Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive229

User:Masterbobo

This fellow's behavior is troublesome. He is mocking User:Bhadani, copying his user page design, all in a style that is reminiscent of User:BADMINton who was the Rajput vandal if I recall. He's also conducting a commentary with himself on a blocked user's page Johnny's in the basement 07:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef block the obove user as a sock of Johnny the Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Feel free to unblock if you think I have got it wrong. Viridae^Talk 07:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think his user name gives away his intentions - *Doh*! ;) Spawn Man 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal has been idef blocked for a while and is known to spawn socks like breeding rabbits. I blocked Johnny's in the basement because 1. the similarity of the name 2. the contributions showed a familiarity with wikipedia unusual in a new user account and 3. one of the first 4-5 edits was a personal attack. However I would like this reviewed. Viridae^Talk 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can not block me in this way unless you listen to the view point of Bhadani. If I copy his lay out - is it the reason for block? I am not mocking him or any one. Unless you institute a checkuser on my IP or have other cogent reasons, you can not block me simply because a user with few edits complain here about me. Thanks. --Masterbobo 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, this is confusing - you havent been blocked and are not about to be blocked from what I can gather. Viridae^Talk 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, maybe that's Johnny's in the Basement as a new user account? Just prodding in the dark here. Spawn Man 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to add the following but edit conflict arose. I am adding now: Moreover, you will have to give me few days time before you block me. A user comes to my page with one or two edits and then land here request blocking me gives out his intention. You will have to see all my present edits to decide a block, and if the reason is exchanges with Bhadani or mocking Bhadani, you will have to take his point of view or/ and the totality of the position whether I violated any of wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can not block perhaps a user who has inked a red link on India Portal on the first day of his presence here. Thank you. --Masterbobo 08:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My request to Bhadani: Please help me. --Masterbobo 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterbobo is one of the many abusive socks of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Here is another one to push his favourite Hindutva POV User:Legaleagle. Indian admins know him to be Nick and they are laughing up their sleeves. That explains why he is not still blocked, whereas another troll who flirted with Bhadani was summarily blocked by Aksi. These Indian admins are trying to troll Dbachmann who is on a rampage against Hindutva POV brigade.Mistermasher 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is taking the piss, here. Mistermasher, I suggest that you behave yourself. Everybody else go back to editing. Nothing to see here, move along. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. We should stop playing and concentrate on editing. As regards Masterbobo, I do not find in him any pattern and he appears to be an independent user. Unless a checkuser is instituted and he is found to be a sock, he should be allowed to do edits. As regards, flirtations and such things, I have found great editors stooping very low in civility and personal interaction - killing the new editors with potentials shall kill everyone. I found that Masterbobo in two days has done better than I had done during my first two days or most of us on the first towl days. Let us allow him to flourish. You can not block him simply because he is a Hindu. --Bhadani (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I add my request to that of my good and faithful friend, my fellow Wikipedian Bhadani. Let good editing flourish. I have asked Samir to consider unblocking. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your opinions. I see some truly specious ones (such as this disambiguation of Nordic to the Nordic racial superiority theory), as well as the previously mentioned insults to Bhadani, Hornplease and Dbachmann, and the rude captions to photographs on the user page (see below). I'm willing to assume good faith, but this user crossed my good faith barrier, and I still think an indefinite block is appropriate. I've corresponded with Bhadani off wiki and he's in agreement. -- Samir 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings

I have previously raised this regarding a warning this user gave to me, and following that have seen that this user has a long history of issueing bad faith warnings for edits that are not clearly bad faith, and for where the user has had no prior warning.

Despite pointing this out to her on several occaisions, she persists, even reverting my level 1 warnings and re-replacing with level 3, as per their latest edit. I don't see any chance of the situation improving, especially given that whenever I point any of these out to them, they claim I am either harassing or stalking them. Please can someone advise whose actions here, mine or Miss Mondegreen's are the correct ones? If anyone needs to see edit diffs of previous level 3 first time warnings from this user, I can provide them on request. Many thanks, and apologies if ANI is not the correct place for this. --Rebroad 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could another admin please look into this entire situation (I have very limited access today) and issue whatever admonitions or whatever are appropriate to either of these editors? Rebroad has been critical of Miss Mondegreen for weeks, and my suggestion that they stay away from each other seems not to have been sufficient to resolve the matter. See also thread started by Miss Mondegreen, above. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keeping the users apart is the most sensible option, perhaps we should look at enforcing this by some sort of community backed block or ban should they keep niggling away at each other. -- Nick ^t 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your feedback. At the moment, I'm not sure if my issue with Miss Mondegreen is an issue to the community. If it is, I should hope someone would let me know first before any sort of ban or block is implemented. I would certainly change my behaviour if I am told to do so or risk being blocked. Is there any sort of wikipedia policy which says that I'm doing something wrong please? If there is, I've not yet been made aware of it. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the difs and this situation is a bit weird, to say the least. You're always free to question someone about the levels of their warning, but reverting them and complaining about their re-revert is taking it a bit far: I don't understand why you're so involved in this. My two cents on the warning level are that this kind of vandalism can't be seen as good faith: this user was introducing false information (the birth year) that I just corrected a few minutes ago, because somehow the vandalism 'stuck' after multiple reverts. That's pretty damaging to the quality of our articles, and not in the same league as 'harmless' testing like 'hey, can I edit this'? All that said, Wikipedia is a very big place and it's really not hard to stay away from each other, so I suggest you do so if you can't work it out together. --JoanneB 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments JoanneB. I admit that if I was complaining about the re-revert then that would be weird. I'm not. I'm just asking for advice on whether there is an issue here. If there isn't, then as far as I'm concerned it's the end of the discussion. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this situation is that if the time that was spent on this edit warring over warning levels was spent on checking out what was going on in this article, this misinformation might not have been in the article for 10 days. I know that when vandal 'fighting' and reverting, this stuff happens, but I think it's pretty ironic that it happened in a situation when you were both disagreeing about how bad the vandalism actually was. --JoanneB 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When I got to the article, the changes in birthdate etc. had me so confused, for so long, that I had to go back through and find edits where the user just wrote stories to realize what was happening--edit summaries like "added info about a new deal KKR is doing, don't worry it's all true" did tip me off" and so I warned the user, but when the edits were reverted, and then some of the information kept coming back in from other users, or not complete reverts, I thought that there was a possibility that some of the information might be true and so at that point, I figured that if he edited again, they'd see the warning, and revert his edits and someone who knew about the article could sort it out. I just couldn't believed that the user hadn't been warned before. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether there's a legitimate concern of wikistalking, the only problem I have with a level 3 warning for something like this explicitly designed to shoot under the radar of vandalism patrol is that it's not severe enough. A user who is doing that is an experienced Wikipedian who isn't "experimenting" such that he needs a test1, and I'd issue them a blatantvandal tag myself. -- THF 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have realised it wasn't just the birthdate that was wrong. There was a whole bunch of wrong information introduced. I just reverted to the version before this vandal started messing things up. --JoanneB 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, that's a {{bv}} tag. They know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at this case at all, there's nothing wrong with giving immediately level 3 warnings. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if common sense tlls a test3 warning is warranted, so be it. Remeber, result is more important than rules. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Miss Mondegreen:
Since this discussion is apparantly happening in multiple places, I'd appreciate it if any of you could weigh in above. We tried avoidance, which as you can see from this post here, clearly didn't work, and I'm willing to go back to that, but that's obviously up to Rebroad. I have faith in my edits, and I don't mind explaining them to another user, or users, but being constantly on the defensive is getting really tiring--as is constantly getting warned for by the book edits--some of them really minor. Rebroad hasn't responded so far to my question about what he would like to do, so in the meantime, I'd certainly appreciate opinions from others. Thanks much Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice stands that Rebroad should leave Miss Mondegreen alone. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And conversely, Miss Mondegreen, please don't post to User talk:Rebroad any more. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Content removed per request... those who need it know where to find it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:88.107.112.215

Resolved

 – Blocked after AIV report. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block after full gamut of warnings (most recent vandalism edit made to Royal Grammar School, Newcastle three minutes after final warning issued by User:Wimt). I hope this is the right procedure? Thanks for your time, Tyrhinis 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quickest and best way to submit an IP for blocking if they have vandalised after a final warning is at WP:AIV. I've submitted the IP there now so they should be blocked soon. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting defamation by IP and Admin's indifference

This IP 82.3.221.22 has added grossly defamatory content to certain articles. It looks like some of the IP's edits have not been reverted promptly. An extremely vicious instance was removed by me after it remained in the article a day. I reported this to an Indian admin who could watch these articles and make judgments better than non-Indian editors. I reported it almost half a day earlier. The admin to whom I reported has been active since. But he has not cared to look into the matter. Obviously, the gravity of the crime couldn't have been lost on him. Such obscene and venomous calumny against Sonia Gandhi can create a political storm and even Wikipedia maybe drawn to the vortex. Then why didn't User:Bhadani even issue a warning? Maybe, the gross defamation added by the IP is in keeping with his POV? It looks like he has been busy in petty discussions with a trolling user who created a new account solely to insult a senior Wikipedian. I am referring to User:Masterbobo. The abusive (dabba aimed at User:Dbachmann and religiously sensitive captions (Suwar ka Baccha) he gave to the pics on his user page should have been enough reason to block him at sight. however, User:Bhadani is busy protecting him and cuddling up to him for obvious reasons. Why should such men be entrusted with admin tools? Rajamankkan 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are never obligated to act on any situation. There is nothing stopping you from warning the user yourself, as you did. There is nothing stopping you from reverting the users edits. Sure, it's a bit easier for an admin to revert a lot of edits, but there weren't that many. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I don't think there is one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at some of the edits, they are at best childish petty vandalism. Annoying and in bad taste, but nobody will take them serious and hence no defamation has happened. Just deal with it as with any other kind of vandalism.--Stephan Schulz 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to do anything here, is she?. But if an admin seeing this chooses to ignore it, he is no good to wield the tools. The case here is defamation, calling a national leader whore. (Since when did it cease to be libelous?) There is no two way to approach it. Rajamankkan 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nobody is obliged to do anything. And in many jurisdictions, especially in the US, an insulting statement has to actually harm someone's reputation to be actionable. Since no-one will reasonably believe the allegations, they are not libel. They are, of course, stupid, insulting, and certainly in bad taste. --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Masterbobo indefinitely for trolling. He has interspersed a variety of seemingly useful edits with a number of egregious actions. His user page contains captions of profanity in Hindi, purposefully placed there with literal translations. His edit summaries are mocking of User:Bhadani. I don't see how this user is going to be productive -- Samir 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the indefinite block of Materboo unless a proper checkuser test is carried out. In any case, he should not be indefinitely banned but if he committed some misconduct - a smaller ban of few days may be given. offensive captions to the pictures should be removed and he should be placed on a parole of a week or two as requested by him. I am assuming good faith as enshrined in our policy guidelines. --Bhadani (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the trolling is pretty obvious, Bhadani. Here are some sample diffs from the past 2 days: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The picture captions are all profanity in Hindi. The edit summaries mock User:Dbachmann (calling him Dabba, or box) and User:Hornplease, calling him Horn, as well as the Guru references to User:Bhadani, which also pokes fun at his edit count. This editor has clearly been around, and is just here to stir up trouble. The best thing to do in my opinion is to block and ignore. This disruption is independent of CheckUser -- Samir 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine Samir. I was assuming utmost good faith about that user Masterbobo. However, I now understand fully the silly things he did. I think in the hindsight that you are right perhaps. In case, he wants to be really serious editor, he may always create a new user name, and start a life afresh here. I withdraw my request for unblocking that user. --Bhadani (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: A banned user evading his block and vandalizing pages

The banned User:VinceB is openly using IPs of the range 195.56... to evade his block.[9] [10][[11]] He has engaged in several revert wars,[12][13] repeatedly vandalized a request for checkuser,[14][15] and needs to be stopped. His actual IPs are 195.56.224.237, 195.56.229.118, 195.56.205.29, and 195.56.25.64. Tankred 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 195.56.25.0/24, 195.56.228.0/23, 195.56.224.0/23, 195.56.204.0/23 —Centrx→talk • 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI reform?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This WP:ANI should be turned into a subpager thing. You know: New problem? {{Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/headline of problem}} - for example this section would be in {{Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:ANI reform?}}--195.56.224.237 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Then we get thousands of subpages, most of which consist of about three comments. -Amarkov moo! 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention anons wouldn't be able to create threads anymore--VectorPotential^Talk 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see the thread above. I urge any admin here to block him. Banned users are not allowed evading their bans by using sockpuppets. Tankred 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that certain titles would likely be duplicated (how many sub headings are there on AN/I entitled "legal threats" or "block review", or "administrator abuse" etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good idea. Transcluding each and every thread would put large amounts of strain on the Foundation's servers (as if AfD didn't mess with them enough already). // PTO 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A user harrassing another user

Resolved

 – Blocked by JzG — ERcheck (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[This] looks like harrassment to me as does [this] and [this]. Can we have an admin intervention please, SqueakBox 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Self-evident sockpuppet, blocked. What are the chances of any username including the word "truth" turning our to be an asset to the project rather than tendentious and disruptive? It could happen... Guy (Help!) 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

About as likely as a user who includes "pwned" in their name turning out to not be a 12 year old boy. Natalie 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Handled by JzG. — ERcheck (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 69.132.199.100

I am bringing this up here as an admin, who blocked this user for 30-some hours has asked me to. I returned to wikipedia, after dealing with some real world business, to find this user at it again. I have, as many admins/members know, had personal issues with this user in the past. This user is obviously CineWorld, who has a repeat history of abuse against <name of a notable minor redacted>. That is secondary. Today, I discovered this off-wiki diff:

<redacted - see below>

connecting this IP to what appears to be a known internet con artist and convicted sex offender. I'm not sure what to do here. It is possible (albeit WILDLY possible) that this is a different person using the same IP, but it would seem about as possible as one of us getting hit by lightning after winning the lottery.

Ispy1981 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This extremely serious allegation and situation should not be discussed further on-wiki. Please send an e-mail to a member of the Arbitration Committee, or to me as a clerk for forwarding to the arbitrators' mailing list, explaining your concern. Thank you for your attention to and follow-up on this important matter. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV

Moving this from AIV, seems like a more complex issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Klptyzm (talk · contribs) is constantly harrassing me of being a sock puppet, and I'm was kinda new to this. --LAcfm

Ok, it's become apparent that I need to step in and defend myself: Craxy, along with another user, have an irrational feud towards me over edits I've done in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and have created a series of sockpuppets to further harass me; Craxy, in particular, has about 4 blocked puppets. Also, consider this: how would a "new" user know how to request adminship, let alone know where the page was? I didn't even know how to sign my messages when I became a member; go check his contributions. That was the very second edit he made. Also, consider consulting these:

Ptpgta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Markello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Craxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GtaXl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Beussery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has an inappropriate username employed as spam for the trademark described in a spam article he created, Special:Undelete/Beussery. However, the report on WP:AIV was delisted with the comment "Take it up with the user him/herself" Since the user himself admits that his username is a trademark that he owns, it is obvious that this username is inappropriately promotional, and should be blocked on sight. John254 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since, despite that advice, you still have not taken it up with the user him/herself, Nardman1 has done so. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the person's name is "Brian E. Ussery". That he has a commercial site http://www.beussery.com/ and tried to create an article Beussery is certain. I have to wonder about the required result... Shenme 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to force this user to change their name at this time. -- Nick ^t 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I think, with Nick; there doesn't appear to be any particularly pernicious promotional use at present, and unless subsequent editing reveals the user to be here for a single, non-encyclopedic purpose, I don't think username policy would counsel blocking. In any event, whilst AIV or AN/I would be an appropriate venue for the levelling of an objection to a plainly impermissible username, inasmuch as there appears to be some disagreement amongst the community here, the issue ought probably to be taken to RfCN in order that a consensus might be divined. Joe 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

tiring attacks

For the last week, I've had to deal with attacks of various degrees by Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) (only a taste: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). He's already been warned about his conduct once ([24]), and has been blocked for 3RR for his seemingly unending crusade to get a template on each of the individual notability guideline. He's been reverted or told he's incorrect by many people, although I'm the primary battler at this point, but I am beginning to lose my patience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And you want us to warn him, block him, or...? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what people think they should do. But I'd rather not do what I would like to do, so perhaps some administrative intervention would be of use. Am I supposed to make a request on how to handle this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we just needed clarification. Thanks. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I'd like something done. What that should be shouldn't be up to me to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a final warning on his talk page. Anything else from him and he gets 24 hours. Just let me know on my Talk page. FCYTravis 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to register a counter complaint against BDJ for ongoing accusations and incivility in the same range of pages. While my statement(s) have been more direct, his mendacity and incivility test the edges of WP standards. While subtly avoiding a specific breach of 3RR, his behavior has collectively crossed the line into disruptive behavior. I don't seek a block, but suggest that he receive some counseling on his behavior. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a wiki-lawyer. The investigation to put together "evidence" would be cumbersome, and as I said it is more subtle. I'll just deal with it, and hope that this behaviour will be visible to others. Sorry to have been disruptive and cause you extra work. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, providing evidence is not considered wikilawyering. It is actually standard procedure so that we can have something in our hands to work on. But you are free to not act on it, of course. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help moving an article

Resolved

 – Death Vader is no more--VectorPotential^Talk 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved Darth Vader to Death Vader and I can't move it back. Can someone take care of this please? // DecaimientoPoético 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a temporary fix as Death Vader now redirects to Darth Vader but all the history is in Death vader and needs fixing by an admin, SqueakBox 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, someone needs to delete Darth Vader so the history of the page can be moved back to where it should be--VectorPotential^Talk 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone already did--VectorPotential^Talk 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is done now. But disturbing that such a thing can happen, SqueakBox 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably move protect it--VectorPotential^Talk 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...damn, everyone beat me to the "it's taken care of" bit. Bah!

Also, I indefintely blocked the user who moved it. Pretty obvious case of "vandal-only account". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

need a rangeblock

I don't know how to do a rangeblock yet and I'm still figuring this out... someone please block the range that has been vandalising these pages: [25] [26] — coelacan — 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to range block AOL's dynamic IP range?--VectorPotential^Talk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh lawd, is that what it is? Well, then of course the answe is yesss. =P I guess we'll just try to do damage control instead. — coelacan — 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent for range blocking AOL, however in this case, it may be better to report them directly to AOL and see if you can't get their DSL/Cable shutoff for abusing AOL's TOS ( :VectorPotential^Talk 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I am seriously asking for someone to do a rangeblock. This is not going to stop. user talk:janejellyroll, user talk:coelacan, and any user who reverts this guy is getting hit, always from a new IP. — coelacan — 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case you'll want to get in touch with The Anome (talk · contribs) or Pathoschild (talk · contribs) both of whom have prior experience dealing with AOL IPs, see also {{AOL ranges}}--VectorPotential^Talk 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User who insists on asking inappropriate question on the talk page

71.185.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-adding a question to the reference desk, removed by at least 3 editors (including me) who felt it was soapboaxing/trolling. The original version is here [27] and the latest version while a bit better still seems to be the same thing [28]. I'm not sure if WP:3RR applies to the reference desk so I didn't report it there, but if it does, this definitely violated it. See [29], [30] & [31] too. Nil Einne 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of WP:POINT. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Naruto: Ninja Council 2

I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but there has been an edit war going on at Naruto: Ninja Council 2 for some time now. The edit war is between me and an obsessed IP who continues to add game guide-ish info to the article. I told him repeatedly to discuss his edits on the talk page (which he finally did after I started the discussion), yet continues to ignore everything I say. It would be helpful if an administrator, or at least a user who has very little knowledge of the subject, could read the information he continues to add and decide whether it should stay or go. Hopefully, getting somone's opinion on the matter when they know little of the subject might help us end this edit war. Also, I'm well aware that I have violated 3RR (the IP has as well, but I have decided not to report him for now) and am ready for any disciplinary actions that an admin must bestow upon me if necessary. Thank you for your time. // DecaimientoPoético 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 24 hours, as I don't think blocks are really necessary. But if the edit warring keeps up, I may have to issue temporary ones. Shadow1 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent re-adding of Spam links

Fizbin (talk · contribs) is verging on 3RR re-adding massive amounts of spamlinks to the Pink Floyd trivia article. The article contains a huge/unencyclopedic list of tribute bands of which only 5 are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. The rest are either dead links or simple entries that include an advertising link to the artists personal webpage. Any attempt to cleanup the article section has been rv'd by User:Fizbin. A warning was issued on the user's talk page but his response was to blank the page and then rv the linkspam with an uncivil edit summary. The article itself is borderline PROD. The huge number of spamlinks in the tribute bands section are certainly not helping. Some assistance please. Thank you. 216.21.150.44 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At least I have logged in so that 216.21.150.44 can voice his/her concerns on my talk page. The article in question has a list of Pink Floyd tribute bands. I have no idea who most of these are, but I assume that since they have been included for some time that there is some legitimacy about them. Anonymous 216.21.150.44 objects to the fact that some either have a link to a personal web site or no link at all. In my opinion this does not make their inclusion any more or less relevant. But whatever. And I do not take kindly to warnings (uncivil from my standpoint in this case) from anonymous posters, period. And I guess I don't know the secret handshake - have no idea what 3RR or PROD are supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talk • contribs)

If you are going to complain about anonymous editors, you could at least sign your posts. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was going to point out, but the edit window is already open, so I'll also say this: PROD means proposed deletion, more details are here; 3RR refers to the three-revert rule, which is discussed here. Natalie 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I can get an edit in here edgewise, another apology for an unsigned statement.--Fizbin 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:August 2 2005rps

Resolved

 – The AfD page was deleted

User:August 2 2005rps, a supporter of Encyclopedia Dramatica, as evidenced by his post on Jimbo's talk page recently attempted to nominate Dramatica for deletion as a disruption of Wikipedia process. I've warned the user, they've only made 4 edits (2 edits to Dramatica, the AfD page, and Jimbo's talk) The deletion page should probably be deleted as listing properly will most likely result in a Speedy Keep per bad faith nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

requesting block

216.246.153.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized article DeMoulas' Market Basket, also vandalized article Tewksbury, Massachusetts (where DeMoulas HQ are located). Has an axe to grind against said company and uses articles as a medium of doing so. Rob McDougall 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue a fourth-level warning (see WP:WARN) and if said user persists, report it to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

USER:RexxCrow

RexxCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am requesting a block of this user for incivility, personal attacks, and repeated disregard for requests to C&D:

• Adding inappropriate spam links (see his contribs for multiple instances)
• EL Warning 1 issued
• EL Warning 2 issued
• Removal of warnings from talk page
• Personal attack 1
• Reinstating warning templates, additional warnings issued
• Removal of warning templates again
• Personal attack 2
• Blanked my userpage & extensive personal attack 3

Thanks. /Blaxthos 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:ReyBrujo got to it before I could. For future purposes however could you not outright called for a "block". I only say this because I see it happen quite often and user's to often seem to not understand that AN/I is suppose to be for reporting incidents and once reported it is up to reviewing administrators to decide what to do. In this case, a block was most certainly warranted. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for a block

Resolved

24.190.154.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a school's IP address; it has been blocked four times, and someone claiming to be a pupil there (and an "administrator", though I'm not sure what that means here) – Elnerdo (talk · contribs) – left the following message on the Talk page:

==Please ban us==

If an administrator sees this, please ban our IP address from all editing of Wikipedia. We are a highschool in Northern New Jersey, and we have absolutely nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyone who has anything important to add to wiki already has an account. elnerdo 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that such a request would need to come from someone in authority at the school, not a pupil, and that even then I doubted that we'd be prepared to block an IP indefinitely. I just want to confirm that advice here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC we have blocked indefinitely such IPs in the past, but as you say as a result of formal requests from a responsible party (probably via OTRS) --pgk 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence gives me pause. I have to wonder if this really comes from a position of authority. Part Deux 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have my doubts (although he does say that he's a pupil with some position; the equivalent of a prefect?). We'd certaibnly not block it on his say-so.

On a related but different matter — I've just received this:

== i'm Sorry, but please block my IP address. ==

Hello Mel, I have tried every trick in the book to get booted from wikipedia editing and now i would just like to be blocked. This is my last request, so please consider this so that i'm not able to edit pages on wikipedia.

Thanks-

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that he has been living up to his User name, and couldn't have been far off being blocked anyway. Again, what's the correct response please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks, you aren't supposed to be able to request a block for yourself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, if you wanted to block him for something unrelated (which came to your attention after you started investigating the initial request), I think that'd be kosher. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, so the question's now moot. (I've always wondered why self-requested blocks aren't allowed; in this case, certainly, it would have mede sense.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably just to avoid confusion. I can think of a situation where someone would request a block, and then someone else would miss the request and get all hysterical (He didn't do anything wrong! How dare you block him?!). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that that could happen — but f we forbade everthing that might be misunderstood, we'd have little left that we could do. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is Communism

He went through the Navajo encyclopaedia doing his usual dealie [32] - I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to say anything, but I don't speak Navajo. WilyD 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, did he do that to the main page? Yikes. I reverted it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hit the Rumanian wiki too: [33]. I'm reverting them now. Part Deux 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WilyD 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else would like to help, you can see the list of vandalized pages at [34]. I don't time to fix them all. Part Deux 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Navajo wiki. --Golbez 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you see rampant vandalism on a small wiki, report to #wikimedia-stewards, we can fix this much easier with our tools. MaxSem 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly easier may be more appropriate actually. Prodego ^talk 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Communism Vandal. He use to go around just blanking pages and putting the image of the Hammer and Sickle with the caption "Wikipedia is Communism". One of the better known habitual vandals out there.--Jersey Devil 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does he have an agenda? Does he really belive that 'wikipedia is communism'? And if so... Why? ThuranX 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance it isn't the original vandal but impersonators of him/her.Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism gave up around 2005(?) so it's probably an imitator. Oh, back when vandals were simpler and on wheels... Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood evading blocks via sockpuppet

Resolved

 – block reset

Instantnood (talk · contribs) has just been confirmed as Pointe (talk · contribs). His block needs to be reset. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Natalie 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

THis was done within a minute of the checkuser being done.Rlevse 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Pointe was done that fast, but Instanthood's block wasn't reset, which is what Penwhale was asking. Or at least I hope that's what he was asking, because that's what I did. Natalie 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AH, but shouldn't Instantnood be indef vice one month as a known multiple acct sockpuppeteer?Rlevse 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per an arbitration case, he can be sitebanned upon consensus of three administrators. I think it's about time to do that, he certainly doesn't show any hint of improvement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I fully agree on an indefinite block, and if I understand correctly, Saraphimblade and Rlevse agree. So there do appear to be 3 admins now for the block. Shall I proceed, and block him indef?--Aldux 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'll ban Instantnood indef.--Aldux 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user block request

Rostov-on-Don (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of community-banned user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is again edit-warring to insert his POV on one of Rms's favourite pages, Tim Pat Coogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint filed at WP:3RR regarding User:Demiurge's repeated violations of WP:3RR over the past 36-48 hours on Tim Pat Coogan page; block requested. Allegation of sockpuppetry patently false.Rostov-on-Don 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, maybe you'd like to explain why you're inserting the exact same newspaper article quote (even down to the editing/formatting) as previous sockpuppets of Rms? Demiurge 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; I was interested in Coogan following a comment he made last April (I guess I am not the only one), but which someone only recently showed me. When I checked the history I was curious as to User:Demiurge's unwarranted and unexplained rv, and I found that the rv was unjustified and I chose to re-add restore it as it was in toto. I have no idea if User:Glencolumcille is a sockpuppet or not but his edit was superb and encyclopaedic. Wikipedians remain innocent until proved guilty (which no one but User:Demiurge, who never requested oversight from an Administrator until I complained about him/her at WP:3RR, prior to his/her compalint complaint at WP:AN/I, has alleged). This sounds like there is some sort of an agenda on the part of User:Demiurge, who has appointed himself/herself prosecutor and judge. Rostov-on-Don 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a newbie user who has been here only a few days know about the 3RR? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The old-fashioned way, by reading. Rostov-on-Don 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well that comment pretty much confirms it, "superb and encyclopedic", right. Can someone please block this blatantly obvious sockpuppet before he wastes any more of our time? Demiurge 12:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• As the person who prepared the community ban for this editor, it's pretty clear they are one and the same. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why hasn't anyone noticed that of all the edits I made, User:Demiurge, who claims I am a sockpuppet, saw fit to revert only one, to which he/she apparently objects on a personal basis?. He or she probably will rv all now, anyway.

P.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott wonders how a "newbie" editor knows about WP:3RR, yet does not wonder how I also know how to cross out words using the markup tools?

P.S.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott also chooses to ignore another Wikipedia precept: "Don't bite the newbie"?

P.S.S.S.S. How does "Korn" taste?

You will, I know, pardon me if I feel less than fully respectful of this kangaroo court.Rostov-on-Don 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I've been dealing with your POV edits for almost two years now and I know your style by now - Alison^☺ 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock blocked. – Steel 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the latest sock of Peer-to-Peer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? The editing interests are the same as RMS, English peerage plus the account re-instated two edits that the earlier sockpuppet made - [35] [36] [37] [38]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and back again as 162.83.176.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I block too soon?

Gekedo (talk · contribs) is concerned that I blocked 87.2.92.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too soon. See User talk:Metros232#Blocked 87.2.92.89. Could other admins please review this? It's my belief that he was appropriately warned (level 3 mentions that a user will be blocked if they continue vandalizing) and if you're vandalizing Jimbo Wales' user page, you know pretty well the consequences and everything else that goes along with it. Metros232 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No concerns here. -- Nick ^t 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns? My own concerns is that we spent too much time worrying about obvious trolls - good swift action on your part. --Fredrick day 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Blocking before level 4 at times is reasonable, especially with the obvious vandalism shown here. -- Avi 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "right" to 4 warnings. This was an anonymous user with no useful edits, who has repeatedly been warned, and still vandalized. I think the block is fully appropriate. 31 hours means he/she/it can come back tomorrow as a productive user if he/she/it so choses.

To be fair, since anons can't actually see new messages, the number of warnings is sort of irrelevant, isn't it?--VectorPotential^Talk 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anons can indeed see warnings. Visit Wikipedia from a public computer and discover that immediately. Anons with shifting IP addresses may miss the message; but most shifting IP addresses shift after being forced to or after a day or so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The new messages bar hasn't worked for anons since December, it's a well known bug, and there are reports all over the place, the Village Pump, the Help Desk, even here a few times--VectorPotential^Talk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. Anyone have a link to the bug report/discussion? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly works for me at work, where IP addresses rotate through the company. Visiting Wikipedia last Friday morning before logging in brought up a message bar for a conversation someone else had been having overnight. A bugzilla number or discussion link would be helpful.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's this one, this one, this one and this one to start with, it might take a while to find the original discussion as Village Pump archives aren't really organized in any particular way and are deleted after 7 days. Either way, it's easy enough to verify, just leave yourself a message on a static IP, for the first several hours the orange bar won't show up at all, then for the next several hours it won't go away no matter how many times you view your talk page. And finally, one of the bugzilla reports--VectorPotential^Talk 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user creating subtle attack page (BLP concerns)

User keeps re-creating this attack page (the figure in the page is not notable but so it seems to be a run of the mill grudge). On first glance, it might not seem an attack page (it's been deleted twice) but he seems to be adapting with each delete and changing the language to try and get around this. The crux of the article is that this mean is creating face lotion out of sperm and he's doing with the help of his wife (in the first now deleted version, she was a prostitute), reading between the lines, he's testing it on her face. Can we delete and salt? --Fredrick day 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked. Naconkantari 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Back again --Fredrick day 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Campion School (Athens)

Per this OTRS ticket, the school has complained about repeated vandalism on their article, which they have reverted themselves. I think that protection of the page is unnecessary as of now but it would be nice if some of you could add the article to your watchlist. Thanks --Mbimmler 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, and will be keeping an eye on it. Cheers, Jayden54 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Freddieandthedreamers

User:Freddieandthedreamers was warned back in February by User:Lucasbfr and User:Carabinieri for adding copyrighted content to History of the Jews in New Zealand and History of the Jews in Slovakia. More recently I noticed he created History of the Jews in Iceland with copyrighted content. After I deleted the article and warned him that he might be blocked for posting copyrighted content he created the article again, this time copying the content from a different website. He's been creating a whole series of History of the Jews in X articles and I fear there may be more copyvios lurking in his contribution log. I would appreciate some help with this. Haukur 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No takers here so I placed an indefinite block myself. Haukur 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Red Wolf" vandal

There's been a series of vandalism edits and article creations to various articles, (some pertaining to wolves), such as Red Wolf, Dingo, Scarpine, Max Zorin and others by User:Meiji Rit, User:Rufus Meiji, User:Rufus hattai, User:Rufus Lupus etc. These users are being blocked and edits reverted as and when the vandal spawns a new sock. Admins please be aware. I may request some page protections, as it's getting tiresome. --Dweller 09:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest incarnation. Have watchlisted the articles and if there's any further abuse, I will semi-protect for a short while. Bubba hotep 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I semi-protected Red Wolf for a couple of days. Bubba hotep 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect Your Republic Protest

An anon is repetitively adding {{citation needed}} tags to the article even when the comment is a direct quote. This seems to be the users only contribution - though users IP changes after a few edits so I am not exactly certain. -- Cat ^chi? 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; are you saying that direct quotations don't need to be given sources? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• "some critics argue that the government is inching the country towards increased religious rule."[39]

I'm inclined to agree with the anon here. Anything starting with "some critics" is crying out for a citation. It shouldn't be hard to provide. Likewise for "Erdoğan's questionable political history has made people suspicious of his motives.". The statements might be true, but that's not the issue. WP:BLP is the issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some critics" is a direct quote from CNN. It is cited yet anon repetitively ads the template. I have rewritten the other comment today (merely expanded it). WP:BLP doesn't apply as Erdogan was convicted and jailed for four months for "inciting religious hatred" - which in my opinion gives him a "questionable political history". -- Cat ^chi? 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to CNN, critics claim that...[cite]". Job done. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doable. -- Cat ^chi? 11:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question: If CNN's webpage states something like this: Some critics argue that Mr. X is e.g a racist. It doesn't say which critics say this, It doesn't have any sources but the name of a reporter. Hypothetically. Then would it be ok to include THAT in a Wikipedia article just because CNN said so? --Anon mentioned.

That's nothing. I can point you to an article where one MP said under Parliamentary privilege that another living MP was responsible for the murder of 12 people, and it's not a problem apparently. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it, and it does not seem to be the view of a way-out minority - e.g. Fox News :o) - we should be fine with the "according to X" formulation. The judgement of whether that view constitutes a significant criticism is another matter. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By "way-out minority", I assume you mean David Icke claiming that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are "bloodsucking alien lizards"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:87.2.250.211 persistent vandalism

User:87.2.250.211, a probable sock puppet of M.deSousa, is persistently vandalising the pages Pretender and Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, introducing proven false information regarding Hilda Toledano, a claimed adulterine daughter of king Carlos I of Portugal, and a supposed sucessor of hers, a certain Rosario Poidimani, presently under arrest in Italy, as has been reported by several European newspapers (in fact the same newspapers User:87.2.250.211 presents as source). This clearly is an hoax and User:87.2.250.211 should be blocked. Thank you. The Ogre 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.

Southluver 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, we see no proof of what you're claiming. Second, what i see is that User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90 and you are probably the same person (at least you know eachother). Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiTerrorists was created by Bobbybilly90 (i'll delete it soon) and edited by Glfootball92. You are also a member of that weirdo project. Aren't you? Don't you use the same templates on your userpages?. What we'll do is block everyone for trolling and disruption. Do you agree? ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call, FayssalF. These morons have been on ANI before. See here. I'd suggest (if they haven't been already) indef blocking the whole lot of 'em--they're only here to disrupt the project. This first edit by Southluver (talk · contribs) is interesting... — Scientizzle 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked all of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

After a little bit of searching, I think there is a connection between the post two up from this one ([40]) and this WikiProject. If we look at what links to it, there are three accounts in particular (User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90, User:Southluver) which (IMHO) engage in harmless to borderline disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. I am not too concerned with the accounts at this time, but what to make of the WikiProject? Inclination seems to be to delete on sight, but would be better to check with the rest of the community if this is something actionable. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: about 3 minutes after this post, this issue regarding the WikiProject has been taken care of. Thanks. --HappyCamper 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All the 3 trolls have been indef blocked. See above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unaware of this thread, I declined an unblock request at User talk:Glfootball92 earlier. Just for the record &c. --kingboyk 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User RexxCrow again

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

After this ANI report user was blocked for 31 hours for incivility. User has issued another scathing personal attack and shows no intent of stopping. Per request above, I will refrain from suggesting appropriate administrators' response. /Blaxthos 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have protected it until the block expires. // Sean William (PTO) 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I extended his block to 48 hours... Looks like he needs some longer cooldown time.--Isotope23 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request requiring knowledge of IP configurations

User talk:Einarsen bears an unblock request which I think needs specialist TCP/IP knowledge, if somebody with that knowledge could please oblige.--kingboyk 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done

Hosting companies do provide proxy-like connections but based on user's assurance that this is his office PC, I replaced the hard block with a soft block. He can edit, but anon editing is still disabled in case his IP is assigned to someone else in the future. Thatcher131 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your prompt attention. --kingboyk 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassing and Intimidation using profane language

Hi,

I was directed here by admin Durova (talk · contribs), [41]. User vandal, 203.101.45.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked by admin Durova (talk · contribs) for abusing profusely, swearing constantly and vandalising articles [42], [43]. Now this person is back and again has started cursing to intimidate me and push his POV. Check this: [44], he refers to me as "f***er*". Suggest a block. Thanks,Mudaliar 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims by User:Vlad fedorov

Can someone take a look here: [45]? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison^☺ 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of false translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_brigades&diff=122006717&oldid=122004017

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You also may take a look here: [46]Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison^☺ 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: [47]. I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Wikipedia should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government [48], his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation [49] and [50] and [51] and [52]? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit [53] sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of E104421 and Tajik. I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree on Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.

As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.

Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.

I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.

If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Wikipedia runs on California servers, Wikipedia should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Wikipedia, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin#How_can_we_move_forward. Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Wikipedia WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Wikipedia community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

• (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
• (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
• (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
• (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
• (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
• (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
• (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

• (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
• (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Wikipedia definitions)
• (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
• (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
• (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see [54]) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: [55].Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [56]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Wikipedia would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [57]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see:[58] It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". [references].Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

• 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
• 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
• 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
• 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
• 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
• 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
• 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of sourced text is vandalism)
• 18:44, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv to version of Rich Farmbrough (Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism),)
• 18:42, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 18:40, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 03:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 20:02, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page (the text was supported by reliable sources)))
• 20:01, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:48, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:26, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page)
• 22:15, 31 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism, see talk page)
• 19:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism)
• 19:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (Vandalism again)
• 18:41, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:40, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:39, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:38, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (→Biophys false translation and personal attacks)
• 18:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Vlad fedorov (Vandalism warning)
• 14:57, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alison (Vandalism report)
• 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Active measures (Alledged vandalism)
• 04:32, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring well sourced text about BLOGGERS - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv well sourced text - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:30, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv - restoring sourced text (I warn you: what you are doing is vandalism))
• 05:35, 1 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group (←Created page with '==Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov== Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his arti...')
• 22:49, 21 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalging - see discussion)
• 22:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism and POV editing of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:36, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:35, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv vandalism (each cited statement was supported by a reference))
• 16:40, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:04, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Galina Starovoitova (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 16:00, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:55, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:50, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 05:22, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion; he also removed links to reviews of the book)
• 05:18, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links)
• 05:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of Vlad Fedorov - correctly describing ideas of author is not violation of BLP policy; this is quite the opposite)
• 22:50, 16 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv to last version by Biophys (BLP and reverting vandalism) - see discussion)
• 05:05, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion. The source are the books.)
• 05:07, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv - vandalism; she does NOT work now for Izvestia; she was fired)
• 21:39, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism (reliable and notable source - see discussion))
• 20:11, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism)
• 06:24, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 04:54, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv - vandalism (deleting valid reference to a notable person); there are no BLP issues here)
• 05:47, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - vandalism)
• 00:52, 9 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Disinformation (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov. I did not remove anything. I made this more clear and added more text.)
• 06:42, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Boris Stomakhin (rv - "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" is falsification by Vlad Fedorov - see my comments in Litvinenko talk page)
• 05:46, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (rv vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov)
• 02:54, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted - 3rd time. This is statement by directer of a notable human rights organization.)
• 18:20, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 18:16, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 15:54, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Alexander Litvinenko (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted.)
• 15:49, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverterd. Naftalin and others (not me!) are talking about suppression of a dissident.)
• 15:45, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted. Naftalin is talking about ethnic problems here.)

Reply. Could anyone trace my recent edits of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Ramzan Kadyrov, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, Human rights in Russia, Persecution of political bloggers and others (with their talk pages where I explained my position) and check if editing by Vlad was actually a vandalism? What he always did was deletion of texts supported by perfect references! He even did not want to recognize such sources as Nature (journal) Review Genetics (article Nikolai Koltsov). I openly warned him about vandalism twice in his talk pages (he deleted this) and openly asked advice of administrators twice (see my talk page). But if I was uncivil, then yes, please do whatever is appropriate. Biophys 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please note how different your to texts: Text that I disputed initially and text which became the result of my dispute. So you claim this was vandalism?Vlad fedorov 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other instances of Biophys personal attacks against me

1) User Biophys on his User page put the following: attack on me.

2) Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Another cover-up of personal attacks.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

4) Calling me a troll.

5) Calling me vandal.

6) Calling me a stalker and vandal again

7) And again I am vandal

You know guys, I am actually tired of putting here all the links where Biophys attacked me, because these are of enormous quantity and would just clogg all the board.

At the top of it is the creation of attack page against me titled Internet troll squads. Just in order to call a troll all those who dared to defend not even Putin's policy, but him as an ordinary man.Vlad fedorov 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of death wish by Biophys

First of all, here is the complete context for your claims that I wished you to die:

---

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog [59] because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

After putting the relevant context, I would like to note that there is no actually death wish, because I am replying to death suggestion by Biophys. He tell imagine if Putin dies. I replied the same would be. In this context if I made personal attack, Biophys also made personal attack against Putin. I just defended him as an ordinary man who deserves the same kind of respect as other individuals, despite all his wrong, bad an so on sides, features and so on.

Second, I was punished for this By Alex Bakharev. So I can't be punished twice for one and same thing. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also apoligoze if Biophys accepted this a personal attack. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of attack with Phallus

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person - Putin. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV. Vlad fedorov 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking about your continuous insertion of Putin phallus allegations into the Phallus and other articles. Most outrageous was your insertion of "Putin Phallus" into Persecution of political bloggers article, despite the fact that the author of this article is a journalist and it was published in internet newspaper, not blog. Considering that you have so many times inserted this into many articles, it would be logic to conclude that you love that topic. By the way this was the only my such post and it was because you have contacted the users with whom I had conversation on Freedom House article. You began to contact them posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. It was a case of wikistalking by you, since no one of these users have ever crossed your article and you never was participating in Freedom House. Moreover in all these "requests for help" you was attacking me too, you said I "wikistalkied" you and all your usual stuff.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is your repeated insertion of Putin Phallus into Persecution of political bloggers article insertion, although Kursiv is not a blog, but registered internet newspaper, having registration number in Ministry of Mass Media.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here just notice from your talkpage: I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Defamation of me by Biophys

Biophys also began to contact different users by posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. In these messages he called me wikistalker. Vlad fedorov 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I called you "wikistalker" because User:Colchicum officially filed an RfC about your alleged wikistalking of him and me (sorry, I did not write "alleged").Biophys 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-reply. You called me wikistalker, after adminstrators on RfC declined to acknowledge wikistalking. Moreover, it happened exactly when I decided to step aside from mine articles. I decide to tackle with Freedom House and see the talk page. I have pretty nice discussion with these guys. But you have followed me and began you witch hunt by posting these defamatory statements, knowing already that Bakharev and others didn't shared you accusations of wikistalking, violations of BLP and so on.

User Swatjester already said that you just can't leave without "your victory". I should add that you also couldn't leave without defaming me. You want harass me and to abuse me. This is exactly what you did posting these messages to other users. You just want to "cause me pain" right by blocking me?

Reply. What victory? This is nonsense. I only wanted to keep well referenced text that you simply deleted. A lot of people edited my articles after me and I never had complaints because they did good faith editing. I also objected inserting poorly sourced defamatory claims in biographies of living people that you did. Biophys 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you never had complaints because you was shamelessly reverting and deleting their contributions in case you didn't like them labelling it as "anonymous vandalism", "unrealible sources", "defamation" and so on.Vlad fedorov 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I note, that your poorly defamatory claims in biographies and other articles are objectionable too? Why I don't delete your insertions though? I would tell you, because I always was acknowledging my mistakes and I never crossed the line by deleting sourced text, although objectionable but somehow referenced. Tha is my difference from you. You sterilize texts of your opponents shamelessly. You claim violations of BLP everywhere when it fits you political views, the same is with reliability of sources. Vlad fedorov 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You excuses for "alleged" are of no avail. I never was writing to every editor of the articles which you have edited, that RfC was also filed against you. Vlad fedorov 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New attempts to eliminate others POV by Biophys

Please look there how Biophys again censures and deletes other work without credible explanations. Here is the diff. He creates an article where he inserts only his POV sources and then eliminates any attempts to insert all the POV's. It is he who sterilizes the articles. Vlad fedorov 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New personal attacks by Biophys

Please see that Biophys calls me vandal even at AfD for Internet brigades. He claims that he accused me of vandalism at my RfC [60], but this is lies. Just go and see that he never brought charges of vandalism against me. This is again a personal attack just to get more score at AfD. Note that Biophys doesn't stop his personal attacks while he reports to this noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just an example of you trying to misinterpret evidence. In the working diff, Biophys does not call you a vandal, he only refers the readers to RfC where such accusation was made. All of your above 'evidence' of personal attacks on you is in fact misinterpretation and an attempt to deflect discussion of your evident incivility to discussion of alleged incivility by one of those you have offended and who reported you here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you, Piotrus, provide diffs in support of your statement, that Biophys has accused me of vandalism in my RfC? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And please respond directly to my links that show Biophys calling me vandal, troll and wikistalker. If calling me "vandal", "troll" and "wikistalker" is civil? How many times Biophys mad personal attacks on me? Why no one has ever stopped Biophys from personal attacks on me?Vlad fedorov 07:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary by a Third Party

After reading over the thread, I recommend to the administrator(s) addressing this thread that Vlad be blocked for five to seven days, because:

• His edits suggest a major problem with edit warring.
• He's been blocked multiple times in the past, once for block evasion.
• He's already been blocked once this week for edit warring.
• He's also committed a number of obvious WP:NPA violations, some of them on this page. Not the least of these was the implication that Wikipedia users would like to see Biophys dead (see above). Rather than apologize, he has tried to pass these comments off as legitimate, honest commentary, despite their obviously mean-spirited nature and the unusal harshness of his accusations.

It's clear to me that this user has a history and hasn't learned much from it. I invite Vlad to read over WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Also, I would like to point out to Vlad that while Biophys' addition to Phallus may not have been appropriate, it was indeed satire. Just because the author was convicted of a crime under (I assume) Russian laws does not mean that 1) his commentary is not satire or 2) that his commentary would necessarily be considered defamation under Wikipedia policy, which obviously has a substantially different position on both Putin and satire.

Here I would like to note that journalist who wrote "Putin Phallus" was convicted and sentenced for defamation in Russian courts, therefore reproduction of a defamation texts is forbidden in Wikipedia. Mister Moralis should familiarize himself with the context and stuation first. Biophys used "satire" labelling just to insert defamatory statements of convicted and sentenced for defamation journalist. Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I feel, should be treated with more leniency- while his actions have certainly been disruptive, he has not been as persistently disruptive as Vlad. While I feel it is fair to be harsh on Vlad because of his history, Biophys' block log is clean.

See how many attacks were done by Biophys in his contributions! Is it not disruptive? Vlad fedorov 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is just a discrimination. I have disputed my first block which was done by English speaking guy William Connely who coudn't ascertain whether the texts where supported by references. It is discrimination. Biophys so many times abused me, and in the end I got "just" and "discriminate" sentence by mister Moralis who isn't even administrator? Why so many evident Biophys violations are considered as light? Shouldn't sanctions be equal to everyone? Isn't everyone is equal here? Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also see here that mediator disagrees with one of my block too, I always disputed this block. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin&diff=110220318&oldid=110217877. Vlad fedorov 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like also everyone to see the bias in relation to me. Biophys has violated 3RR rule recently on Boris Stomakhin. I have reported him on noticeboard.3.114 User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning) And what? User Biophys received only warning!!! This is so unjust. Sorry, but I can't name it otherwise than bias. I was blocked without warnings momentarily when Pioutrus and his team were reverting Internet brigades incorrect translations. Vlad fedorov 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a 36-hour block for disruptive editing, and that he be watched carefully for a little while. I don't think we have -too- much to worry about from Biophys beyond addressing the above, versus Vlad who has already demonstrated that he will be a persistent problem.

The content removed from Phallus (among other pages) should be evaluated for potential inclusion in Vladimir Putin, under "Putin in humour and fiction." --Moralis (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question. My another article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked for AfD. Can I at least finish this article before you block me? At least tell me please how much time do I have.Biophys 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) O'K, I finished this edit. Now you can block me.Biophys 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I have observed Vlad's behavior here and at Internet brigades and its vfd. For the most part I have tried to stay out of his way, but the two instances where I stepped in were unpleasant. I think a cooling-off period is in order. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Warnings" to Vlad fedorov by Biophys

Please see the article Russia and Saddam WMD allegations and see how Biophys deletes text which he don't likes. For inserting texts that nullify his efforts to create conspiracy pages he "warns" me diff. If this civil? Vlad fedorov 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sharing future plans about creation of new articles is civil. Biophys 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sharing is a normal thing, but threatening with future plans is definetly not. Vlad fedorov 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see also more rude "warning" diff. Vlad fedorov 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked

Since nobody wants to step in and stop the bickering, and since the drama has increased since starting here, I've blocked both Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days. WP:BRD if necessary. Naconkantari 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorsed. Thank goodness. They both did something similar on my talk page a few weeks back - Alison^☺ 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with caevat. Equaling Biophys to Vlad is not fair - I don't think any of the users who commented above suggested this, and several pointed out the difference. Yes, Biophys should not be left off the hook with a pat on his back, but current solution is not fair. He has also given plenty of answers above suggesting willingness to discuss and compromise. I suggest shortening his block to one day at most.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• After spending 15 minutes reading this long case (I will be late on my lecture) I must endorse. Although I personally think Vlad is worse policy violator than Biophys. Maybe block of Biophys should be shortened to 24 hours, as he already shown a will to compromise. - Darwinek 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lowered the block on Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 24 hours, which has just expired. Naconkantari 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou

Based on Steve Dufour's statements about Scientology Finance on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scientology_Finance, Misou put up a speedy deletion template [61], which was removed by another user. Then Steve Dufour put it back [62]. I removed the template because it has nothing to do with living persons, nor does it fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. It looks to me that they want to get rid of the aricle for POV reasons.--Fahrenheit451 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. User:Steve Dufour has done things which seemed to me like abuse of the deletion process before, such as nominating a featured article -- Xenu -- for deletion when his arguments that it was non-notable were rejected.

I'm still of the opinion that there should be a status here comparable to vexatious litigant, such that a person who repeatedly engages in misuse of processes such as deletion is barred from further use of them. User:Steve Dufour's gadfly challenges to the sourcing of Scientology articles are occasionally very slightly useful to article quality, but abusive tactics such as this make his overall contribution lean towards the negative. --FOo 06:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To ask a related question: If an individual lists themselves as a participant in a WikiProject but over time shows themselves to be clearly acting against the goals of that WikiProject, can they be ejected from it? When the WikiProject maintains a noticeboard for noting articles that face deletion, and supposed participants in good faith nominate articles for deletion without posting the appropriate notices, it really raises the question of why they listed themselves as participants. The requirements for participation in a WikiProject are generally not onerous, but "don't go behind others' backs" would seem to be a very reasonable one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Misou

Thanks, guys, for not informing me about this sneaky attack on myself. Hope I don't disturb your little club here. Foo, could you please stop smearing me and start contributing some sense, thank you. Fahrenheit451, if you look at the edit summary, you'll find a different "truth" than what you spread here. The deletion of this article was suggested by an Admin but in any case fulfills the deletion criteria. This article is not a WP:BLP issue and I never said that. What it seems to be is a) Original Research with zero RS to back it up (could be wholly invented by you, as it stands right now and you could not provide any RS since a while either) and b) useless. This minor subject could easily be a part of one of the hundreds of existing articles. Misou 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't say anything about User:Misou, unless you're the same person as User:Steve Dufour, in which case we have a sock puppet problem here. Is that what you're saying? --FOo 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it was not you for a change. It was Fahrenheit451 giving this thread the tendentious title "Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou". He might explain how he got the idea to mix me into his vendetta with Steve. Misou 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou, could you please explain where you think that an admin suggested that you should attempt to speedy-delete the article? I find no such suggestion anywhere on WP:BLPN. An admin did make a comment about bringing it to WP:AFD but as has been explained to you before, speedy deletion is a very different process from proposed deletion is a very different process from articles-for-deletion. Why exactly did you think that an admin's suggestion that deletion of the article should be discussed (AfD) translated to "I can mark this to be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate" (speedy)? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Dufour

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

• Added Schwarz "Attack article" section — (later removed by another editor)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

• Added 2005 Schwarz nom to 2006 AFD log — (later corrected by another editor)
• in an attempt to open 3rd nom — (Schwarz AFDs 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

• Added 2 and 4 — (Schwarz sections 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)
• Added "Article about suspected sockpuppets of a WP editor?" (Schwarz)

• Added 1 and 2 — (Rathbun sections 1 - 2 - 3)

• Added Scientology Finance — (later removed by another editor)
• Added section again

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• Added Schwarz section — (and anticipated 4th Schwarz AFD which soon appeared) — (subsequently incorporated into another section)

Wikipedia:Village pump

• Added section "Scientology overcovered?"

Page histories research results contributed by — Athænara ✉ 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have had difficulty with this editor, he seems to make a habit of bringing up issues already decided for the same reasons that caused said decsion. diff. He is again claiming the article in question is an attack article. Anynobody 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hows about we just stop the "tactics" and edit the encyclopedia?

Here is a word I had for Steve on the Scientology Finance article in response to his alerting me to it. Boils down to a NN article that was, IMO, simply added to give another opportunity for Scientology critics to link to off-wiki POV, non-RS, attack sites.

. . . Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This highly POV linking violates wikipedia policy but they have gotten away with it so long that they seem to think it is a norm. The article is non-notable Church policy and if Steve and Misou want to put it up for a delete then they should. Hey guys, instead of trying to get your opponents in trouble, how about we just walk through the process here. Thanks. --Justanother 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

what's the proper process here?

ok List of That's So Raven episodes has something like 96 individual episodes that have articles (though 7-8 of them have already been deleted or redirected back, more on that in a moment). I've gone through the first two seasons: so far every single article without fail is unsourced, original research, and consists of at least 50% of the pages content is trivia. Now, according to Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes it seems that only NOTABLE episodes are to be given their own pages, and that unverified, unsourced pages and trivia should be deleted/redirected. The apparent consensus there is that redirects to an episode list page are notable.

Now, I about broke my arm prod-ding the entire first season. Two prods were contested, I took both to AFD, and discovered 1 of them had already been AFD'd with a consensus to redirect back to the episode list. The other one is currently on AFD. After doing some research, I found that at least 7 episodes already have been to AFD and the consensus was to redirect back into the list of episodes.

So, my administrative question is what is the proper process. Do I AFD and Prod 85 more episodes? Or can I simply ignore the rules, be bold and redirect all the episodes back into the main list of episodes?

It would seem to me, that since all the articles have the exact same critical flaws, and 7 of them already have been up to AFD and uniformly been redirected back into the main article, that given the centralized discussion consensus, there is adequate grounds for me to just go ahead and redirect the articles. However, I don't want to do something out of process and then be yelled at for it later. Not that I mind being yelled at, but considering the target audience of these articles, such a move is going to get me trolled by a bunch of 11 year olds. Not something I mind, but I want to be able to say "I was in the right" when they do yell at me for it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well I don't see what we gain by deleting this content in the first place. It's harmless, if there's OR, remove it. --W.marsh 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because after the OR is removed, nothing is left. Also, per Centralized Discussion, first you have an article about the show (there is one). Once there is enough notable information, then you have an article about the seasons, or some other high level logical time division (there is a list of episodes in this case). Once you have enough NOTABLE information about each episode, you then can start building individual episode pages. The problem here is that process was completely ignored. Now, we have almost 100 articles that do not deserve existence, and are magnets for teenage vandalism and fancruft, OR, and trivia. We've already noted before through the last 7 AFDs that there is a consensus that those articles should not exist on their own. So why should we allow the others? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's for encyclopedic content. Trivia over whether a minor character left their locker open in an episode, is not encyclopedic content. In 20 years, will anyone want to read that? Unfortunately, that's what over 50% of each article is: trivia. Once all the trivia is removed, each article is an exact duplicate of the synopsis at the main list page, and therefore should be deleted as a duplicate article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It looked like a lot of plot summaries, guest stars, and other kinds of information when I checked a few articles. That's interested to fans, it can be verified... I don't see the harm in it. Anyway... you're apparently here to get approval to ignore all rules and speedy them all, I'm of the unpopular opinion (apparently) that episode summaries like this are harmless and we have better things to do than delete them. So I'm not going to give you that approval obviously (although, IAR doesn't require approval so whatever). --W.marsh 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, plot summaries and guest stars are either already included, or easily inclusible on the large "list of episodes". The vast majority of information on those pages is unsourced trivia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I want approval, but I also want to know what the proper action is. If I'm wrong, and other editors agree with your viewpoint, W.marsh, then obviously that's the correct action. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered mass AfD? But do take note that if you do pursue this route, and it is successful, you would be starting a new, potentially controversial, undoubtedly heated precedent. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've considered it, yes. It seems a viable solution, but I've found two problems (at least for me). First of all, that's a lot of copy and pasting the article names in there. It's MUCH faster for me to be able to just open each episode in a new tab, click edit on all of them, ctrl+v paste in the redirect code, which would be the same on each one, and then click save page. Then all I have to do is edit the main list and dewikilink the article names. That could all probably be done in less than 15 minutes. The mass AFD route however would probably take me close to an hour. Second, undoubtedly, some of the articles have already been AFD'd and I didn't know about them, opening them up for super contentious deletion review.

I'm not opposed to a mass AFD by any stretch. I just would rather go through the path of least carpal tunnel syndrome. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but being accused of "out-of-process" deletion will give you both carpal tunnel syndrome and high blood pressure. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hence, the question here, heh. See my dilemma? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second. There's a big difference between original research and primary source material. Watching a show and writing a summary isn't original research--the show is the primary source. Articles etc. about the show where the show is described are secondary sources--they got their material by watching the show as well--the only real difference is that it's much easier to cite and check many secondary sources than it is many primary sources--at least in terms of television, games, events. Just because an article only uses a primary source doesn't mean it's original research--it may however mean it isn't notable, but I don't particularly see a reason to go ahead and delete all of the articles. Lots of TV shows have an episode list and a stub or start size article or even a longer article on each episode, and I don't see why this TV show is being singled out. Perhaps a decision should be made as to whether articles on non-notable episodes should be allowed--and this might take some Rfcs and a big watchlist poll, and then people can go through and clean-up tv land if it's decided they shouldn't stay, but this seems odd to me. Other than possible non-notability, which would need to be decided per article, I don't see a problem with the articles. Oh, and when you use a primary source you still need to cite it--so adding a citation for the show/episode needs to be done, but I don't see an issue, at least not with the episode articles I looked at. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are zero third-party sources on a topic, then a proper encyclopedia article cannot be created. Such topics do not warrant separate articles; Wikipedia is not a fan site. —Centrx→talk • 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My note about primary sources was simply pointing out that they are not infact original research. You could tag all the articles with the primarysource tag, or put them up for Afd based on notable due to primary sources, but I the articles weren't using OR (at least not that I saw), and since the issue at hand was brought up as OR and not notability (it was mentioned briefly), then the rush to delete seems less necessary. And while I believe that there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that doesn't belong here--Wikipedia isn't a fan site, I do think that we should have clearer standards in certain areas as to what is notable and what isn't and what should and should not be done in that regard (i.e. tagging, deletion, merging, etc.) What is suitable for one section is not always for another due to many reasons--practicality being one of them, and I think having guidelines laid out for this purpose is important. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be an argument you would use when such an AfD comes up. But polls don't due much except gauge current consensus, not whether the articles really are of worth or not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. What makes you think that it would be ignoring any rules to merge and redirect a set of articles into a single article? What makes you think that "the rules" say that you should involve AFD at all? "The rules" say exactly the opposite. There are clear statements at the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, and indeed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself that if you want to merge articles, AFD is not the place. It is Articles for deletion, not Articles for merger. Article merger does not involve any deletion process at any stage. Just do the merger, and don't involve deletion at all. Deletion is for when an administrator using administrator tools is the way to solve a problem. This problem here can even be solved by editors who don't have accounts, who have all of the tools necessary to perform an article merger. Don't involve administrators when ordinary editing using ordinary editing tools fixes the problem. Uncle G 11:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G — merge into the list and redirect. It's going to take work, as some of the plot summaries are already too long, and will need précising further — and there's going to be determined defence from the fans who created and occasionally tinker with them. I'll lend a hand, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel and Uncle G. That's what I wanted to do, was to redirect them back into the main page, and I was wondering if doing so was out of process, but it appears not. I'll probably get started on it tonight then. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried this once before with the Phil of the Future episodes, which contained much less information than these and at AFD the consensus being leave them and expand. These episodes have verifiable information that if all kept on the main list of episodes would create an extremely large page. There is nothing in these that warrants deletion. All of the info is verifiable, it's a lot easier to tag them to need more sources and such, but no one can add sources if you just go and delete the episode(or redirect it to the list). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

75.45.187.11 at it again

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

75.45.187.11 was blocked for vandalism yesterday (after multiple warnings) and has come back for a fifth attempt at inserting the same racial slur into Bouyancy. Longer block? —David Eppstein 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Apparently static, apparently a vandal and nothing more. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats and BLP issue

Don Murphy has been the subject of ongoing BLP concerns, some raised by the subject. I have myself raised concerns about the article, although the last time I looked at it, it was much improved from its former condition.

A discussion today was raised about this article at the village pump. During the discussion, first-time User:StillbornScott made a post that was grossly harassing of and made personal attacks against another user. In addition, this username is unacceptable. As the account appeared to have no intention of good-faith contributions, I blocked it.

Per the user's talkpage, a thread has now been posted to Don Murphy's website, allegedly by Murphy himself, calling for me to be outed in real life and harassed. I have responded on the page, but wanted to make the broader admin community aware of this situation. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock for No personal attacks. Would stubbing the article (again?) have any effect? Naconkantari 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With my personal experience, he is all talk. There have been numerous threads for his stooges to find all the information they can about me and thats all they do. They really can't do anything with that information, maybe because it is illegal to harass people. Don't worry about it. I also haven't been adding anything to the article unless there is a consensus to do so (excluding one edit where I reverted back to an edit by Zanimum, I thought a consensus was reached or something), even though I think the information is highly relevant. Honestly, don't even worry about his board. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a troublesome situation, which among other things gives me even greater empathy for our OTRS volunteers who ordinarily deal with complaints from disgruntled subjects of articles. I have been discussing this matter with the user I blocked on User talk:StillbornScott, who now appears to be Don Murphy himself. His opinion of Wikipedia and its users is obviously low ("Shitipedia") and clearly many of the comments he has made are not acceptable. Yet I remember a post here about comments he made on his external site a couple of weeks ago, and remarking at the time that while his threats were wholly deplorable, that there were serious issues with unsourced gossip and undue weight associated with this article which he has a right to be upset about. At this point, I will be legitimately accused of having a conflict of interest if I ever touch this article, but I hope it is being closely monitored, even as I hope that its subject will immediately discontinue his problematic behavior directed against Wikipedians. Newyorkbrad 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different subject, I think we can link Fecapedian (talk · contribs) to being Don Murphy himself, as well after a cursory reading of the discussion that StillbornScott first commented at.

Back on topic, this appears to be getting to DB-level proportions with seeking the actual identities of users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also slightly off topic, discussing this with Eagle 101, we have blacklisted his forums as they are now in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site (and we really need to develop local blacklists that aren't bot based)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also ColScott (talk · contribs) involved with this?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions that ColScott is in fact Don Murphy, but I really can't offer any proof other than writing style and emails to me that are written by ColScott. As well, I can no longer edit the article (cept for vandalism and attack stuff) so I might as well make my point here. I am positive the incident between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Tarantino happened. It was reported in TIME, EW, E-Online, and (Before it was removed by Mr. Murphy himself) on Mr. Murphy's website. So I don't think the issue was unsourced, nor was it gossip. I dunno about copyright issues, but I do have screenshots of Mr. Murphy's page in particular that admit the incident happened, so e-mail me if you want them.

Undue weight, I don't think so. If you go back in the pages history, the incident was there LONG before I even touched the article, with no BLP issues raised (perhaps because no one noticed the article), only to be removed by ColScott (probably Mr. Murphy). I was looking at some of ColScott's edits and I noticed that a rather significant incident in Mr. Murphy's life was removed so I reposted the incident, added some new references and blam, I get slammed with me having some personal vendetta against Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy believes I added the incident because I don't like him (I don't know enough about him to form a perfect opinion) or something, while in fact I added it because it was removed earlier. Need any more info, ask me, I'm ready to answer questions. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier with the situation if certain people were more inclined to any sort of reasonable debate. Related trolls can and probably should be reverted and blocked on sight, as far as I'm concerned -- we're plainly dealing with organized disruption, here. If people want to come by and discuss things like adults, they should be more than welcome to do so. Stalking, harassment, and ad hominem are not on the menu. Apply healthy doses of Deny recognition and Revert,_block,_ignore. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet abuse

I'm bringing this here instead of WP:SSP because some of the diffs are on pages marked for speedy deletion. While patrolling new pages this morning, I came across what appears to be some odd behavior involving WhiteKongMan (talk · contribs), Mrscottjackson (talk · contribs), and 199.94.73.221 (talk · contribs).

WhiteKongMan reverted an edit that removed his speedy deletion request and stated that the article should be prod'd or go to AfD.
199.94.73.221 then added some nonsense about the band "helping defeat the americans in viet nam."
WhiteKongMan then returned and added a db-nonsense tag.

I thought this was odd so I compared some of their other recent edits.

WhiteKongMan replaces a hangon with another speedy request.
After I replace the hangon, Mrscottjackson appears and removes it again.

WhiteKongMan adds some speedy tags.
199.94.73.221 removes the hangon.
After I replace the hangon, Mrscottjackson removes the hangon.

WhiteKongMan requests a page move.
Mrscottjackson supports the request.

And now 199.94.73.221 is back and also supporting this page move request. --Onorem 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, all 3 have messages on their talk pages concerning a deleted article about a journalist named Scott Jackson. I think it's pretty clear there's some meat or sock trouble here with the anon adding patent nonsense so another speedy tag can be added and the request for a page move being supported. --Onorem 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for update

Recently a user avoided a block because his previous block record was not noticed after a user name change. His socks are also not apparent for this reason, but really ought to be. Can updates be made according to these [63][64]? While I am considering some sort of formal action against this user for ongoing conduct and dishonest editing issues, it may be good if his sockpuppetry is plain to see. The Behnam 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I will try to migrate them myself by simply switching the names. Hopefully that will work. In any case you are all notified. The Behnam 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No wait, I need verification that this is a fine to do. Is this OK? The Behnam 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just have to do it now. I've gotten no response and I cannot see any reason that this is incorrect. The Behnam 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some limited renaming (checkuser page, added a note on the sockpuppet category) but did not yet retag all the socks. If this person intends to improve their editing, or at least stop using sock puppets, we can stop there. If this person continues to be disruptive so that it is clear that he is trying to evade his past, then everything should be retagged. Thatcher131 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a quick look at his recent editing shows that he isn't making much of an effort. People shouldn't be allowed to run away from their records anyway. He changed it for gender confusion reasons but there is nothing indicating he has changed editing habits. Anyway thanks for what you have done so far. The Behnam 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Behnam - I'm quite sure the admins will resolve this, but in the meanwhile would be great if they ask you to stop vandalising and deleting the contents of the Wikipedia - and instead offer something useful and constructive for change! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza protected again

I have protected Wikipedia:Esperanza following the resumption of edit warring over what information should be on that page. The inability of Dev920 and Ed to agree the content of that page is astounding. I am at least the 4th person to have to protect this page due to these issues- this has got to stop. Any suggestions on how to bring this dispute to a close welcome. It may be that attempts to summarise the deletion discussions should be abandoned and replaced with links to them instead, allowing the reader to make their own assessment of the merits/problems of Esperanza. WjBscribe 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently mediation has begun at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation. Good luck to Ryan with that one... WjBscribe 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation - this might help. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My line of argument may be found here, for those who don't want to wade through the history. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to leave the page protected indefinitely. Esperanza is dead, I'm at a loss as to why there's so much activity there anyway. Failing that, ban Ed from the page, as he appears to be the problem. – Steel 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring against consensus is certainly annoying. A page-ban could be proposed at WP:CSN, but we should give this mediation a chance to work first. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather obvious case of a consensus with a lone dissenter. I don't think page protection is needed, just tell the dissenter that he'll be blocked if he does that again (i.e. page-ban). Ignoring consensus is disruptive. >Radiant< 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Edit warring on the page of a dead organization that promoted community peace. Oh the irony... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block 209.7.171.2

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism; see [65] and other edits on Belvidere, Illinois. —Rob (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

School IP -- same as old blocks. Reset the block in question. You may get a faster response from WP:AIV, for future such reports. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, anti-semitism, abuse and disruption by Saintrotter (talk · contribs)

Saintrotter (talk · contribs) and Rastishka (talk · contribs) are pretty clearly the same person (user pages are carbon copies). He also edits under the IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs) (which was determined by an admin, see IP talk page). On his Saintrotter user page, he openly states that he has a bone to pick about "liberal bias" at the Holocaust article, and then makes a pretty blatant personal attack on Wikipedia editors in gereral by stating that "moderators take a Pro-Jewish point of view" and "Moderators openly admit to a pro-Jewish bias." The Saintrotter user also makes inflammatory statements like this [66], [67], [68], [69]. I had some dealings quite some time ago with this person when he was editing as "Rastishka", and his new sockpuppet leads me to believe that he's still pretty much an angry, bigoted, anti-semite who is mostly concerned with nursing a grudge against Jews, is disruptive in his insistence on reintroducing racist POV and images, but he can be very sneaky in doing so and falls beneath the radar a lot. I wish someone would look into this more closely and deal with this person because really, I don't think Wikipedia is any place for anti-semitism or for trying to push non-consensus points of view, and for basically acting like a dick whenever someone reverts his sneakily racist edits. While he has made SOME constructive edits, they don't really outweight the disruptive and anti-semitic ones. The Rastishka account has been blocked in the past for 3RR and personal attacks, the Saintrotter account has been blocked in the past for 3RR and warned about vandalism and personal attacks, and the IP has been blocked in the past for vandalism, disruption and personal attacks. TheQuandry 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've stepped in. Let's see where this goes. --Sn0wflake 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's outright denied any wrongdoing and instead tells you to assume good faith. That's his signature. He always denies ever having done anything wrong, turns it around on whoever attempts to communicate with him and somehow he always manages to avoid being indef blocked. TheQuandry 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think there's any excuse whatsoever for THIS [70]. TheQuandry 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The page of Fable (video game) must be checked out due to its inappropriate content-- a vandalism-- sticking out like some sore eye (consisting of words such as a**, p*nis, etc.), which was put there, undoubtedly, for immature and foolish purposes. I am unsure of what I should do, but I do know that I must report this immediately. The 'Summary' section, or more specifically the 'Plot', I did change, but unfortunately I do not know how to re-edit the short introduction since this is the first time that I'm doing this, and I have just registered an account just hours ago. Either I must be notified of how to change the introduction of a page, or someone else must re-edit it.

Here is the link of the page I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable_%28video_game%29

I apologize in advance for any mistakes that I did, and request a warning/notification in the future. I also suggest an investigation of who the vandal is since I am unaware of whether or not I could find out who did this or not. Is this possible, by the way?

Anyway, thank you for taking notice of this notification, and good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaostame (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your notice, I've now gone and removed all the vandalism from the page, I'll come to your talk page to show you how to revert and warn. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats by User:Ilyhg

It seems to me that User:Ilyhg is the same puppet as User:Hapoelhaifa3 who was banned for one week for abuse. This user is also personally attacking me as well as threatening me with legal action. It is obvious that both users are children or Teenagers but the abuse deters me from making quality additions to Wikipedia. See the users talk page where he wrote in Hebrew that I should contact the lawyers to send a defense statement, and my own talk page. He restates this in English on the talk page of Yochanan Vollach. The same page where he has been vandalizing my edits. -NYC2TLV 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see that there is actually a rule against what he did: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Not only did he break this rule, but he also is masking his breaking of the three revert rule. -NYC2TLV 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no threats, this user -NYC2TLV has vandalized several times the page of president of Maccabi Haifa, there has been legal action by Maccabi Haifa agints the user due to repeatedly requests by several users not to edit the page. He has developed a king of OCD towards Vollach and unfortunately there is no other way to deal with this kind of vandalism. He has radical political opinions which he reputedly insist to combine into pages of players. Maccabi Haifa legal department requested this user NOT TO EDIT THE PAGE!. He had violated every possible ethic rule. There is no justifying ban the users. The claim that these are the same users is a lie; these are 2 users that act tighter against user vandalism. Mr. Vollach is one of the most respective individuals in Israel and this user wants him dead, as he combined in one of the edit page death details. Please contact Maccabi Haifa’s layers for more details: noy@brindt-law.co.il

Thank you.

Inappropriate name and usage of a Project infobox

Dave Gilmour (talk · contribs) is identifying himself as a member of the Pink Floyd Project which is a bit a conflict with an actual band member being named David Gilmour. The new user is also using the Guitarist Project infobox from the "real" David Gilmour article on his userpage. 156.34.142.110 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've notified the user that they should make a request to change their username, as their username violates our username policy as described at Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. --Durin 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he's now claiming that David Gilmour is his real name [71]. --Durin 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted the username policy prohibits this anyway. Thatcher131 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin blocking a user with whom he was in an edit conflict

User:Raul654 has blocked User:216.67.29.113, with whom he was in an edit conflict at Intelligent Design. While I agree that some of the IPs edits were a little biased, the text he was correcting was probably a bit biased as well. Not only is this a violation of the non-involved policy, but users should not be blocked for edit warring when other people are edit warring just as much on the same page. At very very least, this should have been brought up on the noticeboards. Part Deux 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is false and misleading. I removed his Chablax's FAR nomination because it was duplicitous - he was complaining the article was unstable because *he* was the one making it unstable by (means of his logged-out IP address - 0a not-so-minor detail he neglected to mention). I reverted him nom and warned him, he persisted, and I blocked him. He was not blocked for edit warring, he was blocked for gaming the system. And I left a thread on wikipedia talk:featured article review where everyone supported my action. Raul654 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user:216.67.29.113's edits to that page had been reverted by others between April 9 - April 13. When Raul stepped in, he was only defending consensus and stopping this user from re-inserting banners already deemed unnecessary. This doesn't make Raul a party to the content dispute. My opinion is to endorse the block. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I was mischaracterizing the situation, as I have no desire to get User:Raul654 in trouble. Perhaps a better block summary may have worked, such as "gaming the system, persistent edit warring against consensus across multiple IPs". But POV pushing doesn't seem like it was the case, here. Not at all (though I might point out I do disagree with this editor). Part Deux 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, when the first message this IP gets is a block threat for what appear to be good faith (though misguided) edits, this whole situation was pretty much set up to end badly. I'm not defending Chahax (talk · contribs) or the actions the editor took, but it appears there wasn't a whole lot of WP:AGF being extended here before the hammer was dropped on him... and yeah, the Chahax (talk · contribs) block summary should be corrected.--Isotope23 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The other question is block duration. Right now it's set at indefinite, which can be a long time. I've also asked Chahax to explain why he acted as he did, which may be relevant. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the precedent of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs), who was blocked for 1 month for socking and gaming the system. I would be in favor of commuting Chahax's block to 1 month, "if" Raul's assertion that Chahax could be someone else's sockpuppet holds no water. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbot attack

An anonymous user has been vandalizing the userpages of various Wikipedian with obscenities; after I blocked some of the addresses, he went to specifically target me. See the history of my user page, and my block log

• Thanks to whoever protected my talk page; what else needs to be done? Checkuser? Open proxy check? - Mike Rosoft 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• We've rangeblocked about three or four times, so... good question! —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It's a British Telecom IP who are one of the biggest ISPs in the UK, and are also dynamic. Too much range blocking could cause plenty of collateral damage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned user

Resolved

24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was previously identified as a suspected sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in March 2006 has just edited the Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton article, to which the only other recent edits in the last month are previous Rms125a@hotmail.com sockpuppets and those edits being reverted. Can anyone see a duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also MobyGames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the IP and user are blocked indefinitely. No useful edits came from that IP—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

block review requested

I have just blocked Gooxareinsane (talk · contribs) as a borderline username plus trolling, as seen in their only edits: {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Tech_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=123350473] and [72]. User was never warned but I think given the high news profile of the situation any warning would have allowed the user to troll for an unacceptably lengthy time. Review requested. Natalie 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clearly racist username anyway, the block would've been justified on that alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify that I also blocked account creation. Natalie 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's usually just a judgment call, but a trollish username combined with trollish edits certainly justifies it in my book. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good early catch to me. If the user wants to contribute constructively, they can do so under another name. However it looks like you've autoblocked the IP itself indefinitely, if I understand the software correctly? -- nae'blis 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think autoblock only last 24 hours no matter what, but if I'm wrong someone please change it - I have to go eat dinner. Natalie 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gamer112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a long-term sneaky vandal, as I noticed when he/she repeatedly reinserted unsourced misinformation into Virginia Tech shootings this afternoon. The accumulated warnings on User talk:Gamer112 and the edit history might justify a block at this point. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review request for Maxman280

I've blocked this user indefinitely. Following a previous 24-hour block, he's been engaging in disruption [73], [74] and outright vandalism [75], [76]. Requesting review, as the user does appear to have some positive history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps going from 24-hour block to indefinite was drastically harsh, don't you think? --Sn0wflake 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. I was about to suggest a weeklong block, but if he already had a block, he's been warned enough. I mean, c'mon: [77]. There was literally nothing useful coming from this account. Part Deux 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Well before his first block he was making assinine edits like these [78] [79] [80]. It isn't as though we are losing a valuable contributor here. IrishGuy ^talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure... just poiting out that it would be standard to issue weelong first, to give a last chance. But I don't believe a review is in order now. What is done is done. --Sn0wflake 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree, and would have given a week, but this edit convinced me pretty well he intends to continue. "Indefinite" doesn't mean forever, if he were to come back in a week or two with a sincere apology, I might well support giving him a last chance. As to review, we do that in unusual circumstances-blocks can always be reduced, if it turns out there's no consensus for placing them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse an indef block here. No legitimate reason to expect anything constructive out of this user. A Train^talk 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User removing warning templates with IP accounts to circumvent final warning

User Jahedul (and possibly a block of IP addresses need) to be blocked.

Jahedul has uploaded the following images that appear to be improper images according to fair use policies and I have marked them as such:

• Image:Cuztv.jpg
• Image:Mac best.gif
• Image:Image-Home-FabolousFan.info.jpg

The user removed the template and claimed that they were valid for use under mistaken and/or bogus claims that he owns the image or received permission to post from the image owner.

I informed the user that {{Replaceable fair use}} specifically says "Do not remove this tag" but he continued to remove the template. I left a final warning message on the user's talk page, but that was followed by these edits: [81] [82], [83], [84]

The edits come from the same ISP and city, and edits such as this and this suggest they are Jahedul. Ytny (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Those IPs are in too wide a range to be blocked. However, the page could be semiprotected, and probably a 24h block extended to Jahedul for removing for FU violations and sockpuppetry. I've watchlisted the pages. Part Deux 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this user has a history of creating bad images as well. Perhaps he could use some time off *hint hint to admins*. Part Deux 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Jahedeul's block log out of curiosity and he's been blocked before for repeated copyvios: [85]. So it doesn't seem like a case of not understand policy. Ytny (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

25 or 6 to 4

Could someone keep an eye on this situation, please. Mastersman (talk · contribs) has nearly broken the 3RR on this article by readding unsourced information/speculation, call it what you will. They have already assumed bad faith of an anonymous IP who has tried to remedy this situation (calling them a vandal in the process). Then when I come along (notice Coelacan tried to do the same last week), I get told (on a discussion now moved to the article talk page) that the page is "being managed by fans" and "trust [them] to do their job". I'm guessing this is the royal "we" being referenced here. Anyway, WP:OWN, 3RR, and possible sockpuppetry going on here. I am about to revert and go offline, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes. I have no stake in this article whatsoever and was responding to a request for help posted on another admin's talk page. Bubba hotep 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice the similarity in phrase here and on the edit summary here – using the word "Wik". Chances of two people calling it that? Bubba hotep 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Grey#In_the_media

InspiredMind (talk · contribs) is the director of CoSM The Movie, which is about this person. I came across the movie article on NP patrol and discovered that the user is the same as the producer director and editor of the film. There are serious COI issues with this users' editing as everything they have done is connected to their work and is either promotional and/or vanity. I noticed the following line in the above section that the user has just reinserted after I removed it as spam/advertising.

• Directed by Nick Krasnic and distributed on DVD by Docurama.

I'd be grateful if someone could review this and remove this if they consider it appropriate. I'm away to my bed and have edited that section 3 times already today. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoSM The Movie & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Krasnic. Thanks --Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Joie de Vivre

User Joie de Vivre - appears to be entering bigoted anti-Catholic remarks in the discussion as a reason for deleting a post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fertility_awareness#External_links_-_Software 75.84.156.180 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, comments such as this are not welcome on Wikipedia; if you cannot be civil, please be gone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is the only comment I made in that section, and is most likely the comment to which 75.84.156.180 was referring. I don't find it to be bigoted in the least; but editors can judge for themselves. Joie de Vivre ^T 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gang Lu vandalism

Due, I think, to the Virginia Tech story in the news, the Gang Lu article has become the target of vandalism. Request soft-protection for that article and suggest that all school and university shooting-related articles receive the same thing for the time being. Cla68 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a more efficient response posting this to WP:RFPP. After a closer look at the article, I don't think a semi-protect will be necessary. There's only one or two cases of vandalism this week. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI

Resolved

 – deleted. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article, which was deleted on April 15th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Legend's College Johnsbridge Invitational XI has been recreated essentially with the same content. It needs to be speedy deleted and the editor who recreated it warned or possibly blocked. --Bduke 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To note a recreation of deleted material, type {{db-repost}} or {{db-g4}} at the top of the article. I'll do that. Since I'm not an admin, I'm not going to contact the user. I will warn the user, who has made no other edits than these two. YechielMan 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou vs. User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali

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

This isn't going anywhere. My talk page is open if there are unresolved issues. – Steel 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

For several months I have been subject to continuing abuse by vandals and sockpuppets who object to my edits and my extra-Wika politics relating to the Middle East. To date, some 160 sockpuppets of User:Runtshit have been indefinitely blocked for their libellous and abusive edits to over 130 different articles. In addition to abusive comments, these editors have been adding a link to a weblog set up for the sole purpose of spreading these and other defamatory comments. Following the intervention of several administrators, linking to this hate site has resulted in automatic bans for the perpetrators.

Now, for the first time, an established editor has repeated these libels and posted a link to the weblog. In the course of a dispute at Talk:Shimon Tzabar, User:Jaakobou appears to have trawled through the history of my edits, and has repeated a libellous accusation as fact, including posting the URL of the abusive weblog. Since he has clearly read the weblog, he cannot claim to be unaware of its libellous nature. And since he has studied my contributions history, he must be aware that scores of vandals have been banned for posting these false and defamatory allegations.

The posting of this material is a deliberate provocation. It is a clear and deliberate breach of WP:NPA. If allowed to go unremarked, it could encourage other editors to post such abusive material. I therefore request that User:Jaakobou be blocked for a suitable period in order to emphasise the serious and unacceptable nature of his behaviour. RolandR 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali have been making a tag-team effort and on numereous occassions stooped down to defamatory intonations and accusations with their tag-team reverting. this case was not much different as he accused me yet again (for the umpteenth time) for pushing my POV, an act that deserved a reply that he should quit doing so. after scores of situations where i was "against" a tag team revert effort while trying to make a normative contribution to wikipedia:

a few samples of insults/tag-team efforts:

1. "was in the article for several months until removed by POV editor"
2. Reverting tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits
3. "RonaldR, any valid reasoning for removal of criticism and POV change of "seperation wall" title ?"
4. cencorship of criticism per "politically-motivated"
5. "Removed hostile POV editsd"
6. Adam Keller warnings on RolandR talk page - part 1
7. Adam Keller mediation attempt i've made - refused by RolandR - personal attacks included: "this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."
8. warning on RolandR talk page per more personal attacks
9. earlier weasel terms warnining he removed from his talk page
10. "I wouldn't be too worried at Jaakobou's bluster. He constantly threatens and attempts to bully other editors who do not agree with his own POV" and a little extra sad taunting attempt.
11. Abu Ali, please help me out on Adam Keller
12. "tag team war reverting" warning recieves these: "He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously", "I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou" and the best attempt to give the tag-team revert an anti-jaako feel: "Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks."

I could go on and on with smaples of tag team wars by these two and POV pushing. this entire complaint by RolandR against me is the result of his incessant attacks on me which is the resut of a blatant tag-team warring style of editing preffered by the two over a proper talk page discussion debate. off course by now, he's contacted allready all of his other tag-team buddies to add libel against me... but guess who was first? (Abu Ali). evidence from the article of this initial report: a request by Lizrael for RonaldR to not force his opinion into the article, and a second request - both were ignored by RolandR and Abu Ali. The RonaldR attack - "My suspicion is that the deniers want to suppress the link altogether, in order to prevent Wikipedia readers from linking to its well-written and devastating critiques of Israel's behaviour.". obviously, i've had enough of the insinuations and the "hidden" nick-naming and i presented that he should stop calling me out on "POV charges" (claiming his view is neutral) cosidering that someone has even made a blog to honor his anti-israel POV. Jaakobou 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks by Jaakobou are irrelevant. The fact remains that he deliberately posted a link to a defamatory website, despite knowing that 160 sockpuppets had already been indefinitely blocked for the same offence. RolandR 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how would i know that 160 sockpupets posted it? i'm very sorry that you have sockpuppets chasing you, but i was only presenting that you are a POV editor and that you should stop accusing me with POV while claiming you're neutral. another note i wish to stress, is that you constantly claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce your POV onto articles. Jaakobou 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please do not POV the title of this incident ^{per this edit: [86]}. Jaakobou 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been made clear, perhaps User:Jaakobou will agree to not post the link again, and perhaps both of you will concentrate on the topic at hand rather than other editors. What does Abu Ali (talk · contribs) have to do with it? He hasn't edited for nearly a year. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for catching that, error fixed - User:Abu_ali what the correct username.

note: i was not the one reporting this "violation". Jaakobou 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then will you agree to not post the offending link? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of "posting" the offending link, it was placed (via ^[2] style) to validate my claim that a blog that celebrates his bias exits. To my defense, I am fairly tired of being attacked under "tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits" allegations by a tag-team that claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce their POV (bypassing 3RR) under the pretnece of neutrality... regardless, i wouldn't mind not reposting that link (when forced to mention it's existance).. but it would be only fair that user rolandR remove the warning from my page and in the future avoid statements such as "silly".."highly POV editor" and such. reverting should be left out and a discussion should be done properly... in fact, i'm surprized that this issue was not dealt with earlier. note: it would also be a good thing if he'd avoid removing my warnings from pages of other users and his own page also. Jaakobou 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, i was thinking of archiving this thread but you haven't answered Zzuuzz's question yet. Will you agree to not post the offending link? If yes, then we can move forward and archive this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}, as you can see from User:RolandR's reply, he has no attempt to consider other editors in a respectable manner (per "totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response", "I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid", etc.). I see no reasoning for me to post the link (and i don't intend to) but a reciprocal reaction would be the removal of the warnning and an honest attempt at resolving disputes without the tag-team reverts per "user is highly POV and untrue, pejorative and misleading" tactic. It's become a major hassle to deal with them every time we encounter a dispute. note: why do you place no regard to the tag team revert and disrespect issue? Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response. The link did not place itself; it was placed by Jaakobou, who himself repeated some of the libels from it. It is inconceivable that he can have looked at this site and not realised that it was libellous, abusive and offensive. I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid to recognise this. Nor can I believe that he was unaware that scores of other editors posting this link have been banned from Wikipedia. After all, he trawled through my contributions history to discover some that he could cite as examples of my point of view, so he will of course have seen the dozens of contributions relating to this, as well as the offensive edits made to the pages he looked at.

I have been battling for months to deal with this. Several other editors and administrators have wasted hours of their time removing these libellous edits and links from Wikipedia. Zzuuzz is aware of this, since he himself has dealt with this abuse on many occasions. A grudging and half-hearted undertaking not to repost the linbk is simply not good enough -- Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this.

Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations. I do not intend to dignify them with a response, except to note that it is a lie to claim that I have removed his "warnings" from user pages other than my own. RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placeing the attention at the root. i could care less about some people hassling you about your views. I do care about the blatent disrespect you're repeatedly showing. you're the one jumping on the first thing you can in an attempt to ban me. Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page, removing a message from User:Abu ali. He accuses me above of removing his messages from other users talk pages, and now he does himself what he falsely alleges that I have done. This too is unacceptable behaviour. Is there any way to block him from my talk page? RolandR 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the previous comment by User:RolandR was preceded by this one: personal attack complaint^{quick link - 22:11, 14 April} and followed by this one: "i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it"^{quick link - 23:45, 14 April}

For a second time, Jaakobou has moved my comment in order to remove it from its context. It's not enough that he vandalises my talk page; now he is also vandalising my complaint about this. His behaviour has passed all reasonable and acceptable bounds -- he seems to believe that he can censor not only messages from one editor to another, but also the resulting complaints. I have the right to make my complaint in the place and mmanner I thoink fit, and he does not have the right to decide that it should be made in a different manbner. If he wishes to respond to my complaint, he should do so here, rather tnam move my complaint out of its context to a place of his choice. RolandR 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR your incessant attempt to portray me as a vandal are becoming increasingly annoying. do you have a proper reasoning for placing a vandalism complaint out of chronological order above the "personal attacks" about those very edits so that a naive reader might think that vandalism came first and personal attacks came later? Jaakobou 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. My comment, which Jaakobou has now moved three times, was not a response to his remarks below. It was a continuation of the discussion above, and in particular his false allegation that I have been removing his comments from other editors talk pages. By moving it, he makes me appear to make an irrelevant response to a different comment.

Meanwhile, his (very) frequent posting of unwarranted and extremely verbose "warnings" on my talk page and those of other editors, his removal of other editors comments from my talk page, his repeat of libels against me, and his posting of the URL of a libellous weblog set up purely in order to defame me, certainly warrant the description of vandalism. RolandR 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR, (1) it would be far more factual if you'd be able to link to all of your claims when you make them, as i usually do. (2) i've managed to solve the "comment moving" problem by placing a timestamp and link - i don't think you can really deny the time each comment was made. (3) i have no interest in you or in defaming you - i am however interested in proper conduct when working on articles, something you refuse to do despite many attempts i've made to relay that message to you.^{Adam Keller month long dispute, and rejected mediation case}. Jaakobou 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

recent personal attacks

Please see RolandR's talk page to see Abu ali's subtle personal attacks against me. It's a repeated phenomena that's difficult to work on articles with; a duo that says they "must be doing something right" after they see they have, to put it bluntly, pissed me off. when noted that this personal attack is frowned upon, RonaldR ignored the note and reverted the personal attack back into his page and also made a 4th level warning on my talk page^[87]. Jaakobou 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following "i removed a personal attack" comment was preceded by this User:RolandR comment: "jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page removing a comment from Abu_ali"^{quicklink (scroll down) - 23:16, 14 April}

i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it while ignoring my notice that this personal attack is frowned upon^{quick link}. Jaakobou 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou invited [88] me to state my case here. My talk page contains a number of final warings by this editor which I normally shrug off. But I think that this edit edit is libelous and defamatory beyond what is acceptable here. So I think it would be best for User:Jaakobou to apologize and agree not to insert such material here in future. If he is unwilling to do this, some sort of sanction may be appropriate in order to show him the seriousness with which such personal attacks are treated here and convince him not to repeat them. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that's an interesting way of mispresenting the warnings you had recieved in the past (and just recently) and ignoring your repeated insinuations, attacks and tag team warring. your rich history of zionist conspiracy claims^{easily found here} makes me wonder about wikipedia's ability of dealing with destructive editors who abuse their personal page to catalogue israeli gouvermental officials that have or had issues with the law.[89] Jaakobou 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know you do not like my user page becuase you have raised an ANI about it in the past. Any editor who is interrested in this will have fun trawling through our contributions history. But lets not get distracted and get back to the current issue. The question FayssalF and I asked (and you for some reason ignore) is will you apologize for this [90] edit and agree not to reinsert links to this libelous and defamatory material. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i've answered the question twice allready. (2) will you apologize for all the attacks you've made on me (and erase those which can be erased) including the one made just 10 minutes ago and start dealing with disputes in a proper manner on the talk page without tag-team reverting? even when i've requested your opinion on an article[91] you used it as an opportunity to unjustly attack me [92]. Jaakobou 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer. (2) I have made no attacks on you, and find it puzzling to say the least that you demand that I apologize for non-existent personal attacks, while you continue to make personal attacks such as this [93]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) look it up, it's on this thread. (2) your name doesn't even exist on the link you have provided. (3) scroll up a little bit and you'll find a few of your personal attacks on me. Jaakobou 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) the personal attack I mentioned was against RolandR. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Troll#Pestering. Jaakobou 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is being a troll here, and pestering others, it's certainly not Abu Ali. Jaakobou, on the other hand, persistently posts unwarranted "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. Just look at these, for instance: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. That's quite enough to demonstrate a consistent pattern. Jaakobou, I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such allegations in future. RolandR 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

brilliant effort here. one (User:Abu_ali) bugs me with "If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer." and links unrelating to him. (hence the "pestering" link) and now you're inadvertently accusing me of "being a troll here, and pestering others" - well you did some linking so i guess i should respond to them:

link 1 - [100]

your first link: was a serisous problem with Abu_ali who had not ignored a level-1 notice, but has used it to repeatedly put my username on display on his personal page: [101] and placed again even after it was removed by a wiki admin first removal of Abu_ali finger pointing->Abu_ali putting it back, and second time it was removed by an admin (not by Abu_ali, which is why the all the warning stayed on his talk page). now if you would have taken the time, you would have found it. I actually handled the situation unlike you^[102],[103] - i used the proper steps level-1, level-2 to get around to the level-3 warning after a the "protest" activity in regards to the level-1 and level-2 warnings. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

link 2 - [104]

The second link of yours was actually one of your tag-team efforts where both of you were repeatedly ignoring the talk page and reverting the article page.

from that same warning i give this link to the Abu_ali blind revert 9:54, 24 march and the brilliant part is when going over the history of the article [105]:

Scrolling down to the 24th, you can see that i make an edit, and you revert per "Reverting POV edits", I then move the problem to the talk page for discussion 23 march. user Abu_ali reverts the page without regarding the talk page 9:54am, 24 march - i waited around for an hour to see if he does adress the talk page, but since he didn't - and since you two have shown tag-team editing in the past i went on with my warning 10:52am 24 march - perhaps a level-3 would have been better than a level 4 but for both my talk page effort and the "link 1 issues"... and after the warning, i got this response: "Shalom to my friend Jaakobou. The implication of the phrase "what they descrive as the occupation" rather than the simpler "the occupation".... But as this is not a Kahanist blog or an Israeli foreing ministry propoganda site, we should call things as they are, hence the occupation" (then there's a comment about me trying to intimidate him with the warning - which i protest since i was only not appreciative of the "quick revert and ignore talk page" methodology)... let's go on with this one and follow up on the history: the warning and reqest that he self revert were ridiculed by the couple and here's a capture of the changes in conversation on the article talk page since that warning:

[106] summary:

Jaakobou - kahana is outlawed (personal attack), you should revert, second time you call RolandR, article related discussion, tag team warning, self revert and proper discussion request. Abu ali - did not call you kahanist, you will know i'm right if you go to a checkpoint yourself. Jaakobou - regardless you your personal narrative there's wiki terminology, please self revert the tag team reversion and i'll remove the warning from your page, article talk. Abu ali - As you have been a soldier you will know from direct experience that the regime (i.e. attacking me-jaakobou and my country)... "What did the state give you in return for these three unpaid years of your life?"

after this personally orientated discussion (by Abu_ali) and reluctance to discuss properly or self-revert in return to a removal of the warning. i went on with this:

23:27, 25 March summary:

level-2 notice for turning the conversation into a chat about me, POV issues, reply to personal question, notice about refusal to self-revert and warning that repeating on it might result in a block for him, note about being contributive over destructive (with proper linkage^{[107][108][109]})

then i reverted the Matzpen page on 23:29, 25 March - on 06:26, 26 March (the next morning) Abu_ali reverted it again per "as explained on the talk page, we should call a spade a spade" and gave this reply on his talk page "It seems that we will have to agree to disagree.".

user RolandR then continued to make "shocked" comments on Abu_ali's talk page in regards to the complaint i issued^[110] so that the complaint would not follow through: "am shocked at the patronising tone", "Quite a colonial attitude", "doesn't surprise me that you are offended" - and it worked.

i could go on with these links... but i think i've illustrated the problem sufficiently. Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

other links

link 3 [111] - increasing warnings about removing warnings from other user's talk page (i've later learned that this is allowed?)

link 4 [112] - same issue - with one of the 3 users involved: NSH, RolandR and Huldra.

link 5 [113] - a very much legitimate level-2 notice - with proper citations and links - issue was properly resolved also.

link 6 [114] - the old RolandR initial encounter on Adam Keller that i've linked to here more than once - i've tried to resolve with mediation, but RolandR declined on the attempt... article seemed to be progressing for a bit, but currently it's locked due to the reverting on it (did i say tag-team yet? - the team has actually did 4 reverts together on 11th of April). Jaakobou 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

extra talk

This thread keeps popping up in my watchlist and it's getting annoying. Jaakobou, there is no rule that says if someone starts a new (sub)section, people can no longer post in the previous section, so quit moving other people's messages around. Also, I can't see any personal attacks from RolandR, just you constantly accusing him of making them. I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative. – Steel 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, i've managed to solve this problem without moving the misplaced comment, thank you for the lovely response. all you need to do to find (many of) the details of the situation is to follow it through from the start of the thread. Jaakobou 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, could you please explain the reasoning behind this edit and perhaps present a better title to allow for this mini unrelated conversation to not clutter up the main issue? Jaakobou 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, it's not unrelated. – Steel 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, pace Steel's comments, that Jaakobou could benefit from taking a less confrontational approach towards his fellow editors. He does seem to have a habit of assuming bad faith and making claims of wrongdoing; this seems to be more of the same. It's the kind of approach that just ends up annoying people. -- ChrisO 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, i'm assuming good faith regardless of our history. Your intervention here is not very noble. if you feel i was wrongly assuming bad faith on the Pallywood situation/incident, than you can discuss about it properly - personally, i was only alleging that you're insisting on your own opinion on the article and ignoring the other editors. rather than make insinuations on an AV/I that's got nothing to do with me assuming bad faith onto you (and i do believe we were wtill working on the talk page and not on the revert button) but rather with 2 editors tag teaming while ignoring the talk page and making repeated personal attacks/insinuations on me. Jaakobou 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruption/community block

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

I'm finding User:Jaakobou to be quite disruptive. AFAIK I've never dealt with him before, but yesterday I received an email from him pointing me to this thread (as if I could have failed to see it). That got promptly trashed, of course.

Steel archived this discussion as going nowhere, and explained to him why; Jaakobou undid; I reverted; and now he's visiting my talk page too. I'm starting to see the words "exhausted the community's patience". --kingboyk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

feel free to remove this comment (seem you do that often), but i do feel that your conduct here^[115][116] is very much uncivil. Jaakobou 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an unpaid volunteer; I don't have to waste my time answering questions which have already been answered. Steel told you why he archived (and so did I on his talk page), so there's no need to keep asking me about it is there?

Please don't add a point-making section header (==civility==), and please don't try and turn the argument towards my behaviour (a favourite t**ll tactic if ever I saw one). --kingboyk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Jaakobou. Quite frankly, I'm fed up with this. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, obviously. --kingboyk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the above, Jaakobou was swiftly unblocked, and in the confusion caused by his multiple postings (some 40 edits in three days, as well as countless postings to other talk pages), my original complaint was lost sight of. I was requesting a lengthy block on Jaakobou for his harassment of me, and in particular his posting of a link to a libellous website and his repeating of the libels therein. As I noted, a serial vandal is spamming scores of Wikipedia pages with this material, and to date more than 160 sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked for repeating this. If an established editor is allowed to get away with this, it's open day for all sorts to continue with this abuse of Wikipedia. Jaakobou's behaviour warrants a significant response, not simply another warning. I haven't even had an apology, and he has failed to give the requested undertaking not to repeat this libel. We can't just ignore this. RolandR 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

look, i apologise for placing the link ... and sorry for revealing personal information about you, I only did so out of frustration in this stressful issue. I will avoid such links in the future. Jaakobou 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't block for punishment's sake - it's supposed to be a way of modifying behaviour. I think of it as being like whacking a dog with a rolled-up newspaper to discourage it from crapping on the carpet. If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity. -- ChrisO 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Chris. The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future. I think everything is sorted out now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad-faith user page

User:Lewisskinner/trollbox. Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's just keeping track of some diffs. No policy violation that I can see. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at its name. Andy Mabbett 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Andy Mabbett, I looked at the diffs under your entry on said list and I think I see what you're talking about, possible WP:CIVIL issues:diffdiff2

I'm not trying to beat you over the head, please include the specific issues. The items on his list are ok before your entry, so people may get the wrong idea if they can't find the meat of the issue. (When I say "can't" it probably should be "won't", the admins here have a lot on their plate so it's more or less up to you to show what you are talking about. I hope this helps.) Anynobody 07:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed civility issues, but in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is a collection of vandalism edits and good faith edits that happen to be critical of User:Lewisskinner, each annotated with a sarcastic comment, and the page title being trolling. I can only read that as Lewis implying that all the edits, including the good faith edits, are trolling. It's pretty minor stuff, but I can't see that the page contributes to the goals of the project. Unless someone believes that it does, I'm going to blank it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Silence. Blanked. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At 11am, BenAveling (talk · contribs) suggested he would blank the page in question if there were no objections. 4 minutes later, he informed me [117], and a further 36 minutes later, he blanked the page. I do not feel that this was enough time to defend myself, especially as I have only now got onto wiki in my lunch break having been workking from 8:30 (yes, LUNCH!)

As soon as I had the above message, I reponded [118], indicating that I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has said above that this will be OK, and I have now done this, so I hope all parties will be happy.

As an aside, I'd like to ask why Pigsonthewing has reported this? I can only assume it may have something to do with this and this. The user in question has a history of reporting users with whom he has (often unrelatied) content disputes (just ask Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)). Might I suggest that this incident, and in any possible future disagreement, he post a message on my talk page, rather than wasting admin's time (please, by all means check. He has not even once raised any issues with me). L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"I would be happy to rename the page. pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) has said above that this will be OK," My name is Andy Mabbett, and I have said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You did Pigsonthewing, here: "in this case I was referring to the name of the user page, as much as its content". L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My name is Andy Mabbett. Your refusal to use it is uncivil. Thank you, though, for proving my point: I did not say what you claimed I did. Please do not misquote me. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is a direct quote from you, is it not Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"each annotated with a sarcastic comment," - these have been restored. Andy Mabbett 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate lewisskinner's cooperation once this was brought to his attention. I wonder if Andy was worried that it would be a more lengthy process following a similar issue with Captain scarlet. In this case it would seem that contacting the user with the concerns would have been quicker. I note Andy's point about the sarcastic comments but think that the name of the page gives context so I'd let it pass. I'm sure Andy will also be pleased to see how helpful Lewis has been and will have more confidence in other editors in future. Lewis, it probably isn't fair to suggest this was raised because of the content dispute. Andy is more likely to notice such issues when the dispute has brought you to his attention. Can we call this issue resolved now? Adambro 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still looks like an attack page to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still is. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No Pigsonthewing, it is an archive of disputes, as stated in the title and the lead. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can we call this issue resolved now?" - No. Note that the sarcastic comments remain and that the word "trollbox" has been restored to the page. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the page called a 'Trollbox'? No. Does the lead say it is a 'Trollbox'? No. I have simply added a redirect from the old page so that this edit would make sense (with no redlink) and users coming to my talk page could see the dispute, and then added a lead explaining the name-change. I fail to see te issue. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the occurrence of "troll" in the title, if the list was only vandalism and trolling by others I would have no problem with it (after all, it would be a trollbox). The inclusion of good faith attempts in such a page though is why I believe it violates WP:CIVIL (and Assume good faith). Anynobody 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is precedence for deletion. Andy Mabbett 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With one exception, "I requested Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) change the name of this subpage" ([119] Isotope23 (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)). You did not request a change of name on my talk page - you ran straight here and did not have the coutesy even to bother informing me (how very civil of you). Additionally, I have already changed the name. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the request you cited, from the comments n the page it looks as though most people felt it was a similar content/name discrepancy. As I recall, a similar good faith attempt by you was listed on the page in question. The issue being you weren't trolling so listing your post was an act of bad faith (you weren't the only one either to appear on said page incorrectly, right?)

If the page in question was called a trollbox, and only blatant trolling (Posting to say a person is stupid, etc.) or vandalism was listed, the impression seemed to be that such a page is ok. (again with the caveat that adding regular disagreements is not appropriate.) Anynobody 07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if all the contents were trolling I would still think it a bad idea. Reason being that trolling can be subjective, so even a good faith attempt to collect examples of trolling can misfire. Who knows, this may be a case in point, though it doesn't feel like it. Certainly, Lewisskinner's insistence on keeping the page even after the above discussion suggests a disinclination to play nicely with others. Further, the note on the page that "it gives me an idea of if/when I nee to ask for help with a certain user" also suggests that he believes that in a dispute, any problem must be on the other side. (Not to mention the signature, probably WP:SIG compliant, but still distracting.) I practice 1RR so I won't blank the page again, but I encourage any previously uninvolved user or admin to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ""it gives me an idea of if/when I need to ask for help with a certain user"" means "if the same users keep cropping up, I can assume we have a personal problem with each other, and I may need to request a third opinion in content disputes earlier, rather than allowing it to excalate into an edit war or 3RR situation. Could you suggest better wording for me? Oh, and what's this about a sig? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that determining the difference between a bona fide "troll" post and an attempt at feedback can be difficult, but not impossible, see this link to a recently archived incident. Given the difficulty I think editors who attempt to create a page should do so understanding that their own POV could end up causing the page to be deleted. To ban a word because many people can't use it neutrally seems un-Wikipedian. Anynobody 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)