Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive266

William_H._Cade

Can someone check that the IP that's been editing and promoting this article, 137.186.185.189 (talk · contribs) isn't, in fact, the person himself? Location checks out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am being harrassed

• Uncivility and harrassment
  • Accusing me of deception don't try to twist the facts, and again Fix "fact" about congested commute that really ought to be removed, This is all that can be factually stated about. Please stop trying to twist facts to fit your liking., in this instance the very diff shows that it is cited, so the accusation that it is uncited is clearly not true, the citation links to a caltrans article which uses the term most congested, 4 other articles on the talk page also state this, gridlock, congestion, bottleneck, traffic jam are all synonymous Reword; the "major gridlock" stuff is definitely uncited., and once again he accuses me of making things up Referenced report says "Hercules", so we can't just make things up; "B.B. toll plaza" not capitalized., here in a single diff he accuses me vandalism and also using agressive lnaguage Oh, cut that crap about "vandalism" already. The case for removing this has already been made./Speaking of vandalism, your edits hosed the formatting of the page; reverting to restore formatting, accusing me of being misleading Remove misleading stuff about "most congested" re:I-80 this comment was just sort of nasty . Bad picture. 2. Erroneous caption and "fact" about I-80 congestion (see discussion for gory details) he has a very agressive tone, flip through his edit summaries here. he is also harassing me and two other users here, calling my and another user's writting"poor quality of their writing" he also claims i and others are " degrad[ing]... ...the article" and claiming i have inserted "innapropriate images" and again stating that i insert erroenous text. please excuse the language but i am pretty damn sure that this is my only wikipedia username. im sure other people on my wireless network must use wikipedia at sometime or another also but this is me personally my only username, i am not Qrc nor am i Chris. here he calls me an "idiot"^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified protection of Patrick Pearse article

Patrick Pearse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been protected against policy by administrator R. fiend. In the past few days an editor with a seemingly dynamic IP has twice removed unsourced information and information sourced from a biased source, and described why in the edit summary. R. fiend has twice reverted these edits with no edit summary or post to the talk page, and after the information was removed again he semi-protected the page. As an editor clearly involved in a content dispute with no BLP problems he cannot semi-protect a page, especially as his actions have prevented the anon editor from editing the page while still allowing established editors to edit. The information was subsequently restored by another editor with the edit summary of "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", clearly showing the effect the semi-protection has had already. 81.153.128.31 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian Army Ranks

user:Horemsa has uploaded Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png, Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png and Image:50px-IT-Army-OF10.GIF. These are fictional rank insignia that are not and have never been in use by the Italian Army. Now he is trying to push these self-created ranks into the article Italian Army Ranks and the template Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy. Furthermore I suspect user:Horemsa to be one of the many socketpups of User:Yomar, or User:Yormar, or User:Iormar which have already been blocked indef. The reason for this: all 4 users uploaded fake rank insignia and are now trying to push them into the articles: Italian Army Ranks and Ranks of the People's Liberation Army. This problem is really annoying as the user is not just using a multitude of socketpups but also a wide range of IP addresses: first example, second example and a third example Can something be done??? Thanks, --noclador 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure Horemsa is the same person as those others and I've blocked all the registered accounts indefinitely, subject to review. This sort of sockpuppetry and dogged recreation of deleted images is very disruptive and I don't want to bother deciding what finite amount of time I should block him only to have him come back and do the same thing again. Maybe if he requests an unblock and promises not to do this funny business again... For the IPs, you could try semi-protection for the relevant pages. Grandmasterka 07:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In this situation I fully support indef ban. The user's only goal here is vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

user:Horemsa has been identified as socketpup of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. --noclador 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sploooshman (talk · contribs)

I am concerned about the contributions of this new editor. The first things he did are nominate a swathe of articles for deletion, several of them ridiculous in nature, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterford Township, New Jersey, a nomination for a real township in New Jersy of 10000 people looks ridiculous in nature.

He replied to me telling me to read WP:N. To me a spree of AFD nominations as the first edits

1. is not the typical profile of a newbie editor.
2. smells like a WP:POINT action in order to protest the AFD process, notability criteria, or similar.

Any comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• This smells fishy to me too. --Haemo 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like a newbie. I have given them a friendly warning. However, should the continue to list valid articles to AFD, or list them for invalid reasons, then provide a warning and then block for a short period of time. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Appears to be disruption to protest something. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I thank you all for failing to inform me the was a posting about my on ANI. Secondly, can someone point out exactly which of my nominations to AfD were considered disruptive or vandalism. I correctly nominated articles for deletion, many of which for failing notability guidelines. As there is no clear guideline on the notability of towns/places I was not aware of a supposingly clear consensus about keeping articles on all towns regardless of whether or not they had historical, social or cultural significance. The fact that a town has 10,000 people is, in my wikipinion, not sufficient to warrant it having an article. While many cities and large towns are notable, smaller towns are not so much so, however the wikipedia community has since corrected me on this (or appears to have, several AfD's were closed without allowing proper time for discussion that may have resulted in opposing views).

To user Ta by shi da yu, could you please inform me as to which of my AfD's were invalid, yes some of them may have resulted in a keep decision, but should we block all users who nominated articles for deletion which are subsequently kept? Also, I do not believe that I have breached any policy, as all of my nominations had valid reasoning behind them, so why would this warrant a warning or block?

To users Sjakkalle and Richard Arthur Norton, thankyou for making false assumptions about me, if you can now point out which of my nominations were invalid I may consider thinking of nominating articles in the future to protest a particular point just to satisfy your beliefs.

Sploooshman 11:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertising on Striptease

There are three photographs of strippers on this page. One of the photographs advertises the (unnotable) stripper's name and the club she performs at. This seems a clear-cut case of advertising to me, since neither the stripper nor the club are notable. The IP has engaged in an edit war, and some (well-meaning) editors have re-inserted the advertising feeling that to not name the woman (whereas the others aren't name, and in far more suggestive poses) "objectifies" her. This seems like a pretty open-and-shut case to me of advertising? The Talk:Striptease page currently has this issue raised, although right now consensus is against me. --David Shankbone 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, well meaning people are on both sides of the argument, how is this not a content dispute? Administrators have no special rights to, or powers regarding, adjudicating what is or isn't an appropriate image caption. There's clearly nothing sufficiently egregious about this text to warrant any kind of administrative action, so what do you want wikipedia administrators (whose powers are limited to page protection, blocks, editing protected pages, and deletion/undeletion) to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this fall under the right to privacy and no advertising policies, thus making this more than a simple content dispute? MSJapan 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan raises my issue. This is more about advertising (perhaps it is Ms. St. James herself who is the IP who insists on keeping her name and nightclub where she performs in the title). I raised this as admin issue because, of the no advertising policy, regardless of the intentions of other editors. I take a lot of photographs, and there are friends I photograph at times - does this mean I get to put their names in the captions if they aren't sufficiently notable? I think this seems obvious where this could lead. Aside from that, isn't there a clearly defined policy about this already that make any content dispute irrelevant? --David Shankbone 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it takes precedence, in this particular case, but I could see WP:BLP becoming a significant concern in debates of this sort. "Jane Doe stripping" shouldn't be our caption unless we can verify that it is Jane Doe in the picture, to be specific. This might be a topic for the village pump to take care of, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should not get involved in this content dispute. First of all the dancer is not a stripper and there is no specific nightclub mentioned. The name is relevant to the section about new burlesque. DavidShankBone is involved in a few content disputes making constant reverts without compromise and has made reverts to: Erection on
20:35, 29 June 2007;
20:44, 29 June 2007;
20:51, 29 June 2007;
21:43, 30 June 2007.
and to Supermodel on
16:48, 29 June 2007;
17:05, 29 June 2007;
18:28, 29 June 2007;
20:16, 30 June 2007;
21:42, 30 June 2007.
While not breaking the 3RR comes close to gaming the rule if not doing so. In the case of erection and striptease the issue was raised on the talk page by other editors. DavidShankBone refuses to raise the issues himself. He seems to only follow the rules that suits him and complain when others 'break' them. He should just be ignored and not given any attention for his content dispute so that the community can resolve this. As for his unsubstatiated allegations please check that this ip isn't even an US ip. -196.207.32.38 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, clearly the photograph doesn't even belong on the page. Yes, I didn't research Lucky St. James to see if she was, in fact, a stripper. So, I will remove the photograph. What was obvious about the caption that it was an unnotable "dancer" mentioned at an unnotable venue. Regarding Supermodel there was vandalism reverted, and then a particular editor created a "List of Supermodels" in the article, which has been problematic on the page since every Supermodel who ever existed was getting their name inserted, making the entire page a big list. I suggested to the editor to create a List of Supermodels page, which they did. Regarding Erection I took a better photograph of an erection (that was not mine) as part of my body parts photography project. A person objected to how large the erection was, and another person who photographed their own erection (and has inserted their own penis on multiple pages) also was upset that their own erection no longer illustrated the article. It's interesting this IP finds it so important to bring in unrelated issues to support having the name of a dancer on a page. It's also interesting that this IP knows a lot about this dancer. What vested interest do they have in seeing their name there? Why is it so important? Who knows. Who cares. It's still advertising. --David Shankbone 00:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't twist the facts. I proposed that the section be moved to another topic with maybe a link to that instead and not for anything to just be willy nilly deleted by anyone who felt like doing it which is inconsiderate. Your reversion weren't for vandalism (if there was vandalism at all) only, you also reverted content to the way you wanted it. There are other ways of dealing with long lists instead of deleting them like using multi-columns. If you remove someone else's image and replace it with your own you can expect some resistance and you can hardly be seen as objective in that regard. There is no consensus to remove anything yet as you yourself noted. This noticeboard is not the place to complain simply because consensus isn't in your favour which is why I recommend this be ignored so the proper procedure be followed. And please don't make allegations about ips, I don't know more than what I read here. -196.207.32.38 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that this is an issue about advertising Lucky St. James and her act on Wikipedia. She is neither a notable burlesque performer nor is the club she performs at a notable club. That's the issue, pure and simple. Thus, it is advertising, and against policy. Unless you can explain how she passes the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, which you have yet to do. You've only said "Some people don't think Oprah is notable." --David Shankbone 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't seem to grasp that your advertising issue is relative, meaning that what you consider advertising others don't. Please stay on the topic you raised about advertising and not notability. You are only raising the issue here because you lost to consensus on the talk page and rules don't mean anything to you. You have now reverted on
21:43, 30 June
00:30, 1 July
01:23, 1 July
03:52, 1 July
05:14, 1 July
05:20 1 July.
That's 6 times in less than 24 hours and 5 times in less than 5 hours. You are definitely gaming the system and your edits are becoming disruptive on a number of pages. -196.207.32.38 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As Luna Santin points out above, it may be more productive to take this up at the Village Pump. As I see it, both sides of the debate are making a valid point. Although it's now getting a bit uncivil. (Calm down folks! Remember WP:LAME!) This kind of content dispute can actually be turned into a productive Wikipedian direction at the pump. I don't know if this kind of content dispute has come up before, and it would be interesting to see what the precedents are. Silly rabbit 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus revisited

I am almost certain that user 69.208.210.158 and 68.253.216.115 (and possibly others) [1] are sock puppets for blocked user User:TyrusThomas4lyf based upon the common theme for recent edits as well as the Chicago based IPs. One indication of this can be seen by comparing [2] and [3] along with the edit summary at [4]. In addition, we have the recent missive [5] in the characteristic style that got him banned to begin with. I am requesting admin intervention. Myasuda 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much convinced that you're onto a sockpuppet match, but I'm going to file a checkuser request just to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe checkuser can reach back as far as two months, and the sockpuppeteer's last edit was 40 days ago, so it should work. Shalom ^Hello 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf provides a summary of prior incidents which deal with articles that 68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs) is currently editing. Note that User:TyrusThomas4lyf has also posted under the aliases IlliniPride and 68.253.206.119 (talk · contribs) in the past (the IP being a close match to the one currently being used), and that 68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs) has never denied my edit summary assertions that he is in fact User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Myasuda 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Block of IP Address: 24.252.41.126

This IP Address has gotten 7 warnings, and has not ceased their vandalism. The last warning given by Trusilver was a block, and I'd like to quest a block on 24.252.41.126 immediately for persistent vandalism and for the welfare of Wikipedia. Geosultan4 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The IP was blocked at 3:01 UTC [6]. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispite that statement, the block does not seem to have been put into effect at that time because there is no block notice on the user's talk page but they seem to have closed up shop for now. ww2censor 13:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Trollpedia

Trollpedia (talk · contribs)

Yes well, normally I would block this account as an inappropriate username, but the user has already been around for a few days, and doesn't seem to be making any edits, that are of a negative, or harmful nature that I can see. (I didn't go through each and every edit of his/hers just picked a few random ones.) Because the account does not appear to be editing in a malicious manner, I'm hesitant to block it, anyone have thoughts or insight on what should be done? Let the user be, block it and request he/she pick a new name, etc, etc? KOS | talk 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me say it this way: If the choice is to keep the username or else lose the editor, I'd rather keep the username. Experience has shown that it's usually possible to keep editors happy if you approach them respectfully about username problems. Take this to WP:RFCN if necessary, but I just can't justify allowing this name based on its (probably unintended) connotation. Shalom ^Hello 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this user is mired in an extensive conflict of interest ring involving the articles Ebon Fisher, Frank Popper, and Joseph Nechvatal.-Wafulz 14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory, irrelevant statements added to article on Norman Golb

Please note that someone has begun adding an offensive, partially defamatory exordus to the stub article on University of Chicago historian Norman Golb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Golb) in which he rails against a number of anonymous internet bloggers and attacks Golb's scholarship in an entirely ad hominem manner. It doesn't seem at all relevant or appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. The author of the remarks is clearly driven by animosity and has not responded to comments by myself and others on the discussion board. I plan to delete the remarks each time I see them, but I think you should block this individual from posting because it's entirely offensive.Critical Reader 08:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Urrgggh. Protected the article for the time being as an emergency measure, give me a bit of time to work through the rest. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thesultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated WP:3RR in addition to WP:BLP; I have warned him for the former.

Moreschi, can you please delete the text "To the individual who keeps adding a series of defamatory and irrelevant statements to my treatment of the exhibit controversy, which is worded in a perfectly neutral manner: See the discussion page. Either we reach a compromise on neutral terms for the article, or we have an edit war, which will lead to you being blocked from contributing to wikipedia." from the (now protected) San Diego Natural History Museum page ? Thanks. Abecedare 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. J Milburn 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

58.166.231.72 and Sunrise (TV program)

58.166.231.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is constantly removing references from Sunrise (TV program). He/she has removed the references that back up claims that Lisa Wilkins has left Sunrise, and that Samantha Armytage has replaced her (first removal). I contacted him about the incident, and he replies stating "the fact that Samantha Arymatage is the new co-host doesnty need to be referneced as it is common knowledge". I revert, and around an hour later, he reverts back, this time including an edit summary: "removed references to Lisa Wilkinson as she is nolonger an anchor. Ifpeople want to mention her, please create a section on the history of Weekend Sunrise and do it there". I explain and explain again. My final revert at 21:27, and this time he makes 2 further edits: [7] to remove "(formerly Lisa Wilkinson)", the next, [8], a few small notes about previous presenters, unsourced.

I'm not too sure what to make of all this... Sebi _[talk] 11:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot II mis-archiving this page.

Resolved

 – Patched code to handle slightly "malformed" configuration - in this case, the trailing space after "250K" was causing problems. Миша13 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This morning, MiszaBot II went on an archive rampage of this page. The bot archived 15 sections in a minute or two. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the 15 sections were archived to 15 different archives. :) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265 through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279. At this point, I'm not sure what can/should be done about this. The one-section archives are just about worthless, and I worry that whatever caused the bot to misfire like this could happen again. Not sure if the bot should be blocked until the cause if found, or what. - TexasAndroid 14:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza is currently reverting the bot, so it looks like the owner is working on the situation. :) - TexasAndroid 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for until the mess gets sorted out. --Evilclown93_(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That was completely unnecessary, since the operator (me) was already acting on the problem - and it's not like it's running continuously. Миша13 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the clown did not notice you were already on the case, but checking would have been nice. Until(1 == 2) 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd assume if he didn't reply to a message where TexasAndroid has already noted that I'm on it. Oh well... Миша13 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, Evilclown93 blocked the bot 2 minutes before TexasAndroid made any such comment. Perhaps Evilclown93 wasn't aware you were working on it. - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and this editor has been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured. Below this post are those of fellow editors who also expressed that this should be posted elsewhere other than WP:AVI where it was initially posted. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

doesn't look like a obvious case of vandalism, more like an edit war. Might want to try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree -- this is probably worth looking into, but is also probably more suited to a discussion board, such as WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might list them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Corvus cornix 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin using admin powers despite a conflict of interest

User:Matt57 recently created the article Edina Lekovic about a spokeswoman for a Muslim organization. A new user with the username Lekovic showed up to try to remove sourced content from the article. This user proceeded to edit war with three established users. SlimVirgin protected the article at the new user's version, and made a statement about BLP on the talk page. I posted referring to her conflict of interest, and she responded that she had none.

She has had a serious conflict with Matt57, as one can see here (search in the page for Xiao). In this thread she referred to Matt as follows: "The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims." This also shows her view of Matt: "This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Wikipedia's not a platform for Muslim bashing."

It might help to note that both Xiao t and Ibn Shah were sockpuppets of a banned editor, and SV herself was edit-warring to include the statements of a graduate student in Islamophobia. Matt noted this on her talk page; she deleted his postings. I myself asked her to explain what she had meant by "Muslim bashing" in the 3RR board with regards to the Islamophobia article, and she never responded.

It is possible that the page goes against the spirit of BLP, though everything is sourced, is relevant to the subject's notability, and is presented in a neutral manner. Despite SV's claim that the article contains only criticism, it actually contains none. The subject was criticized on national TV (read about it here) on the basis of the information SV is referring to, but we did not report on that criticism. All that said, I think that it was improper of her to use her admin tools to side against Matt and myself as part of this dispute.

I would like the input of other admins on this issue. Arrow740 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that we take exceptions when issues revolve around WP:BLP? Do not harm, that is what it means. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be real careful with articles on people of minor notability. Usually the articles are short to begin with, so the presentation of any potentially negative information, even if properly sourced, can be problematic under BLP. Especially if the subject him/herself objects - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for an interesting case study. - Merzbow 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling that edit anything but judicious quote mining is being too charitable. Not all "sourced" material is created equal, and unless someone can bring up some actual material to go with it, rather than cherry-picked quotes from magazines which she edited, I can't see anything wrong with eliminating that version. --Haemo 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I support SlimVirgin 1000% on this one. I don't see any conflict of interest here, just good use of the admin tools. The original article as created clearly breached the spirit of BLP; guilt by association through a cherry-picked quote, not even by the subject, just published in a magazine she worked for. --John 07:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing someone does not equal a conflict of interests. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 is being incivil and disruptive towards me.

Note: The user behind this smear campaign is a sock of banned editor Kirbytime: [9]. Arrow740 05:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this mfd and noticed that the main user who supports keeping the article, matt57, has solicited several meatpuppets to favor his view. I vote delete, and also add that matt shouldn't use off-wiki forums for vote-stacking. My vote was struck out [10] and I am called a troll. Matthew then proceeds to come to my talk page and posts the same response he does on the mfd. I remove the note from my talkpage and tell him to stop trying to pick a fight with me. (matt57 has a history of picking fights with users, as well as wikistalking). He reverts my talk page.[11]

Can someone tell him to leave me alone? I'm looking for an outside opinion on this.--Flamgirlant 08:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT solicted any meat puppets. Please AGF. Why are you believing a sock puppet's allegations? On your talk page I had asked for evidence for your allegations of meat puppeting. You removed the query twice and then answered it finally on the MfD's page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• You accuse someone of recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki, a bannable offense, and then when they ask you to provide your evidence, you revert, saying that fighting doesn't help wikipedia. That doesn't help at all. --MichaelLinnear 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made this a subsection of the previous thread, because the issues are connected. I was asked to look at Edina Lekovic by someone who was worried that it had been created by Matt57 as an attack page. I protected the page on the version without the disputed criticism. When I looked into the issue further, I saw that Matt57 had recently added the article to a public watchlist that he created called Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Islam_and_Controversy_task_force/Watchlist. I nominated it for deletion because I feel it's a POV magnet, and it's particularly inappropriate to list BLPs there when the aim is to disparage people. This is the MfD that Flamgirlant is having the problem on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

At this stage, whether you meatpuppetted or not is beyond the point. You are being incivil by reverting my talk page. Why do you keep telling everyone to assume good faith? It is very obvious what your purpose here on Wikipedia is. The only thing you do here is revert articles related to Islam: [12] The only time you ever edit outside of Islam-related articles is to stalk other users you have started edit wars with. And now you want me blocked or banned?[13] Just leave me alone. I want nothing to do with you.--Flamgirlant 08:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Matt's failings may be, accusing someone of meatpuppetry, the reverting his request for you to provide evidence on your talk page as vandalism is ridiculous. If you didn't want anything to do with him, then why did you level accusations that require you to produce evidence? --Haemo 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it as vandalism the second time he posted it on my page. At the time, the evidence seemed clear. matt was the most vocal defender of the page, and 2 SPA (one of them talks about a post in a private forum) which refer to matt by name come and vote keep. That's my evidence. Now maybe it was a strawman meatpuppet, but when matt calls for me to get blocked or banned for even bringing it up, there is something terribly wrong.--Flamgirlant 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're ABF again and again. I misread Michael's comments as "accusing someone of meat puppeting is a bannable offensive", when he actually said that "meat puppeting is a bannable offense". I deleted my comments but you're still linking my diffs. I'm not calling for your banning or blocking. Next time, please dont make false accusations of meat puppeting without evidence. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that Matt gets this a lot; the SPA brigade on Islam-related topics is really quite ubiquitous. You probably were unaware of this, I think that everyone just got a little bit too hot under the collar. I recommend that, since you and Matt now understand one another, that you both just walk away. --Haemo 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I don't want any trouble. I apologize to matthew if I was too aggressive. It's just that I feel like I've seen a lot of stuff being flinged around and I'm trying to blow the whistle and someone throws a pizza slice in my face.--Flamgirlant 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a lot worse things could be thrown at you. If a pizza slice was thrown at my face, I'd eat it :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us please, focus on a system for de-adminship. This is the need of the hour. I'm not naming any names and I'm not being vengeful towards anyone specific (even though it may seem so) but there are admins who would not get another RfA if they were to stand for one right now. Its like a university's tenure system, where a bad professor cant get fired. Quoting an uncited sentence (which is still true, we all know it) from tenure:

Others criticize tenure for allowing professors, once tenured, to be less concerned with performance in all areas, reasoning that their jobs are relatively secure.

And thats exactly whats happening here. Although a lot of proposals have been made for de-adminship, none went through so I dont know how successful I'll be but I might give it a try. I feel this is very critical because it lies at the heart of the present situation where admins are bullying the whole scene basically when they feel like it, and this spoils the whole website. Because when there's chaos in the leadership, the whole organization is effected badly and it suffers. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see it that way, but if you do, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the best place to go with it. --John 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a procedure for de-sysoping admins. Go visit WP:ARBCOM. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

Note that User:Lekociv was not in fact Edina Lekovic, nor was User:Oneandonly666 a meatpuppet recruited by Matt57 off-wiki: both are checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of the same banned editor behind User:Xiao t and User:Ibn Shah - an editor, whom, judging from the above discussion, has very successfully manipulated several of its participants. I think Matt57 is owed an apology.Proabivouac 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Note also that User:Flamgirlant is a sockpuppet of User:Kirbytime, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A list of JB196 socks needing block

I just noticed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#JB196 that there is a sockfarm requiring blocking. Only some of the 18 have been blocked. Would an admin please block the rest? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa! All done before I could even check. Thanks, Deskana & others - Alison ☺ 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A cookie to whoever can figure out why I did it so quickly :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just give us the cookies anyway. I'm hungry. HalfShadow 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also only 1 (user:AproxymatelyJB1962) of the 7 listed at the top of the IPCheck report are blocked... Deskana? Alison? The race starts..... now! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Missed again - Alison ☺ 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting sloppy Ally :) SirFozzie 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikiabuse.com seems to be defunct as of now, which is a shame as you could have had the rare treat of JB's righteous indignation at my daring to reveal his name being punctured with this diff: [14]. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. Prolly just as well, really, as all sides seemed to be in agreement that it was turning into a warzone. You had it particularly hard, too. Note also that WikiReview is also down. Hmmmm - Alison ☺ 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Out of interest, Looch told me where the "196" comes from. It comes from the date of his cat's birth; January '96. How about that? - Alison ☺ 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warring by User:Alexander the great1 and User:Uuttyyrreess

There have already been a couple of ANI posts about these users' POV-pushing and edit warring on articles related to Macedonia; for the latest, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Large-scale_revert_war_using_multiple_accounts. Today they've been active at Steve Stavro. In my opinion, Alexander the great1 has violated the 3RR. I was about to report him at WP:AN3, but I noticed that there was an IP edit made an edit similar to Alexander's, and that Uuttyyrreess has too. Given the evidence that we've got of off-wiki coordination, I consider Uuttyyrress a meatpuppet of Alexander. I think both deserve a block, especially since they are both disruptive considered on their own merits--for instance, Alexander has been editing from open proxies. I would do it myself, but I've edited Steve Stavro. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false accusation of the highest degree. I have not reverted that article more then three times. I reverted it once because it was vandlaised. All the other times I added relevant content. The constant accusation that all Macedonian editors are sock/meat puppets has a very racially prejudiced tone as a sockpuppet check has already been done on several editors including my self and Uuttyyrreess and it came up negative. I have not been editing from open proxies that is again a false accusation. What makes this case even stranger is the fact that Akhilleus only singled out the Macedonian users of Wikipedia. User Laveol edited the article 4 times yet Akhilleus chose to focus exclusively on the Macedonian users only. This leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that this complaint was racially motivated as only Macedonian users were targeted and the accusations were false. Alexander the great1 04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the great1 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer, a user of open proxies, and has been blocked twice for edit warring. I expect that if an administrator takes a look at this s/he can decide whether Laveol has violated the 3RR or not. Or someone can report him to WP:AN3 if they feel it's necessary. As far as I can see, though, Laveol hasn't used sockpuppets or open proxies, or solicited edit warring off-wiki, so why would I post on the administrator's noticeboard about him? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never used open proxies. I did not even know what the meaning of the term was until I did a search for it after reading your accusation. Do you have any proof beyond hearsay to back up your accusation?

Just because I have been blocked for “edit warring” in the past doesn’t mean that every edit I make can be classified as edit warring. And if you look at the history/talk page for Steve Stavro you will see that I have been more constructive then Laveol. Its also humorous that you call me a “confirmed sockpuppeteer” considering there has never been a “Requests for checkuser” for any of my supposed “sockpupets” and this account. One of the sock puppets was used on 2 articles a total of 5 times and the other one has never been used. I created those accounts before I knew what a “sockpupet” was. I have never used them since or in a “large scale edit war” or anything like that. I think it is an overstatement to call me a “confirmed sockpuppeteer”. Alexander the great1 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I believe it would be a good idea to ask for both editors to be CheckUsered for evidence of Tor use, given the recent problems on Macedonia-related articles. If this is shown to be the case, I would advocate blocking both accounts and any Tor nodes discovered in the process. -- ChrisO

I have filed a report here. Mr. Neutron 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I have just blocked Unfreeride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours, see block log. The user's contributions consist solely of pushing some weird POV (I think) against the entire the world [15] [16] [17]. (User)talk page comments have been less than constructive [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and include suggesting WP:POINT violations [26]. I invite discussion on whether an indefblock is warranted. – Steel 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was the guy "citing" Stormfront. Goodbye, please don't come back. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking through his history, he has a strange fascination about racial differences. Until(1 == 2) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would say that after a first block it's too early to discuss an indef block, but there are enough diffs which show a disturbing pattern that it seems appropriate in this situation. Certainly there are enough to make a case that this editor is a POV soap-boxer with some odd issues, rather than a good-faith contributor in need of guidance. I would also normally suggest more attempts at dialogue with an editor before an indefblock, but I didn't see anything to make me hopeful that it would help here. I guess I would support the indefblock, but if no further action is taken then this editor should be watched closely after the current block expires. Doc Tropics 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I just denied this user's unblock request. There wasn't a shred of regret in his request. I doubt very much that this user will last long after the block expires. I'm certainly not against an indef at this point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just protected the user's page after they removed the earlier denied unblock and made a new one as if nothing had happened. Nothing wrong with making the extra request but losing the earlier unblock was sneaky. Please review if this was incorrect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

noface1 sockpuppet

Resolved

 – IP warned. Shalom ^Hello 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• noface1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the user noface1 He has created multiple sockpuppet accounts such as mootoogs lawyer, noob101, and nibbo 2. If you check the ip's used by these accounts you will see that they are the same.

also if you check the logs you will see "11:20, 26 April 2007 Noface1 (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Mootoogs mum (Talk | contribs)" this futher proves my point that he is making sockpuppet accounts to vandalise mootoogs user page.

He uses the account noface1 for his legitamite edits however he uses other accounts for vandalsim. also the a user page and user talk pages of mootoogs lawyer and noob101 have been deleted but if you check the log you can see the accounts still exist. 81.159.252.29 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

and if you comapre the user description with noface1 and nibbo 2 on the user pages you will see they are very similar and if you compare the contribs they both edit very similar things, eg the article Banbury 81.159.252.29 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact he has actually used the account nibbo 2 to make changes to noface1 's user page see: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=nibbo+2&site=en.wikipedia.org 81.159.252.29 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, slow down please. Normally we handle such cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. The first thing I need to do is check the contribution log of each user, so let me jot the names down first:

• Noface1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mootogs lawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noob101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nibbo 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mootogs mum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And I'm also curious to compare

• 81.159.252.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see how you have related to these other editors. Shalom ^Hello 19:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After checking all the contribution logs, I make the following observations:

1. Noface1 appears to be a good-faith editor. (The complainant did not deny this.)
2. The suspected sockpuppets have been gone since March or have not contributed at all, so they are irrelevant.
3. Noface1 reverted three edits - correctly - by 81.159.252.29, so the IP apparently devised a more ingenious plan of action than simply revert warring in order to get his way. Of course, it didn't work. I'll give him a "uw-aiv" warning, and I hope he learns not to do this again. Shalom ^Hello 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block for User:216.83.121.194

Resolved

 – long-term vandal IP now indefblocked - Alison ☺ 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to post it, but is there any chance an admin could sort out User:216.83.121.194? The person has been vandalising articles by adding false information practically for two years now (though I've only discovered this guy in November 2005). One of the vandal's recurring edits involve a "merger" between Bratz and World Wrestling Entertainment. The vandal created numerous accounts over this time and noticed by users including myself. (see here, here, here, here and here). The IP address was blocked in June last year for six months but it seems to have little effect as he returned after the block to continue vandalising. I'm not sure if it's possible, but is there any chance this IP can be blocked for another extended period if not indefinetly? To be honest, I'm getting sick of this. -- Oakster  Talk  18:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa! Ok - I've seen the checkuser results and in light of the evidence and the account's previous 6 month block last June for sockery, I've indefinitly blocked this IP (something I think I've never done before). If it becomes an issue at some later date, we can review the block - Alison ☺ 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. -- Oakster  Talk  18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I was about to start a new topic on this IP address. Endorse the block. Given the number of sockpuppets I've seen recently, I think it should probably be hardblocked, but I guess we could wait and see how this block works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I tweaked the block to switch off AO, so that's that. What a history - Alison ☺ 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC Violation

Resolved

 – Listed the image for speedy deletion Will ^(talk) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

at Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). Same story as last time, users inserting images non-compliant with our NFCC (the funny thing this time is that it isn't even from the episode :-P). Matthew 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, everyone except you seems to not class it as such. Will ^(talk) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't possibly justify this illustrates a plot point from an episode which hasn't yet been filmed. Mark H Wilkinson 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not justifying it's a plot point. Also, NFCC says "illustrates a topic in a way that words alone cannot", which I think the image does (Titanic's damage to the TARDIS, which is discussed in the article). Will ^(talk) 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article just says that Titanic damages the Tardis. It doesn't say anything else. The image merely identifies that. There's no real discussion. I'm very dubious about this fair use claim. Moreschi ^Talk 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, there should be something on the TARDIS' impregnability to the Titanic's unsinkability in the article. We do give a lot of discussion on the Titanic's history within Doctor Who in the article... Will ^(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that it be speedied. Matthew, please, next time you get in a dispute which you're losing, discuss it on the article's talk instead of running to ANI. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tush, but ANI has Teh Major Sex Appeal, y'know? How else to explain its magnetism? Moreschi ^Talk 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the wall from the hatch! Will ^(talk) 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use review also works. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User Impersonating Me

Resolved

Hi, this is Black Harry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recently voted (oppose) at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TheFearow. A few hours late HarryMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) voted (oppose) on the same RFA.

This isn't much of a concern, however HarryMaxwell's signature is this '''[[User:HarryMaxwell|<span style="color:black">HarryMaxwell</span>]]''' [[User:HarryMaxwell/Highlights|(Highlights]]|[[Special:Contributions/HarryMaxwell|Contribs)]] which yields HarryMaxwell (Highlights|Contribs) (See this Diff).

This is exact same as mine signature (Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs)).

Could someone look into this.

--Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. He was reported to AIV earlier for repeatedly posting the same RFA. After a while, he apologized and all was well again. Hmmm - Alison ☺ 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is something that sockpuppets get up to sometime. I also see the imitator has claimed 2,000 plus edits at one point. Does his prose style remind you of any now-blocked user you may have had experiences with in the past? --Fire Star 火星 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok. I'm not sure. I dont think know if he is impersonating you BlackHarry - his name is different. And I dont impinge on you. I know you wouldnt sockpuppet. It was just strange. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, the signature is similar and he probably used yours as a starting point to do his, but since he is not using your name but his own, I don't think you will be mistaken for him. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a quick look at contribs, but HM Tiger? That rings a bell, though I have no idea where I saw it before... --Dark Falls ^talk 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look again at his user page: he's the return of the blocked Hazaholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it would appear to be. And HM Tiger is Harry Maxwell's own company. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked - Alison ☺ 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick action. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

according to the website HM Tiger is a insperational buisness.. sure that article can be flushed as a speedy? --Fredrick day 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) Well, I missed something that was right in front of me...As for the speedy, I tagged it already. --Dark Falls ^talk 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Gone - Alison ☺ 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Multi-IP, single purpose vandalism on KTUL

During the course of RC patrolling on May 26th, I reverted a piece of vandalism on this article that referred to various on-air talent as "Lensmeat". This anon was blocked for 31 hours. However, since that time, other vandal edits have appeared that look remarkably similar to this.

First instance

[27]

[28]

On this last edit, it seems our vandal has gotten himself a Qwest account, but, you can see, is up to his old tricks. If you look at the history of the article, you can see this is but a small percentage of this account's "contributions" to this article. I'd like to request an appropriate block on either or both accounts. Thanks--Ispy1981 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kitrus stalking and reverting

For several weeks User:Kitrus has been reverting on a number of articles. His modus operandi is to show up for an hour or so, revert me (and others) in a half-dozen places, then disappear for a day or two, only to do the same thing, all while refusing to use Talk: pages. The pattern appeared to start on June 10, and he has reverted me (and other editors on those articles) many times since then. Examples:

• The Arab Mind: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
• Pierre Rehov: [38] [39] [40] [41]
• Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
• Ethnic nationalism: [48] [49] [50]
• Anti-Arabism: [51] [52] [53]
• Islam and antisemitism: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

If someone else makes edits after my edits, he will keep that person's edit but revert mine, sometimes to almost comic effect; here, for example he reverts back to his previous edit, describing the intervening edits as "vandalism"; but then realizes someone else has edited as well, so he then reverts my edits only, with the comment "Oops".

When challenged to produce sources for his edits on Pierre Rehov, he first produces spurious sources that don't back up his claims, then insists "I don't need a source to state the very obvious" while re-inserting the link, then finally re-inserts the unsourced claim with a "fact" tag. In another instance, when challenged for a source on a WP:BLP is, he reverts, insisting the source is "the internet; are you that lazy?" It's almost impossible to force him to the Talk: page. He reverted The Arab Mind 9 times over 3 weeks, while making only one Talk: page comment (after his 7th revert). He reverted Pierre Rehov 5 times, but only commented once. He commented once on the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article, and has reverted at least a half-dozen times since, without comment. He has reverted Islam and antisemitism 5 times without comment.

He has been slowly expanding the range of his stalking; he followed me to Ethnic nationalism on June 19, Islam and antisemitism on June 25, and on June 30 he stalked and reverted me on East Jerusalem, Foreign relations of Israel, and History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union. The last two are particularly troubling; on Foreign relations of Israel he removed a lengthy footnote I added to the article, making a sentence meaningless in the process. On History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union he re-inserted IP antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews and Bolshevism, that, among other things, claimed that antisemites "justly" accuse Jews of "pursuing Bolshevism to benefit Jewish interests", and that Bolsheviks had a "well-deserved" reputation of being "a gang of marauding Jews".

He has also created a User_talk:Kitrus#Possible_Sockpuppets section devoted to me, wherein he lists anyone who has ever reverted his edits to my most recent version.

He seems content to log on every day or two for an hour, revert me (and several other editors) on 6-10 articles, then disappear. Page protection has been tried, but has been ineffective, since he simply waits for it to expire, then reverts again. I'd like a block on him for 3 days to make it clear to him that he needs to follow Wikipedia policy with his edits, properly source claims, engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, and not simply edit for the purpose of reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I started checking the diffs you provided for Islam and Antisemitism. Can you please explain how they serve as a related evidence. The first two are [59], [60]; as far as I can see it is dispute over addition of "Unverifiable-external-links" tag with User:Humus sapiens. So is the third revert. The fourth revert is this [61]. It is sourced to Lewis and User:Kitrus is hardly alone over addition of this.

And lastly the fifth revert is this one [62] with edit summary: inks are overwhelmingly pov; the passage is refrenced by Lewis which is the reasoning behind these five edits. It is not a revert of you but User:Sefringle --Aminz 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we statistically compare him with User:Sefingle (or you) on the Islam and Antisemitism article. --Aminz 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As you are well aware, I have been involved in lengthy disputes with Bless sins (and you, for that matter), on the Talk: page there, with multiple posts nearly every day - in total, I've made almost 300 edits to that Talk: page. It's always high up in my recent edits list, and that is how Kitrus showed up there. However, since I hadn't actually edited the article in a couple of weeks, he didn't have anything in particular to revert. So instead he added a tag, something he has been doing on other pages as well, whenever he doesn't like external links. Regarding the fifth edit, it is, in fact, a revert of this edit of mine. In any event, this section is not about the lengthy conflict at Islam and antisemitism, in which you are a participant, but rather User:Kitrus's stalking me there to oppose me on yet another article. Please read the entire statement, and follow all the links, and comment on the issue as a whole. If you want to start an entirely different section regarding the many issues at the Islam and antisemitism article, feel free to do so, but don't hijack this section to deal with your own content issues on that article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not hijacking. You cited evidences from Islam and antisemitism article in which I am involved and know what is going on; So I can give my opinion about that. As far as I can see Kirtus has only reverted you once and his additions were minimal (addition of a sentence sourced to lewis) and a tag; and they are explaiend in the diff edit. In fact, contrary to what you wrote, one of his diffs support User:Itsmejudith's addition; another User:Bless sins's addition; clearly not a blind revert of you or stalking you but supporting others.

As far as I can say: There is nothing, infact nothing, from the diffs you provided from Islam and antisemitism article that supports your claims. I haven't read other diffs but those on Islam and antisemitism don't prove anything. --Aminz 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He stalked me there, and eventually reverted me there. He first edited there on 06:32, 25 June 2007. He had never edited that article before. I had just commented on the Talk: page there less than two hours previously. He has reverted other editors there as well. He has never commented on the Talk: page there, just reverted. If you don't care to read the rest of the evidence, and the pattern of editing displayed, but rather only comment on the area where you have content disputes with me, then your comments will have to be taken in that light. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken my words. I'd like to provide a diff to User:Kitrus's contributions [63]. It is useful for people to judge among the following two hypothesis: 1. User:Kitrus has general interest in articles (related to Arabs, Islam and Israel) which happens to be close to those of you 2. He is stalking you.

(1) would find some support if one can find articles in this area that User:Kitrus has edited when you were not there. Otherwise (2) would be supported.

The truth may also lie somewhere in between.

One can also count number of his reverts of you and then compare it with his revert of others. A similar but this time converse analysis should be done to count the number of your reverts of him.

That seems to me to be a reasonable approach. --Aminz 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain his most recent edits to East Jerusalem, Foreign relations of Israel, and History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union, where he showed up to revert me on articles he had never edited before. And this section is about Kitrus's behavior; if you want to start a section about your content issues with me, go ahead. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not related to content dispute at all. I am trying to find a way of distingushing between hypothesis (1) and (2) above. User:Kitrus has also recently edited say "India-Israel relations" but you have not. Based on my quick search, he has not found the name of this article through your contribution list.

Please note that the correlation between two phenomena doesn't imply their causal relation. (a point much-stated by philosophers of science). Yes, he might have, at some moment, looked at your contributions and have found articles fitting within his area of general interest and might have edited them consequently. Many editors naturally do this particularly when they believe the other person edits certain types of articles with a different POV than theirs. This case might be stalking but my only point is that the case needs close examination. I don't have anything more to say on this. --Aminz 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be some stalking going on judging by the diffs. I'll leave a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Kitrus was wikistalking me at first, because of his/her disruptive edits to Islam and racism, where he/she reverted my sourced additions and attempts to fix the article. [64][65][66][67] He refused to explain his reverts or discuss them on the talk page. I created a section on the talk page for Kitrus to respond, which he/she didn't; instead, he/she just continued reverting wthouot explanation or discussion. I started assuming the edits were vandalism, and marked them as such.--Sefringle^Talk 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He made similar edits on Ibn Khaldun.--Sefringle^Talk 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If warnings have been ignored a block appears in order. The only question I have is for long? FeloniousMonk 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a 3 day block as shot across the bow. If his edit pattern continues, longer blocks of a week or more would be warranted in my judgment. Crum375 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours with the understanding that a longer block is in order if he resumes the behavior upon his return. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn

This is now the second incident that has had to be opened against the user in question within the last week, and this time it is in relation to his actions of removing a fair and justified comment on the AfD for Delone Catholic High School. The user has thrice reverted comments (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3) made by myself in the AfD, trying to without merit claim that the comments do not assume good faith. The comments are a genuine, clear and considered response to issues raised in the AfD. I am of the opinion that the user is doing this for the sole purpose of removing reasonable and justified criticisms of his views in relation to the subject matter at hand, as well as clear and fair assessment of his editorial actions which are the basis for a current Request for Comment regarding the users conduct. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• The entirety of User:Thewinchester's remarks that he was trying to add constitute a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA, as can be seen by each one of diffs that this user has cited. This same user made an earlier personal attack in this same AfD, falsely claiming that I had attacked him, which has clearly been rebutted (see [68]). This user has been blocked in the past for incivility and has bragged in the past about his efforts to provoke a confrontation, boasting that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eusebeus&diff=next&oldid=139430723 See here for details]) in clear violation of WP:POINT. User:Thewinchester's continued abuse of process and incivility undermine any claim of good faith on his part. Alansohn 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, why don't you leave the comments alone? You have a strong COI in this. If someone else who comes along sees the comments and think that they're personal attacks, they can remove them. Corvus cornix 07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The comments were a baseless personal attack that in no way addressed the article in question and no decent person was stepping forward to remove them. Alansohn 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't see calling someone to account as a personal attack. I also think that the time frame of your reverts (6 minutes, 2 minutes and 2 minutes in that order) reflects that you were not actually waiting for said decent person to step forward to remove them. Orderinchaos 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The personal attacks were rapidly reinserted, and still have not been removed. The timeframe of User:Thewinchester's reverts to reinsert his attacks -- despite the clear explanations for their removal -- further demonstrates bad faith on his part. Alansohn 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think things need to be put into context here. An 8hr block against one user for a single, heat of the moment comment which even the blocking admin in informal private off-wiki discussion admitted that the block was one step too far in the case you persist in referring to, as opposed to a constantly increasing history of evidence regarding your uncivil editing style which continues to be documented in the RFC currently active relating to you. I don't hide the block and history in question, in fact I have it archived in full on my own talk pages, and anyone reading this ANI report is welcomed and encouraged to read it to get some perspective. The actual comment is no longer available as the user in question who's talk pages the comment was on has had his history deleted by a Bureaucrat for a likely justified and totally unrelated reason to myself. I don't hide from my past actions, and on the face of it, I feel that it could be easily assumed by any other educated person of sound mind that you have failed to learn from yours. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thewinchester has topped off his block with a premeditated effort to provoke other users and to use the Wikipedia WP:AN/I process to punish those who disagree with him. Someone who brags that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." is trying to make a WP:POINT, by its textbook definition. Thewinchester has abused Wikipedia process before, is doing so right now and has shown every indication that he will continue with his attacks, incivility and abuse of process in the future, all in his crusade to protect Wikipedia from what he has defined as "Schoolcruft". This user must be dealt with in appropriate fashion. Alansohn 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What attacks? Where? Who? Which crusade? What agenda? Where are these WP:POINT disruptions you claim others any myself are up to? You constantly make those allegations, but cannot provide any evidence to back them up. You simply extrapolate comments and the meaning of them into your own narrow minded views in order to make feeble attempts at saying they violated policy, when it's just not true, a fact clearly pointed out to you ad nauseum in not only the last few weeks but again this afternoon by an Admin when you broke rules again in the AfD in question. You cannot provide any evidence of attacks because it simply does not exist, and your continued assertion that it does breaches both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you can't stop, smell the roses, and realise that you've brought every last one of the issues that have been raised against you in the last fortnight upon yourself, then its your own problem. Countless people have tried to help you, to build consensus, and to assist you in just getting along with others, and each time they fail because you hold on to these minuscule extrapolated points trying to justify a pointless position which serves no-one. I've said it here on AfD in a previous incident report that I have given up trying to work with you, and so have many others. If this doesn't help you draw the easy conclusion that you're not playing well with others and it might be time to give it a rest and play nicely in the sandpit, then quite frankly I don't know what will short of the community dealing with you. I can say with a reasonably degree of surity that this will not be the end, as you'll no doubt chime in and try once again to break an argument down point by point twisting and turning every last little word into something which makes it looks like you're the one hard done by. On a more personal note, ive not been able to do any serious and considered editing the last week because you have usurped every last wikimoment of my time dealing with the rubbish left in your wake constantly brought to my attention. I'd like to work on getting articles like Perth Airport up to FA status, but instead I am reduced to cleaning up your crap and getting stuck in an RFC process which we in the possibly vein hope might just help you realise the error of your ways. There are days where I really wish there was a WP:CABAL dedicated to dealing with such users, a group of dedicated uberusers with the time, strength and patience to take on painful editors and leave others to improving the encyclopaedia. If there were a few less users like Alan et al, then the wiki could be a happier place and we wouldn't even have to think about the need for such a cabal. Oh, and that last comment - that is pushing the boundaries of WP:AGF, but when you've got people like Alan who game the system with 3rr and other disruptions, do you blame me for comments like that? Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • User:Thewinchester seems to have a tell, part of a pattern of protesting about complaints that were never registered. In the AfD that sent him off his rocker, he reacted to a statement that "In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days..." by insisting that "Additionally, you once again fail to assume good faith and accuse another user of having undertaking a concerted campaign of deleting school articles, and you do so with no basis or justification." It's a great personal attack, but the claim that he was part of "a concerted campaign of deleting school articles" was never made. Here he says " There are days where I really wish there was a WP:CABAL dedicated to dealing with such users", when no one has ever made that claim. It's not like there are a whole bunch of meatpuppets from Western Australia suddenly voting in school AfDs that they had never participated in before. These issues would be hard to justify if User:Thewinchester hadn't described his plan in advance with co-conspirator User:Eusebeus, stating "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm.... Not smart for him, as our project employs similar tactics with a number of known problem editors, and he's just got 'on the list' of a few people in the land down under." (Click here for the details]). At first I thought it was a physical threat, but this is a man who means what he says and follows through on his threats. The Wikistalking and WP:Harassment from a group of people who have developed a sudden interest in schools in the United States is odd to say the least, all the more so as this group is most of the squad from Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 and Wikipedia:Schoolcruft, most notably User:Thewinchester and User:Orderinchaos with broad participation from other members of the Anti-cruft police. I hadn't put the pieces together, but User:Thewinchester's threats that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm.... Not smart for him, as our project employs similar tactics with a number of known problem editors, and he's just got 'on the list' of a few people in the land down under." is happening right here, right now. The same bunch of folks from Western Australia who plan to meet up in Perth on Sunday, August 19th, are all popping up on AfDs for schools on the other side of the world. His malicious boast that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." (See here for details) is what's happening here. For someone who complains that he hasn't had a chance to improve his article about a train station, he seems awfully determined to devote his precious time to protect Wikipedia from an article for a school 12,000 miles away; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School is the bear poking incident User:Thewinchester was seeking to provoke, with a few assists from the usual suspects. The pattern of abuse is unmistakable. This abuse of Wikipedia policy by Thewinchester must be put to an end. Alansohn 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh damn, you're onto us. I should have known it would never work. I'll have to call the rest of the cabal and let them know our plans for evil and world domination have just been foiled. Orderinchaos 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you both have over reacted the Afd has five days to run how about taking a step back go work on something else you both making a horrible spectacle of yourselves. Gnangarra 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive forum shopping/harassment

Resolved

Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a problem with one of my user pages, which is fine, but in trying to get rid of it she has been excessively forum shopping to the point of harassment. In the past few months she has brought the issue to various user and Wikipedia talk pages, nominated the page (in almost exactly the same form) for deletion at least three times, filed two separate mediation requests (while the MfDs were ongoing, no less), and made a direct appeal to Jimbo himself:

• User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 3 (various complaints and discussion)
• Speedy deletion request
• Village Pump (policy) discussion
• Direct appeal to Jimbo Wales
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three of these incidents (two deletion requests and a mediation request) have ocurred in the past week.

Enough already. This behaviour has been going on for months. This user needs to understand that snowing editors under with bureaucracy is not the way to deal with content they find objectionable. Let the damned MfD run its course. —Psychonaut 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the keeping of derogatory "watchlists" is against everything Wikipedia is about. I would very much like to see User:Psychonaut/User watchlist deleted. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist was closed, without prejudice, with the suggestion that I relist any individual page for MFD after a "cooling off" period [69] because I was stupid enough to allow myself to be derailed into debating the general issue of many "watchlists" at once. I Listed the page again for MFD 7 months later. I only did this once, [70] but could not find instructions for listing a second MFD, which I made clear in my edit summary.User:Arthur Rubin was kind enough to correct my error and set up a second MFD properly [71] though my reasons for requesting deletion seems to have been deleted by the time he did so [72].

Psychonaut Has kept entries on User:ABenis and User:Zeraeph on User:Psychonaut/User watchlist which he describes as "Monitoring vandals and other problematic editors" in the link from User:Psychonaut (see:[73]). I am not happy with this on a personal level or in terms of WP:AGF.

In [74] Psychonaut states that: "Anyone who I happen to encounter who turns out to be persistent or far-reaching in their policy violations, and who does not seem to be actively monitored by other editors." even though all User:ABenis has ever done is make about 100 good faith edits to a handful of articles (See:Special:Contributions/ABenis) and has not edited anything at all since November 2 2006, and all User:Psychonaut's, self stated, vigilance concerning User:Zeraeph has yielded since November 2nd 2006 is[75] a single violation that is dependent on bending the 3RR almost to breaking point, [76] (the fourth edit being a different, minor edit removing of a link to convicted fraudulant historian David Irving.

Because of these aspects of the MFD I checked through policy and decided that it really IS time to "Solve the root of the conflict" by attempting to resolve the differences between us through mediation as I explained to User:Psychonaut [77]. I cannot imagine why he would have a problem with that. --Zeraeph 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you have just extended your forum shopping to WP:ANI with the above post. Instead of speaking only to my complaint of harassment, you used the opportunity to rattle on about the user page you find objectionable. I'm sorry to say that you just proved my point. —Psychonaut 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It really seems to me that you brought this here, I just responded as it my right. --Zeraeph 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I also have a slight problem with your phrase "snowing editors under with bureaucracy", it seems a little inaccurate as my last comment connected to the previous MFD would seem to have occurred on the 31 October 2006 [78] and didn't raise this issue again until 26 June 2007 [79] when I removed and entry from your watchlist for User:ABenis who has not edited at all on Wikipedia since 2 November 2006, and the entry seemed totally redundant. That would not fit my interpretation of "snowing" anybody under with anything.--Zeraeph 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it will make you feel any better, but I had a similar situation with her about a year ago, where several admins called for but ultimately decided against a community ban. The convoluted starting, stopping, opening, closing and refusing to mediate tied me up for months, made it hard to get anything productive done, and almost caused me to leave Wiki out of sheer frustration. I've had no trouble since this ANI report, but I try my hardest to stay out of her way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making? Also, it seems to me that our differences lasted a matter of some three or four weeks at most, hardly "months", but my memory of this may be faulty, I am checking right now and will happily apologise if I am wrong? --Zeraeph 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, that was in fact 7 weeks from here [80] to here (your link) [81]. I felt that as there has never been even a minor problem between us since our differences were resolved and forgotten, but if you do not agree, I am happy to go to mediation now? --Zeraeph 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation, I have blocked the user for a period of one week. If anyone disagrees with the block, please contact me. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There were a couple of points in there; mostly that mentorship had been a good thing. The points were ... First, Zeraeph has forum shopped before, and it tied me up something awful for a long time. Second, I've had no further problems/issues with her (for a year), and the solution proposed by Deathphoenix (mentorship) seems to have been a good one. I hope everyone now involved takes heed of his wise approach. Third, any form of dispute resolution, mediation, arbcom rulings, blocking, etc. is less likely to be helpful than simple mentoring, for the very reasons discussed in the former AN/I link I provided. (And fourth, the situation went on before and after the diffs you gave above, so yes, it was several months.) To Zeraeph's credit, again, I've had no further issues with her, but I've been careful to try to avoid editing similar articles. I'm not sure who started the poking here, but it would be good if mentorship continued in some form. Blocking, mediating, and ArbCom would be less likely to yield a productive result; if Deathphoenix is no longer around, maybe someone else will mentor ?? The issue here is forum shopping which unduly ties up other editors and keep them from productive work; there has been a pattern, and I hope this discussion stays focused on that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should also add that I endorse the block for now, not because it's ultimately the best long-term way of handling these issues, but because past experience has shown that the situation will only escalate across many different forums with many different posts tying up many editors if Zeraeph isn't given forced time off while the community figures out the best way forward. I recommend the block stays in place until there is consensus on the forum shopping issue and whether another mentor can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment That was an error I made pasting the wrong link, I had NO IDEA it went through. SORRY --Zeraeph 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that was a real RfM you posted and tried to get numerous editors to agree to. It's a redlink because not all editors agreed to the mediation, and the page was deleted by the MedCab. —Psychonaut 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As an editor, not admin, I have to say the keeping of User watchpages like this is both awkward AND reassuring. One, the big brotherish, tattletale nature of them can easily come off as intimidating and authoritarian. However, Seeing a user like Bosniak on there reminds me that some of these watchlists serve a great purpose when editors come up on AN/I, as it makes documenting patterns of behavior easier. Not everyone has the time to spend all of their alloted daily wiki-time sorting out the long and complex histories some users have fighting each other, and these summaries are useful. Further, as they are publicly visible, it makes arguing for the inclusion of mitigating factors possible. If Editor A has a 'file' on X and Y's conflict, and X sees only evidence against himself, he can certainly contact A asking that AN/I incidents against Y be included for a fuller st of info, and if that's not done, can easily start up a rebuttal section in his user space to counter biased allegations. I'd rather see user page space used than IRC channels. ThuranX 06:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reward Zeraeph's forum shopping with a discussion of user watchlists here, can I suggest that you take these remarks to a more appropriate venue? The MfD has been closed, so perhaps the Village pump policy section would be best. I don't think the discussion belongs here, because the issue of user watchlists isn't relevant only to administrators. —Psychonaut 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User now unblocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Melcsw is a vandal in the Norman Vincent Peale article

Melcsw has edited this article over and over. He has loaded the article with critisms of this person. Any attempts to revert is reported as vandalism by him. Any attempts to add any counters to his comments with postive statements is reported as vandalism. The discussion page is full of talk about what he has done to this article. It appears to be the only article he edits. It must be stopped.--Panzertank123 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, in looking through the article, all the statements are heavily referenced. Why would you revert the inclusion of a referenced statement? If you do, that can be construed as vandalism. If there's an alternate view, include that also, and support it with appropriate references. Bringing a general statement like this to the board really isn't helpful. Go forth and edit, add substantial and sourced material. If he then reverts that, then you have a case...come back then and report specific incidents of sourced material being reverted, and we can do something about it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, AKRadecki, I'm new here, but I've watched what has happened with the Peale article for some time. Is the onus really on the Wikipedia community to balance a one-sided addition to an article? And should we devote as much time doing research to support the policy of Wiki NPOV as a fanatic does to his particular soapbox? I would hope that contributors would be encouraged to write balanced, NPOV articles. You seem to be saying that as long as I can supply references, I can load up an article with as much of one viewpoint as I want, and it's everyone else's responsibility to provide the balance. Is that right? 63.119.136.68 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the posts are not referenced. Also the posts could be made shorter.--216.52.73.254 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That article has been edited over and over of time by Melcsw. He has reverted any attempt to counter the criticisms. He had referenced an article. He then included the whole 100+-word quote from that article.

I did not take out his article. I left the main point in and referenced the rest. He however deleted a referenced article that I put in. Actually he had it in originally, under the criticism part. I moved it under a new category and referenced it.

Look under the discussion page. You will see from other people what he is doing. A person like him is what makes wikpedia a joke to many people.

The criticism section of the article is 3 times larger than the rest of the article! This is Dr. Norman Vincent Peale we are talking about, not Hitler!--Panzertank123 12:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated it, lets see how long before it gets reverted again.--Panzertank123 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak

Kuban kazak is intentionally showing disrespect to the other users as well as violating wikipolicies in general. (1) He brought on my talk page a link to a highly inappropriate image (mentioned in his PPPS), which is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; (2) He is engaged in a revert war at Template:Ukraine Labelled Map (which is still in early stage, but the template probably needs protection better sooner than later); (3) He is accusing others of stalking him (however Template:Ukraine Labelled Map was not edited for half of the year, and it has never been edited by him before, yet he came to the page editing it a few hours after me, and he is accusing me of stalking him).

As a wider issue, he stated his refusal to answer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak. He just "refused to participate", stating that "this rfc ain't even on my watchlist".

I'd like independent admins to check on the current uncivil behavior of User:Kuban kazak (if it's confirmed to be as such), and give an advice on how to proceed if a user declines to address RfC, but continue his disruptive behavior. Or, alternatively, please explain to him the need for appropriate behavior, of which responding RfC would be a valuable first step. Thanks, Novelbank 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, I thought he toned down but I guess he's at it once again. I think it's heading towards ArbCom. — Alex^(U|C|E) 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive User User:Ttturbo

This user, although speaks Lithuanian?, is becoming very uncivil to other users on the project, specifically at AFDs concerning the Red Army. He is also making personal attacks against users, and false accusations, specifically here, concerning me. He has also been blocked for thirty-one hours previously. Miranda 10:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed little my style of comunication according to advices of administrators when discussing Red Army crimes category articles created by me recently. I can't agree with such list of accusations followed by disruptive activities of Miranda. I've appealed to some very polite administratorTtturbo 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a starting point - anyone speak Lithuanian, try and head this off at the pass? try and explain things he might not be understanding due to language difficulties? --Fredrick day 10:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

hum - he's clearly getting in a terrible mess, he seems to think that people are hacking his userpage (for political reasons) and doesn't seem to understand how wiki works. --Fredrick day 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I even created twice to articles about wikipedia hacking, mentioning the hacking attack of wikipedia in November 2006. But for the first time unfortunately it was not understandable for some polite medical proffesor and the others.Ttturbo

10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he is also abusing the {{helpme}} template over remarks I said here. Miranda 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, can an administrator protect his page so that he won't abuse the helpme template for a period of time? I am really trying hard to assume good faith, but this user has made some terrible and uncivil remarks regarding users. I was only trying to help. Miranda 10:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see this link. Miranda 10:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems he has to write a treatise very fast, see the end of (this comment. The reason why he is looking for help from all corners on English Wikipedia, may be that he got banned for one year on Lithuanian Wikipedia. For legal threats - which he has alluded to here too. By the way, his much better English here is actually disturbing. I hope it is not a pose (trolling was another accusation that got him blocked on Lithuanian wiki), but the time pressure that he is under that is causing his mistakes. This user has been around for more than a year.--Pan Gerwazy 10:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The reaoson is that EU commision starts discussing 100 million comunism victims (including my shooted down gramdmother in 1945) again but this is presented in wikipedia poorly. Be carefull pan Gerwaz about anonymous sources of information even in Lithuania wikipedia which occured in a difficult situation - few active users and lots of administrators according to information I've seen! I am not here for the year -I was not here for the year after some article about Social aggression creating and understanding neccesarality to improve my English. Now I'm working on some kind of aggression commited by the red Army and I've met some nice users here, who does not give the name for my comments to be the mess.Ttturbo 11:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a noticeable difference in markup between the English and Lithuanian wikipedias. It could be possible that the user is just not experienced in English... --Dark Falls ^talk 10:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any amount of such difference can explain the rather erratic and unreasonable behavior that is actually being evidenced. Accusing everyone who votes for deletion of his pages to be, at best, a Red Army sympathizer, and at worst, directly responsible for all of the alleged crimes, is rather hard to explain by the differences between Wikipedias. IgorSF 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't accuse everyone. Even Kozak (insulted me in the way characteristic for russians) helped me finally stressing about mistakes made by helper from USA! But this is my right to suppose that marking for deletion of all category Red Army crimes and immediately woting without any disccussion and explanations is antidemocratic and must be evaluated by adminstrators as a precedent!Ttturbo 11:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you not to use other editor's nationality against them? I do believe I did. You are your own worst enemy but then again so are all trolls and POV pushers. The people on the AfD have given you plenty of advice on how to settle this the right way. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how you compared the delete !voters to Holocaust deniers. MartinDK 11:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Be precise. I compared the colaboration to war crime commitents to be some kind like holokost denying. But this is not the accusement to the all users who stressed poor language and sources. Thanks, but Miranda disrupted repeatedly and systematically asking for help editing. For the first days I've obtained even not editing help, but after Miranda's activities I was really blocked screaming help. But I don't like users who tolerates antidemocratic practice - immediat ly started deleting voting without discussion and explanations!Ttturbo 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo, I warned you about not making legal threats when I still did not know anything about your adventures at Lithuanian Wikipedia. Telling people who vote to delete your articles that those who want to hide Soviet crimes are as guilty as the perpetrators and mention the EU investigating this is personal attack AND a legal threat. I also told you that "you are supposed to vote and give a reason for your vote" so your comment about first voting and then discussing being undemocratic is nonsense: you should have realized as soon as you saw the delete article for Red Army Lithuania that that is the normal way on English wikipedia. As for the wp:help, I really wonder when you will understand that you were given a chance and you blew it. You made it appear that you needed help on the language and on sources, but it soon turned out you wanted them to help you in the votes. But when they realized the problem and most of them told you in their own individual way what the problem was with the articles and that you should stop personal attacks, you accused these people who had come to help you of being Red Army supporters. From that moment on, any attempt to again call on wp:help was a disruptive way of dragging more innocent (and benevolent!) users into the conflict. You also seem to have to write a treatise on this subject matter: do you think the guys at wiki:help are there to make the homework of school children? That is why administrators saw your later repeated wp:help calls on your user and talk page as disruptive. As for the ethnic name-calling, one other piece of advice: please stop calling Belarusians Belorussians. I am sure Miikka finds that very amusing, but most Belarusians will not like it. In fact that is another fine example of you being your own worst enemy.--Pan Gerwazy 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WikiPage_suffering_computer_hacking for more disruptive behavior by this user. Miranda 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That article needs to be flushed and the user warned not to recreate it. --Fredrick day 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he was blocked from Lithuanian Wikipedia for a year for posting incoherent articles, making personal attacks, ranting on talk pages, etc. (see [82]) He was also blocked in Wikipedia-unrelated project for the very same reasons. I suggest doing the very same here, because for a while people tried to reason with him (in his native toungue), but failed. Renata 11:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, please see my note on his talk page. Moreschi ^Talk 12:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamming at Sikhism

An anon appears to be flooding the article from some external partisan source, semi-protection would probably be best. This article is supposed to be a FA. Rama's arrow used to watch it. Arrow740 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

request for page protection. Miranda 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Choking article

Anon user 195.33.53.32 was been persistently vandalising Choking today, with his 'humourous' take on it. Could someone please place a temporary IP block on it? Thanks Owain.davies 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gave {{bv}}. In future, warn them with an approriate template (see WP:UTM) and when they vandalise after a final/level 4 warnning (if they do) then report them to WP:AIV Viridae^Talk 10:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, didn't know there were so many templates for warning. Much obliged. Owain.davies 12:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamming at multiple Sikhism-related articles

User:Gurudabhagat is spamming multiple Sikhism-related articles with what looks like copy-and-pasting from propaganda websites. See his contributions for a list. Sikhism has also been spammed by anons, possibly it is the same user. He never uses edit-summaries and has already been reverted by multiple users. Arrow740 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive copy-vio

A huge copy vio was made on Gordon Brown by User talk:Ivankinsman [83] from The Telegraph newspaper which remained there for about 22 days. He already seems to have been warned about posting copyrighted material-User_talk:Ivankinsman#Your_edit_to_Nat_Tate:_An_American_Artist_1928-1960. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

81.104.175.145 breaking civility

This is not a big thing, but said user is behaving in a manner that's disrespectful to others, unconductive to productive discussion and just plain stupid. I'd like to ask a neutral uninvolved party to drop him a note, since I am firmly entrenched on the other side of the discussion that has caused him to act like this, so it's doubtful that he'd listen to what I said to him.

• 1: "That entire paragraph is WP:BALLS, and exactly opposite to reality. It doesn't deserve a proper answer, but you're getting one anyway."
• 2: "since your sense of reality is so hideously impaired,"

Thanks. --Kizor 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:64.104.129.137 on user page

User User:64.104.129.137 has entered an expletive and abused my personal userpage (not talk page)-- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AChaipau&diff=141997754&oldid=72589708. I request the administrators to take appropriate action. Thanks. Chaipau 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-upv2}} warning on the IP address's talk page. That's the appropriate action for one act of vandalism, and you can apply such a warning if it occurs in the future. Repeated acts of vandalism by the same address or user can result in escalated warnings (uw-upv3, uw-upv4) and if it continues past that point, report the user to WP:AIV. Leebo ^T/C 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. I shall follow the uw-upvx route and report if required. Chaipau 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive category name changing and article retagging against longstanding consensus

User:76.216.84.3 has taken it upon himself to declare that many longstanding categories with "mythology" in the name are offensive (to Christian and Jewish tales that meet firm definition of myth in mythology -- but conspicuoulsy not other cultures, so it's clearly a case of POV favoritism for his religious background, if there were a legit problem with the name it'd be for all cultural backgrounds) and is going around mass changing all sorts of category names and switching articles into these new categories. It's be helpful if someone with a tool to mass undo the edits, or at least block him until he gets that he needs to get consensus first (these edits have been reverted in the past at least once already, and certainly there has been no group discussion to change them) so that they can be undone the long way, could lend a hand here. DreamGuy 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Same style of edits were done recently by User:Java7837 and opposed by several editors. His previous edits have not been fully undone yet either. This is a complete mess now, with all sorts of articles shunted to this fork category and others not. DreamGuy 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Achery & User:Aydchery

Cappadocia keeps getting spammed with links to commercial sites by User:Aydchery. Violated 3RR, never made any comments on talk. Apparently using sockpuppet (could use IP verification) account User:Achery. Had made some previous beneficial edits in the past, but everything in the 48 hours or so has been spamming. I've also reverted several links directly to Google ads. MrZaius^talk 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Aydchery (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours by Wafulz, Achery (talk · contribs) indef-blocked as a sockpuppet. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sg wiki editor

Supposed Admin has created his own account and reinstated himself on the web... He does not allow people to modify his site and puts advertising how his company is the Virtual office Operator in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.10 (talk • contribs)

This is one of your modifications. It is rather vandalism from your part. That said, you haven't contacted h/er to discuss your concerns. You haven't even used the article talk page as well to discuss your concerns. Instead, you opted to add comments to the article instead. Please discuss your issues and stop adding comments to the article namespace. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reinstated"? Corvus cornix 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad edits by obvious sock puppet

User:70.80.103.197 is an obvious sock puppet of a Montreal-based neo-Nazi who has been banned several times from Wikipedia. His history at Wikipedia has consisted of blatant POV-pushing, vandalism, personal attacks, and of course sock puppetry.Spylab 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 3 months. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gross incivility

• User:Bsirvine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After trying multiple times to have a mature and reasoned conversations (see conversations on user's talk page) regarding adding improper information into BLPs I received this message. Coudln't find a civility template, but given the randomness and rudeness of the message I figured it was worth reporting. It should be noted that other editors in the past have noted political trolling from this user. Dankoo multipass. /Blaxthos 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• He's figuratively throwing up his hands in frustration. Now, whether or not you feel that's an appropriate reaction or not, he may be solving his own problem by taking a break from editing that article. Sure, he could have phrased it better, but to slap him with some kind of warning now would only pour salt on the wound. Try to let it die down for now. Leebo ^T/C 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I second Leebo's comment. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Rambutan

Rambutan has been blocked for a week for 3RR. Now I feel that this is partly unjustified, because the WP:3RR policy says that people who violate 3RR usually get blocked for 24 hours, but when it is more "aggravated" or "repeated" they may be blocked for a longer period of time.

Firstly, it was clearly not "aggravated", because he mostly reverted anonymous trolls who put errors into the articles; although he had probably better discussed it on the talk page, his reversions were clearly in good faith. I realise that good-faith edits are no exceptions from 3RR, but his editing was certainly not "aggravated".
Secondly, it was only the second time he had been blocked for revert warring (not counting the block that was lifted within an hour), so I wouldn't call it "repeated".

Two reasons Phil gave for the block were "reverting with Twinkle" and "3RR on multiple articles".
Reverting with Twinkle makes no difference at all. Who cares if he clicks "undo" and then "save" or clicks "rollback", it is exactly the same, just a bit faster. Blocking someone partly for this reason is WikiLawyering.
"3RR on multiple articles" was exactly two articles, and thus a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate.

Now, if Rambutan promises to discuss further reversions on the talk page, and cools down, could someone perhaps shorten his block to 48 hours? I have talked with this user, and he is clearly acting in good faith. Let's be kind toward each other.

SalaSkan 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 48 hours just on June 25 for a 3RR violation. The whole point of the block is to prevent the user from edit warring like that in the future. The one week block might not be justified if there was a longer period of time in between blocks, but there was only a 4-day difference between 3RR blocks. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry, vandalism, personal attacks and POV-pushing

Here are just a few examples of infractions by User:Fan1318, which is the latest sock puppet account of User:Laderov.

1. Vandalism (removing legitimate tags & comments from talk page).[84]
2. Personal attacks.[85][86]
3. Admitting to sock puppetry in edit note.[87]
4. POV-pushing in almost every single edit.[88]

Please block this account as soon as possible.Spylab 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's talk page isn't vandalism, but yeah. Blocked indefinitely. Grandmasterka 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiramiscan (talk · contribs) and his "brother" Canosman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user called Semiramiscan (talk · contribs) seems to have created a sock puppet, Canosman in order to vandalize the Kurdistan Workers Party article, and now claims that it's his brother. I have no personal interest in the subject, so I'm passing it off to anyone who does. My only involvement in this is reverting said vandalism, and warning Canosman who was later revealed to be a vandal-sock, making my efforts to teach him about wikipedia policies a waste of time. The Canosman sock puppet is now being used to attack my talk page--VectorPotential^Talk 19:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack your talk page???????? That is BS!!! --

My brother and I live in the same house thus using the same router which uses the same IP number. The main reason why VectorPotential is irritated to this extent is that my brother has proven him that he is WRONG and PKK IS a TERRORIST organization via facts sources, statements both by Turkish anfd foreign media to establish impartiality in my thesis. Accordingly to my brotyher's action of PROVING the fact with evidences he was supposed to change the article in order to make it less biased. Instead of this he took this up to Administrators' noticeboard for vandalism and sock puppetting. First of all what he called vandalism did not occur lately, and secondly he was not interested in facts. Regardless of accusations, the thesis of my brother and I which Semiramiscan (my brother) has proven with approxiamtely 6 URL from different media. As a matter of fact disregarding facts are vandalism as well as modifying them in an improper way. I hereby condemn VectorPoint for his actions and irrational accusations. --Canosman 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me hear a duck here? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK forget the case about vandalism -I accept that I vandalized the PKK page- or the sockpuppet thing -which is untrue- what about the fact? Who will change the article. This is an ecyclopedia, my facts are proven and nobody but nobody has right to call me a duck. You are bunch of ignorants we are talking about the truth here --Canosman 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:V come into mind here. By calling us ignorants you discredit yourself, not us. —Kurykh 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you? Instead of changing the article you are attacking us! This makes you an IGNORANT and ignorance is NOT a cursive word. JUst a word describing your state. --Semiramiscan 07:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. And it is quite obvious you did not read the policies I had linked to. And what, may I ask, is a "cursive word"? —Kurykh 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Words that attack you personally, If I'd have called you short I would be a bad quality but not a cursive as well as ignorance. I suppopse you need some help in english? --Semiramiscan 07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need help in English, not I. The word you might be looking for is "curse," not "cursive," as the latter term is used in the subject of penmanship, not in insults. "Ignorance" is a noun, not an adjective. I can continue on and on about the substandard grammar of yours that you ironically accuse me of, but that's not the point. And you have yet to rebut my point without using circular and/or tangential arguments. —Kurykh 22:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your point, I did not quite understand? I have a sole rebuttal for all those damn policies which is [WP:IAL] I also would like to preserve my better english for relative serious occasions rather than arguing with people (especially who claims that he is better than me despite him not being so) prefer correcting my grammar over arguing about the serious matter which is unclear. Are you accusing me of sockpuppeting? Or are you just attacking the truth? All I (and my brother, he did the action) have done including blanking the PKK article had one aim; labeling the PKK under what it deserves; terrorist. I have done sockpuppeting in accordance with wikipedia policies as I requested my brother to engage in such actions and you cannot do anything about it. --Semiramiscan 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)-- (Sorry forgot to sign in)

Verifiability, not truth. And I have no interest in wasting my energy in further farcical exchanges such as this, complete with blatantly empty arrogance on your part. Actually, asking your brother to continue your efforts in edit-warring is considered meatpuppetry, which for Wikipedia's purposes is sockpuppetry. And this is a private site; we can do anything we like. —Kurykh 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You was only referring only to you (Kurykh). I am not arrogant - at least not enough arrogant to compete with you - this is not only your privite web site thus it is mine as well as yours. I spesificly requested a comprimise and as a proof of that I posted an apology on Vector Point's talk page. Now I am waiting the same from all of you wikipeople. And what may I ask is the arrogance within my statements? --Semiramiscan 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be clearer on the private website part. I meant to rebut the "you cannot do anything about it" part. And requesting a compromise while exalting yourself is essentially shooting yourself in the foot. If you really want a compromise, then you should discuss on relevant talk pages; this page is used to discuss user conduct. —Kurykh 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well what have you done? By comprimise I mean making peace about this fight which you don't seem to be eager about. There is your arrogance again... Why are you arrogant? Because you are 5-6 years bigger than me? Or maybe it's because you're in higher position in Wikihierachy?--Semiramiscan 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am here only to remark on your behavior, which hasn't changed at all since the beginning. If you want peace about this fight, let me offer a solution: not posting on this thread. I don't know why you are pulling out the age card for, but if what you said is true, then that explains why we are even discussing in the first place. This is my last comment in this lunacy. —Kurykh 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you weren't much interested in resolving this conflict then why would you butt in? --Semiramiscan 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll lie about the last post thing. Answer to your question: Because if you want the conflict resolved you must change your behavior. A combative attitude will not get you anywhere constructive; it will only get you blocked for incivility, or, even worse, trolling. I linked to the policies in my very first post on this thread in a gesture of good faith, and all I get is you yelling in my face? Please, I have other constructive matters to attend to other than your incessant rantings, unless you are willing to change your attitude and stop your meatpuppetry (aka asking your brother to edit for you). —Kurykh 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will be more constructive in wikipedia, what shall I do? --Kelhocan 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't really need to do anything, but you just need to not insult people or call people names while you are discussing with them. Now, if you want to solve the content dispute (which seems to be what you want to do), go to the the PKK article's talk page and talk about your proposed changes. However, do keep WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in mind. And I don't know why you created another account (so it seems), but whatever... —Kurykh 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On a different but related topic, what justification can be offered for today's vandalism by Semiramiscan (talk · contribs), who added inappropriate material referencing the Turkish porn actor Kral Şahin K to about 20 wholly unrelated articles? Deor 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on! You are just negelecting our point with Canosman with your accusations; if you change the PKK article then BAN me OK? But change the article first OK? What you are talking is nothing but BS. So I DID add Kral Şahin K in several articles, would it decrease the credibility of the sources that I have presented concerning the PKK being a TERRORIST organization. --Semiramiscan 07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So what happens now? I think we shoul all continue contributing to the wikipedia peacefully ever after and forget about this unnecessary and ridiculous accusations, incriminations of yours. --Semiramiscan 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're supposed to forget, then why have you asked to have your brother's talk page deleted? And what about the incivility here? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So when you call me vandal, you see yourself as a "protector" and "hero" of wikipedia, and when I do I am incivil? Yet, I will comprimise and apology from that user just to end all this mess, and Osmancan is not my brother Canosman is. I requested deletion since that page seemed unnessecary and what how do you spend your day? By investigating me? Get a life! Lets just not try to find dirt on each other shall we? I will apologize from VectorPoint for "irritating" him if the word "militant" in the article PKK is substituted with "terrorist" --Semiramiscan 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, nowhere do I say that I a protector or hero of Wikipedia. True, the main thing I do is fight vandalism, but I would not go so far as to call me the protector and hero of Wikipedia. Per that, and telling me to get a life, I ask you to read the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. As for the apology towards Vector Point, I think that would be good. As for substituting terrorist for militant, I suggest you bring that up on the article's talk page, and get a consensus on what to do with that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And don't advise me! I know what to do! Talk pages are USELESS. And my perception of personal attack comprises the "f word" which I never use. But still, why investigating me? If you are -which I highly disapprove of- I cannot say you do a quite well job. But once more I propose to end any cinflicts I am in with you wikipedians right now via compremise. --Semiramiscan 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:NPA for the community's perception on what personal attacks are. As for investigating you, I am not. As for compromise, I'm stepping out of this topic. This is heating up, and I'm getting out of here before the fire starts. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK lets get this thing solved ok?, I am ready to make any comprimise. I request the same thing from other parties who has involed or commented in this thing. --Semiramiscan 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on Main Page/FA Islam

After three clean reverts,[89], [90], [91] and adding a POV tag which was reverted, [92], User:Aminz now resorts to disruptive "clarify" tagging:[93], [94], [95], [96], [97] I've no particular desire to see Aminz blocked again, but his disruption should be rolled back for the sake of the main page.Proabivouac 11:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Now User:Javizzle is making disruptive edits to Islam. Admin attention is urgently needed. Beit Or 11:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact disruption comes from User:Proabivouac, User:Arrow740 and others. User:Beit Or rewrote the section "Islam and other religions" before discussing it on the talk page, and User:Proabivouac and others used edit warring to preserve it as it is today's featured article. There are several editors on the talk page who believe this section is POV; but Proabivouac behaves as if he owns the article. I can prepare a report of Proabivouac's efforts to make Wikipedia articles biased against Islam. --Aminz 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose removing the "Jihad = terrorism" nonsense (which stuck, since I own the article) and attempting to remove the "criticism" section (which would have stuck, had I owned the article) are part of this plot.Proabivouac 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have been influential in removing "Jihad = terrorism" but rather in removing "Jihad is not terrorism". There is no reliable source saying "Jihad = terrorism" but there are those saying "Jihad is not terrorism".

Here is what you've been influential in Jihad article: Modern Muslim authorities have a range of views regarding Jihad (because of we are living in a another age and the way society works has changed) but the article fails to mention this. Why? Aren't many papers published on the issue of Islam and non-violence? Or from when Islam has been a monolithic identity? --Aminz 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. Not just Aminz's comment, but all the this-is-POV, that-is-POV claims coming from the Islam article's primary editors. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I don't know how this can be sorted out once and for all. I don't believe any admin could do it for you guys. However, i do believe that only you can achieve it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Learning a lesson from the recent experience, I would like to suggest the following:

• When an article is supposed to be presented on the main page, no editor should unilaterally re-write a section of the article a day or two days before its appearance on the main page. Featured articles are featured because they have passed the peer-review process etc etc. The sections that are replaced recently may not have the quality one would expect. They may not even be neutral since they have been just written.
• Further, those who try to preserve an undiscussed version (in this case User:Proabivouac, User:Arrow740, and User:Sefringle) through edit-warring because "they" think the new version is better should be blocked in the future as violators of WP:OWN. --Aminz 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring by User:PANONIAN

This user has been edit warring and POV pushing against consensus against multiple users on the following articles:

• Ahtum - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users. 4 reverts on July 1st alone
• Sermon (ruler) - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users. 4 reverts on July 1st alone
• Zemun
• Greater Hungary (political concept) - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
• History of Vojvodina - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
• Greater Hungary

He has declared that he will not give up and continue with his edit warrning no matter what sources are presented. Particularly for his edits at Ahtum and Sermon (ruler) he is replacing the proper article name "Samuil of Bulgaria" with "Samuil" as to justify his POV agenda. Please refer to talk. In a similar fashion he is refusing to accept compromises by other users in the rest of the articles. Mr. Neutron 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support an extended block or sanctions on this user. From what I've seen over the past few, PANONIAN is an incivil edit warrior - civil people don't go calling people nationalists. Will ^(talk) 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had dealings with Panonian ever since I've been around (some 2 years). It is not actually impossible to come to terms with him, but when something doesn't fit his POV enough, he's absolutely unwilling to compromise (and at times becomes abusive). I have been involved in one of the six cases mentioned above (the Greater Hungary redirect page) but I noticed this section just by chance. KissL 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days, amount of his recent reverts is intolerable. MaxSem 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I'd argue that this block was punitive rather than preventative, as it came 8 hours late, and he announced a wikibreak for going to surgery; in all fairness, the edit wars were followed by extensive talk page debate. While I dislike Panonian's abrasive style, and agree with KissL that he can be difficult to come to terms with, he has still amassed 23,000 mainspace edits, and Mr. Neutron was not an angel in this war either. I'm not going to lift the block, as it's probably moot anyway; but it wasn't the best one around, and probably not in this duration. Duja► 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, let say that I have no intentions to avoid Wiki rules, but since I already have dynamic ip adress that you cannot block I created a temporary account only because it allows me to talk with you here (with blocked ip I can edit only my own talk page and I cannot defend myself succesfully like that). Of course, I have no intentions to edit articles with this new temporary account and I will respect fully my 72 hours block. However, I do not think that blocking was justified and fair: I wrotte most of these articles and edit-wars about them in which I was involved were my own good faith attempts to clean these articles from POV-pushing, trolling and bad faith (just give me a chance to speak and I can easily prove that in all cases I reverted exactly these things). I also explained my reverts on talk pages of these articles and I believe that I proved my point (if you think that I did not, please tell me how exactly I did not). Also, I do called a people nationalists, but I can prove that they are - just tell me in which case you think that I called somebody a nationalist if he was not nationalist. In another words, I really do not understand what I done wrong, not to mention that I was reported by user who is indeed an Greater Bulgarian nationalist (it is not insult or something like that but fact that I can easy prove) - if you see his edits, you can see that his aim is just to push point of view of Bulgarian historiography about character of empire of Samuil and not to allow any other point of view to be presented (And I ask: is that a goal of Wikipedia or is a goal to present all points of view about subject). Even user Duja can confirm that his history book for elementary scool used name Macedonian Empire and mentioned Samuil as Macedonian Emperor (I ask user Duja to confirm this). So, what exactly was wrong with my edits where I simply tried to present other point of view to Wikipedia readers? PANONIAN (temporary account) 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This one and another one (same name, except with a 2 at the end), were blocked SirFozzie 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Big mess at whatever the current name is

After six AfD's resulting in keep a debate was started to rename the article. During that debate unfortunately someone decided without consensus to rename. This has now resulted in a shambles since the current name is silly and restoring the one that was debated seems no longer possible. Could some uninvolved admin take a look and try and steer the debate back in line?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You may be aware that the article State terrorism by the United States recently survived its sixth AfD. There was discussion during the AfD on changing the name, and this discussion was continuing when an editor pre-emptively moved the article. There has been a flurry of further moves since, and the article is currently at State-sponsored terrorism by the United States, a title which I think everybody agrees is a poor one. I am reluctant to move the article back while discussion is ongoing (although I think that is the proper way things should be done) as I was involved in the discussion. It would be great if an uninvolved admin could move it back. Thanks. --John 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I moved it back to the orignial title and move protected it to encourage discussion. When consensus is achieved as to the title, feel free to move it to that title. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is still at the incorrect title and a boatload of double redirects. --MichaelLinnear 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Moved the talk page. I did not resolve double redirects. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann indef block review

I've been discussing this indef block of the above user w/ the blocking admin here. My concern, as stated, has been that the indef block is too harsh for a block evasion especially that it was related to the user first and only block.

I must also point out that this user was a subject of two prior incivility related reports at the ANI (see here). However, i believe that blocking someone indef because of block evasion is not warranted by the policy. Extending his block to 1 month would have been sufficient IMHO. Please comment. The blocking admin User:Crum375 may add some of the facts i missed here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a refactoring of the block to something like 1 month if Wassermann (talk · contribs) demonstrates he understands why his block was extended. This doesn't cut it; I read it as the editor indicating that he knew he was blocked, but it isn't "evasion" because he feels he was improving the encyclopedia. Blocks mean you don't edit... period. Right now he has block evaded as recently as today. Unless he agrees to stop editing from IPs while blocked, I don't see a reason to refactor. If he commits to not evading his block (and follows through on that commitment), I would fully support a refactor to 2 weeks - 1 month.--Isotope23 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

...and reviewing the IP editors that would appear to be Wasserman (despite the denials) and the posts at User talk:Jimbo Wales cements it for me. Wasserman appears to feel he has done nothing wrong. That is a problem.--Isotope23 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a note regarding block evasion and this thread at h/er talkpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected his talkpage to give him a chance to respond.--Isotope23 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He possibly shouldn't have been blocked indefinitely for block evasion, he should have been blocked indefinitely as a much-warned antisemitic troll, painstakingly documented by Jayg here and here, and especially (which your search didn't throw up, FaissalF), here, the discussion which preceded his (merely) week-long block. Do please read the third one, click on the links, and marvel with me that this user was left to poison the project for so long as he was. Keep indefinitely blocked, just change the block reason. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Having looked at the third link Bishonen gave (as well as the others), I have to agree with her. I see also that the week-long block was not his first one, as he had previously been blocked under a different name. Keep blocked, change the reason, if necessary, and remember that a block can always be reconsidered if the user shows himself willing to modify the behaviour that got him blocked. ElinorD (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be tangential, but is User:74.222.195.21, who was blocked with in the last few days twice for anti-Semitic editing, possibly another Wassermann block evasion IP? I'd rather bring it up as a wrong possibility than ignore it and have it be correct. MSJapan 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on page Prickly City

I am not involved in this edit war but have stumbled across it and really think an admin needs to intervene. The page now has this ridiculous tag on it ...

{{articleissues
| POV = June 2007
| disputed = June 2007
| weasel = June 2007
| Citations missing = June 2007
| primarysources = June 2007}}

... and there are obvious breaches of 3rr and civility. Just thought I would bring it to your attention because the tag is laughable on such a short page about a comic strip. Turtlescrubber 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - what action would you like/expect admin to take? if there is a 3rr breach report it on the 3rr board. --Fredrick day 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article served no apparent purpose other than to disparage the subject. I have redirected it for now. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All those tags were added by one user in a dispute over a single external link. I'll try to calm things down since I've been involved in the discussion, though not the edit warring. Redirecting is an overly drastic solution to what is really a minor issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, ignoring the tags, and it seemed to me to boil down to "we hate this right-wing crap". Guy (Help!) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That ugly yellow box with the big red exclamation point has got to go! Corvus cornix 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to fix bad page move

moved to previous post.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request unblocking

Resolved

 – unblock declined and alternate accounts blocked for block evasion-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please somebody see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_and_edit_warring_by_User:PANONIAN Seems that nobody want to answer what exactly I done wrong in my edits. PANONIAN (temporary account) 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the account as block evading. The block was only for 72 hours. I am not sure if he formalyl requested an uinblock on the main account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

GEORGE BUSH COMMUTED LEWIS LIBBY'S SENTENCE - Admin needs create new section for crucial information which is currently hidden in "Presidential Pardon" section

There has been a news update of Lewis Libby - whose prison sentence was commuted by GWB minutes ago(top of "Google News" - just in minutes ago..... I tried to edit this, but the page is protected. An admin needs to update it. BlueSapphires 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Already done so by User:JCO312 here. —Kurykh 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A New Section is Needed: as in "Sentence commuted by President George W. Bush" starting with the words: "On July 2, 2007. President Bush commuted Mr. Libbey's sentence.". This does NOT belong under the section discussing pardon options, as the commutation of the sentence was NOT a pardon (and he's still being fined, and some other minor punishments). Kindly edit.BlueSapphires 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The commutation of the sentence extended only to the 30-month prison sentence which Bush stated was "excessive". It left in place

Then this is a content issue, which is outside the remit of this board. Please go to the relevant talk page. —Kurykh 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an appropriate edit on the talk page - but if the page is protected for "admin only" edits, is it not appropriate to make a mention here? Who knows if an admin will glide by a protected page? At least anytime soon? BlueSapphires 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Use: {{editprotected}}. Viridae^Talk 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in Carnatic music article

Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly deleting relevant, cited information from Carnatic music ([98], [99], [100], [101]) despite attempts by a number of editors to stop him. I have had numerous run-ins with this user and have always found him to be quite unreasonable and biased. I request some admin to take appropriate action to stop this user's behaviour. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued destructive edits

NovaNova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly destroyed necessary corrections to grammar and formatting without a valid reason; repeatedly falsely described necessary corrections as vandalism in edit notes; repeatedly made other deceptive edit notes that don't accurately describe what edit he has made; repeatedly pushed a specific POV; repeatedly deleted legitimate warnings on his talk page; and has used sock puppets. It is growing tiresome for other editors to have to revert his counterproductive edits. This account was recently blocked for 48 hours, but it is clear that this individual has no intention of following Wikipedia guidelines, so temporary suspensions are not adequate. Spylab 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's time for an indef-block yet. It would help if you named the sockpuppet accounts because that would potentially warrant an indef block. Shalom ^Hello 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Supposable Erroneous Revert by Shadowbot (00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

After adding to Slang I found that Shadowbot had sent me a message and reverted what I consider an appropriate web link to give on that page, given the subject of the page. I understand from Shwdowbot's message that for some reason or other, urbandictionary.com seems to be on a ban list because of spamming. I don't know much (if anything) about WP's spam punitive policy but I do think that in an encyclopedia that routinely gives web links related to the topic, Urban Dictionary is a sound and proper link to give. (I am in no way connected to urbandictionary.com or its proprietors or anything about it. I just like to use what web resources seem helpful to me.) I'm just wondering whether Shadowbot shouldn't have the combination of Slang and some known relevant sites like urbandictionary.com (I'd sure like to see other relevant sites listed there, too) on its exception list, and whether this revert shouldn't be reverted. (Or just the latter in case the former was not legally possible or so.) 217.229.36.25 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

False positive. Will ^(talk) 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in Talk:Cat

A new user pasted in a newspaper article verbatim. I'm assuming good faith, but perhaps that revision should be zapped by an administrator rather than reverted, so we don't have copyrighted material sitting in the revision history of Talk:Cat. Any takers? Squidfryerchef 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need for that IMO. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaign against a productive editor

For weeks, one editor of Cancer has refused to allow another editor to contribute any content about possible cancer-causing bacteria. This protoscience topic has many reliable sources. I have a begun a straw poll on Talk:Cancer. --Una Smith 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not judging you on your claims (if they have any merit), but you should go to WP:RFC instead of here. DreamGuy 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith by User Domer 48 at Talk:Great Irish Famine, apparently supported by User Sarah777.

User:Domer48 has recently made a lengthy list of accusations at Talk:Great Irish Famine of bad faith against me, as well as various accusations of POV, baiting, etc. Here. [102] He has previously accused me of bad faith editing, and this time I asked him to apologise at his talk page. He took my private request and pasted into the Great Irish Famine page. He also made a lengthy list of accusations against User:sony-youth at [103] accusing him variously of manipulation, disruptive editing and other crimes.

The Great Irish Famine page was protected from editing a week ago after a request by myself, following edit-warring. I believe this request of mine is the main cause of all this vitriol. I would be grateful if an admin could take a look and consider either warnings or appropriate action to deal with Domer48 and Sarah777, who apparently [104] Domer48's attacking behaviour. Sarah777 was herself the subject of a recent lengthy RfC on her incivil conduct supported by number of editors. Thanks for any help / advice. MarkThomas 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the RFC was quite contentious, with all sides looking bad, being civil, and in some cases (MarkThomas' for instance) being blocked for disruptiveness in it. This page has a lot of problems, but it needs to be carefully looked at.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I was blocked by swatjester, in what I might say in my own defence were very trying conditions, but on the actual page Great Irish Famine I have repeatedly tried to edit in good faith and neutralise exceptionally POV edits, something for which actually I feel quite punished and harassed by a segment of opinion that supports those views. I ask neutrally-minded admins to take a look at the attacks against me and Sony-youth and evaluate them fairly. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not needed for a talk page (and I personally would remove it, because while the diffs speak for themselves, outside of Dispute Resolution it comes a wee bit too close to WP:NPA for my tastes). I would suggest Domer and Sarah file a RfC of their own, and I would urge both sides to simmer down, no matter how much the other side is at fault, because this thing could become an WP:ARBCOM case very quickly. SirFozzie 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: SirFozzie, I was thinking of that but when I saw the way my own RfC degenerated into open season on myself I thought, what's the point? I can see maybe Domer, instead of doing all that digging and ending up in the dock himself should have set up an RfC - but really - is that what we are here for? These articles are but a tiny % of my Wiki interest and contributions. (If a disproportionately large % of my "talk"). I think we can depend on the majority of Wiki-folk to defend us so long as we remain a bit reasonable, without launching a counter-attack! (Sarah777 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree Sarah, and I'm HOPING that everyone ramps it down a bit and becomes a bit reasonable, at this point, I'm afraid that it's heading ArbCom's way, and no one wants to have their every edit scruitinized, etcetera, plus it's a colossal pain in the tuckus. I was just commenting that if Domer has that much of an issue, that putting it on an article talk page (even by request) is a bit like using Lake Michigan to put out a candle. SirFozzie 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, Listen, I may have gone to town, a little overboard? I admit! But I have had the mother of all head wreckers with this! There is two issues, First, Sony, if they put their hand up and say I was wrong! I can not argue with that, and will have to accept it. That’s it case closed! Now as for the other Issue. That’s never going to end! I will be thwarted and scourged! If you all think that a Rfc will do the job, no problem, I’ll give it a go, sign me up. As for ArbCom, don’t know what it is, but would not have a problem with it. Any editor can review my contributions, and my comments! My contributions are all referenced, and my user page outlines my POV. My comments are rough and ready! If I think someone is acting the goat, I’ll say it. If someone is genuine I’m as polite and placid as they come. I will not suffer fools gladly! So that’s me in a nutshell. What ever you think, I’ll go along with it. I would like if possible that my comments and contributions on the sister sites be included if editors want a complete picture of me. Regards --Domer48 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer, which issue are you referring to because I don't understand what happening anymore. I see two possibilities for where I can say that I was wrong:

1. The accusation of bad faith when I thought that you changed to O'Donnel quote when in fact it was Sarah.
2. My argument that the O'Donnel quote is does not support the claim that the perspective that the famine was a genocide is gaining academic respectability.

I have apologised already for the first one ("It was Sarah who changed it, not you, and so I retract all that I said about bad faith.") but would happily do so again if its important to you. If it is to do with the O'Donnell quote then I'm sorry, but I only ever commented it out because it does not refer to genocide. I made this clear in the edit commentary (diff), repeated so on the talk page when you reverted it (diff) and, although you accuse me of harking back to it only as a ploy (for what?), this is, and was, my only contention. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sony it is that important to me, I rely on my reputation in relation to quotes. That I do not, and would not change a quote. If I were to let it go, any editor would be able to challenge my good faith on quoted references. One only has to read my user page to understand how important it is, and that I cannot be accused of what I mean to address! --Domer48 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I'm replacing the comment above, I believe it got lost in an edit conflict, here. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise once more. It was not you who changed to O'Donnell quote, it was Sarah. In the flurry of reverts that led to the article being locked, I missed Sarah edit and thought it was you who had made it. This you pointed out to me (first saying I hadn't "a wit of cop on" then by calling me a "slow learner"), at which time I appologised for the mistake ("It was Sarah who changed it, not you, and so I retract all that I said about bad faith."). I apologized again later on when you asked me to do so once more ("Domer48, I apologise for persisting in a line of questioning of which you have no part."), although on that occasion I couldn't understand why I had to do so again.

What I feel, however, is that you are confusing my concerns regarding the use of the quote with my misunderstanding about who changed it - you or Sarah. I know now that Sarah changed it, but my concern about its use - namely that it does not refer to the genocide claim - predate Sarah's change (21:14, 27 June 2007, 22:09, 27 June 2007). --sony-youth^pléigh 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. But I think Domer is (as I was) just a bit naive about how the politics works. You don't really expect your jokes, off-hand comments etc to pop up as evidence in an indictment - at least I didn't. (Sarah777)

I agree with you about everything except the Arbcom. I think arbcom will be quite helpful. There has already been RFC on the subject (Sarah777's was essentially indistinguishable from the topic). It should bring closure to everyone: to MarkThomas,Sarah,Domer et. al by determining who is violating policy and essentially enforcing a stop to it, and to the rest of the project by us not having to hear about it! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled. I thought there was a clear rule on Wikipedia that one does not accuse other editors of bad faith. Domer48 has repeatedly, blatantly done so, and has refused to apologise. This complaint is not about the content of the article, it is about conduct. Surely this is the one place where the rules get upheld? If not, what is to stop Domer48 and Sarah777 repeatedly bullying and harassing editors out of the way, which is what they both have a history of trying to do? I came here as a last resort hoping that Admins at least would support the rules. MarkThomas 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins also should not help one side get an advantage in an edit war in which both sides may have unclean hands, like in this case, Mark. As I said, I consider that a wee bit too close to WP:NPA for my own tastes, but that kind of thing would be better served in a RfC or an ArbCom case. SirFozzie 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of my block as the unclean hands part SirFozzie? Or of a specific edit of mine? The block was essentially unrelated to this issue and I believe I have an editing record of determinedly seeking NPOV - is that not what WP is for? In any event, even if this is valid, does this invalidate the basic issue of Domer48's extended and absolutely flagrant breaches of the rules? It's actually quite difficult to think of a more blatant example of breaching than his and as someone who has been blocked for very much more trivial offenses I am frankly astonished. I thought long and hard before coming here to complain. MarkThomas 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading SirFozzie correctly, he's saying that all sides involved have unclean hands already. An admin coming in to take action should be careful to not help one side get an advantage, but rather act to restore the situation to its proper state. For instance, blocking you in response would give Sarah's side the advantage. Blocking Sarah would give your side the advantage. Blocking both would be extremely overkill. So we have to come up with a solution that works the best, and any advantages gained are incidental and not intentional.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Swat! Easy on. I'm not on any "side" here, except my own! (Sarah777 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

That's a very clear summation of the situation, SJ. Nobody in this dispute has clean hands here. I've recused myself from this but someone neutral such as yourself would be invaluable - Alison ☺ 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (last edit before vacation. Honest!)

Restored comments of SWATJester and myself, which User:MarkThomas removed. SirFozzie 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if this happened it was inadvertent on my part, I was attempting to revert a bad edit of my own. MarkThomas 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I pasted the posts from my user page onto the article talk page because that is were the issue was raised. The post was in reply to my comments. I also think it allows editors the opportunity to make up their own mind. I will leave it up to editors to decide what should happen, and will not try to influence anyone, my edit speaks for its self. --Domer48 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, could one of the Admin please set up a Rfc for me please. It would be appreciated. If I’m found to be in the wrong, fine, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth, but I will get over it! What I won’t do, is bitch and moan and go on and on about it. In my defence, I can here because I’m interested in history, I have not had one ounce of aggravation on either Wikisource or Wikiquote. I’m easy going, but hate Bs merchants. I’ll leave it up to you Admin’s to do your job, and what will be, will be. Regards --Domer48 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ArbCom or an RfC would be welcome. I gave up on contributing to that discussion and am fed up with the accusations made against me. As clarification Domer, I edited the copy and paste of my post to your talk page that you made to Talk:Great Irish Famine only because it appeared as if I had posted it there myself. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no sign that the ill will will abate, I have brought it up with ArbCom. SirFozzie 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming an article without prior debate

The article A.R.S.R. "Skadi", about a rowing club, was moved to Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging by a new editor in his first edit to the page.[105] For very important reasons, that at this moment are beyond my capabilities to comprehend, this editor chose to change the name without prior discussion and to a factually incorrect name. Despite that he refused to undo the move. In response to my request at WP:RM I was told that first a discussion is needed as to whether the move should be undone. As I tried to explain here, here and here the club itself uses either A.R.S.R. "Skadi" or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi" as its official name. Again, for very important reasons, it is impossible to undo the move and reinstate the name the club itself uses on their website and in correspondence.[106][107] Since it apparently is policy to discuss undoing hit-and-run edits I bring it here since I would appreciate restoring the article to its proper name, i.e. A.R.S.R. "Skadi" or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi", (I prefer A.R.S.R. "Skadi" but have no objection to Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi") without the sillyness of waiting 5 days.

Second, for my information I have some questions:

1. Is there any policy on WP prohibiting the use of the official name of a rowing club?
2. Do I understand correctly that if I go to an article I never edited, I can rename it and its current editors are obliged to have an extensive debate on whether or not my move should be undone? Or, if a move is contested is it first undone and then a debate is started to see if the new editor (me in this example) can find consensus?
3. Can somebody restore the article to its correct and official name?

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

These questions belong at the village pump for policy discussion or village pump for assistance. This page is meant only for things that require urgent admin assistance, but the issue here is a content/title dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, undoing the move requires admin tools does it not? Second, why is it impossible to undo what to me appears to be disruption without having an extensive debate? Shouldn't the move be immediately undone and the hit-and-run editor asked to start a debate? As I asked above, are you suggesting I can go to other articles, rename them, and then the editors there are forced to await disscussion on whether it should be undone?

Second, how can there be a content dispute with an editor that has never editted the article and made only one contribution? That is silly.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, a dispute about content. Sort it out amongst yourselves. By the way, it doesnt matter if that was the users first edit or their 50000th. Viridae^Talk 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I am on my way to start some "content disputes." My questions are answered and as it stands now the onus is not on one-time hit-and-run editors but on people contributin to an article to undo. Sigh.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved

The case is not resolved because contrary to the above suggestion undoing this kind of disruption is entirely possible and was don in an identical case. All I ask is to do the same thing here and undo the edit by an uninvolved editor that still has not made any other contribution to the article and therefore cannot be having a content dispute. By that logic vandalism is only a content dispute. Please review and do the same as here. As suggested above I also went to the VP.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Tamokk

Ridiculous personal attack on the talk page [108] SosoMK 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also consider this and this statements by Sosomk (the first is to the User:Tamokk, actually). Alæxis_¿question? 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For everybody interested, this person Alaexis is very strange. When I asked him about arguments on talk page he tried to avoid the page for a while. After that he came back deleting most of the page. He has a strange behaviour.--Tones benefit 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios and IFDs from Babydebo10

User has continued to upload images that are clear copyright violations, without placing them in articles or responding to a dozen messages from automated bots. I'm not sure if they even knows there's a policy against it, or how to add fair use qualifiers to the images, but they've so far ignored all the bots and editors who have tried to explain it to them. They have also uploaded images whose filenames have overwritten other unrelated and fair use images such as Image:Dragoon.jpg. Cumulus Clouds 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user with a request that he/she acknowledge and address the copyright issues. --Richard 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, most of their images are unencylopaedic and somewhat pornographic. Cumulus Clouds 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this last point, consult WP:CENSOR. I haven't looked at the images. If you think they should be deleted, nominate them for deletion at WP:IFD. --Richard 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have, they are not going to be deleted because of "pornography" as they are not pornographic at all. However the user continued to upload images without copyright info for a period of over a week without even responding on his talk page. He has blanked his user page and one of the pages he created so I suspect he has left. I think we should just go ahead and delete the remaining images straight away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All have now been deleted as copyvios. This pretty much closes the book on this incident, as far as I can see. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attack on User:Nate1481

Resolved

User:Mate1481 has been busy reverting Nate's recent history (I noticed a revert of a comment on a talk page on my watchlist, which I have restored). User:Nate1481 has had problems before with another user, and it seems that user might be back. -- Medains 08:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked. {not by me - I was beaten to the punch}Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 sockpuppets...

Resolved

 – Socks blocked.

This indef community banned user User:DavidYork71 is back - once again editing Mike Gravel related articles. I'm giving notice here that I'm going to simply revert the socks, even past 3 reverts in accordance with WP:IAR and this previous advice from this board. Ie, to short circuit the red tape that includes a check user request when it is damn obvious they are socks of this tiresome troll. A better option would be if someone helped revert or an admin simply blocked and semi-protected the page.

Tonight's socks are User:BigDeeTee and User:TheTathagataBuddha. PS, i reported already to WP:AIV. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Merbabu 11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For safety you should add a comment in your edit summary that you are reverting vandalism by a banned user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to indef BigDeeTee (talk · contribs) because of the username (quite similar to taht of admin User:BigDT) but User:Metros beat me to it by bloking the account as a sock of DavidYork71. The other account was also blocked by Anthony.bradbury. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

indef banned user:Gon4z socketpup

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

user:Klass is another socketpup of indef. banned user:Gon4z. He came and began immediatley to vandalize the same articles as usual with his numbers i.e. MIM-23 Hawk, Albanian Land Forces Command and started a all new edit war at Mujahideen, where he returned to insert his radical Kosovo agenda. Furthermore he has removed the sockpuppeteer notice from his old account Gon4z. --noclador 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

resolved: admin User:Theresa knott banned socketpup. noclador 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

sock of indef banned

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

Averythedog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of User:Arthur Ellis, who was indefinitely banned by ArbComm from pages related to Warren Kinsella etc.: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis and is also under indefinite community ban: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:Arthur_Ellis. Averythedog's obsession with Kinsella is typical of Arthur Ellis, as can be seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, including his attribution of psychopathy to Kinsella. [109] Bucketsofg 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will need a checkuser to prove he is a sockpuppet. There is simply not enough information from the edits alone, though it's apparent which IP he's editing from because he blanked the talk page of that IP. From the edits alone, he looks like an ordinary newbie vandal. Shalom ^Hello 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

His first edit is to RFPP requesting protection for that article? Obvious disruptive sock, come off it. Gone. Moreschi ^Talk 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange Vandalism at St_Michael's_Mount

There is a very nasty picture, IMG_0269.JPG, that pops up when the page loads and overlays the article so you can't read it. I think the problem might be with a vandalized template, but I'm not wiki-literate enough to figure out how to fix it, or who caused the vandalism in the first place. Anyway, if some one could fix this and see if other pages have been similarly vandalized? 70.227.232.162 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

129.2.100.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had vandalised {{IoEentry}} and {{Max}}. For both the vandalism was set to be visible on includeonly, so you wouldn't see the image if you'd looked at the template themselves. I've reverted those two, although cached pages will continue to have the image for a while. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's linked to all sorts of pages. The template being used is {{:IoE|456038}}. Oddly, the image links to many pages, according to the image page, but it's actually not on many of them.... Exploding Boy 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it was a template {{Max}} and it was just fixed by Finlay McWalter (talk · contribs) diff. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User warned. Someone want to add that image to the Bad Image list? Fvasconcellos (t ·c) 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Exploding Boy 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That photo has an entirely useless name - it should be called prince_albert_piercing.jpg or something, which will give recent-changes watchers a fairer chance of figuring out what an edit involving it really is about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move it. Another point: there's still a long list of articles that link to that image, according to the image page. Is there some reason for this? Exploding Boy 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a cache issue. I've semi'd {{IoE}}, {{IoEentry}} and {{Max}} as high-risk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User jayjg stalking and reverting

I have noted the incidents both on the user page and the article page but have not reverted anything. So far this individual has yet to reply but just continues to revert references claiming even cited Bible passages are original research and violate NPOVRktect 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't regurgitate huge chunks of discussion into this page. I've left your dispute but removed the copied text. Please provide brief links only. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the bible even be considered a reliable source? Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can most Roman literature be considered reliable? This is an inappropriate question for this board, but I'll say one thing: ancient literature and sources are different from modern sources. Every ancient historian knows this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<nitpick>Wouldn't it count as Greek literature, technically?</nitpick> -- ChrisO 09:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bible would be a reliable source for simple statements as to, for example, what the Bible itself says (for example, as the source of a directly-quoted passage.) However, interpretations (such as this edit by Rktect) require a secondary source. Primary sources should be used cautiously and sparingly, and should not be used to support a claim which is interpretive. From what I've been seeing, several of your edits, Rktect, are pretty poor in quality (use of "you"/second person, weasel words [110] (the edit there is also of marginal relevance, at best, to the article's subject), poor grammar/syntax/spelling/capitalization which sometimes make it difficult to understand what you mean [111]), and various other problems. I'd suggest you work with Jayjg and other editors to correct these issues, I see you want to contribute, and that is great, but I'd advise you take a more willing attitude toward learning how. You might also want to have a look at WP:ADOPT, I believe you may benefit from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary written sources for [the Bible] are often borrowed or collected from texts in Akadian, Egyptian, Sumerian and other ancient languages which include [pantheons of gods] deemed important in their own right at the time. As the collections were consolidated so were the different gods. Most Bibles reference this in their introductions as they do [the use of parable and allegory] or what some people call wordsmithing which includes some less than reverent double entendre similar to what you are doing here. There isn't a lot of commentary on that because first it takes away from your appreciation of a joke to have to have someone explain it to you, and secondly other people deem it sacreligious to discuss it and revert it. That's the issue here.

The approach in Wikipedia is to cross reference many different sources in many different languages. In doing that a basic problem is lack of consistancy. Each individual link says what is says without regard for what other links say. Many of the referenced sources in the links are not primary sources but link to various religious encyclopedias, commentaries in English Greek or Latin and very few fill in the dots. Archaeologists like [Ken Kitchen] mine the passages for textual artifacts such as the price of slaves or the form of contracts which can often be linked to historic artifacts while at the same time believers try and limit the discussion to what they believe is true. The idea that the first five books are actually a law book called [the Pentateuch] is ancient and much commented upon as Mosaic Law. The purpose of my edits was to gain some cross referencing consistency in wikipedia sources in a comparison of Biblical references to Mosaic Law, Sharia Law and Hotep, the law of the Egyptians. Having them systematically reverted along with their many reputable references amounts to systematic censorship by user Jayjg .Rktect 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect, you have a habit of synthesizing facts and using primary and overview sources as purported evidence for your own commentary. Jayjg is correct in referring you Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Proposed decision#Proposed findings of fact. Using the Times history of the world book to prove that modern Palestinians are the same as the ancient Philistines, for example, is not good use of sources. nadav (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you figure that since the jews left in a [jewish dispora] nobody remained and the region was uninhabited for a couple of millenia until Israel was established in 1947.

Canaan was refered to as Palestine in Egyptian and Akkadian in the 18th Dynasty of Egypt. Its size varied a little; it was at its greatest extent when Thutmosis I reached the Euphrates and it extended as far north as Kadesh. Its legitimate to argue that Cannan was never a kingdom just a collecton of tribes until after the Conguest, and you could argue that the Phillistines who lived along the coasts were a little different than the people who lived inland, but that people who lived there stayed there and became Palestinians and remain Palestinans to the present day seems pretty clear.

The first references to the [habiru] start here (Babylonian MAT A-mur-ri-e), Kur-Mar-tu-ki = MAT A-mur-ri-e} and in Akkadian borrowing the Egyptian name Kur ti-id-nu-um-ki MAT A-mur-ri-e) Akkadian borrows Kur (meaning mountains and enemy) from Sumerian. MAR TU or SA GAZ ('apiru) and both reference the people of the west known as the Amurru. Thats amout the farthest extent north.

There are other people in Canaan which are covered in [Judges 4] but the people who gave the land their name were the Peleset, one of the [Sea Peoples] refered to in the Bible as [Phillistines ] Thats about the farthest extent south.

The Times History of the World Atlas that I cited, summarises and details the continuity, but there are thousands of other ways we could demonstrate that the Canaanites remain in the same area doing the same things as Phillistines, Phoenicians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Abbisaids, and Ottomans until finally they become a British protectorate. Palestine lasts not just until the European jews return to establish a homeland, but to the present day.Rktect 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussing content. Your reply completely missed the point of my comment, and also puts words in my mouth. You must understand that No original research means not adding your personal interpretation of facts. What you are constantly doing is citing the facts to a good source, and then making up your own interpretation. That is why so many of your edits have been reverted. In the particular case of Palestinian people (if you want to discuss it further, do it on the article's talk page), you cite a general history book about how the land was continuously occupied, and then you add your personal interpretation that this implies that modern inhabitants of the land and ancient inhabitants are one and the same. You made the same sort of mistake in Jerusalem and, I assume, the other articles where you tried to add content recently. The arbcom case tells me you have had this problem for a while. Perhaps the WP:ADOPT program would be a good step towards overcoming this habit; your adopter will be able help in showing where the thin line is crossed from good use of sources into WP:SYN. nadav (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you might explain how something that has encyclopedic sources becomes original research? For example why are the references to semitic roots from Bartleby's removed?. How are the additions of references from creditable sources trolling? Why are the wikipedia links to [Baal] and [zephyrus] removed from a stub on Bael Zephon? Why the insistance that the etymology of all bible passages is Hebrew only rather than allowing an etymology from Akkadian or Greek depending on the period when they are written? Does NOR mean no addition of references? What's the necessity of that? Isn't that POV? Why can't the reverts be discussed on the talk pages? Why the systematic reverts of every contribution? Why always reverts rather than occasionaly an edit after discussion? Is that Wikipedia policy On the Jerusalem page the reverts removed hidden comments noting material which was inconsistent with other wikipedia pages and incorrect? Rktect 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Original research vs. WP:SYN. If the reason given for revert is Original Research, then the argument that Original Research that creates primary sources is not allowed should be the basis of judgement. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. If the reason for revert is WP:SYN then there needs to be A, B and C and the revert should not be allowed if only A and B are present. Rktect 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion is taking place below in the section Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#stalking and unwarranted reverts by User Beit Or. nadav (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry?

This off topic discussion was archived to Wikipedia:God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry? and listed at WP:BJAODN. It's also listed at Digg

Personal attack vandalism

Resolved

Hello all. Telephonepoll (talk · contribs) has vandalized my user page several times and even uploaded a modified version of the picture of myself.[112] He also tried to post earlier (deleted) versions of that image to the Ameriprise Financial article. All of this is presumably due to my deleting posting of external links to an attack site to the Ameriprise article (one example [113] of many) for which he made personal threats of disruptive editing [114] which he seemed to follow through with from yet another IP.[115] I can only presume that Telephonepoll who started by trying to post a doctored image of me to the Ameriprise article and has done nothing since but attack me is the same person. I would normally bring this to WP:AIV, but with the complication of a doctored attack image in Image:08-25-05 1125.jpg's history I decided this was the better venue, my apologies if I am wrong. Thanks!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandalized revisions of your photo and blocked Telephonepoll for 31 hours. If anyone sees fit to extend this block, I won't object. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Polltelephone (talk · contribs) has made the same vandalisms to my talk page diff and uploaded the same doctored image Image:08-25-051125.jpg. A pretty obvious sockpuppet evading a block. I would like to note that several of the IPs this editor used when trying to edit external links to attack sites into the Ameriprise article were later blocked as being open proxies, perhaps a checkuser is warranted? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts are now indefinitely blocked. I don't know if a checkuser request will do any good, since the sockpuppetry was obvious and all previously used IPs should now be blocked. Keep an eye out on similar users/IPs, they might flush out other open proxies. I'll try to keep tabs on the Ameriprise article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again and point well taken on flushing out more open proxies. Who says vandalism can't be useful? In fact I've been consoling myself that as long as he was beating up on me, he wasn't messing around with Mainspace, which is what really matters. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacable fair use nightmare

I've found dozens on dozens of bad free use images, most of which are easily replacable with free use images. Most, but not all, of this search, pretty much. What should I do?! There's so many, and at least half of them are of people from the 16th century or earlier.... And did I mention they're used bloody everywhere? In articles with the most tangental relationship to the subject at hand? I've made a start, but have to sleep, so... Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can images from the 16th century be replaceable fair use? They should be lapsed copyrights. Corvus cornix 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The website these images supposedly come from appears to license them as "attribution" - which is an acceptable license if I read the website's terms correctly. WilyD 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is acceptable in a free license; indeed, the license under which Wikipedia content is distributed, the GFDL, requires attribution. --FOo 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The first image I looked at is labeled PD but states permission granted by private email. There's a procedure someplace for granting permission. Origin site has "Copyright � 1996 - 2006 K. L Kamat, Jyotsna Kamat, Vikas Kamat, Kamat's Potpourri. All Rights Reserved." So the copyright has been aging for six months. (SEWilco 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Excuse me? According to this and this Mr. Kamat certainly isn't releasing his photos under a free license. All of these images need a rationale. Yikes! Borisblue 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. See Wikipedia:Public domain. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." It looks like these are Indian photos, so also see Wikipedia:Copyright_situations_by_country. That says "India: Life+60 Photographs instead go into the public domain 60 years after their creation." These (those I've glanced at) are all photographs over 60 years old, so all public domain, whatever Kamat.com says. We do have to give a link to the source, and we are grateful to Mr. Kamat for providing them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

can we verify that they are all over 60 years old though? There's going to be a huge amount of retagging we have to do in either case. Borisblue 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PersonalityPhotos

PersonalityPhotos (talk · contribs) has been uploading tons of images with invalid copyrights. When questioned, they claim they have the right to do so. All of their images need to be removed, the articles they've added them to reverted, and the User blocked for using the name of a company. Corvus cornix 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on... please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#July_1 as it may well be the copyright holder doing the uploading. Where did this user say they are not acting on behalf of Personality Photos? Tabercil 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said they were not acting on behalf of Personality Photos. I am saying that their claims that Personality Photos has the rights to the images is specious, and the fact that they are working on behalf of Personality Photos is a violation of the Username policy. Corvus cornix 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They even specifically said, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. This is an incompatible license with Wikipedia's needs. Corvus cornix 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that they were referring to personality rights. Wikipedia does not require a signed release from the subject of a photograph - a license from the photographer or photograph copyright holder is sufficient. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

stalking and unwarranted reverts by User Beit Or

17:07, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning)

17:06, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (Warning)

16:32, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Isaac Newton's occult studies (rv original research) (top)

16:31, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Deborah (stop inserting your original research)

15:58, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Habiru (Undid revision 141838629 by Rktect (talk)) (top)

15:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Deborah (remove original research)

15:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Baal-zephon (Undid revision 141857893 by Rktect (talk)) (top)

15:55, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sarah (Undid revision 141857680 by Rktect (talk))

Eight reverts of user rktect today without discussion on article talk page Typically claiming original research for pages which are nothing but references and cites Rktect 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Those logs are not helpful unless you provide links to the diffs. Until(1 == 2) 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac removed this thread from User talk:Beit Or and called it "trolling". I tend to agree with him. Beit Or's reverts that I checked are within policy. I would have done them myself if necessary. Shalom ^Hello 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that these are reasonable reverts, and I reverted a similar edit of Rktect's. I tried to explain the complexities of original research to the user - perhaps someone else can have a go at that? Tewfik^Talk 02:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you might explain how something that has encyclopedic sources becomes original research? For example why are the references to semitic roots from Bartleby's removed?. How are the additions of references from creditable sources trolling? Why are the wikipedia links to [Baal] and [zephyrus] removed from a stub on Bael Zephon? Why the insistance that the etymology of all bible passages is Hebrew only rather than allowing an etymology from Akkadian or Greek depending on the period when they are written? Does NOR mean no addition of references? What's the necessity of that? Isn't that POV? Why can't the reverts be discussed on the talk pages? Why the systematic reverts of every contribution? Why always reverts rather than occasionaly an edit after discussion? Is that Wikipedia policy? Rktect 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked randomly this action by Beit Or. I saw a few references and blockquotes used by Rktect and went to verify some of them and found that one reference is "Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge University". I haven't checked the rest of reverts at other articles. No discussion at the talk page at all. No message from Beit Or to Rktect. Onlt Tewfik could try to do that.

On the other hand, i see no stalking from Beit Or at all. I only see reverting w/o discussing. Original research comes mainly w/ no reference at all. Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." . So where is the original research of Rktect's Isaac Newton occult studies' edits? There is a published paper used in his edits after all.

I've also sent an email to Proabivouac re his revert of Rktect's message to Beit Or asking Proabivouac about the trolling behaviour of Rktect when he communicated his concerns about the reverts to Beit Or. Could someone please explain to me all this mess? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fayssal F. I suppose that the odd references to both Rktect and Beit Or in the third person, the unusual format, the repeated accusations of stalking by various editors (WP:ANI#User jayjg stalking and reverting above) and what seemed to me the generally crankish nature of the edits in question combined to form the overall impression of trolling. User:Shalom arrived at the same impression. Nor are Beit Or and Jayjg the only ones reverting his edits, e.g. [116]. Perhaps I should have taken the time to explain to him once again (see User talk:Rktect) why his edits were being reverted.Proabivouac 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, it seems Rktect's behavior and editing pattern didn't change much: the same original research thinly disguised under spurious references, edit warring, and claims that Rktect is right and everybody else is wrong. One can wonder whether the benefits of keeping Rktect on Wikipedia actually outweigh the costs of cleaning up after him (and responding to such threads). Beit Or 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much about it Beit Or, I don't think anyone is taking Rktect's accusations about you seriously. Until(1 == 2) 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect has been blocked for 48 hours.[117] If he continues with his habit of inserting OR and novel synthesis, then I would agree with Jayjg that Rktect's arbcom case should be reopened. nadav (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption and incivility

Per admin 会話, I am asking for help regarding the harassing anon IP 86.147.92.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His postings at Talk:The Marvel Superheroes have gotten progressively more insulting and uncivil, personally attacking and insulting me for objecting to his desire to add commercial links. I turn the other cheek at least twice, to no avail, and he finally went so far as to post a personally harassing and disruptive WP:NOR diatribe, which I deleted based on WP:SOURCE, WP:DISRUPT, etc. I only ask that an admin you go to that talk page, follow the dialog, and perhaps ask this person not to abuse other editors the way he has. --Tenebrae 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, he's simmering down and I'm working with him. He's registered now as User:Doceo and is beginning to read some of the policies. That's a start. I'm rescinding my request for help for now. And I thank the hardworking volunteer admins; I cannot imagine the constant headaches and bickering you must face. With thanks, --Tenebrae 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image uploaded again (by possible Sock?)

• Hello, Image:Twograms.jpg was deleted yesterday as an uncontested rfu (CSD I7)). It has now been put up again by User:Pepso2 - the original uploader was User:Pepso JGHowes ^talk - 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image re-deleted, user warned. Perhaps a checkuser request is in order. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Why would we need a checkuser for Pepso and Pepso2, when they upload the same image? It's a duck. Corvus cornix 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I created the Pepso2 account because I could not recall the password of the Pepso account. Pepso2 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If they don't edit concurrently, I guess it's not a duck after all. (I'm usually an AGF-kinda-guy, but sometimes I slip up.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Callelinea (talk · contribs)

I gave this user a 1-hour block after they nominated a dozen or so article for AFD to make a WP:POINT because some of their article looked like they might be deleted.Circeus 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, since their response indicates that a cool-down time might help. Leebo ^T/C 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he nominated every article I've created because he's mad that I nominated several of his non-notable relatives for deletion. Corvus cornix 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed they were yours. The spree was quite ridiculous just looking at their contribution after an edit to Robin Wilson (author) popped up on my watchlist. Circeus 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?

• Mongol Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tablecreation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sce1313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like an edit war. Anyone want to sort it out? Curiously, both accounts have few edits outside this article. Shalom ^Hello 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a slow series of battles to me, but it looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is working on it now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep I'll try to clean it up a little and hopefully simmer things down too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair block?

The user only has three reverts[118] and he was blocked. I think that is because of conflicts of interest, which leads the administrator into obsession, rather than anything else. Please ask both the administrator and the user for mediation and unlock the user because the block is just illegal. SosoMK 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the block log: the reason for blocking was revert warring - not 3 revert rule. And from the policy page for the 3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Pastordavid 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And also the reverts that seemed to follow User:Mikkalai around prior to the block, on more than one article. Pastordavid 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw this user had violated 3rr before (see this) and it is possible that it's User:Bonaparte. Alæxis_¿question? 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case where a user immediately returns to edit warring, so soon after a 3RR block, we can only assume they didn't "take the hint" from their previous block. That said, the user appears to have been in a revert war with the blocking admin, which might change things a bit; it seems to present a conflict of interest, unless there's something I'm missing, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is a vandal. He brings bad quality to articles. It is not about controversial content, but about using very bad English, adding irrelevant material to the topic, and refuse to listen stop. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus

The following discussion 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.

---

Due to the fact that this was apparently trolling by a banned troll, and the fact that a normal discussion is occuring on the regular talk pages, this is no longer an incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note:User:Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet of User:Kirbytime, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

Please check out SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contribs, he has redirected tens of articles related to pedophilia, even though there is no consensus for merge. I found this out when I saw [119] where squeak redirected the page. I checked the its talk page where there is no consensus for merge. I reverted it, and someone else agreed with me and removed the merge proposal tag, while squeak came and reverted it again. I then posted a note on squeak's talk page reminding him not to redirect pages when there is no consensus. I then proceeded to rollback all of his redirects. I just want to hear another opinion on this. Am I totally whack? Thanks.--Flamgirlant 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just reverted the redirect and says to discuss on the talk page. There is nothing to discuss, it already has been discussed to death and the result was no consensus, twice.--Flamgirlant 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is ongoing discussion and editing of the mergered three articles. There seems to be a leaning toward merger based on the very close uniformity of content of the article. DPeterson^talk 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the contents of the articles are. I looked at the talk page and saw no consensus to merge, and reverted accordingly. I'm looking for an outside opinion on this.--Flamgirlant 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue re whether to merge pro-pedophilia activism and anti-pedophilia activism inot pedophilia bnut there is no issue whatsoever re redirects, I was merely fixing double redirects which is always a good idea if a somewhat tedious task. I dont believe this is the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of those merges which flamgirlant disputes, SqueakBox 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus to merge, but it was carried out anyway--Flamgirlant 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to either merge or not to merge and I was editing boldly, SqueakBox 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I applaud you for your bold efforts. That's why I labeled your edits as good faith. But there was still no consensus for merge.--Flamgirlant 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see what any admin is supposed to do here...this is a content disupte. Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution may help. — Scientizzle 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a content dispute and I agree that there is no admin action that can be taken. Another editor, Will, has made a great suggestion on the talk page of the article that sort of "splits the difference," and can move us along to creating a better article or articles. DPeterson^talk 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. There was a lack of consensus for merger. I've never edited the contents themselves. My reason for putting it here was that I was concerned about squeak's mass redirects when there was no consensus. Now admittedly the subject of the article is touchy (no pun intended, yech. Grosses me out.), but even if the articles weren't about illegal activities, if there is no consensus to merge, then it ought not to be merged.--Flamgirlant 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a RfC?? Edit warring is underway as well, for what it's worth. I did the "paperwork" on the proposed merger of anti- and pro-pedophile activism into pedophilia, and I supported it. The opinions of established users were running even, pro and con, and the discussion had not been closed. I closed it after the merger because it was pointless to continue to discuss a fait accompli. With the merger done, it's quite difficult to even get back to Pro-pedophile activism where the conversation was taking place, as the entry has been redirected. I located the discussion there because discussion of a previous proposal to merge the two articles, anti- and pro-pedophile activism, had been taking place there, and that proposal was replaced by this proposal. I don't think acting out of process or without consensus was the right thing for SqueakBox to do, and I have made my opinion known. -Jmh123 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still love all of you, so no need for a RfC =). Maybe we need some sort of centralized discussion, 'tis all. But until then, can we keep the articles as they were before the mergers? Isn't that proper wiki guidelines?--Flamgirlant 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note:User:Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet.

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.

User Filiusvita

I'm not sure I have the right distance to block Filiusvita (talk · contribs) myself but I'd like someone to look at it. This user has been vandalizing or at the very least edit-warring on Arab slave trade and Caucasian race, seemingly motivated by racism or, shall we say, a lack of fondness for muslims (see this nice summary of his thoughts, this deletion, this pointy deletion, these two oh-so-subtle edits). He has also edited under 72.177.173.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He does not respond too well to criticism of his actions [120] [121] and has also vandalized Negro [122]. Like I said, I'm tempted to impose a lenghty block myself but I'd prefer to have an outsider's perspective. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indefinite seems the right amount of block time to me... — Scientizzle 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure qualifies as lenghty. :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. IMHO no specified length is lengthy enough for this sort of thing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace pages that ought not be in the mainspace

Special:Prefixindex/MoS:

Those are all in the mainspace. Is that the right thing?--Flamgirlant 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been done in the same way as all the WP: shortcuts to Wikipedia: pages. It's not a bad idea, but it would be better to have the namespaces created rather than just put them in the mainspace (this has been suggested before, I'm not sure why it hasn't been done). --Tango 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But they aren't listed as shortcuts on any of the pages they link to, they aren't standard with the other WP: shortcuts, and are going to be a pain to remember. Could we at least get rid of all the ones that don't have inbound links? --tjstrf talk 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it's listed as one of the "recognized" pseudo-namespaces at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List_of_prefixes. Whether that list represents any particular authority, I'm afraid I couldn't say. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it says "These pseudo-namespaces are rarely used or deprecated and should be avoided" so I'm not sure how to continue on with this.--Flamgirlant 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support deleting them. I'd never even heard of them before. They don't fit the standard WP:MoS is fine, I don't think MoS: is, really. They seem a bit pointless. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, though, his/her suggestion that we MfD (at least some portion of) these seems a good one. Joe 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...It's speculated that I hate you for nt being able to read...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and months, with this editor having been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpage insulting?

User:Ilyuuxox and User:Lilrockinbabi95 seem to be in an insult war about real life. I've never seen anything like this. -Flubeca^Talk 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Unless it's actually interfering with their contributions, I guess there's nothing wrong with it. You could also try Miscellany for Deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already been deleted by CambridgeBayWeather. --Dark Falls ^talk 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just came to say the same thing and I have pointed them to WP:NOT. Also picked up User:Em95. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and Personal Attacks by 70.144.143.165/BlackStarRock

User:70.144.143.165 is currently engaging in personal attacks against myself and two other editors. Furthermore, he is a sockpuppet of User:BlackStarRock (edits refer to each other as independant users, however edit history shows otherwise. He's also made several attacks, and has not made any contributions to mainspace that are in complete good faith. Furthermore, he is also attempting to claim ownership of Rotom and his talkpage, as per some of his comments. Thanks! P3net 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You may disregard this, it Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/70.144.143.165has been addressed. Cheers! P3net 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, User:BlackStarRock was blocked a day for disrupting the SSP case. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cauzentrouble

Resolved

 – Indef (vandalism only account) Hesperian 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please block the bothersome vandal Cauzentrouble (talk · contribs)? I've listed him at WP:AIV, but reverting his nonsense is getting boring. Corvus cornix 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

revert warring at List of United States cities by population

Not knowing the topic of this featured list, I am totally lost as to the content dispute, and I doubt protecting will do any good, as user:Kaldari (which should really know better) is another admin. Circeus 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the war is 3 (three) not-tremendously-large cities which may or may not have been measured with parts of their surrounding counties by the US census bureau, all of which is explained in the article, so the only dispute is where to point the links from their names. Sheesh. For what it's worth, I think I agree with Kaldari, (we've got specific articles on the way the census bureau treats the city/county bit, we might as well use them) but the main danger I see is of this dispute getting into WP:LAME. You have been warned. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Sarvagnya. Plz. refer Telugu script and others

Please refer to Telugu script and other Telugu or Marathi related articles, for possible cases of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry against the above user, for circumventing WP rules.

Plz. also see the page for reports, for checking User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete this thread as nonsense. But I wont. You are the one who has violated 3RR on that article and going against consensus of multiple editors. I have even reported you and you should be blocked soon. Until then, carry on with your nonsense.

ps - can any admin please take action here Sarvagnya 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete this thread without reason. This is unrelated to your 3RR complaint against me.People have had enough of the notorious "editor gang," plaguing painstakingly-done projects on Telugu, Marathi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and umpteen number of other articles. I think it is high time that the "gang" and others of its ilk be exposed, for greater good, come what may. I know that I haven't wronged and have challenged the gang's hegemony. If the latter is a mistake I'm ready to accept any possible action, including a permanent block.

No sensible admin would blindly do whatever you say, without going into the merits & demerits and understanding the problem fully. It is beyond doubt that some users, have greatly undermined WP's purpose, by imposing their fanatical ideas upon countless number of helpless users and wasted countless precious man-hours with petty politics/ideas.

Mind your language and note that you have no business to use uncivil language against me. Despite all the animosity (which I'm sure there is) I haven't ever used a word in your fashion. I strongly suggest that you read WP:CIVIL.--Altruism^{To talk} 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How can we refer to something if there are no diffs to show any wrongdoing? Bakaman 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Altruism, How silly can you get trying to accuse of sock puppetry and such. Either you are new to wiki or you are being instigated to lodge this complaint and hence playing to an audience. The fact you mention articles unrelated to you (Marathi/Maharashtra) implies this.Dineshkannambadi 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Altruism: What is your point here, anyway? Are you trying to escape from WP:3RR violation you have made in Telugu script? Without the supporting diffs please do not make allegations on other users, which is often considered as personal attack. "Please refer to this, this and this articles for possible cases of Sockpuppetry" - What does this statement convey?

"Circumventing WP rules"?? Which rules? Can you please explain with the diffs. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Punch Bowl

I would appreciate someone taking a look at this article, which has a sizable section about my editing of the article, violating WP:SELF. I don't want to get into an edit war; I am sensitive about the subject because it was one of the things that led to my stepping down as an admin. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. There's absolutely no point to it being in there other than an attack. It does not add to the article in any way. It is, at best, useless trivia. Metros 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)