspicious, you are free to start your own thread on this page, or make a request at RFCU, or list your request at the ArbCom enforcement page. IMO Hkelkar has caused more trouble than BhaiSaab and Terry after the ArbCom case by not accepting the decision of the ArbCom and by not getting the message that his style of editing and POV pushing is not wanted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have contacted the abuse department at the university. I have received a reply asking for more evidence, diffs, timestamps and other info. I have given them the information. At present, I am hopeful that they will do something about this. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup help requested

Resolved

On March 4th and 5th, User:Gwern appears to have created hundreds of non-functional redirects. I found them because they today flooded the Short pages list (Parsed version). The short pages software did not recognize them as proper redirects, so they all dropped onto the list. Several issues that I see:

1. Do we even want to keep several hundred different capitalizations of "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, far Away..." redirects. A couple of others were done as well.
2. They are non-functional. Some just need a space before the first "[", others need whatever is there (before the first "[")converted to a true space. If they are to be kept, it is a non-trivial fix-it job to clean them up and make them functional.
3. Does Gwern have permission to run a bot like this? And in his own main user account?

Anyway, I'm putting this here because if the answer to #1 is no, we need more admins than me deleting these things. After fixing a couple of dozen of the non-functional ones myself, and realizing that there are hundreds more to fix, I decided I needed help of some sort.

And I'm *not* looking for a block of User:Gwern at this point. His "bot" has not been running for a couple of days. He may need a warning, especially if the bot is unauthorized, though there is already discussion on his talk from people generally concerned over the flood. But there is at the moment no immenent reason to block him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is only one article named "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" and there aren't 50 different variations with different capitalization, the go/search box will work, no matter what you type, right? For example, we have Virginia Tech Hokies. If I type "VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES", "vIrGinIA tECH HoKIES", or any other capitalization into the box, all of those send me to Virginia Tech Hokies. So having redirects from all of these alternate capitalizations is useless. --BigDT 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His concern seems to be that linking isn't as smart as the go box, but, well... users should check when adding links. Maybe something on submit that will check any new redlinks for "go box results" for that text and suggest them would be useful. --Random832 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, redirects from every conceivable alternate capitalization is a maintenance nightmare. The risk of someone accidentally leaving a redlink to an incorrect capitalization is less than the risk of these alternate capitalizations being vandalized becaus nobody is paying attention to them. Unless it's a prominent alternate capitalization (2006-07 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season vs the correct 2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season), I don't think there's a reason to have them there. And even if it is prominent ... there's no real need for it - anyone adding the link will see it is a redlink and fix it. If they don't, someone else will. --BigDT 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed these due to a large number of them appearing at the top of Special:Uncategorizedpages. As he seems to have stopped, I don't think any immediate admin action is required, but in short yes, these are/were:

• broken, due to a missing space,
• unnecessary, for the reasons discussed above,
• liable to create ridiculous bloat if done for any significant proportion of all articles (increasing the number of pages in the main space by a significant multiple -- probably something on the order of 10 million redirects, depending on the distribution of length in words of article names),
• made with an unapproved bot (see WP:BRFA, not to say the lack of an explicit consensus anywhere to do this),
• inappropriately made from his main account,
• done at "bot-like speed", which an account not flagged as a bot really shouldn't ever do, even if approved to do the particular task.

(See WP:BOT on those last two.) If there's general agreement to delete these, I'll be happy to help out; if that's not entirely clear at this point, one might raise it at WP:RFD. Alai 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(To which add, "creating what would be double-redirects, were they working redirects at all". e.g. at !Kora Language. Alai 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Ok. Thinking more about how to handle this. The following are suggestions:

1. We begin to clean out (delete) the bulk of these redirects that were bot-created on the 4th and 5th. At current they are an unapproved, non-functional, bot-created mess, clogging up at least a couple of important tracking pages.
2. Gwern is asked to first get consensous of the very idea of this type of massive redirect. Not sure where he should be directed to for such a discussion, but it's definitely not appropriate for AN/I. (Note that I FYIed him on this debate, so I'm hoping he'll drop in here at some point. He appears to mostly edit in the evening, US time.)
3. Direct Gwern to the bot approval process, and asked to follow it before he launches the bot again. He *really* should not be testing a bot in his user-space without any sort of authorization.

Note that in all of this I am totally WP:AGF about Gwern. I have no reason at all to think this was anything other than good intentioned. But it really, really needs to go through several more steps before anything like this is repeated. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be 1. 'agree to give up on the whole idea', and 2. delete the existing instances. But he might want to press ahead with it, and if so, then as you say, he should take some sort of soundings about this (I can only think of Wikipedia talk:Redirect and WT:RFD, but I'm open to suggestions on a better location), and if that's at all favourable to the idea, go ahead with a bot approval request. Clearing them out before he's had a chance to chime in here might look a bit hasty, if he's determined to go ahead with the idea (heaven forfend), whereas if he has no objection, all'll be well. It should be said that some sort of unapproved 'testing' in the mainspace is more or less custom and practice, but not dozens or hundreds of such edits, at full-bot-speed, and only if closely manually supervised. (Making the same mistake twice in a row isn't a good sign of appropriate "testing", much less 30 times in a minute.) Alai 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resumed making up to 15 (automated, unapproved and unflagged) edits per minute, though seemingly at present just fixing some of the broken redirects created last time: [1]. Alai 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assured it's just massive use of tabbed browsing, so never mind. Alai 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This one appears mostly resolved for now. User:Centrx cleared out the bulk of the bad redirects yesterday, so they are gone. So unless Gwern decides to fire up his bot again, I think this one is settled. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly

The dispute on WP:AWARDS finally ended last night when an admin stepped in (thank you) and removed the coordinator section and voting restrictions that southphilly and evrik insisted on against consensus. We've got some good stuff going on over there now, with some really helpful new users in. Anyone else wanting to sign up would be welcome.

Unfortunately South Philly (talk · contribs) has taken up personally attacking me here, here, and somewhat subtly here. Apparently, in an accusation which Southphilly has also accused me of in the previous AN/I above, I "control" the project. I don't know what Southphilly's definition of control is, but I invite anyone to review the page, as I seriously doubt his claims. I am getting tired of Southphilly's bitter accusations and vindictive actions and ask that he be warned and/or blocked for his disruptive behaviour (he has also MfDed the entire Awards project because, ironically, he claims it "is too bureaucratic".) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying the "glass is half full" take on this, one might discern a temporal progression from "personal attack" to "subtle criticism". Either way, I don't think this requires admin action at this point. I'd suggest waiting a while, and if it resumes, taking the matter up at, say, WP:WQA, or requesting mediation. Let's hope there's no further outright disruption, at least. Alai 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the MfD as a keep here. I'm going to sleep (way to avoid conflict for a few hours). If anyone wants to overturn and open, don't wait for my return. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think South Philly was making a point with the {{afd}}, however those three cited edits were in no way personal attacks. First, after arguing with you thuglas did leave the WikiProject, and then left wikipedia citing you as a reason. Second, this is your third post to this noticeboard in less than a week, in my opinion you create a lot of drama and rely on WP:BOLD alot, but not as much on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Finally, people who say that other users exhibit in pathological hatred and appear to relish humiliating them should not throw so many stones. --evrik ^(talk) 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Drama" I would much rather have avoided - you're the one who insisted on your shiny Coordinator badge and straw polls for every edit. Resolving disputes would have been a waste of time given an administrator had to reprimand you both before you stopped. Thuglas left because of that edit war, you take as much blame as I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks? Attacking me does not refute the facts, let me quote, "Im pretty sure i would have drop kicked Dev by this point - unfortunately the internet doesnt let me do that so i decided just to quit before i get any more mad. ." --evrik ^(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's any good faith here left to assume, or civility to share, can we please do so, or take this elsewhere -- like dispute resolution, as suggested above? Alai 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to get on with editing the Wikipedia. South Philly and evrik seem to want to argue til the cows come home, and then send away the cows because there's no consensus on them coming home. Evrik, I am trying to work with you on WP:AWARDS, such as that Service awards thing, but your endless sniping is making it difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing for a long time because of the way people treat each other here. I am angered by Dev920's blatant abuse of the system (who the f--- files three notices at the ANI in a week?), and her power grab. Evrik worked long and fairly to make sure that the system was working and repeatedly asked for everyone's help. After the dust settles, I am contemplating leaving Wikipedia for good because of Dev920.

This should have been mediated long before it was brought to the administrators. I've now been mentioned three times at the ANI this week by Dev920 - and I don't think it's fair. --South Philly 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if Southphilly would stop being so abusive I wouldn't have to keep coming here. Note that this is brought up every single day at the same time - when southphilly starts editing. I am genuinely confused about southphilly's accusation that I am grabbing power: what fucking power? How is contributing to a wikiproject controlling it? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? I haven't removed anyone's messages, I haven't, significantly, started a revert war with anyone because I want my own way, I have no idea why southphilly insists on posting such accusations about me here, on the project page and now on Alai's page. It's insane. Southphilly posted a personal attack against me on WT:AWARDS claiming I had ousted evrik from the project and had "taken over" when evrik is still posting on the page. Given my only experience with South philly has been to observe his endless attempts to get his own way against all reason and opposition, I can only think when he leaves Wikipedia will be better for it. I am going to get on with my work now, and I hope Southphilly will see the sense of quitting before he makes himself looks even more irrational. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco

• WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalizingofthesame information (despite consensus). Other vandalism on other pages. Warnings abound on his talk page. McKay 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

another McKay 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage Essjay picture

Resolved

Am I the only one who thinks that displaying Essjay's photograph with a DYK item on the Main Page is grossly inappropriate? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. Who signed off on that? Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nishkid64, it seems. [2] Not one of his better choices, IMO. -- ChrisO 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate how? Hbdragon88 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly the fact that its totally self-referential- comes across as "ooh, look at us we're Wikipedia, aren't we important"? Also its unnecessarily unpleasant to Essjay. Oh and its rather POV- I mean he didn't fake credentials, he just claimed to have some he actually didn't have. WjBscribe 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. And we don't even know that it's Essjay. Trebor 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, and so does Dragonfly, who has removed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Inappropriate as in highly insensitive, and also grossly Wikipedia-centric. This is starting to look like organised persecution, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Of course it's inappropriate. Have some dignity, people. — Dan | talk 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse both the pic removal and the removal of the article itself from DYK. Ill-advised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 100% Endorse removal - Munta 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why pour more salt in the wound? Grandmasterka 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Putting the ethical issue aside this picture has no relable basis of fact. No one can confirm that this is Essjay. If someone uploads the portrait of Leonardo to wiki claiming it to be oneself, this would be as much reliable. Whatever people think about leaving him alone at last (or refusing to), ethics is more of a feeling while WP:RS is a policy. Support the removal. --Irpen 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine with the removal. Someone added that to Next update and I moved it to the Main Page. While it was at T:DYKT, no one seemed to complain about the image, or the hook, so I did not see any potential problem there. Nishkid64 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like it was added to the update page by Parker007 [3]. WjBscribe 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record, what I said only applies to Essjay's supposed image, not the DYK text entry on which I am not opining here. --Irpen 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just as a side note... I really don't understand the reasoning behind it not being there. It seems like people are hiding behind self-reference as a way to keep mention of the scandal off the front page. --Dookama 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I glanced at the article before and it basically said about the picture, "I don't know, this was posted to the user page so maybe it's him but maybe it's some random other living person we're now associating with this event." Honestly, I think there's a good case that could be made for its removal entirely on that ground alone. Bitnine 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try to assume good faith. When one proposed DYK hook was tasteless and inflamatory, and there were others that could have replace it, that's exactly what should have happened. The removal wasn't censorship, it was the correction of a mistake, which was placing the hook there the first time. (And even if that wasn't the case, WP:ASR is yet another reason it shouldn't be on the Main page.) Picaroon 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Feelings are running high in the community regarding essjay at them moment - but we're not here to serve ourselves - we're here to serve 'those out there'. The issue has gained wide publicity - today I read a report of the issue on the BBC - this exposure is going to generate traffic. Stepping back from my opinions as a wikipedian (And I'm conflicted as the next man on this - great wikipedian but possibly damaging etc. etc.) the press it's generated and the way the community deals with such things is good for us and our profile - it was a good and brave call putting it on the front page at this time and I welcome it. Upsetting for essjay? undoubtedly. Good for the wider community - well maybe.--Joopercoopers 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, stupid navel-gazing! Endorse removal of both the picture and the DYK. I'm all for the "persecution" (which I would call examination) of the matters behind Essjay and ramifications to Essjay of his mendacity, but this is an internal matter, and we are not an issue for DYK. Heck, a lot of the "did you knows" lately have been "did you care?" In this case, the photo is of a person who may not be Essjay, and all of this folderol is self-reference. Geogre 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy article now on AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy

The article is back at AfD under its new title having been nominated by Cool Cat. WjBscribe 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closed by Mikkalai. WjBscribe 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE by Armon (talk · contribs)

I have had conflicts with this user for quite some time now, and lately I have been very patient with his non-stop personal attacks, but I have had enough. The most recent violation -- him calling me an "ass" -- was only the last straw in a series of abusive comments and actions. On the Christopher Hitchens page, the user removed extremely well-sourced and relevant commentary with the demand that my references must be online rather than from print sources. I found this absurd and anti-intellectual, and I posted a note to the WP:RS talk page] to that effect. There was unanimous agreement that such a demand was absurd. On the Hitchens talk page, Armon explained that my sources must be online because I had been "caught misrepresenting offline sources," a charge I found absurd and in violation of WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA. His "evidence" for the charge was an unexplained link to a discussion from weeks ago. When challenged on this point he simply stated that the evidence was on the page and reasserted his demand that I provide online sources. This seems to me an absurd form of WP:DE -- excluding sources because they are in print is ridiculous. Even if he was correct that they needed to be "fact-checked," the claim that offline sources cannot be fact-checked is ridiculous. I'm sure Armon (or anyone else) can get ahold of a library card if they think it is necessary to check if I am making up quotes. After discussion on my talk page -- with Armon continually accusing me in more and more hysterical terms of lying and deception -- it became clear that the so-called "lie" was a misunderstanding and a difference of opinion rather than a lie, and it also became clear that the so-called "lie" was about a tangential argument on a talk page rather than about something put into an article. I asked him to stop calling me names and I asked him to apologize for his violations of NPA and AGF; instead he continued to accuse me and then he called me an ass.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg. I have tried to be very patient with this user even while he has been goading me to overreact. But I have had enough of this. Actions like this are totally disruptive -- if he has real problems with an edit I make, that is fine to bring to discussion, but to raise a complete canard as a justification for deleting evidence that everyone agrees comes from a reliable source, and then to make the demand that all sources be available online, while calling me names and taunting me the whole time, is disruptive and deleterious to the project of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)

A very interesting case of WP:POT, or more accurately, an editor who believes that attack is the best defence. The complaining editor has been exteremly uncivil and disruptive, and has bee called on it numerous times, includign on this project page. He has also usied this page as a platform to for canvassing, and has been called on it as well. Isarig 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is incorrect here. The specific charge of "canvassing" was withdrawn by the admin who made it after I explained more clearly what I was doing; I don't think there are any lingering doubts about my sincerity here. I have really been bending over backwards to not report this user, and it is only being called an "ass" that was the final straw for me leading to filing this report. csloat 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just posted to csloat's talk page appealing for WP:AGF, and was summarily greeted there by Armon, who responded by calling sloat a megalomaniac, and basically contesting the validity of my post requesting good faith and civility from all sides. While I am a colleague of csloat's and so I have my biases, I'm hopeful that all these folks can focus on the issue at hand, rather than create reasons not to be civil. Upon a cursory review, my view of the recent 'hot activity' between Isarig, Armon, csloat, etc. seems to be an ongoing pattern with numerous editors tag-teaming to oppose csloat on political articles where he makes his edits.

To me, it appears a number of the editors opposing sloat believe that WP:AGF is not required - and they are in fact using bad faith to 'goad' csloat. To me, a lack of willingness to conduct oneself with self-respect is the cause of the conflict, not an argument over this edit or that edit. Csloat's edits are substantial and verifiable, in as far as I was able to determine. His conduct is at times unhelpful, but most editors who find themselves in situations like this 'slip up' and take the 'hostility bait' from time to time. That's why csloat, in response, can't risk being uncivil at all - if he takes the bait, he's only validating their attempt and nullifying any factual high ground he may occupy. Tough to stay on the 'high road' under attacks like that - in any case I hope Armon, Isarig and csloat get past this issue, provide a modicum of good faith and work to deal with article space issues constructively. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Attributing malice to those who criticize sloat is a failure on your part to AGF and is based on an incorrect assessment of the situation. <<-armon->> 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One act of good faith last June really does not make up for the recent attacks on my character or the disruptive editing. csloat 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, that you were given the AGF. <<-armon->> 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Last June. Once. I got the point, it just has no relevance here whatsoever. csloat 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately this time I found out about this report, so in this case, unlike others, I will be able to respond. There are two issues, one, saying "stop being an ass" is not the same as calling someone an ass -a semantic but important difference. He was attempting to twist my words into an insult on another editor, which is perfectly clear if anyone reads the post I responded to. Isarig's point that this is a case of WP:POT, is well put.
Secondly sloat recently received a block for a BLP violation against Hitchens on a talk page. This was subsequently overturned by another admin as having been too long ago, but there was no argument that it was in fact a BLP vio. He had also had inserted poorly sourced blogged insults about his drinking into the Hitchens article. When this was removed he repeatedly reinserted it until he came up with a new version which pov-pushed his assertion that Hitchens is an alcoholic. Aside from the fact that this version was still not compliant with BLP, there was also the problem of his use of offline cites to make his case. Normally offline cites are fine, but when they're used to pov-push by an editor who has just violated BLP, and who has misrepresented cites in the past, then I think it's reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess them. I doubt some of the periodicals he cited are available in New Zealand, and as he cited google hits as evidence of the notability of the topic, there should be no problem finding online RS sources -in fact I submitted one myself. <<-armon->> 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On #1, I did feel it was a reasonable claim that Elizmr was pretending not to understand something obvious. It;s not relevant to Armon's objectionable behavior. I was also not twisting his words in any way - the other editor I named was one who made the claim that Armon said was only made by "partisan detractors." So my question was quite reasonable and certainly didn't merit being called an ass.

as always, when you do it , it is a "reasonable claim". when others do it to you, it suddenly becomes a violation WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE. As I wrote, WP:POT, and as Armon wrote on you Talk page, this is quite appropriate. Isarig 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On #2, Armon is misrepresenting the issue -- the block was overturned in part because there was no clear BLP issue. Armon's well aware of that. There is even less of an issue now that we know that Hitchens himself (the BLP in question) acknowledged the term that I used ("alcoholic"). In any case, I have agreed not to call him that myself again. But none of that is relevant to Armon's behavior described above. His claim that I am still violating BLP on the page is absurd and unsupported. 3 - Armon keeps saying that it is reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess offline citations -- they can. I provided full citations and Armon is welcome to get a library card. If he can't find them in New Zealand, interlibrary loan is an option. Or he can just ask me to send him copies of the articles. But none of that is the issue here - the issue is his disruptive editing and his personal attacks against me and his refusal to assume good faith. Claiming that I must be making up what is written in an article if it isn't online is a gross violation of WP:AGF. csloat 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This, OTOH, is an outright misrepresentation, The block was not overturned at all - it was shortened, by a lenient adming who was misled by you into believing this was your first block and that you were not warned first. Other editors who commented on the issue found it problematic that it was administered 2 weeks after the offence - but everyone agreed that it was an egregious BLP violation when made. Isarig 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that last response from sloat looks like an admission of WP:POINT. He inserted an undue amount of cites claiming alcoholism into the Hitchens article in order to make the point that it OK for him to rant on about how big a drunk the guy is. <<-armon->> 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: you are wrong about why the block was overturned, and you can read the discussion between admins about it yourself if you are interested. The admins can defend their own actions, but one of them points out that "it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur." We now know that it wasn't even a slur since it is embraced by Hitchens himself. So no, everyone did not agree "that it was an egregious BLP violation when made" -- in fact, when it was made, not a single soul commented on it. Armon: that is a bizarre argument. I did not try to make any point about it being ok for me to rant on anything. I went and did some further research on a point that was already in the article that Isarig was removing, citing BLP violations that I thought were bogus. The fact that said research vindicated a particular choice of words is really beside the point. I have never "ranted on about how big a drunk the guy is" -- I have only made reference to his own statements that he drinks about a fifth of hard liquor a day. Anyway, this report is about Armon's behavior, not about Hitchens or about BLP, so most of this conversation is somewhat of a side show. csloat 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you examine Sloat's contribution history, you will see that he has habitually and unapologetically violated WP:CIVIL. His discussion style is to be dismissive of points raised by those he disagrees with rather than to entertain them and reply in a reasonable way in an effort to come to a neutral consensus. He tends to use disparaging language when discussing the contributions of others. This style tends to cause escalation of disagreements and weakens the Wikipedia community. Sloat needs to clean up his own act before accusing others. His complaints against Armon are frivilous. Elizmr 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Elizmr is incorrect. It is true that I am sometimes testy when provoked, but I also apologize when I feel I have crossed a line. But that is not the issue here - the issue is Armon's hounding of me based on the incorrect claim that I am lying -- a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. What is more, these personal attacks have led to disruptive editing, as with Armon deleting well sourced material simply because it is not online. csloat 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is probably the first time you have ever apologized. There is a prayer to be said the first time something happens and I'm saying it right now for you, Sloat. And I appreciate the apology. However, I could produce many examples of your refusals to apologize, dissmissals, personal attacks, uncivil behavior, etc. Saying you are just reacting to provacation is a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. As far as your complaints against Armon, I do not think they are accurate. You guys are having a content dispute. If you would just chill out, stop attacking, stop reacting, stop dismissing, listen to what others are saying, discuss, and come to consensus no one would have a problem with you. This is the way to diffuse the situation rather than bringing these kind of frivioulous complaints to this notice board. Elizmr 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not the first time I have apologized, Elizmr. You know that for a fact. I have apologized every time I have felt I crossed a line. The problem is that you want me to apologize every time I disagree with you, and I won't. Now, again, the issue here is Armon's disruptive editing and personal attacks, not the question of how often I apologize, and not some content dispute. It is about Armon removing sourced and relevant information purely because it is from the print media, and then claiming that I am a liar and an ass. csloat 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing requests for moves with active discussions

An admin closed the discussion on Clamp (manga artists) despite there being discussion going on even as he boxed it up. Is not the continuing active discussion on the talk page the definition of an "active discussion"? According to Husond (with funky characters), it does not appear to be so. Can I get some clarification here? Also, the template states "with clear consensus", but there was no consensus on the page. Should a "no consensus" closure be allowed while there continues to be debate? Kyaa the Catlord 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: 1) Move proposal was active for the 5-day period until it got listed on WP:RM's backlog. 2) Any admin may close a proposal after this time. 3) Especially if it's clear that there's never going to be any consensus and therefore no move. 4) Because a majority of users are opposing it. 5) So please avoid creating new polls. 6) And be WP:CIVIL.--Húsönd 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

History: The original move was done with no consensus, it was a badly done move (it lost the original page's history, etc), should it not be moved back to original, historic article at least to save the page history? (Yes, this is a bloody mess) Kyaa the Catlord 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Husond ignored the following passage from the "closing a request for move" directions for admins when he speedy closed the discussion after I relisted it: "If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it." I don't hold any further desire to revisit this debacle, but I felt that perhaps it would be best if someone would point out that proper procedure was denied. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only feasible to relist if there are prospects that a consensus will be reached if more time is given to the discussion. Not the case here. Polls can't last forever.--Húsönd 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor posting full name of another editor

Dman727 posted private information, including the full name of another editor Here. This is a bit of a sticky wicket because Eschoir is a user name which could be used to get this info on the intrawebs - but then again - he told Dman he objected to his name being published on Wiki and asked DMan to refactor it. Dman did not do so - so I just did. - FaAfA (yap) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I posted the full text of a public court document. Only AFTER I posted the court document did the user confirm that this was his case. The user Eschoir made the connection after the fact. If the user had not identified himself as being the author of the court document, the connection between the wiki screen name and real name would not be known. Relevant diffs. [4], [5] . Finally please advise if posting of freely available public court documents is contrary to wiki policy and I'll gladly cease and apologize. Dman727 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, FAAFA, I appreciate and thank you for refactoring it as the user requested. I would have done so, but you were much faster than I and removed his name 6 minutes after the user requested it. I hope you don't find me at fault for being away from wiki during those 6 minutes ;) Dman727 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Update. After further discussion with the wikipedian in question I have removed, per his request the entire remaining text of the public document from the talk page. FAAFA is correct that the document in question and the users identity is freely available via "intrawebs", however, there is no reason not to respect the wishes of the user in question here on wiki. If an admin would be so kind as to remove the diff history Here(containing the full name) I would greatly appreciate it. Dman727 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits of this nature should be oversighted. You may send an e-Mail to oversight-l[at]lists[dot]wikimedia[dot]org to get that done. TML 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban-Evasion

As many of you are aware of, User:Guardian Tiger, who has been banned by the community Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template, has continued to maintain the original block was unjustified. Now he has continued to ignore the ban and created a new ban-evading sock, User:LionheartX. (self-identified [[6]]) It should definitely be blocked on sight. Admin intervention is respectfully requested. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, an involved admin, already decided to give LionheartX one more chance, based on his admission of wrongdoing and promise to reform - at the section you initiated on his talk page. Please don't venue shop for admins willing to block against Nlu's wishes. Picaroon 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu said other admins are not bound by his decision. [[7]] I also think Nlu did not realize he is "community-banned". Please don't accuse me of admin shopping. I'm trying to enforce a community ban. We can't let this be a bad example for future sockpuppeteers.--Certified.Gangsta 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just for the record, that isn't a community ban (unless there's something other than the archive you linked to). Bish indefblocked and asked for review, and it was reviewed by a couple of admins. Community bans must require much more extensive discussion amongst the community. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which it appears you are aware of and yet continue to misrepresent the facts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully Dmcdevit explicitly stated the community's patience with me is exhausted.--Certified.Gangsta 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness. So one editor pipes a link to the section of the blocking policy related to community bans == the user is community banned? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you wish to pursue an actual community ban, you are free to do so on the community noticeboard. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, so you're implying it's perfectly okay to create more socks to evade indef. blocks. Then what's the point of blocking anyway??--Certified.Gangsta 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not once have I said or implied that. I was simply correcting your misstatement that he was community banned. Two admins now (Ben Aveling and Nlu) have revoked the blocks and given the user in question another opportunity after they deemed unblock requests reasonable. If you feel that the user in question has exhausted his opportunities and should be community banned, feel free to propose it at WP:CN. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone say that? We're just here to say that you need to get your terminology right. Banning someone involves a community-wide process, and is a social construct in which a person is forbidden to edit here again under any name. Blocking someone is a technical measure used to prevent editing from an account. The two words are not synonymous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin of one of the socks, Dmcdevit, said it and all parties agree on the spot. Ben Aveling is not an admin. In fact, another admin User:Steel359 commented on Ben's activity on destroyer's talkpage on the edit summary upon protection. "Talk pages are not for chitchatting with banned users, multiple attempts with {{unblock}} failed already under other accounts" [[8]]--Certified.Gangsta 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But, User:Nlu is an admin. Please read the entire ANI threads from beginning to end, and you'll see the only one who supported the ban was Dmcdevit, the proponent. Many other people had opposed the ban. LionheartX 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who? The only one who objected was Ben Aveling (non-admin) and he didn't object in that particular thread either.--Certified.Gangsta 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole thread. The particular thread is here. Admin privileges do not confer increased leverage in a dispute. BenAveling clearly objected in that thread. User:Shimeru also objected to a ban in the subsequent threads. LionheartX 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't object to the block, actually. I found Ben's argument for giving you another chance reasonable, and support his effort. If there was at some point a community ban discussion, I wasn't aware of it at the time (and still haven't seen it). In the absence of such a discussion, with regard to the current thread, I find myself agreeing with Nlu's opinion, stated below the section break. Shimeru 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Certified.Gangsta have said, I am not banned. The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban per official policy. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I request that Certified.Gangsta stop actively campaigning and venue shopping for admins to have me blocked per civility and harassment policies. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia. Please see the full discussion at User talk:Nlu and User talk:BenAveling.

Here is several threads recently on WP:ANI showing that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thanks, LionheartX 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block or ban? Block log anomaly

The main point of contention here is whether ApocalypticDestroyer's block was merely an indefinite block or an actual community ban. As noted in the block log, the block is labeled a ban. However, there is evidence that a full-fledged discussion to implement a community ban, mandated by WP:BAN in the cases of community bans, never took place. I believe that we should clear up this ambiguous situation once and for all. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both LionheartX and Certified.Gangsta is reading too much into the language here. As I see it:

1. LionheartX's actions with prior accounts justify ban, but:
2. The situation isn't so bad that he shouldn't get another chance.

In other words, unless there is consensus otherwise (although I asked Dmcdevit for his input) I'm inclined to, as I said, give LionheartX one last chance. Any further disruptive behavior on his part (and massive spamming of admins' talk pages, which he did just now, is very close to being disruptive) will be the last straw. I indefinitely blocked the RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) account, as it is no longer needed (and the fact that it is no longer needed was used by LionheartX as a reason in arguing that he was not sockpuppeting). Any further justified complaints about LionheartX's behavior, including spamming, edit warring, sock puppeting, &c., should draw an indefinite block on the account and a lengthy block on the underlying IP. Obviously, people may not necessarily agree with me, so I'd like to hear other opinions. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely believe the block log was a mistake. In the block log, User:Dmcdevit cites the following WP:ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template. In that ANI thread, Dmcdevit clearly says,

"Regardless of which is the sock and which the main account, which has been blocked as a sock, and whether he's been banned or just blocked before, these accounts are all the same person, and I've blocked Apocalyptic Destroyer now too, and I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too. The community's patience with him is exhausted. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

User:BenAveling clearly replies with the following:

"I'm looking through Tiger's edit contribution for gross abuse, and I'm not seeing it. He's accused at least one admin of not being neutral, which is certainly uncivil of him but I think the Giano case established that it isn't a hanging offence. He's accused Isberg (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of being a sock which is uncivil, even if he's right. (He isn't, is he? If he is, I owe him an apology.). He's accused Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of harassing him and campaigning to have him banned, which is also accurate, and as far as I can see, he's done this complaining in relatively polite terms. He's used a lot of accounts over time, but no one (other than Certified Gangsta, formerly known User:Bonafide hustler) is claiming that he has been using them in parallel. So he may or may not be abusive, but he isn't a sock master. (What sort of self respecting sock puppetier loses the passwords?) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some 3RR violations and POV waring but most of his edits look reasonable, lots of wikilinking and some minor edits. Nothing that wikipedia will colapse for the lack of, but nice to have. I haven't checked every edit, especially from the long dead accounts. No doubt I've missed stuff. Just to set my mind at rest, will someone post some diffs to this gross abuse and harrasment and I will promptly and publically apologise for making this request. Sorry everyone for being difficult. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

As we can all see, BenAveling clearly "gave him a reason not to" in that specific AN/I thread right after Dmcdevit posted that. Also note that the official policy clearly states "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.". There is clearly no strong consensus for a ban. In the other two AN/I threads above, User:Shimeru also objected to ban and I respectfully accept the conditions he put forth. Therfore, I clearly was not banned. I respectfully request an admin to change the block logs on my previous accounts to note that it was a mistake and that I was not banned. Thanks.

Please refer to the lengthy discussion on User talk:Nlu, User talk:BenAveling, and these three AN/I threads.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thank you. LionheartX 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are really making a poor example out of this. I am very afraid that future sockpuppets will refer to this case as a way out. As for indef. block vs. ban, it is all semantics. He evade block/ban too many times. He crossed the line, thus a block is necessary. Anyway, I kind of regret I brought up this issue cuz it seems like people are forgiving Lion because they have problems with me. Anyway one last point before I leave, this edit shows a sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes. [[9]]--Certified.Gangsta 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated by the above users, a block is different from a ban. A ban involves an exhaustive process with strong consensus. And I'm not sure how that edit shows a "sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes". I was asking him to keep the discussion in one place. LionheartX 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

5th millennium and SashatoBot (talk · contribs)

Because of the way sr:50. век (50th century) is set up, many of the centuries are linked to 5th millennium by that bot. Is there an exception to WP:3RR for reverting a rouge bot? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are usually good at applying common sense over the letter of policy. This is obviously one of those times. Grandmasterka 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this warrant a block?

I saw this edit while reverting vandalism from that IP. It happened a couple of days ago, so I think it's too old for AIV. Should any action be taken for that particular edit? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is a threat of physical attack, but it's made to a -bot. Then again, we block for the threat of attack, not the likelihood of its fulfillment. Seems to be a dynamic IP, though, so a block probably won't do any good unless we find the user in the act. Geogre 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why and how is User:Scott3 a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry. I was apparently mistiming my drugs. You're right. It is a threat of attack, so yes, it is a block offense, if we can catch the IP at work. I see that the user has gotten a "this is your last warning" warning, so a block at the next hint of trouble. Geogre 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable deletion of info

User Aivazovsky has been reverting and deleting information on Azeri-related articles either labelling them as vandalism or making references to an arbitration process on the Armenian-Azeri edit wars, which according to him prevents users from creating or editing "sensitive" (?) articles whatsoever. Without being able to provide a single source, he removes chunks of neutrally-sourced information accusing others of "wanting to provoke an edit war." [10] In the article Azeris in Armenia he deleted information accompanied by three sources [11] He also refuses to provide explanations for the deleting of info (which I had to restore) on Erivan khanate: [12] Another example of unexplained deletion, March Days: [13]. Parishan 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I too, during recent changes patrol, have had cause to question Aivazovsky's disruptive edits and reversions, especially his edit summaries stating that he is reverting vandalism when all he is doing is removing edits he disagrees with. LittleOldMe 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All his edits are fine, I can read his mind but I'm not going to bother arguing here he did violate his parole on one of the articles though. Artaxiad 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Aivazovsky and Artaxiad were involved in coordinated revert warring at Khachkar_destruction. The latter recently gets involved in WP:Stalk/WP:Harassment as well, without understanding that attempts to reveal or false attribute identity of contributor are disruptive and counter to above indicated policies. Atabek 12:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries at N.W.A.

A Wikiquette alert, well, alerted me to the gross incivility displayed in the edit summaries of Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax (talk · contribs) at N.W.A.'s history page. I gave both WP:NPA warnings at their talk pages (level 3 for User:Kemor and level 4 (previous notice) for User:Payne2thamax). These two editors appear to be engaged in an edit war at the article; perhaps some intervention by someone more powerful and more knowledgable about the topic than I would calm the situation. (Originally posted at WP:AN in error. Sorry.) --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Payne2thamax (talk · contribs) removed two WP:NPA warnings from his talk page. I asked him to please not do that and reverted the selective blanking. Was that the appropriate move? --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The purpose of warning someone is to try to convince them to stop the behavior in question. By removing the warnings, they've proven that they've seen the warnings. Attempting to force them to keep the warnings on their talkpage will usually just make the situation worse. --Carnildo 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for this [14] I mean, really, death threats are a no no. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Macedonia

Macedonia (talk · contribs) has long been criticised for using his user page as a political soapbox. This has basically been his only activity on Wikipedia for over half a year. After comments on this RfC, I felt justified in deleting his page (twice, after another attempt by him) and telling him that henceforth no political content whatsoever would be tolerated there ([15]). There was also an attempt to get him to change his username, which however was rejected at WP:RFC/N. He now put up this: [16]. Note again his political jibe at "Greek fabricators who continue to spread anti-Macedonian and facist propaganda", and his wording about the RFC/N "keeping the name of my userpage MACEDONIA" - that seems to show that the userpage, rather than anything else he does on Wikipedia, is really the only thing he cares about.

Unless there are objections here, I'll delete that page again, and I'm considering a block warning and/or page protection if he tries this once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly I can't see any real harm coming from this user. Deleting his userpage and blocking him might be a violation of WP:NOT#CENSOR and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND so I guess I would not support these harsh measures. Sorry. :-/ Húsönd 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The present contents are a personal attack at the least (the thing about the "Greek fabricators" and their "fascist propaganda" is directed at fellow Wikipedians, not some abstract Greek opponents elsewhere). And enforcing WP:USER isn't censorship. We've deleted pages and (I think) even blocked users for doing much more harmless things with their pages - various cases of kids using theirs as a chatroom come to mind. This user's pages, for well over a year now, have always been breaches of the no-soapboxing rules of WP:USER. And he's been playing cat-and-mouse with the community over it during all this time - always seemingly acquiescing to enforced removals of offensive content whenever people had lost their patience with him, and then sneakily letting the page grow again with new rants. As I told him last time, I'm sick and tired arguing with him just how much political content is acceptable, when I know he's going to dodge it in a week again. That's why I thought we should set him an easy-to-remember and unambiguous limit this time: zero political content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. I don't tend to be politically correct and I have a rather lenient attitude towards users who express their animosity towards a specific entity as long as they don't start making personal attacks or other kind of disruptive behavior. However, I checked the deleted versions of his user page and it does seem like this user's been using his userpage as a provocative soapbox only. I have a long experience of warmongering users from the Balkans and a firm response is often the best remedy. So yeah, go ahead and give him a last warning.--Húsönd 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

I've just fully protected this - the article had at least 5 users edit warring (all within the last hour) and try as I did to begin to warn them; it seemed more just kept jumping in. So, I've sent them all to the talk page (discussions on m:The Wrong Version have already started). Thoughts? Glen 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that it should be a sub-stub. It's a news release rather than an article to talk about this controversy, as it's still underway. I hate it when people try to write an "article" on something that has just begun to happen. When they do, they become a secondary source -- journalists -- instead of a tertiary source -- encyclopedists. If a person is reporting, then she or he is not writing an encyclopedia article. This is in addition to the fact that "the controversy" can't be written about until it has a defined shape, with cause, event, and effect. The "effect" bit is still nebulous. Wikipedia is not CNN (or the Drudge Report or Skippy the Bush Kangaroo). Geogre 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with User:Geogre. I've been editing fairly heavily on the article mostly in an effort to keep the thing half-way decent and inline with policy. I tried to hold off on editing it but found that it was glaringly out of step in terms of policy and since my first edits I've made efforts to combat that. (→Netscott) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• As usual I agree with The Geogre. In a year or so we may have a clear idea of the historical import of this, if there is any, but right now we really don't. A stub with a link to Wikinews (which is for news, unlike Wikipedia which is not) would be fine. How can we record what the considered view of the world is, when the world has barely begun to consider the thing? All we get is a series of gut reactions, and often very poorly informed ones at that. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article represents a unfortunate Catch 22 situation. Having an article is overfocusing on current news, self-referential and seems to overtrumpet the importannce of Wikipedia. But deleting the article (or most of its content) looks like a cover-up and gives some the impression that we wish to hide the controversy that surrounded Essjay's retirement to save embarassment. Hopefully once the dust has settled we'll be in a better position to decide how an encyclopedia should cover this controversy if at all... WjBscribe 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For now the article will need strict attention from policy wonks like me and others. Eventually I think it will stabilize. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with Geogre. Or, rather, our current practice strongly disagrees with Geogre, so strongly that what I think isn't that relevant. Look at the Main Page, the page most users see as representing the Wikipedia. See the In the news section? It's rather prominent. Everything on it is "something that has just begun to happen", or was when it was added. The only difference is that they aren't embarassments to us. Tell you what, "sub-stub" Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Lewis Libby, and Estonian parliamentary election, 2007 (just to name the top 3 items in that section today), and if those actions get community approval, then come back here saying it is clear Wikipedia policy not to have articles on recent events until the effect is clear. Until then, it wouldn't just look like a cover-up, it would be a cover-up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um ... I don't think that we have had much success in covering this situation up. In fact, I think it has long since taken on a completely disproportionate importance. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could it partially be a reaction to how people are treating it in comparison to other similarly-referenced events, though? Certainly, the community's closeness to the subject lends extra detail, but when people keep reacting that we don't need this article, or that it should disappear, when there's no significant reason beyond the IDONTLIKEIT situation, it's merely asking for more detail and more attention, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How disproportionate it is not clear. We're the #11 web site in the world, and we had a scandal with one of our most highly trusted users: Bureaucrat (22 of them), Arbitrator (15 of them), and CheckUser (13 of them), all at once. Is it really that disproportionate? The #13 web site is Microsoft.com, the #14 is EBay - if one of their top dozen people was forced to resign under a scandal, do you think it would substantially less coverage? In any case, the point of I'm saying is that the proposal to "sub-stub" the article is clearly wrong. Even if the coverage the media gave it is disproportionate, and that is not clear, they did give it substantial coverage, and it is not up to us to second-guess them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell The Thruth / Peniel Pentecostal Church

Resolved

Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated page blankings and undiscussed reverts, despite warnings, to Peniel Pentecostal Church and Talk:Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My article

Please can someone delete my article, I hate the entire thing. It's appalling and insulting to me. --Keanu Reeves 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, nothing to see here. Deiz talk 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar, again

Just another note: Hkelkar has also been running a spambot from the University of Texas IP addresses, it's been used to spam multiple forums and wikis with links to his case on here, and it's been done so often, that we've been IP-banned and IP-blocked from forums and wikis, with the IT department having to resolve it frequently.

If you see anon IPs editing like Hkelkar, be aware that they will usually have a spambot running, so be careful.... --Trudiruddsen 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (again).

Resolved

As previously menionted here, 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, and SpuriousQ complained about this vandal returning about a week ago (see his note in WP:AN Archive 208). His most changes are [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. As SpuriousQ mentioned, "this kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have)." He has been warned multiple times, with no response. His edit rate is rather low so AIV doesn't seem the place to report and the earlier block did not appear to be long enough to get his attention. Would someone consider placing a longer block on this IP? —RP88 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Talk page History

As there is no talk page to discuss this, and the page is protected, could somebody comment on this recent change

[21]

I feel that having the two links on the talk page are valid links. Some people who are new to Wikipedia, having come here to read up about the controvercy, may not know how to navigate the history [22]. The inclusion of the links made clear that Wikipedia wasn't censoring information and also helped novices find the details that they were looking for.

Regards - Munta 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They can find the button at the top of the page. If not, then oh well, these are the type of people who slow down to look at a car accident. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think thats rather dismissive of people who use Wikipedia. I came here first to research - now I edit. It took me days to realise I could look at the full history of an article - So these are our future editors you are are dismissing. - Munta 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you be reading Essjay's talk page history if you were just researching? What casual reader would care about internal strife we had once? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think characterising this situation as 'internal strife' is dismissive, at best. – riana_dzasta 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the Essjay controversy, unfortunately, so you can read about it there. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's necessary to get rid of the links. I say that if Essjay left them there, preserve his page as he wanted it kept. --Dookama 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who cares about the reliability and trustworthiness of WP would want to see the details of this particular dispute, for it bears upon the credibility of everything we have been doing. It is not a minor incident in the development of WP--it is by now universally known to anyone who knows about WP at all, and there is no point trying to pretend otherwise.

Within WP, Essjay is (was) a public figure. When he chose to give interviews to a reporter for an internationally known magazine he became a public figure in the most direct way.

Why we would conceal the details--obviously, because we are ashamed of them. And well we should be; but the only way to restore our reputation is to admit the details of our failings. Consider other cases of attempts to hide information that ought to be public--first of all, within the last six years--and more generally. Those associated with Enron or its accountants have good reason to wish the details private, but everyone else as even better reason to keep them public. some political figures are aware of how they will look to history, and thus have good reason to keep their documents from public view. I doubt they will get away with it. Nixon too tried to conceal the documentation.

We are not quite as important as those people in a world-wide sense--but within our own part of the world we are. I try to persuade other librarians to use WP--it will now be much more difficult. I try to persuade faculty whom I know to contribute--it will now be very much harder--they now have good reason to prefer one of he competitive projects.

IWISHITWERENTSO. DGG 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't, they were added by the page protector at my suggestion so that the paranoid couldn't claim people were trying to hide the comments. Even if you can find the history they are still useful because you can go directly to the two major revisions easily rather than needing to search through an obscenely long diff list. --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you are taking positive steps to preserve the records appropriately.DGG 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop blocked without warning or explanation

User:Dpotop was blocked by User:Blnguyen for a time period of 48-hours. The reason given on the blockpage is this:

“ (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (NPA Khoikhoi -> coicoi (Romanian for testicles)) ”

There are a few problems with that reasoning.

1. Coicoi, in Romanian, does not mean testicles. Coaie, in slang language, means testicles and some may say also coi.
2. Dpotop called Khoikhoi for coicoi on March 7; and about 24 hours later, he was blocked for 48 hours.
3. Dahn confronted Dpotop about calling Khoikhoi for coicoi, in which Dpotop answered by saying this:

“ Calling Khoikhoi coicoi is perfectly understandable for a Romanian speaker since: 1. letter K is very rare in Romanian and 2. Romanian orthography is phonetic. Hence, the most immediate and spontaneous way of writing Khoikhoi in Romanian is coicoi. It’s but a spontaneous reaction of a Romanian person transliterating the name of Khoikhoi. Nothing more than that. Implying bad faith or insulting intentions is simply absurd. ”

This is true. If I wanted to write the name Khoikhoi in Romanian, it would be written as "coicoi."

4. Dpotop was not warned by any admin, for any violation; he was not notified that he was blocked; and nor was he told where he could appeal against his block. I think the block is unfair and that Dpotop should be unblocked on grounds that there is no proof of him intending to use the alternative spelling as a way to insult Khoikhoi. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know events where people have been called worse and didn't get blocked for personal attacks. I guess that's life :-( --Domitius 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it should have any bearing on the decision, and I don't ultimately claim that it should (that is a decision for admins to take). I will however point out that the "explanation" furnished above by Anittas is ridiculous. "Coi" means "a testicle", "coaie" means "testicles", pure and simple. In my view, as I have stated before, Dpotop used it on purpose, as a derogatory manipulation of Khoikhoi's user name. I also find the theory about k being uncommon in Romanian to be absurd - it is by no means that uncommon (if one is looking for it, one will find it easily), and Dpotop wrote the rest of his message in English, which has a lot of ks (he did not have trouble finding them, apparently). "Spontaneity" is out of the question (not to get tangled up in semantics, but "kh" never turns into "c" in Romanian, and I am yet to see a person that would find spelling with a c "easier" than spelling with a k in Romanian). That is what I have to say. Dahn 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? We agree that coi/coaie means testicle/s. The letter K is indeed uncommon in Romanian. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In a quick read, I see your point. However cross cultural slurs/insults about alternate spellings & pronunciations of usernames have come up before (can't begin to find diffs, but I definitely remember it happening) Sometimes its a misunderstanding, sometimes its not. I've alerted User:Blnguyen to this discussion on his talk page. Cheers Dina 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I met User:Blnguyen on the DYK page and I recall her/him as an excellent contributor. I am afraid that now s/he really committed a big mistake in blocking User:Dpotop for that “Khoikhoi = coicoi” story. As a native Romanian speaker I can say that you need a huge portion imagination to construct a case out of this Romanian transliteration. Knowing User:Blnguyen as a fair person, I think that all was but a misunderstanding. As I said, you cannot possibly accuse a Romanian person of bad faith or insulting intentions when transliterating “Khoikhoi” to “coicoi”, since it’s the most obvious and spontaneous way of writing down “Khoikhoi” in a phonetic way. Besides, “coi” – meaning testicle in Romanian – is by no means used as an insulting word. A Romanian called “coi” would be rather surprised than insulted. Moreover, “coi” is a particle of many Romanian words like “Ciocoi”, Băicoi”, “Coif”, “Coir”, so that there is no concern for Romanian speakers to avoid words containing “coi”. Besides, what Dahn argues reads like weird speculations aimed at harming Dpotop. I wonder where so much hate on Dpotop comes from. I think that there are strong reasons to unblock User:Dpotop. --Vintilă Barbu 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to undue the block without hearing from User:Blnguyen, since 48 hours is not excessive for a personal attack. In context, I can see the argument that this was not meant as it was interpreted. Although I would suggest that mispelling of usernames in arguments can often be seen as dismissive and my read of the diff is sort of like that. Sort of like someone saying about me "well Deena thinks so, so whatever". It's a bit rude, and the argument seemed to be a bit heated at the time. I have alerted User:Khoikhoi to the existence of this discussion, since his/her feelings about the alleged insult seem relevant. To be frank: I'm not going to unblock without discussion with the two admins involved, and it may be longer than 48 hours until they respond. My apologies if this is all a misunderstanding. Cheers. Dina 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block - this user and a couple of others were basically attacking Khoikhoi and badgering another user about something on the Romanian Wikipedia. Appears more like trolling than anything else. Rama's arrow 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some users write messages to others in their native languages/scripts here - the bottomline is this was obviously a bad-faith ref to Khoikhoi and nobody can use translation as an excuse about it. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia where you're not supposed to use any other language, especially under such circumstances. Do you seriously expect others to be able to translate Romanian, Bengali, Arabic and all other languages under the sun in order to check for personal attacks? Rama's arrow 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the matter initially under discussion here, I do want to weigh in on "not supposed to use any other language": it is perfectly reasonable for users to communicate with one another in languages in which they are comfortable. There are quite a few users who routinely address me in either Romanian or Spanish, because it is easier for them and generally no problem for me. I think that's more than fine. On at least two occasions, the comments in question have been blatant (and obscene) personal attacks, and I've reported them as such. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In such a situation I would seek clarification, or at the very least start with a warning. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not reasonable exactly becoz of such a situation - the English Wikipedia is the most diverse of its kind. What will happen if editors here, from so many different countries just start using their local languages for their interactions? I would consider it a tremendous discourtesy to those who don't speak Indian languages if Indian editors began conducting dialogue and business in Indian languages. Everybody is free to participate and all dialogues are transparent and open here - this can't be enforced w/o a generally strict usage of English only. Who will be able to keep track of the personal attacks, incivility, etc. stuff going on? As an administrator, I find the prospect terribly challenging - I've already seen 3 cases of insulting comments/insinuations being made in Bengali, Hindi and Urdu. Were it not for my background or for the presence of some other admins who do know that particular language, who's to say which version of the translation would be accurate? Would an Australian admin be able to detect the slur? English is the thread that binds us here - all practical interaction must be conducted in English and very rarely (I regard the exchange of greetings, pleasantries to be ok) should other languages be used. It is not fair to other users and certainly difficult to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Right now the unity given by English allows a Vietnamese-Australian admin (Blnguyen) to block a Romanian editor for a personal attack. And I'm a terrestrial of martian origin (lol) lecturing on how on the English Wikipedia, only English should be used. While it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be anglophiles, this being the English Wikipedia must compell the Romanian editors in question to not use Romanian phrases in such public discussions, at the very least. Rama's arrow 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to write in Romanian, but that's beside the point, because the user didn't write in Romanian. He merely wrote the name as it would be written in Romanian and that can't be against the rules. As for trolling and personal attacks, as you claim to have seen:--I guess you can always provide examples, but I don't see this incident as a such example. Everything is based on assumption which Dahl started. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading an earlier attempt to interpret the spelling of Khoikhoi as an insult. Due to the phonetic identity between the particle “Khoi” and the Romanian word “coi” (vernacular for “testicle”) it is very easy to accuse a Romanian person of having meant “testicle” when s/he writes Khoi or coicoi. Anyway, these accusations break the very basic WP principle of WP:AGF. --Vintilă Barbu 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rama's essential point -- non-english should be avoided, at the very least, because it can certainly give the impression to someone that they were being talked about, or mocked. I've had that happen to me in real life as well, and it's unsettling, particularly when you can't be sure. But I am not certain that discouraging the use of foreign languages really applies here, as "KhoiKhoi" is not english and, apparently "coicoi" is not Romanian. It's necessary to trust native Romanian speakers as to whether or not this could be interpreted as a slur. Such things are usually subtle, in all languages. Some good faith seems necessary. I do think that in the case of a personal attack block, the case just generally be very clear cut. However, I expect the user in question, whether his intention was to insult or not, will be much more careful in the future and that can only be a good thing. Dina 13:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I certify that the same inane insinuations were brought against me by User:Dahn. I strongly urge all editors to ignore future requests of similar nature from that user. (Icar 11:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

User PaxEquilibrium again

I was once again cleared by Checkuser here [23] as not being anyone's sockpuppet and this user files another (identical) accusation yet again. Besides similar IP's there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person, yet he continues to accuse me. He also put this on my main page: [24] !!! How long will I be harassed by this raving madman before someone tells him to stop? Tar-Elenion 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The previous CheckUser did not clear Tar-Elenion of sock-puppetry suspect. It was declined due to the fact that Tar-Elenion was inactive (no data). That's why I re-filed the RFCU immediately after the User in question became active again.

I have to note that this is slightly annoying that this User is repeating this (this same thing was done by Afrika paprika while he was User:Factanista) because if User talk:Tar-Elenion is carefully inspected, it will be seen that I've explained this twice on the user's talk page and twice more additionally elsewhere. As for the tag, I fully stand by it because that's the proper thing to do. --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did. I was not cleared based on my inactivity but due to inactivity of this AfrikaPaprika. What is imporant however was that I was cleared. Even the recent checkuser (which is identical to the last one rejected) implied you are fishing. Beside the similar IP between me and this person (BTW I disclosed my IP to Pax on his talk page) there is absolutly no proof of me being a sockpuppet, least that of this AfrikaPaprika character. I already tried reasoning with this person but he is stuborn and keeps hurling his ridiculous accusation insults at me. I don't know what argument he has with this AfrikaPaprika but I am simply not him (or her). Tar-Elenion 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Merged from dupe section)

• PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tar-Elenion recently contacted me, asking me to have a word with PaxEquilibrium. The two appear to be reverting back and forth over a sockpuppet template on Tar-Elenion's userpage. As we can quickly see from the argument on Tar-Elenion's user talk, this situation has escalated quite a bit. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika is relevant. Beyond that, I'm getting a feeling this situation is too complex for me to act alone -- anybody have opinions? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take. The IPs belong to the T-Mobile Croatia network. Both Tar-Elenion and AfrikaPaprika edited Croatia-related articles. It's not at all out of the question (disregarding edits for the moment) that they are two independent editors both from Croatia using the same ISP editing articles about their home country. However, it's entirely possible that they are not. So, Pax, if you can properly apply the duck test and e-mail me the proof that you have that these two editors are one and the same, and I will block if I find it sufficient (and will forward the information to all administrators or editors in good standing requesting it (WP:BEANS and all that jazz)). Sound good? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He has no proof. All he has is my IP which BTW was revealed to him by me and the supposed "similar intrests" I have with that of this person which basically means all Croatia related stuff. It seems to me that to him anyone editing articles related Croatia (and so most likely from Croatia) is a sockpuppet of this AfrikaPaprika. Tar-Elenion 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bbatsell, would that be OK - Afrika paprika as Factanista (before) appealed how I was conspiring behind his backs. If I e-mail you all proofs in one package and you block Tar, I fear the same reaction and regardless of the fact that I'm pretty much convinced that Tar-Elenion is Afrika paprika himself (who sent Jesus Christ to f**k my mother and vandalized my user page for 18 times adding insulting homosexual crimes including a war criminal), I still think that it would be somewhat unjust. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that would explain it, thing is I am not this AfrikaPaprika. Checkuser confirmed so. I am asking you what "proof" do you have I am this person? Besides blatant accusations and your supposed conviction (suspcion really) of me being this person, what else is there? Are similarities in IP's and interest in the same field (rather wide field of interest - Croatia-related articles) enough? Especially when you are accusing the wrong person. Now please send him the "proof" and let we be done with this. Tar-Elenion 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop saying that CheckUser cleared you. As has been explained numerous times, it has not cleared you. Pax, I encourage you to e-mail me your information. It's a pretty standard way of dealing with sockpuppets, and as I said, it will be available to anyone in good standing who requests here or on my talk page (or on yours, I'd imagine). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mailed. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case, this edit where one user apparently refers to Tar as "Afrika". Can't think of why they would do that unless they knew something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The direct translation's included in my e-mail to Bbatsell. You'll get the info. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite interesting, isn't it? At the same moment when Pax is making the accusation at User talk:Tariqabjotu this person "GreaterCroatia" comes and refers to me as this "AfrikaPaprika". I find this to be too great coincedance and that "GreaterCroatia" is in fact Pax sockpuppet, you know so that he can have an alibi and say "aha, see someone referred to him as AfrikaPaprika". I can think of no other reason.

Also another interesting bit I found after quick search on Google is that Pax also accused Kubura (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kubura) being a sockpuppet of this "AfrikaPaprika" on the same ground as he is accusing me here as well - Kubura is also a member from Croatia and also often edits Croatia-related articles. Who knows how many innocent users jut like me he accused, only he knows. Tar-Elenion 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush tours

I found an OTRS complaint form the author of a Rush tribute book, stating that the tour dates listed in some articles on Rush tours were a copyright violation and impeded his ability to sell an updated version.

Although I am not really convinced that you can copyright a list of dates which is available on the back of every tour shirt sold, about half the articles had no content other than a fair use image of an album cover (copyvio; can only be used in the article on the album) and an infobox; those that had dates lists were unformatted and unreferenced, in short there did not seem to be anythign there actually worth having. I removed them from {{Rush}}. There may be kickback. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a regular editor at that page, I will leave a link to this on the talk pages of a few of the regs, that should clear it up, Guy. ThuranX 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally see the encyclopedic worth in tour dates anyway, but that's just me. JuJube 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely rings a bell somewhere about disputes around one (or more) of these lists (not copyvio) but I could be mistaken. Not sure about the copyrighting of lists as generally you can't copyright factual information, though things like telephone directories do claim copyright. It would seem unlikely the author of a tribute book might have ownership of such copyright anyway. From your description though, sounds like they were adding little encyclopedic value and probably fail not an indiscriminate collection of information --pgk 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One can copyright the specific layout of a given set of factual information, so long as the layout has some artistic or creative function beyond simply dumping the information, but not the information itself. (That's why you often see more than one phone directory in an area, just with different titles and designs.) Therefore, a scanned image of the book cover or page would be a copyvio, but simply putting the same information here as there is not. Still, seems to fail WP:NOT, as stated above. If information itself could be copyrighted, we'd be committing a copyvio every time we paraphrased a source! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More being sidetracked than necessarily applicable here, if your interested in this sort of thing, would be this --pgk 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Ukrained

User calls me by a derogatory version of my name real name Alexander — Sashok from the Russian nickname Sasha. Now although it is disputable that Sashok is actually an insult and there are cases when it cannot be e.g. a grandfather calling his grandson. However when a rival person, and in wikipedia we do assume that we are equal in age...at least formally, calling another person with that name, who is not a close friend is insulting and I find it so, and in the context that he is using it ([25], [26]). Furthermore this is not the first time he has done so. And was warned of a personal attack (dif) one of the links include several entries in which he has referred to me as such. I believe that as a wikipedian I have the right not to be Insulted, Harassed and intimidated. Furthermore user makes numerous disrespectful remarks to my background, which borders on racism. Now until recently I have ignored it, but this is not the first time and my patience is not eternal. --Kuban Cossack 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the issue. Here is what I can say. The user Ukrained (talk · contribs) chooses to perpetually harass me all the time. Some diffs from only the latest times:

• attack on another editor (see edit summary)
• attack on myself and yet a third editor
• frivolous warning
• attack on me and host of editors calling them "Irpen Group" (gross ABF)
• attack on myself (again) and two other editors
• unveiled attempt to recruit help to launch a revert war
• another grossly ABF attack
• another call for an edit war
• same here
• reaction to admin warning that he retitled into "Another intimidation attempt by the Irpen Group", the edit summary "мене не залякати" translates as "I won't be scared" (!)
• second response to admin warning, or best yet check the whole thread

Now, I choose to simply ignore Ukrained and his filthy mouthed friend AlexPU (talk · contribs) despite I am the aim of their trolling but Kuban kazak is under no obligation to be as patient.

AlexPU just fresh from a one week block is now again trolling full-trottle: [27], [28]. See also the edit summary to in reverting my totally innocuous edit

How many times was AlexPU "warned" is difficult to even say. More than a dozen. I will only link to the discussions about him at this very board:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#AlexPU_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29s attack page,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#Reposting. Can someone please do something about this guy.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115#AlexPU
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive105#Appalling profanity.2C ethnic slurs.2C threats by blocked user on his talk page
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive107#AlexPU keeps on attacking despite his block (where a community ban was discussed even)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU: maintaining an attack page and_perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki

Now, I must say that I am on the record opposing the blocks for mere PA, especially an occasional one. But blocks for disruption is something else and sometimes habitual trolling becomes a disruption. I don't care whether the fellows get blocked, actually. But I am providing my own observations since I was asked. --Irpen 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A little something to add. I would not support any sort of a lengthy block of a user Ukrained. Whatever problems that he has with me, I am very thick-skinned and usually ignore his whining, something that Kuban kazak chose not to ignore (a position to which he is also entitled.) I must say that Ukrained's article edits are usually more reasonable than his talk page entries which are mostly either offensive or horrific. If there is any way to relay to him a message that he should stop the disruption (prior warnings did not work) that may be a better idea than a long block. As for AlexPU, I do not care a least bit. Most of his recent activity is pure trolling. Anyway, I thought I should mention it. --Irpen 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only second Kazak's and Irpen's request. Both users have a disruption record as long as my arm, starting from "classic" disruption and insults as evidenced by the diffs above, to straight and blind criticism of an elected arbitrator because of his nationality [29] and ignoring warnings from an admin in a quite insulting form [30]. I say both need to be brought in order, and this far, there is unfortunately only one possible solution... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-written, well considered explanation of the problem. I've had smaller run ins with AlexPU who is totally incivil, and more importantly disruptive. He constantly engages in tendentious editing at articles related to Ukraine, constantly pushes a Ukrainian nationalist POV and calls everyone who disagrees with him "anti-Ukrainian or "Soviet". When he got into an argument with me over his POV pushing, he accused me of being a part of an Irpen-led anti-Ukrainian cabal, admitted that he and a few of his pals were Ukrainian nationalists, called Irpen a "Traitor", and basically told me that if I didn't take sides against Irpen that I would become his (AlexPU's) enemy. [31]. He refuses to acknowledge consensus refuses to discuss his edits and instead engages in stubborn revert wars. This is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and in the interests of all, I thoroughly support an indefinite block, of AlexPU (who was already blocked for making the ridiculous personal attack on my talk). TheQuandry 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Ukrained for 24 hours and AlexPU for 2 weeks. He has just come off of a one-week block and has resumed making personal attacks almost immediately. Given his long history of making them, I think this block's length is appropriate. If another admin disagrees with either of these blocks, feel free to let me know. Khoikhoi 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Support blocks. Good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Route 55 (1969).jpg – User:Route 82

My apologies in advance if there's a better place I should take this.

On March 7, I tagged this image as {{Replaceable fair use}} diff, as all maps by nature are, if they're eligible for fair use at all. The uploader, after bantering back and forth with me on the image talk page, has just removed the tag diff rather than using {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}.

User:Route 82 has also uploaded numerous similar maps. Image:I-695.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969).jpg were both uploaded by him and deleted as replaceable fair use. He then reuploaded identical images at Image:I-695a.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969).jpg, which were quickly redeleted by the same admin as {{db-repost}}.

Any help on the issue would be appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Nuke the image. Fair use is not a license, it's a defense, and cannot be applied if free replacements can be made. -- Drini 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many more like this. I have tagged them with the appropriate templates, with the exception of one that was old enough it needed to be taked to IFD. Jkelly 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. But Jkelly, I think you're reading the date issue incorrectly. To quote WP:CSD:

Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after July 13, 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before July 13, 2006 or tagged with the {{Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.

The way I'm reading that, if it was uploaded after July 13, 2006, the image has 48 hours. If it was uploaded before July 13, 2006, or tagged with the template, it has 7 days. Either way the template still applies, no? -- NORTH ^talk 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was thinking of the I3 clause. Jkelly 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense would call for faster deletion than that. No reasonable person would claim fair use of a copyrighted map, except in a case where the subject of an article is an individual map itself (but most famous maps are old enough to be public domain, so even that is an unlikely situation). — CharlotteWebb 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not the right forum for my $.02, but since it seems germane: 7 days gives someone other than the uploader time to create a free image based on the fair use one. --Selket ^Talk 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One famous map that is not public domain, and probably never will be, is mentioned in Michael Hertz Associates. The same is true for its predecessor, used under fair use in [32]. --NE2 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

...and how could I forget the Tube map, which doesn't have even a small piece of the actual map that's being talked about. --NE2 09:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat needs attention

Please see threat of legal action here. Not sure if this is the correct place to report, but WP:NLT doesn't specify the place to go. Raymond Arritt 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the correct place to report. Looks like an unacceptable legal threat to me. Strongly warn, and block if not retracted, or block straight away? Newyorkbrad 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Legal threats, veiled or otherwise, are not tolerated. And that was a veiled legal threat. I told the user we can't stop them from taking legal action, but that we don't tolerate legal threats on Wikipedia. I also told him there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, which he seems to think there is. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the relevant article, Motionless Electrical Generator, reminds me of a Zero Point Module. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

Big Boss 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been frustrating the hell out of myself and User:The Hybrid for quite some time now. That resulted in a 48 hour block on February 19 by me. (See relevant threads here and here).

Since the block, he's continued to be disruptive. He keeps taunting Ockenbock (a blocked user who continues to come back to troll my user talk page). But now, recently, there's some crazy things he's saying that really scary and annoying for me: see this and this. He's threatening to stalk me, basically, and that scares me. See also this thread at The Hybrid's talk page where he explains his stalking and such.

And there's also just odd actions like this conversation and this related diff. He's trying to run some wrestling fanboy thing on here and thinks he can control all the other fanboy actions on Wikipedia.

Can another admin please look at this? I think I'm too involved to make a proper ruling on this, but something needs to be done. Thanks, Metros232 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also this diff. It seems that Nightmare81 might be the person he claims is doing all the research on me and everything. "I also wish to have a report of all of the data you have gathered" and "I didn't break policy for no reason. This will be big on both of our parts" kind of bother me. Metros232 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, there's either some real weird non-WP related nonsense going on (it looks like there's a few folks doing an RP account thing on here), or there is a real possible issue. MSJapan 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out, I think. Remember, we are dealing with a young teen here, probably around 13, and a wrestling fan. Now, I believe that he is trying to start a faction within Wikipedia under the banner of the nWo. The new World order, or nWo, was a professional wrestling faction within World Championship Wrestling that was incredibly large, and in the storyline they had a real chance of conquering WCW. I believe that he is trying to start an nWo on Wikipedia, with him as the leader. In the nWo, the leader was almost always a world champion, and he calls himself "The Real People's Champion." I believe that his goal is to gain control over a certain area of Wikipedia, and he views Metros232 as a threat to this goal. Metros, being an admin, has the power to squash his movement before it starts with his power to block people, though of course we know that it would take some serious stuff for him to start running around handing out indef ACB blocks to people.

When he first got here I explained to him how things work, and he asked me many questions about how to most efficiently damage Wikipedia. I suspected him of having ulterior motives, but he was being a vandal fighter, and he does seem rather young, so I assumed good faith and answered his questions assuming that he was simply being overzealous due to his curiosity like when a young boy learns about explosions in chemistry class.

However, it now appears that he is trying to start a movement in Wikipedia for whatever reason. I believe that his provocation of Ockenbock is an attempt to distract both me and Metros from what he is doing. I believe that he is making preparations to start his own Wikipedia nWo, and he wants both editors and vandals (nWo Wolfpac and nWo Hollywood) to join him. He wants to understand the motives of vandals, and I believe that his motive behind this is to get them to join him, which is why he has maintained a presence on Uncyclopedia after tracking down Ockenbock. Meanwhile, he is trying to recruit actual editors over here. What he thinks he will gain by starting a Wikipedia nWo is anyone's guess, but we are dealing with a rather young person here, so logic isn't necessarily a part of this.

This is my theory, but since I am leaving for vacation tomorrow I won't be here to see how this thing turns out. Either way, he is violating policies knowingly and unapologetically, so something needs to happen. Peace, -- The Hybrid 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Just as a heads up, I've blocked User:Xsp85 and User:RyuW for sockpuppetry on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, specifically, pushing undiscussed criticism into the article ([33], [34]). I've tagged User:Xsp1 as the sockmaster, seeing as it is the oldest account. Yes, I'm aware that Xsp1 didn't edit this article, but the account names are too similar to be coincidence. Shadow1 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I had filed an earlier complaint on this person here, but it was archived without action (along with the report on User:Unicorn144 which immediately follows it). RJASE1 ^Talk 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few more users and IPs to the list of suspected socks. The user doesn't just edit Islam-related articles - he also edits some articles on educational facilities and finance. Andjam 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In Washington Mutual, User:Xsp85, User:Xsp1 and User:Xsp66 have edited. User talk:24.188.142.75 was edited by Xsp1, who in turn has edited User:Xsp85.

User:24.188.132.155 has worked on Talk:WAMU (also worked on by Xsp1), M. Shahid Alam (also worked on by User:Xsp3), Baruch College (worked on by Xsp1, User:Xsp65, and 24.188.142.75), Banking in the United States (worked on by 24.188.142.75), Salehuddin Ahmed (also edited by Xsp3) and Washington Mutual (see above)

User:24.188.134.192 has worked on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali (along with Xsp85, and User:RyuW has worked on the article itself) Bank of America (no other socks have to my knowledge, though), Washington Mutual (see above) and Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (along with Xsp85).

There is also a User:Xsp99, but it hasn't made any contributions (as far as I can tell). Andjam 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alsace

Hey there,

I require an administrator for explaining correctly to the american User:R9tgokunks that Alsace is RIGHTFULLY a part of France nowadays... I'm living in this region for ever, and no one around me think that we feel as german. Okay, the thousand years old villages' names have got a germanic sound and some found habit come from Germans one. NEVERTHELESS, Alsace is French no more. The official language is French, we hace got french institution, we speak french every day, we watch french TV... No one around me feels that Alsace is actualy a part of Germany !!! So I try unsuccessfully to explain this fact to User:R9tgokunks , but this one don't pay attention to my request, and continue to reverse the article Alsace without any explaination. I hope that you will convinced him or excluded him on Wikipédia for some days as a simple warning. Sincerily user:Paris75000 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NB : It seems that User:R9tgokunks is always walking on the line... (have a look to User talk:R9tgokunks)

Administrators can't explain such things to users, unless they're experts in the subject, in which case they can because they're experts, not because they are administrators. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns on Stacy Schiff

If everyone disagrees with me, that's fine with me. But, should Ms. Schiff's birthday be included on her article or not? Per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays, would she be considered "marginally notable" so as not to include her birthday? or is she notable enough to include it? I also object to others characterizing my edits as vandalism, but have greater concerns about getting this right on her article. Please advise in on the article Talk:Stacy_Schiff#BLP_concerns talk page. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Banana Boomerang

This page is consistently getting remade after deletion. User:Bananarang probably has a WP:COI, due to his name. All edits are either redirects to Calzone, or speedy-deletion tag removal. User claims that his 'academic friends' think it's a perfectly reasonable redirect (see Talk:Banana Boomerang).

I put this here because he's done it repeatedly - however, he hasn't recieved a full set of warnings, (some haven't been added) so I didn't think WP:AIV was appropriate. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauer ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke ^(talk) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Wikipedia. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed on User RfC please

Hi. Would a previously uninvolved admin please help me out by taking a look at the current RfC on me brought by User:Anynobody, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother, and please consider cancelling it as not meeting the minimum requirement of two good faith efforts to resolve the dispute between Anynobody and myself. User:Smeelgova is listed as the 2nd party to attempt to resolve the dispute but he made no good faith effort to do so. User:Bishonen was advising Anynobody and Smee on the RfC before it went live and she strongly recommended that they do not file the RfC without further good faith efforts at resolution but that advice was ignored and Anynobody posted the RfC anyway. I welcome a neutral 3rd-party to help settle any dispute between Anynobody and myself. I am sure that they will find that I am very easy to work with. Thank you for considering my request. --Justanother 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: - Please note that there are already at least two administrators involved in this RFC process. Smee 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, one said to not post it without further attempt at resolving any dispute and the other, in my opinion, wrongfully promoted it from candidate staus. The latter is the situation that I would like some help with. --Justanother 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a disruptive waste of space on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, which has been done before. There is no need for more Admins to get involved, as your perceptions about the individuals currently involved are inaccurate. However, if other Admins wish to comment at the RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother, I'm sure it would be welcomed by the other editors already involved on that page... Smee 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow, that is pretty inappropriate, Smee. But OK, you've had your say. --Justanother 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You've both had your say here, it seems. I ask that you both refrain from escalating the conflict here. If the RfC is deemed to have failed, try mediation or arbitration. I'm not closing it because I have no knowledge of RfC. Don't dispute on this board past a complaint and response, please. Teke ^(talk) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Anyone, please feel free to remove the off-topic thread. Thanks --Justanother 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IPs using Wikipedia as a chatroom

Resolved

After a new account created the nonsense article Plake, various IPs are essentially using as a chatroom - see [35]. Reporting here because copying all the IP addresses at AIV would take too long. Natalie 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted by another admin. No other outstanding recent edits by any of the IPs who contributed. -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, ON WHEELS?

Hoijho kensig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created today, in his first edit places a sockpuppet tag on the userpage of User:HIGHSPEEDWILLYONWHEELS: [36]. He then goes on to file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pschemp, accusing User:Giftednumber10 of being Pschemp's sock puppet. HIGHSPEEDWILLYONWHEELS was blocked in Dec 2005, so it's a bit odd that Hoijho kensig decided to tag him...could someone investigate, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I went out on a limb and blocked that user indefinitely. Weird... Grandmasterka 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive blocking

See User_talk:Superc63 -- User was blocked indefinitely, which seems extreme for a first time block, especially over a topic that has some contention in its support. Autocracy 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like this user is here to write encyclopedia. And how did complete n00b learned about ANI? MaxSem

I had a nice welcome, it's still on my talk page. It contains a bunch of information useful for new editors. It takes two clicks to get from that text to ANI. DanBeale 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking...

I have blocked Autocracy for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT in sending International Talk Like a Pirate Day to AfD while putting the article that Superc63 was discussing up for DRV. I invite others to review my block of this individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin attention requested

Can an admin or two take a look at the above? I don't feel like the participants going back and forth is producing any new information at this point. Thanks. csloat 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation, attack, clueless, nasty... what?

Resolved

It's late for me, and I'm not going to touch this. Please see this which drew my attention. User:My_pass_is_google's talk page is a rip-off of User:Academic Challenger's user page. I don't know what to make of it, but I'm pretty sure a large mallet is a good tool for this square peg. Shenme 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked indef, I replaced his user page and talk page with {{indefblock}}. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Goshuckurself

Resolved

The name seems kind of suspect, and the second contribution doesn't make this look like a constructive editor. Username block appropriate? (I'm not an admin.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked indef by Ryulong. MaxSem 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed

Hello people. Can I please get someone to help me with Emir Arven? Myself and this user have had disputes in the past, and both of us have been blocked as a result of personal attacks against each other. Our last dispute was a result of this edit summary. I then calmly started a discussion with the user about why they would falsely accuse me like that, but he just turned hostile straight away. The user then started provoking me some more, and that's when we started an exchange of personal attacks. I was blocked for 72 hrs for personal attacks, and he was blocked for 2 weeks, as he is a repeat offender. After his block expired, things cooled down, and I haven't heard anything from him so far. But, not ten minutes ago, Emir Arven has restarted with his provocative and offensive edits/behaviour (see here, here, and here. I am asking if an administrator (or maybe more) could step in, and tell the user to stop falsely accusing, stop provoking, and maybe tell him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like all the personal attacks this user has made against me on his talk page and elsewhere be removed, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please help, because when I'm in situations like these, I can't help but retaliate, and that would just result in bad results for me. Anyway, help! —KingIvan 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is totally false. This user, Ivan Kricancic was warned earlier by AnonEMouse because of his sockpuppet past. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets.

Here is conclusion about that

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

• 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [4] * 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [5]
• 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
• 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [7]
• 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [8] Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

I have found new evidence that he still continues his sockpuppet behaviour, so I told him that I would report him if he continued:

He told me once: Whenever I see an edit made by a fanatical Bosniak user, I will be sure to include your user name in the edit summary., and immidiately he went to Srebrenica Genocide and Alija Izetbegović articles to provoke. He didn't read the articles, but he reverted it immediately in order to provoke. I asked him about IP address and he didn't answer me. But continued to provoke. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit58.165.126.17.

There he goes again - twisting people's words and taking it out of context to try to turn the argument in his favor. The edit where I said the above can clearly be seen as a response to him not aplogising, provoking me some more, and if I acted on my words, it would have been me doing to him, what he has done to me. As for teh IP address, I was the one who even gave him the WHOIS link above - he did not start with a question about the IP - I started that discussion with this edit, where I sarcastically tell him that the anon could not be me, as I live hundreds of kilometers away from where it's IP is lcoated. Emir either did not notice this, ignored it, or just plain and simple, does not understand English. Even after answering his "question" numerous times, he still does not seem to understand or does not want to understand. Emir has only come to the English Wikipedia to provoke, attack and spread his POV - that's what I hate about certain non native English speakers who edit en.wikipedia; a lot of them only come here to spread propaganda and lies. —KingIvan 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Kricancic

• Ivan Kricancic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ivan Kricancic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: C

So he came here, as he did before to talk lies about me, because I found more facts about his sockpuppet role: 58.165.126.167.I said I will report him if he continues, I didn't insult him. And the others will decide about my accusation. Emir Arven 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Report on Emir

Now I must say, creating sockpuppet pages with absolutely no proof or evidence is in very bad taste. These pages must be deleted until your unfounded accusations that came out of nowhere prove true - which won't happen because you are a perennial liar. This whole thing started because of a provocation by Emir, and now Emir just will not stop with the attacks, lies and falsifications. I am yet again asking that a good admin step in, and remove all the personal attacks/falsifications/provocations directed against me by User:Emir Arven. He cannot hide under the guise of doing good for Wikipedia with personal attacks like this - which translated means

Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also.

This is insulting and provocative beyond belief - yet this, and many more attacks like it, have not been removed, and he has not yet been warned or punished for posting the above message numerous times.

Also, notice his block log.

• 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
• 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
• 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
• 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
• 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
• 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
• 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
• 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
• 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Seven blocks for heavy edit warring, many personal attacks, and rampant incivility.

Now, let's examine some of his edits and edit summaries:

• Claiming an edit which has stood for ages as "false" without any evidence, and of a generally provocative nature.
• Here, where his racist tendencies are shown - he claims a source is invalid purely because it was written by a Serb.

• A page move which is provocative in many ways to people involved in the article (those who are not "on his side")
• 2nd edit after his most recent block. Immediately jumps straight back into edit warring, and removes a huge section about a war crimes investigation on the man.
• A regular victim of his warring. With this edit, he reverts a version that was a compromise version between warring parties, and shows that he is unwilling to compromise.

Also on the same article, this edit which he writes "this is ok", which it simply is not, because he has removed all references to the man being Serb - another example of his racism.

• 7th Muslim brigade. Another article in which he removes sourced information and edit wars in, so he can try to paint a rosy picture of "his side".
• This one! Imagine begin the anonymous user, and BAM, out of nowhere some guy just reverts your edits, then goes "Ivan, is that you?".
• I don't need a link for this one, as the edit is what you see up above there written by him. Reproducing the same attacking and provocative bullshit that he has written about me elsewhere - if that's not an insult, then you can also blow up the Western Wall and expect teh Jews to be happy.

Now consider his editing patterns, his mannerisms and his block log, then take a look at my block log. I was blocked once for vandalizing a real life friend of mine's user page [37] (which was wrong, but in retaliation to this). And my other block was as a result of me making personal attacks against Emir Arven after he provoked, harassed and attacked me. Now make a judgment over which editor is more trustworthy. I will ask again, please delete/remove his personal attacks/provocations/insults, warn the user not to do it, and possibly block him - in my opinion (judging by the numerous blocks, edit wars, slander, personal attacks, insults, provocations, and racism from this user) an indefinite block would suffice, but one of you admins may be more tolerant than I am, so a one or two month block would do if an indef is not made. Please read this, and do something about this vandalistic troll. Thank you. —KingIvan 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "report" is irrelevant for the case and you are wrong. After you were strongly warned by AnonEMouse: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets, because you pretended to be an ethnic Bosniak in order to push false information about Bosniaks, your second account was indefinitely blocked. Your second "ethnic Bosniak" account which was blocked I just said I would report you if you continue to do this. P.S. When I edit I provide sourceses, my edits are valuable, I don't pretend to be an ethnic Croat in order to push false information about Croats (I am not interested in Croats), and you as a Croat, pretended to be a Bosniak, which was very low, rude and pathetic. Let me remind you what you wrote in your second blocked user page: [38]. You said: Also, articles of particular interest to me are ones concerning Bosnia, as I am an ethnic Bosniak. But, being born and raised in Australia, I suffer from "the curse of the English speakers", that is, It's really hard to learn another language even if you reall want to.. And according to your "interests" and "thoughts" in your original user page it is obvious that you, as a Croat, hate Bosniaks. I think this is not good for your health, because you are young and should enjoy life, not spend your life in lies and hatred. Emir Arven 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ivan's userpage may violate WP:USER, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:NPA (is "muslimani" an ethnic slur? I cannot tell). As a personal comment, I would like to point out that that bit about Alexander the Great being "non-Greek" just demonstrates a blatant ignorance of history.--Domitius 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, see the Muslims by nationality article. Speaking 'bout WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA; someone should take a look at User:Ancient Land of Bosoni. --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HRE, you have to know, when you pretend to belong to an ethnic group which you don't belong, just to take advantage in promoting false information about that ethnic group, because you hate it, then you cannot talk about WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA. And Ivan's second account was blocked because of that. I think, it was very dishonest act from him. And he continued to do that again although he was strongly warned not to do that. Emir Arven 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent uncivil behaviour by JoeMystical

I've reported JoeMystical before for uncivil behaviour bordering on personal attacks ([39]), though administrator User:J.Smith decided at that time it was a just a "one-time incident" and took no further action. Now, however, it's clear that it's not a "one-time incident", as JoeMystical is at it again: see [40], [41]. I therefore urge administrators to take some preventive action now, and put a stop to his scurrilous behaviour. Bi 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links aren't attacks, they aren't even uncivil in my opinion. He's stating simply that you're trying to get articles or content deleted because you are anti-Tech... whatever that means. That's not uncivil. He's arguing against your *position*, he's not calling you names. Wjhonson 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not one to put up with incivility, but I see nothing in those comments that requires admin intervention. You may be reading it as incivility, but it looks like perfectly ordinary criticism to me. I think there's plenty of room for you and JoeMystical to resolve your dispute without admins needing to point fingers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not proper criticism. It's "[u]sing someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." In each of the 3 cases, instead of addressing the specific issue being discussed, he's using the fact that I'm anti-Neo-Tech to discredit my arguments.

Anyway, I don't get it. First, J. Smith tells me the first attack is just a "one-time" attack of incivility, and now suddenly none of them are uncivil attacks. So which is it? Please make up your minds and let me know. Bi 08:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Faranbazu (and possible sock puppetry)

In Talk:Reza Shah, this user attacks those who disagree with his/her viewpoint. For example, I had questioned the credibility of his/her claims (after pointing out the given sources don't support the claims, I had called it an example of Original Research [42]) and my comment was labeled as "a clear POV by the monarchist camp. Your distortion of historical facts is sickening." [43][44]. Also this was his/her answer for User:Shervink. Considering the edits by 24.81.87.152, 140.80.199.91, and usernames User:Faranbazu, and User:Artaxerex, it seems that this user has used 2 usernames for editwarring over the page Reza Shah. Jahangard 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And you called his position a "deliberate distortion". Which could possibly explain the escalation in language.Wjhonson 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly call it "a deliberate distortion". I said "an example of WP:OR, if not a deliberate distortion". Anyway, how about his/her answer for User:Shervink [45]? and how about using 2 usernames for editwarring over one page? Should I wait for 3RR violation and then ask the checkusers? Jahangard 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Damareinu (talk · contribs · logs)

One of our more prolific contributors has left Wikipedia because his personal information was revealed by the above named editor. Nobleeagle's information was revealed on his user page, but it was later deleted by an intervening administrator. Nobleeagle requested an indefinite block over his account on Nlu's talk page, and the administrator complied. Later, this editor harassed another editor - User:Demonblade by revealing his real life identity. Demonblade later requested Nlu to block his account indefinitely - [46] . The diffs should be immediately deleted, in my opinion, and appropriate preventive action should be taken against Damareinu, to arrest the deletrious affect his presence is having on Wikipedia. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Policies to refer: m:Privacy policy and Wikipedia:Harrassment. There is discussion among other editors on the Noticeboard for India-related discussions - [47]. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitedly. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad violating WP:Harassment

I would like to report a case of harassment by User:Artaxiad. He has been following my edits, to identify myself with certain other physical identity without any proofs at hand. My creation and editing of Huseyn Javid, a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for User:Artaxiad to claim my identity based on false name associations and some information he found on Internet about a certain individual in California. His first case of intimidation was here [48]. User:Artaxiad further pursued harassment, trying to associate again User:Atabek with that individual in California and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Wikipedia contributor User:AdilBaguirov right here [49]. Using this invented association User:Artaxiad again trying to prove that I am friends with User:AdilBaguirov. I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at [50], [51], [52]. I am just wondering when negligence of disruptive behavior of this user is going to end. While being an experienced user, he walks away free with confirmed sockpuppets [53], gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case [54], clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here [55], accusing others of "lying" [56], and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? Atabek 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits (being) oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitely. In the future, please report such issues directly to the Oversight list. Kirill Lokshin 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)