Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive291

Block review User:Fourdee

Resolved

 – Block overturned by blocking admin and apology delivered to editor. --ElKevbo 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to post this block for review by other admins. I have indef'ed Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had been causing various problems (vandalizing User:El C and User:AlanD's user pages); he managed to out himself as a sockpuppeteer using Waffen Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by signing as WW while logged in as Fourdee [1], and Waffen Wiki was blocked earlier over the Slrubenstein thing and identified as a sockpuppet of Hayden5650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had some contentious discussions with Fourdee over his actions on El C's userpage and subsequently, however, I believe that this is a clear sockpuppeteer catch and block. But as I had some arguments with him, I wanted to list it here for review. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 06:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that Fourdee signed as Waffen Wiki once, I'm going to assume that you're all the same person, and you just successfully outed another one of your socks... I've indef'ed Leibstandarte Phral Phralter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Any others you want to admit to while we're at it? Georgewilliamherbert 07:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The diff you have doesn't show the whole story. Waffen Wiki left that note on User:KarenAER's talk page and it was reverted by another user diff. Fourdee then restored the comment diff, which is what you cite above. It looks like Fourdee was trying to revert what he perceived as vandalism. (non-admin) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.... gotcha. My bad. Hold on. Georgewilliamherbert 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee is unblocked and I have apologized on his talk page for the mistake. Thank you for catching that, Flyguy649. Georgewilliamherbert 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity

Resolved

I did decline an unblock template, if someone could review here. Regards, Navou ^banter 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me... Georgewilliamherbert 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One look at the contributions page... yep, vandalism only account. Sandstein 07:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're sane. (I really shouldn't be commenting since I blocked the user) Marked as resolved. --DarkFalls ^;talk 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

Resolved

See ElminsterAumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His first edit (this evening) was to falsely report Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3RR. Many/most of his edits were simply to undo Eyrian's edits. When confronted, he accused Eyrian of vandalism. I have blocked ElminsterAumar as a harassment-only account. He is almost certainly somebody's sock puppet. Please review and feel free to reduce if you feel appropriate. --B 07:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request declined and block endorsed. Consistently disruptive and aggressive behaviour, spoiling for fights, sockpuppety flavour. Sandstein 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --B 07:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant sock of John Doe. Well done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets attempting to control the Alice Bailey article

I am involved in an editing situation that involves several editors who I believe are meatpuppets. I have been hoping to resolve the editing conflict, that has been raging on out of control for some time, through compromise; but it seems that they take my offers as an indication of weakness.

I have no idea of how to present this request for help to the administrators, and I am hampered by my admittedly poor computer skills, so if you could indicate the proper course of action I would appreciate it. Thank you. Kwork 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Article about admins blocking others through new tool on MSN.com

I know it's not exactly an incident as such, but I've just noticed this article [2] on the front page of MSN.com just now. It talks about a new tool and how it stops vandals. Strange that we're actualyl getting picked out for a good thing, there again it mentions the controversy we've been involved in.... Davnel03 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are a couple of weeks late. See WikiScanner. There have already been several COI/incident reports related to or about it, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hakozen

Hakozen (talk · contribs) User is being disruptive again; and making silly remarks on peoples talk pages. --Vonones 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This user seems totally incapable of not edit warring. I'm seeing multiple pages where he immediately runs up to 3 reverts, then stops. He was also just blocked for harasssing other users, and now he appears to be baiting other users who he's in a disagreement with. This is getting ridiculous, especially since he doesn't discuss his edits, and shows no desire to. -_Haemo 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose another block, maybe a longer one or indef. He is just stirring up random trouble which should not be tolerated. --Vonones 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely looks like a block is in order. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of blocking somebody for 24 hours after they just came off a 31 hour block and went back to the exact same behavior? Corvus cornix 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

Someone keeps vandalising my talk page with rude remarks. He/she edits my userpage and then pretends to be me and says "by the way, i forgot to sign in". The following IP addresses are being used by this person:

121.44.35.202 121.44.67.84 121.44.110.7 121.44.93.108 202.148.228.19 121.44.18.250

I would like to request that my userpage be semiprotected. Thanks. Nikkul 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Requests for page protectionRlevse 03:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected--Húsönd 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm too ignorant to do it myself, but if this pest can be rangeblocked, I wish somebody would. He seems determined to harass Nikkul, and there are other ways of doing it than by editing N's userspace. Look at this edit to one of the IP's own pages, for instance. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

"Ron Luce is an atheist" intermittent vandal

79.75.246.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - new anon putting "... during secret filming by a CNN film crew as part of the three-part documentary God's Warriors, founder Ron Luce admitted that he was in fact an atheist, and that the Battle Cry Campaign was “a great way to make a whole heap of money out of the dumb and ignorant masses" into Teen Mania Ministries, Ron Luce, and Battle Cry Campaign. Anon offers a cite to a CNN page, but it's the promotional page for a six-hour CNN series, without sufficient detail to find the source. Reverted by six editors, but anon keeps restoring material. Also a personal attack in Talk:Nagle's algorithm, which I didn't create or edit but mentions something I developed. Anon warned three times. Previously reported in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but editing stopped for a few hours, so no block: "(No edits by user since 18:08, warnings issued 19:36. Can this be removed and returned if ip starts over? LessHeard vanU 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC))"

Ron Luce is a prominent member of the militant wing of the religious Christian right. If he said something like that to CNN, it would be big news, and there would be no problem finding a reference. The CNN show has been widely reviewed in the press without any mention of this.[5][6][7]

I'd first thought this was just silly vandalism, but the anon appears to be serious about it. Anon editor claims a conspiracy against him ("It appears that the “Evangelical warriors” are keen to hide these well referenced facts."[8]).

--John Nagle 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, looks like run-of-the mill attack vandalism with a reverse psychology twist. If he keeps this up (it's been some hours now since the last edit) you can report him to WP:AIV or to me, if you want to, to get him blocked. Sandstein 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Others please keep an eye on this; I'm moving and will be offline for a day or two. --John Nagle 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch too, since I didn't catch them last time. LessHeard vanU 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious User

BaldDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Possible single-purpose account. Only contributions have been to AFD debates. Rather odd. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows that BaldDee and KennethStein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) use the same residential IP and BaldDee is quite likely to either be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet brought in to vote on these, many of which are AFDs on KennethStein's articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Should his votes be discounted then? New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be noted on the AfD/DRV pages and let the closing admin make that determination. Corvus cornix 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

I added a request for citation on that article Duke Georg Borwin of Mecklenburg to show that he is known or even uses the title Count of Carlow User:Charles removed it without providing a citation [9]. Unfortunately this is not the first time he has acted in this way [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

Even when a attempt at a neutral edit is made he reverts again without any citations to support his claim.[24][25][26]

He has even removed other peoples request for citation's while in the same edit adding his own to push his own pov that Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia is the head of the royal house which is disputed by Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia who claims he is the head of the house. [27] For instance here he adds citation requests to suit his own pro Maria Vladimirovna pov.[28] Here he adds a request for citation [29] I provided the citation but now he doesn't accept it [30] in spite of the fact that I've tried to explain to him that Almanach de Gotha recognising him as the head of the Imperial House of Romanov is a fact because it clearly does. This is not a statement saying he IS the head of the houase just that the Almanach de Gotha regards him as such.

I did my best to make the Imperial Russian articles neutral I'm now attempting to make the Royal Mecklenburg articles neutral. Like I said at the beginning I added a citation request on the article Duke Georg Borwin of Mecklenburg to show that he is known or even uses the title Count of Carlow. His opinion on who is the heir the Mecklenburg Grand duchies can be found at Talk:Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia and he is of the opinion that all the Mecklenburg dynasts are dead and that Georg Friedrich is the heir and Georg Borwin is morganatic. In my effort to make the Mecklenburg articles neutral on the pretender article I changed the Royal House from Carlow to Mecklenburg and I provided citations that he belongs to and is even head of the House of Mecklenburg on Talk:Pretender but he does not recognise/acknowledge them. I hope this the right place to post as all I want to do is present the articles in a fair and neutral way and I'm finding it very frustrating that someone is trying to impose there pov on the articles. - dwc lr 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, the reverts of previous material came up with an issue with a previous user who used a number of meatpuppets and sockpuppets in order to harass me and insert some serious POV in the articles. The reversion of "some considered ... to be the last male dynast" was because even Nicholas Romanov himself admits that he is not a dynast, but has assumed basically an equivalent position in his view that someone must represent the imperial family. The Gotha DWC LR cites for the Russian and Carlow/Mecklenburg articles is not reputable or reliable at all, as noted by Guy Stair Sainty and Noel S McFerran, among others. The fact is that there is no proof of George Borwin being a dynast. He can't be titled the Duke of Mecklenburg because by treaty that belongs to the Prussians. It is not my personal opinion on the matter at all. The reverts to the Mecklenburg article are coming because DWC LR cannot wait for his RM on the article to go through or end and it isn't going the way he wants to see it. Anyone may note that my postings at George Frederick of Prussia's article are an analysis of what is known about the Mecklenburg situation. Addressing the name of the house, again, there aren't any reliable citations to say so. A morganaut is not a member of a dynastic house and cannot be reincluded (by treaty) without the consent of all dynasts. I am not pushing a POV, but only what is known. Until there was a source for the style of Highness, it was removed, but now there apparently is one so it is there. The same can hold true if a valid source for the headship is found. Charles 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise all parties to resolve the issue via talk and WP:DR; there is no admin intervention necessary until 3RR has been broken. I'd also strongly advise Charles to try to do less revert warring; we have relevant procedures (mentioned in DR, as well as WP:RM for renaming articles) that can produce an enforable result. Revert warring can also lead to protection of article, which can be quite annoying if the article is in middle of expansion and only a small part of it is disputed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A strange sock

Resolved

Recently, Sockpuppet, permitted by WP:SOCK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported to WP:UAA for his username. Later, he stated that he was a sockpuppet, and that the account was to be used to make "controversial posts" so that these edits were not linked to his main account. WP:SOCK, specifically WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors, prohibits the use of "good hand, bad hand" accounts. I told him this, but he disagrees. He should be blocked on these grounds, or at least as a violation of the username policy. If names like Troll05 are blocked, so should this one. Please forgive me if I am wrong. --Boricuaeddie 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs later, I am clearly permitted to create other accounts to keep heated issues in one place. As I am proposing controversial Wikipedia policies, and as I've been around long enough to see what happens to editors (rightly or wrongly) who have had opposing viewpoints, I've decided to stay anonymous. Sockpuppet, permitted by WP:SOCK 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing his contributions, the purpose of this account is to create a page listing those who are barred by a court from editing sites like Wikipedia. That may not be a good idea, but if it is, it's certainly reasonable to not want such activities linked to a real-life identity, if his main account is so linked. -Amarkov moo! 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you could simply have chosen a non-sock related name and noted on your user page that you were a sock of some mysterious user... As it stands, some may consider your choice name to qualify as an inappropriate username. --Iamunknown 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm struck by this sentence: If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action. Seems to me that he's okay, under that one. I truly don't think I have an issue with it. - Philippe | Talk 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the editor should be able to edit under a sock account, I guess my main concern is the user name. My first reaction when I saw it was, "Zomg a sock!" I just came here to find out what it was. At any rate, I fear the choice of user name may cause unnecessary drama and disruption. --Iamunknown 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think of it as a "call a spade a spade" moment. He's a sock, he's self-identifying as such. I dunt care. But maybe that's just me. - Philippe | Talk 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say let the user change his username. Hydrogen Iodide 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that, too, but he doesn't want to [31]. --Boricuaeddie 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to Amarkov's point, I'm fascinated/troubled by the misnomer "Wikipedia bans" as te article appears to be nothing more than a (short) list of convicted pedophiles who've been stripped of all internet access, not specifically Wiki.--Sethacus 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Has been changed to 'Heart Attack' now SGGH ^speak! 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, all sorted, and I think we've all agreed that WP:SOCK isn't being violated. Night all! Heart Attack 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

In response to two posts at my user talk I have full protected Matthew Hill and David Davis for one week.[32][33] Although I don't edit either page, I am in some sense an involved party. So requesting the attention of other Wikipedians for impartial perspective.

Last month I wrote a piece for the online publication Search Engine Land and inadvertently broke a story that became statewide news in Tennessee.

• My column
• The news.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]...plus a few others.

Requesting some completely uninvolved parties to take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matthew_Hill and take appropriate action. I've recused myself from doing any more than page protection. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain why...

...when I go to British six pence coin (Which doesn't exist), I'm allowed to create the articel, but pressing "Save page", I get returned to the usual "Create an account or log in" page? Either the edits need to be committed, or the inconsistency fixed. 68.39.174.238 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Such questions belong on the help desk, sorry. Either way, British six pence coin is a redirect to British sixpence coin and should stay that way. Sandstein 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to be logged in to create new pages. Sasquatch t|c 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but why, all of the sudden, did it act as though I could create a page? I can still get the invitation to "...start a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it." 68.39.174.238 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hynosadist - more THF.

Resolved

Hypnosadist (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly that his constant sniping at other editors and attempts to edit other editors' comments. He continues to accuse editors of violating WP:HARRASS, and he appears to be getting more and more hysterical - according to his interpretation, I may not even mention THF edits Wikipedia at all! On a page which lists his username. Apparently even replying to Hypnosadist now constitutes harrassment. I've never even mentioned THF's username and real name in the same sentence! Hynposaidts is now calling for the blocking of both David Shankbone and Cyde so they can't revert his changes of their comments, even on their userpages, something I think we can agree is not on. He is also becoming more and more incivil and accusing editors of attacking THF because of their political views, for which absolutely no evidence has been given. He seems to think that just saying two editors are harrassing is enough to make people believe him - he has posted [41] in various forms all over Wikipedia since yesterday and shows no signs of stopping.

THF himself has asked Hypnosadist to cease his accusations, but he has ignored him. I think that says it all about how much Hypnosadist is actually thinking anymore about what he is doing. If it is reaching the point where Hypnosadist is attacking other editors for the sheer crime of having a memory and trying to build an accurate encyclopedia (because my comment was made so we could verify a claim THF has now happily disproven on his talkpage), I suggest he be blocked so the rest of us can get on with it and not worry about being accused of harrassment for the dreadful sin of having eyeballs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

His repeated accusatory posts on my talk page are mildly annoying, but I can put up with them. His edit warring is profoundly unhelpful, to the extent that I wonder is he deliberately trying to make things worse for harassment victims by annoying the people who might otherwise support them. However, the insistence of others to gratuitously link to the user rename logs when a user has requested that references to his real name should no longer be made strike me as more irresponsible. ElinorD (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever, because you don't enforce your own policies. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with ElidorD that Hypnosadists motives appear to be possibly suspect, since THF (the "injured party") is among those who requested the campaign be stopped in the general interest. I, however, do have no idea what Hypnosadists reasons are, other than the expressed desire for action on his interpretation of WP:HARASS, and am unwilling to speculate per WP:AGF, but I feel that he is coming periously close to WP:SOAP in his campaign. I am beginning to wonder if a short block would allow Hypnosadist the opportunity to catch that film (and maybe order a pizza) that Jimbo suggested? Providing it is done without prejudice to Hypnosadist rejoining the debate on the interpretation of the various policies (within the WP:CIVIL guidelines, of course) I think that this may defuse the situation. LessHeard vanU 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognize I have no ability to force anyone to stop gratuitously throwing my name around when it is not needed, and I recognize that Hypno is being disruptive, and I've asked him to stop. But I make a polite request to Dev920 under WP:CIVIL to not use my real name when not needed. This is a dispute with another user, and there was no reason to throw my name around five separate times. I do note that Hypno's point that several users are attacking me for my off-wiki political views is accurate. THF 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that a request to refer to a user by his user name instead of his real name should be automatically granted. That's so obvious that I don't understand why we even have to think about it. ElinorD (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Until you decided to change all my references to your name, there was no indication that you and your real name were the same person. In fact, I used your real name because I've linked to the talkpage of the article on you, and I was trying to give you privacy. You've now linked your username to the article on you. Well done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the same first impression as THF - that you were gratuitously using his name - until I re-read it and realized that in this case you were only referecing his true identity with no mention of his username. Perhaps THF also missed that subtle point on his initial reading. ATren 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF require us to honour THF's request for referring to him by his now preferred identity, except where disclosure of THF's previously advertised identity is germane to considerations of the application of policy/rules/guidelines, etc.. Contributors here need only to be certain that they are using the real life identifying name appropriately, and default to the preferred username otherwise. LessHeard vanU 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know THF's identity isn't a secret. If there is a content dispute about an article and people want to discuss the article, use the article name. If someone wants to talk about my activity on Wikipedia, as Dev did in discussing my talk-pgae comment to Hyp, please use my username for my own idiosyncratic reasons. Since I will have no activity editing my own article, there should be no reason to use both at once. THF 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have been impossible to file this report without mentioning both Hypnosadist's edits to your article talkpage and your message to Hypnosadist. You will note I conspicuously failed to link to a diff on Hypnosadist's page. This was because I was trying to keep your username separate from your real name. You have now completely screwed up that attempt. Why should I even bother to try if you are sabotaging even those who are trying to respect your privacy? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am irrational, but I think it's a different violation of privacy if JQD is shown to be John Q. Doe ([[John Q. Doe|JQD]]) than if John Q. Doe is shown to be JQD ([[User:JQD|John Q. Doe]]), and if a violation of privacy can't be avoided, I'd prefer the use of the first than the second so that THF appears on the page. Call it a weird quirk. THF 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, call it a quirk. But your attempt to smear me as incivil for making an honest attempt to strike a way between your demands for privacy and your exposure of your own name (and your hijacking of yet another thread that had nothing really to do with you in the first place) has lost you all respect as far I'm concerned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my request was poorly phrased and that I misunderstood you, or I would have clarified sooner. I meant it as a request going forward, not as an accusation of wrongdoing. I was surprised to have my real name popping up on my watchlist on a thread that had nothing to do with me. THF 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• He has become a stalker and serial harasser. He has been asked repeatedly by all sides to disengage. He lends nothing to arguments, and actually harms the side he argues for. --David Shankbone 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For clarification, you mean Hypnosadist, not THF, no? --Iamunknown 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes, yes Hypno, not THF. I never felt that way about THF. --David Shankbone 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Hypnosadist, regardless of disagreement over whether it is policy (right to vanish generally only applies to those who intend to actually leave the site), just having one's account renamed is only a very superficial means of anonymity. Anyone at all could easily find his identity by reviewing his contribution history or by any number of other means. This being said, I don't think we need to gratuitously deny that protection, flimsy as it may be, by putting links to the rename log or using his real name when he has requested otherwise. But regardless, Hypnosadist, you're drawing more attention to that by edit warring over it, not less. You've made your point; if you believe someone is acting inappropriately, ask that it be looked into instead of continuously reverting or editing others' comments. If you continue to do so after being told repeatedly that it's disruptive and inappropriate, you'll end up blocked, and no one wants to see that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to Hypnosadist's user page, where he states: "This user thinks Wikipedia is a battlefield he just obeys the rules of war and so should you." His behavior in light of this statement is troubling, & I wonder if he should be blocked. -- llywrch 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point a block would be punitive rather than preventative. The comment on his user page is very enlightening in the context of the past several days. I thought to myself, and I am sure others did too, that Hypnosadist seemed to merely be fighting a battle. That said, hopefully this pattern of behavior will change, and a block will no longer be necessary. Time will tell. --Iamunknown 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm in agreement with you. I've rarely seen blocks work as intended, but I thought it should at least be mentioned here so it could be dismissed. Maybe someone can convince him to at least remove that motto from his user page. BTW, I tried to convince him to step away & take a mini-Wikibreak, but he didn't like the idea. :-/ llywrch 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To follow-up on an alleged COI on THF's part, see WP:COI/N#Sicko; to follow-up on the biographical article ... you know where that is, and I will apparently be smeared if I link it; and to follow-up on any outstanding user conduct issues, there are talk pages and user conduct RfCs. In the meantime, may I suggest that this particular discussion be resolved? Not archived with archive templates, because I don't like that, but just discontinued? Because it seems like the issues Dev920 (rightly) brought here are now somewhat, if tenuously, resolved. --Iamunknown 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More lame troubles thrown at the face of Wikipedia. I am sorry Hypno but i have to say it very clearly this time. If people are into some kind of COI, when that would create a bad atmosphere, it is suggested they would try to get a break away from the articles they are connected to regardless of how neutral they are because their involvement is harming Wikipedia and its regular process. Think about Wikipedia so Wikipedia can think about you. Thousands of Wikipedians, i presume, would not accept to be pointed out to and described as censurers especially when it comes to a case where someone who defended X used their privileges as editors to seek a ban on a known site belonging to one of their X opponents! Simple as that. Think about Wikipedia first before thinking about yourselves. I don't want to be called a censurer for that. You could argue and tell me that their edits are totally legit and neutral but still the problem are not only concentrated on your edits but the core of the problem is this total mess. You were being told that there is no consensus to blacklist that particular site for the many reasons given, so please stop this drama. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Can someone do this for me? Regards, Navou ^banter 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. - auburnpilot talk 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Khampalak Blocked

User:Khampalak was reported some time ago for issues regarding personal attacks. The personal attacks identified were this and this. I had a lengthy discussion with this user and I withheld myself from blocking to give him another chance. He once again has violated WP:NPA by posting this. I issued a 48 hour block immediately but after looking over the attack once more I noticed a certain part of it may be considered a death threat (i.e. you will be put out of your misery...). This may elevate the block to indefinite but I still believe it wouldn't hurt to get the opinions of others rather than assuming.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that last personal attack is enough for an indefinite block, which I have done. But if anyone else disagrees, feel free to revert my decision. ugen64 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over fair use images in "List of ..." article.

At List of Akatsuki members, there are 14 fair use images. Per WP:NFCC and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, the use of fair use images must be minimal. This has been enforced across the project in a number of ways, including the removal of such images from discographies, episode lists, videographies, and more. I've attempted to explain the issue at Talk:List_of_Akatsuki_members#So_all_the_images_go_bye-bye, and an administrator has chimed in on the subject concurring with the removals. Despite this, the images are routinely re-inserted into the article. I've removed the images three times over the last two days, and they continue to be re-inserted. The edit war is senseless, my attempts at communicating the subject have fallen on deaf ears, and the the images keep being pushed onto the article in violation of policy and Foundation resolution. I'd like an administrator to please review the above, including the article and the talk page, and if they concur with my position to remove the images again and leave a warning on the talk page of the article. Thank you, --Durin 12:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per our policy, the "minimal use" would be one image per character on the list, because this is not a single article (cf the title), it's actually 12 or so conflated into one because they don't warrant individual articles. Circeus 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• This has been debated before. Your interpretation is not supported by the conclusions of those debates. --Durin 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is the problem with having images on "List of..." articles? They add to what are otherwise plain and droll articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidShankBone (talk • contribs) 15:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

• We are a free content encyclopedia. Simply because something looks pretty does not mean we include it. --Durin 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Should these characters be notable enough (I somewhat doubt they are) I don't see why one would not have an image for each. Just because the title is formatted "list of" doesn't mean it's the same situation we've faced with things like List of episodes, etc. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• If they're not notable enough for their own article, why are they even on a "List of ..." article? Merge to main article and stop worrying about this. --Durin 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should clarify. If they are notable enough then I can understand including a picture. Whether they are in an individual article or a combined article doesn't really matter, since there can be many factors in that don't directly involve notability or importance. Like I said, I doubt they are notable enough for a picture, or even for the amount that is written about them. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, at least one person is indicating their intention to start an edit war to force the pictures back onto the article once protection has been removed from the article. See Talk:List_of_Akatsuki_members#The_Images_Are_What_People_Need. Wheeeeee! --Durin 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• This edit war has also spread to Tailed beasts, List of major Konoha teams, List of Konoha ninja, List of Naruto summons, Land of Wind, Land of Sound, and List of Naruto villains. --Durin 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KP Botany

Resolved

This user and I had a proper spat last night (the likes of which I havent had in a long time). Anyway after it was over, I apologised on her talk page for my part in the argument. This morning I go to see if she has replied and note that instead of replying she posted a woe is me type comment on the top of her talk page instead. What is worrying is the edit summary she used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KP_Botany&diff=153684409&oldid=153674060

I don't think that being upset with me means it is OK to personally attack another user who wasn't even involved in our argument. Can someone have a word? I cannot say anything to her myself as she clearly isn't ready to speak to me yet. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• her. Viridae^Talk 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Corrected Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

done. Navou ^banter 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• KPB has long-standing civility problems and a tendency to attack people that disagree with him. It's not just you, Theresa. >Radiant< 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • HER Viridae^Talk 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yep I looked through her recent contibutions to track down the pimp reference and saw that she has quite a few problems relating to others. However, I also saw that she is a prolific editor who makes plenty of good edits to the encylopedia. I wish she had taken Navou's warning on board rather than try to justify it though. There is no justification for personal attacks. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  When I read the editors response I thought the same, as I had also scanned the contributions. Navou ^banter 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fifteen-yard penalty for piling on. KP objected to the user name Chicago Pimp through appropriate channels, and a number of editors smacked her down, saying that she was too narrow-minded and that "pimp" had non-offensive meanings as well. As it turned out from a post the user made to his page ("Always keep the pimp hand strong"), he meant "pimp" in the classical sense, and he was asked to change his user name. So basically KP was alluding to an instance when she had been smacked down but was ultimately "vindicated" (although I'm sure it seems a hollow vindication to her).--Curtis Clark 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. So disagreeing with KP = smack her down, and my apology = her vindication, and three people concerned = pile on? Interesting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here wants to see this editor get put in the hurt locker. Everyones mind is on the project here. Navou ^banter 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig's abusive use of socks per CheckUser

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

Further comments regarding user:Isarig should be made at WP:CSN#Isarig -- Avi 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Isarig (confirmed). User:Isarig, a long-time Wikipedia revert warrior/POV-pusher, has been found to have used at least two sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR on hotbed Israel-related articles. I am seeking a much more stern block of him and his two CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets, User:Clintonesque and User:Teens!. This kind of conduct from Isarig has gone on for two years, enough is enough. He has been blocked for periods of up to one week for his unapologetic and repeated edit warring, yet he only gets 48 hours for doing the exact same behavior plus using sockpuppets? Italia^vivi 16:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:WJBscribe has stepped the block up to one week. This seems spot on, to me. --Deskana (apples) 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could have raised this on my talkpage you know before coming here. You're quite right that I didn't factor in his previous blocks for edit warring. I have now extended the block to 1 week to take that into account. At the moment I don't propose to block User:Teens! as I see no disruption using that account. They haven't tag-team reverted or commented in the same discussions so no votestacking either. If someone shows how Teens! has been used disruptively it can be indefblocked. WjBscribe 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He has already received a week block; aren't blocks supposed to escalate? I have watched this user (without any sign of remorse or reform) continue his behavior for two years straight, with little consequence or action to make him cease. When he finally realized that he wasn't going to get away with 3RR on his main anymore, he immediately switched to using a sockpuppet! He is adapting his techniques to avoid or violate policy. I apologize for not using your Talk page WJB, but I have been told that block discussions belong at AN/I in the past and came here. Italia^vivi 16:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems unreasonable to block for longer than a week for this, to me. --Deskana (apples) 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that blocks are supposed to escalate, especially when factoring in past blocks and incidents. His most recent block (before this one) was one week, and I would think that 3RR with socks should be a pretty clear sign of no remorse. Italia^vivi 17:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be protective for the encyclopedia not punitive. A one week block is sensible in this case, to allow the user to consider his behaviour and think about the use of socks to win edit wars. If this re-occurs, he can be blocked for longer next time - one week is quite a substantial block length for an established user. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is already a re-occurrence following a one-week block. He was blocked one week for edit warring, and after returning from that block decided to edit war with socks. I am asking why the block did not escalate in this case. Italia^vivi 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was unblocked two days early from his previous one-week block "contingent on you (Isarig) not resuming your edit warring." What does it say when a user who tries (successfully) to get unblocked early by promising to cease edit warring returns to his edit warring practices through evasive means? Italia^vivi 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to twist the situation, he's not got off lightly at all. He's been blocked for a week for using sockpuppets abusively. You seem to be seeking an indefblock? Right now it's just making you look like you have some sort of vendetta. I suggest you drop this matter, since your continued pushing for a block extension isn't portraying you in a good light at all. --Deskana (apples) 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am "twisting the situation." His last block was one week, and he was let off early with the stipulation that he cease his edit warring. After agreeing to cease and being unblocked, he immediately went to edit warring with a sockpuppet. Blocks should escalate -- he previous was one week, so this one should be... ? I have laid out the facts here as clearly and neutrally as possible, only to have you accuse me of a "twisting the situation" and "vendetta," which is a pretty unwarranted assumption of bad faith. Please, Deskana, address my actual arguments instead of trying to make this about the editor. Italia^vivi 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this "twisting a situation"? This is Isarig's modus operandi. I've had a 3RR block courtesy of Isarig's Juan Cole smears myself in the past. After a two-year campaign of edit wars on political articles to this effect, why on Earth would seven days off be expected to have a preventative / corrective effect on his behaviour? Chris Cunningham 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see anything that would warrant a block extension. If he does it again, he'll get another longer block. We're not out to punish the guy. --Deskana (apples) 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He's already been given a one-week block for the same behavior, though. He did do it again, is what I am trying to communicate. If he has already been given a one-week block, and blocks escalate, what should the next duration be? Not another one-week, I would think. Italia^vivi 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If he does it again, he'll get a longer block. I still see no reason to overturn WJBscribe's block for a longer one. --Deskana (apples) 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That blocks escalate, and he has already been given a one-week? Why should the block not escalate for this particular case, is what I am asking. Italia^vivi 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected, but one week here does not seem nearly enough. Isarig has been blocked six or seven times for revert warring, and to my knowledge spends a large amount of his time on the 3RR board insisting that others be blocked after he reverted three times. I've routinely seen people blocked much more than a week for using sockpuppets simply for block evasion, an act which doesn't specifically harm Wikipedia in any way. Here, he's created a sockpuppet for the most damaging reason, not just to let him continue to edit war himself, but to completely get around the 3RR limit in order to keep his version of an article. The fact that he's an experienced editor, in my view, makes this much worse. When he has already been blocked for a week simply for 3rr violations, this is actually less than he would receive even for that. I would expect at least a month for something like this, or some comparable period, as his next 3RR violation would have been anyway. Wikipedia doesn't need to be punitive, but it does need to let people know that using sockpuppets to evade our policies is one thing you are not allowed to do. Mackan79 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In July I started an edit war with admin User:Humus sapiens at Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. At 21:58 humus violated 3rr; 11 minutes later he self-reverted; five minutes later Isarig showed up to make exactly the same edit. I believe that Isarig's actions are part of a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. He should be watched closely and perhaps sent to WP:MENTOR, because past history would seem to show that he does not take blocking alone as an opportunity to reform. (If anyone cares to muddy the waters please note that I immediately ceased edit warring after my own 3rr block; according to the blocking admin, "since I blocked him last week, Eleland has done nothing but remain civil and try to discuss the situation") Oh yeah, also this should have been posted on CSN given the content. Eleland 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Encouraging sockpuppetry! How come one who has been blocked several times for 3RR and extensive edit warring has been given a sensible 1 week block? And worse, indeed. Admins are suggesting that if he does it again it would be longer. So for it to happen again you have to go through CheckUser and if italia would do request a possible another one he would be accused of phishing and probably HARASS. Faulty judgments. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be about winning content disputes by settling old scores. Isarig's socks are not funny, but a one week block for his account is perfectly reasonable. --tickle me 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The block may have been somewhat light but that was the discretion of the blocking admin. A permanent block would be entirely inappropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeking indefblock of sockpuppet User:Teens!

Isarig has used his User:Teens! account abusively to support his participation on several articles/Talk pages including Juan Cole, House demolition, and 2006 Lebanon War. Note especially the use of this sock at 2006 Lebanon War in the extremely controversial revert war over using the phrase "captured" or "kidnapped" to describe hostage-taking in the conflict (bonus points for the uncivil edit summary there accusing another editor of participating in taking hostages). This sockpuppet has been used to edit war and distort consensus; it should be indefblocked. Italia^vivi 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked User:Teens!. The account was used to edit 2006 Lebanon War on the same day as User:Isarig's account, and in the bigger picture, given Isarig's history and the controversial nature of both the topics he edits and the content of his particular edits, it's certainly not too much to ask that he limit himself to one account. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was also going to point to this diff if further evidence was needed. Italia^vivi 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) (Discalimer: No interaction with Isarig, so far as I know). I usually lurk, and don't say much, and much of what I have seen of Ryan's and Deskana's edits/comments I agree with --but not here. Using socks to get around 3rr and getting others in trouble for it-- coming off a 1 wk block and then using socks, this is ridiculous, and deserves a much longer block. R. Baley 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with User:R. Baley. This is not a new user who screwed up. Instead we have a long-term edit warrior with a number of prior blocks who is deliberately subverting Wikipedia policies in both letter and spirit. Such editors ought to be politely but firmly escorted to the exits so we can get on with the project. Raymond Arritt 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be noted that Isarig was a big instigator of the block on User:Will314159, which was forty-five days. The nature of the offense was different but it seems that Isarig's behavior here is far worse than the one word used by Will ("advise") that was interpreted as some sort of threat. For Isarig's behavior - which, as the two editors state above, included deliberate subversion of the rules as well as clamoring for enforcement of those same rules against others - a block of anything less than several months is a tacit endorsement of his abuses. I now am frankly suspect of every interaction I have had with Isarig, especially those where another user mysteriously appeared just in time to save the day (hence my comment below about User:Bigglove). If this user is allowed back on wikipedia at all he should be closely watched and he should be blocked from articles where he has committed the abuses. As someone who has had many unpleasant interactions with Isarig in the past, I don't speak as a neutral outside observer, but nevertheless I have watched his behavior for over a year now and I am repeatedly astonished that his abuses are not reigned in, even (especially!) as he continues to invoke Wikipedia policy left and right to get other users blocked. csloat 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on the community sanction noticeboard regarding a topic ban or siteban for Isarig; uninvolved editors and admins may wish to comment there. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppetry & User Bigglove

I posted a suspected sock puppets on Bigglove, who I thought was Quaiqu returning after "disappearing." After reading the above, I wonder if Bigglove is another of Isarig's sockpuppets. If someone is doing checkuser on these accounts they might want to look at User:Bigglove as well. csloat 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Alex Kov unfairly blocked for socking that was done by another user

To start with, I think Alex Kov (talk · contribs) brought it upon himself by a combative attitude and I don't blame admins, but his week-long-block on an account of socking is an undeserved one. I am no friend of the fellow and recently brought his actions to the attention of this very board, see #Harassment, sockpuppetry, POV-pushing, trolling thread above. See also his #War no new-commers combative post.

Guilty of edit warring even past the 3RR, I think he should have been 24-hr blocked or at least warned (see diffs in the original thread), but I have no reasons to believe that Alex Kov has anything to do with the sock-master of two Zgoden-users Zgoden and Zgoden2.

I am 95+ % sure that the latter is another user, whose at least 6 (!) accounts are known to me as well as many IP's. If any admin wishes to know the names of Zgoden=master's other account I can nail down from the editing pattern, s/he would have to email me as I won't disclose them onwiki at this time.

Since the edit-war over Kievan Rus' now stropped, blocking Kov for it makes little sense. I think he've already got a strong message about WP:BATTLE. And whatever disruptive it all was, he has nothing to do with Zgoden from what I know.

His friend Hillock was also indef-blocked in the past under the similar injustice. No matter how much abuse I took from him (and definitely there will be more), they have nothing to do with those socking incidents.

Kov needs to be unblocked with the message in the log saying that someone else is responsible for the socking incident. --Irpen 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy was trolling for a block all week long. I don't know whether he is the sockmaster of Zgoden, but there is strong evidence that AlexKov avoided 3RR blocks editing as User:133.41.84.206 in the past. Please also review the history of Treaty of Pereyaslav. I believe we should consider imposing the community ban rather than a one-week block. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That 133 and 202 IP's are Alex Kov's is obvious, true. But two Zgodens is a user of a different stock. Kov's editing through 133/202 IP's rather than through an account, are aimed at causing annoyance in which he succeeds. I asked him to stop logging out and he refused and this is plain silly.

All I want to say is that Zgoden and Zgoden2 are not Alex Kov. I corrected the messages on the userpages of the blocked socks and request that Kov is acquitted of this issue only. I am no fan of him and he is certainly guilty of an overall disruption. If his trolling warrants a disruption block by your book, let so be, but the length should be re-evaluated and the accusation of deliberately abusive socking via Zgodens needs lifted by a proper entry in his block log. --Irpen 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, AlexKov has drained my plentiful resources of patience and forbearance. He has been waging a sterile revert war on Kievan Rus against everyone else who happened to cast his eyes on the page. When out of reverts, he would suddenly log in or log out.[42] [43] This is most disturbing. As for his relations with Zgoden, I advise you to investigate the matter in Ukrainian Wikipedia, where Hillock, AlexKov and others are known to have issued "calls to arms" aimed at recruiting crowds of revert-warriors for English Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I wanted to say is that Alex Kov and Zgoden-master are different editors. This is certain to me and if you need more info, send me an email.

As for the rest, please sort this out as you feel like. If the community opinion is that Alex Kov needs to remain blocked I certainly won't argue. It's just that the reason that needs to be re-adjusted then. He is no friend of mine as you can obviously see from several threads above at this very board. --Irpen 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have briefly commented on this matter at my talk. In short, I cannot see any compelling reason to lift Alex Kov's block. Sandstein 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue resolved

I quite agree that Alex Kov has been spoiling for a block with his edit warring, 3RR vios, and disruptive quarrelsomeness, which has worn out his victims, turned the Ukrainian talkpages into battle zones, and effectively put a stop to article improvement. However, after private communication with Irpen, I'm convinced Kov is not the sockmaster here, and I therefore intend to adjust Kov's block by one symbolic day — from 7 to 6 days — and change the block motivation from socking to edit warring etc. I hope this is acceptable, and that Kov gets the message. I also hope people take note of the integrity with which Irpen, one of the foremost targets of Kov's incessant personal attacks, has conducted himself in this affair. He's in no way trying to get a friend unblocked, just to do the right thing. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment: Thanks Bish, that's only fair. My motivation here, I repeat, was not sparing Kov from the block. I kinda had it with him. I simply feel that unjust convictions are wrong even for those guilty of other sins. I thoroughly endorse the block for disruption and have no opinion of its proper length. But I had a very firm evidence that Kov's disruption did not include the Zgoden-sockpuppetry including being able to identify the real puppeteer.

Re "private communication", as I made it known publicly, I am generally opposed to it when there is no compelling reason. Here we have a rare case when compelling reasons are present since the issue involves user-identifiable IP addresses. Although they are known to me from the open sources (disruptive edit warring from IP accounts), still their public uncovering would serve no good purpose. I felt that Bish, the person whose decency and reputation is beyond reproach, could be trusted to receive such info which I was reluctant to fully give out onwiki. --Irpen 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Evading a block?

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

No evidence provided. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam and User:The Behnam seems to be the same editor. Besides similar names, edit histories, etc..., User:Beh-nam even signs his name as Behnam [44]. Now, Beh-nam is blocked [45] but The Behnam keeps editing: [46] KarenAER 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam is a common Iranian name. Karen will you stop this and contribute to the encyclopedia constructively. All accusations, threatening to report others you don't LIKE makes it more difficult to concentrate on contributing to an encyclopedia. Oh, and there's also a User:Behnam. You are more distructive than constructive, by making all these reports that takes users away from editing, and having to defend themselves. I could report you for many infractions, but I don't. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)How are the edit histories the same? Have you found double-voting and editing the same article(s)? "Behnam" appears to be a common Iranian(?) name so it may be a coincidence. I've asked the unblocked account just the same. Jeeny, why the aggressive tone? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite possibly one of the worst sets of evidence I've ever seen linking two accounts together. User:Alison and User:AlisonW must be the same person, by that standard. --Deskana (apples) 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we expect all Wikipedia to recognize the common surnames used in Iran? I certainly don't, and had I seen this evidence I might have been a bit suspicious without that knowledge. ugen64 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To wknight94, my tone is not aggressive, although I can see that you could have sensed it as such, considering we are on the internet. It is frustration you are sensing, because this user continues to taunt, insult, and continues multiple reports to silence those who do not share her/his view. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, maybe similar edit histories was a wrong way to put it. But both users are interested at society/country related articles. The Behnam's most edited article is Iran. Beh-nam's is Afghanistan. The Behnam edits Kashmiri people a lot. Beh-nam edits Pashtun people a lot. The pattern I'm seeing in these: [47] and [48] and the similarity in the names makes me thing The Behnam and Beh-nam are the same person. The Behnam deals with Iran related articles while Beh-nam deals with Afghan related articles. The Behnam claims he's half Iranian [49], so I assumed he's half Afghan and created two nicks to categorize his edits. KarenAER 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, much more simply, these are two different people from the same area of the Middle East who happen to share the same name and each edits article subjects close to his location. That also makes sense, plus it avoids any conspiracy theory.--Ramdrake 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be 6 recorded Afghans [50] and 77 recorded Iranians [51] in Wiki. Some of those may not be included in those categories but the similarities in nicks are surprising. KarenAER 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you are jumping to conclusions. Maybe, just maybe, it's because the Persian language is an official language in both Iran and Afghanistan? That's like saying "wow, a lot of users in the USA and the UK have "David" in their usernames, how suspicious!" ugen64 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is Wiki English, so there are thousands of British and American users. But there seems to be few Afghan and Iranian people. So different odds. KarenAER 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ugen64, it's not just common to Iranians, but is common in the general area of the Middle East. Not just to Iran. It's usually a first name, not surname. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Had I not known that the names were common I, like Ugen64, would have been suspicious given the fact that sometimes socks do take on similar names, however even if I was suspicious - the fact that The Behnam's edits are all constructive would have put me off. KarenAER - the user is probably half American - by proof of the two categories: "Iranian Wikipedians" and "American Wikipedians".--danielfolsom 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In his page, it says He's a citizen of USA. So thats why he is in the American Wiki's category. Beh-nam may be an US citizen too. His native tongue, like The Behnam, is English. [52] [53]. Both users seem to edit war [54] [55]. I dunno, it seems suspicuous. Is there enough here for a checkuser? KarenAER 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Were they edit warring on the same pages? You need much stronger evidence than that. —Kurykh 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I suggest you drop the issue and reread WP:AGF. ugen64 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reading Family name, Behnam may not be a common Iranian/Afghan last name. KarenAER 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[56]. I was mistaken in calling it a "last name", which you would have noticed had you actually read the above discussion. ugen64 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to not sound aggressive. But, many, if not most, people in the Middle East can speak English. Sheesh. It's even taught in their schools at an early age. Too bad Americans that it's not mandatory to learn another language in the early years of education. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are taught English at school, it wouldnt be their native tongue. LOL. KarenAER 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A prior question is "are these 2 accounts in violation of WP:SOCK?" Why are we talking about locations, nationalities and stuff? Please give us some diffs. We'd verify those diffs and then admins can react. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER, just so you know, it is indeed possible for people to speak the same language. And to share a name. And to edit Southwest Asian articles. And to still not be the same person. If you have any evidence of sockpuppetry, please present it, but this is not evidence. Picaroon (t) 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread - it is quite amusing. No, of course I'm not Beh-nam, and I think that the hilarious weakness of Karen's evidence should show this. Apparently, KarenAER sought to attack me, but had nothing to work from, so attempted to find patterns where there are none. Obviously, it is hard to convince others of a pattern if there is no pattern - hence the "evidence" is so unconvincing.

To address the deal with the name, "Behnam" is a common Persian first name meaning "reputable" ("beh-" meaning 'good' and "nam" meaning 'name' - "good name").

I don't see anything more to add, though I'm willing to answer any other questions. Seeing this discussion it seems that nobody found Karen's claim credible. On a related note, I'm feeling a bit more motivated to work on another suspected sock page for KarenAER (talk · contribs) being Lukas19 (talk · contribs), especially with the new evidence that has turned up recently. I really shouldn't have to, though. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this section for any further developments. Cheers, The Behnam 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... these days you'd think the software would disallow a username so similar to an existing one, but the account must have been made a while back. After all, there's a guy (not me) named User:Mastcell who pre-dates my account... I just hope we never accidentally edit the same article. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would be useful, especially in cases like that where the case is the only difference. As for my name, I don't really think it is that similar to Beh-nam's, but I could understand someone not familiar with the name thinking them unusually similar (while not even blinking for various "similar" Dan usernames, because they are familiar). Of course, I know better than to think that Karen was really confused in this way - I have a thousand reasons not the AGF with "her" at this point. The Behnam 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too, my goodness, just because someone's native language is English does not mean they do not have an ethnic name, per se. Maybe his parents where immigrants, or his great grandparents. OMG, this is out of hand. I know many American's with "non-English" origins. Anyway, that may NOT be his real name, but in tribute to his roots. sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhmmm... so in conclusion no admin intervention needed. Wow this got off-topic quickly.--danielfolsom 05:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Anonymous legal threats create an impasse

We seem to have a bit of an impasse regarding Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has been locked since 8 August due to legal threats from 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who is quite possibly Monckton himself. This has left the article in a very unsatisfactory state with a number of unreferenced and highly slanted claims, some of which may not be accurate, or at least for which no evidence has been provided. The anon editor has also eliminated external links to published articles which he doesn't like, replacing them with the words (actually included in the text of the article!) "no spam or libels" - see the "External links" section. KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has been threatened for attempting to deal with the grossly POV editing by this anonymous editor (see e.g. [57]). However, the anon hasn't used the talk page at any stage and doesn't seem to be interested in dialogue - he appears to simply want to own the article and have it say only what he wants it to say.

This seems a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The quality of the article as it stands is horrible, and the anonymous editor quite clearly has no regard whatsoever for Wikipedia's standards of editing and conduct. Has anything been received on OTRS about this? There doesn't seem to be anything, but I'm aware that legal threats aren't always retained in the system. Also, why are we even tolerating an anonymous editor who behaves in this way? People have been banned for much less than this. I should add that this has already been raised at WP:BLPN but with no results; I've brought the issue here for wider discussion.

I'd suggest that the current full protection should be reduced to semi-protection and the anonymous editor - if it's Monckton - should be encouraged to resolve any issues through normal channels. He certainly shouldn't be encouraged to post unverified information and legal threats. Any thoughts on this? -- ChrisO 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone told him that making legal threats is grounds for being blocked? I have no idea if this has been tried, but if you tried a manual {{Reset}}ting, they wouldn't have much cause for making legitimate threats, and if they started doing so, you would be justified in warning and/or blocking them. 68.39.174.238 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did this back in December 2006, apparently to no effect. -- ChrisO 23:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the semi-protection. While this article had problems in the past (It looks as if material had been permanently removed, oversighted?, due to BLP concerns and then partially restored by Mackensen). Threats are unacceptable, and from the link Chris has above, the anonIP left the following edit summary, "Delete libels inserted by Kim Dabelstein Petersen. This is Wikipedia's last warning." There is also an edit (which is probably the same user, both resolve to London and have edited primarily this article) from June 6 with this summary, "Last attempt before legal action to prevent the continuing publication of serious libels." I think Chris is right in saying that semi-protection is the way to go in this case. R. Baley 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the protection level to semi-protected and attempted to make the article more neutral (but there is a long way to go). ugen64 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found myself on a protracted wiki-break, which explains but does not excuse my inattentiveness. I'm happy to let other editors handle the matter. I would point out that WP:LEGAL is ineffectual at best when the editor in question is not a Wikipedian but rather an external party, probably either Lord Monckton himself or a designated representative. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Direct him to OTRS where his legal complaint will be dealt with. When dealing with explicit legal threats, revert/redact, block, protect if necessary, inform the user to take his threat to OTRS, and ignore. Simple enough. (Use, of course, your discretion in situations where the above may not be appropriate). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

nice caveat SwatJ. . . my first smile today. R. Baley 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC?

I just found that Sethie has begun an RfC directed against me:

I have initiated a RFC/User on Kwork based primarily around his actions on the Alice Bailey page. Please feel free to add comments.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/kwork

Sethie 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there not supposed to be some formal process for this? I was not even notified on my user page. Kwork 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake but the Rfc seems legitimate and no reason to post here, yiou now know about it and no admoin intervention required, SqueakBox 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the request filed? Kwork 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/kwork is the link. — Scientizzle 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As indicated at the top of the specific RFC, a request has to get two certifiers before becoming listed. WP:RFC doesn't say when the subject is supposed to be notified, although I would interpret it to be at the time the RFC is created, so the subject knows that one has been created, even if it never gets certified.--Chaser - T 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork, please stop being dramatic. "Where can I find the request filed? Kwork 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)"

You have already posted to it and hour earlier! [[58]] Sethie 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am considering certifying myself, this thread doesnt help your cause Kwork though I will be fair at the end of the day and have almost 48 hours still to make my mind up. But while AAB may have been somewhat anti-semitic in some of her sayings (and was incredibly patronising) she wasnt rascist in the Hitler/white power sense of the word, indeed IMO she was a profound spiritual thinker. Check myy own user page and you'll get an idea of what I think of rascism, AAB certainly was no more critical of Jews than of black people but I am far from inclined to label her rascist. Now can we close this as my resolved template was reverted and I'd like to see consensus on closing this thread, SqueakBox 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, one who has not made efforts to resolve the relevant specific disputes with the editor about whom an RfC exists should not certify the RfC, although he/she may of course endorse the summary of the dispute authored by those certifying the basis for a dispute. Joe 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox has put in a lot of effort to resolve this situation, before (correct me if I am wrong here) he gave up. Sethie 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Squeakbox has put in a lot of effort to resolve this situation". When? I have no recollection of SqeakBox trying to resolve the situation. Perhaps Sethie could refresh my memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwork (talk • contribs) 18:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to get a reply from SqeakBox to my question, because the question involves the Alice Bailey article dispute, and he is directly involved in that dispute in opposition to me. I would appreciare it if someone neutral would reply to my guestions Kwork 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, and this seems a strange place for SqeakBox to be arguing the merits of Alice Bailey, I never compared her to Hitler. What I said is that her books contain many statements that are obviously antisemetic; and, seeing that her name is on the title page those books, that apparently reflects her views on Jews. I do not think it so much to ask that this be briefly recognized in the Wikipedia article about her. If SqeakBox, and some other editors of the article had been willing to concede that small amount there would have been no argument. All I wanted to see was is one or two sentences on that. Kwork 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User Griot and Ralph Nader article

I think it is rather apparent that User Griot and certain familiars, such as Users Astruc, Mikesmash, 71.139.7.89, 71.139.18.27, with unnatual number of close associations to articles he frequents and his political views, are attempting to WP:OWN this page. From what can be gathered of discussions the Talk page, a resolution was achieved but is not being adhered to by the users mentioned above. Thank you in advance, your attention to the matter is appreciated. SquidSwim 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow........no. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SquidSwim, and edit history, am seeing this quite obvious fact too. 76.87.44.173 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Badger Vandal

Some of you have dealt with this guy recently and all his various sockpuppets. Well, he used his IP address to continue his harassment. Using DNSSTUFF, it appears that the IP adress is assinged to one person [59]. Even the abuse reports should be ostensibly sent to the same person [60]. I gave the IP a 24 hour block. Should it be lengthened if all this sockpuppetry stems from a single user? IrishGuy ^talk 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try contacting his employer. I would err on the side of caution; it is possible that the name on record for registration and contact is not the person doing the vandalism. In other words, try contacting him first with the "someone editing from..." form as per usual; then if he blows you off you can go up the chain. All of which is a lot of bother and I would completely understand if you feel it isn't worth the effort. All that said, as regards your question: if he continues to vandalize, heck yes keep blocking for increasing periods of time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is there appears to be eight of us that he really enjoys harassing. Being one of the eight he goes after, I don't feel comfortable giving him my email address if the IP owner is the vandal. IrishGuy ^talk 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would lengthen for as long as you feel is appropriate, until the harassment stops. Eventually, he will probably get turned off the idea. Any reason you know why he is harassing these particular eight people? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea. I logged on after his first vandal spree and found that various other users were kind enough to revert the damage to my talk page. He had gone after the same group of people and those were reverted too. IrishGuy ^talk 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nods, too much trouble as I said - so just block for increasing periods per usual. You might want to consider getting wikipedia-stuff-only email account, IG. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:ConfuciusOrnis

Resolved

 – No administrative action required.

User:ConfuciusOrnis has been harassing me and making false accusations that I am sockpuppet. He has also made numerous false accusations of vandalism[61] and I just noticed him attacking new users.[62]

--RucasHost 12:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no sock accusations. The "numerous" false allegations to which you refer are supported by one dif, which is the automatic summary when using a tool to undo edits - I think its Twinkle. I'll leave a note on his talk page about that. And the "newbie" to which you refer is an IP which has racked up over a dozen vandalism warnings, and at least one admin has stated its a vandalism-only account. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Stumbling into someone else's conversation - but the sockpuppetry allegation is here — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah, that's not "false accusations" that is precisely how to handle suspected socks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the vandalism warning is just twinkle, sorry 'bout that I just installed it yesterday. It was silly pov pushing imo, but not vandalism. As for the "false accusations" sorry but I think you're a sock, and I've filed a report, if the reviewing admin disagrees with me then I'll abide by that. ornis (t) 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we're done here, then. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

JimJast

Resolved

 – Discussion taken to userspace

JimJast (talk · contribs) is a long time editor, with an unusual fringe perspective on physics. Jim claims to be simply following the theories of Einstein, and considers that his ideas have failed to be published because of a collective psychological block in the whole modern physics community, and that modern cosmology is riddled with pseudoscience. Other physicists on Wikipedia believe that Jim's work is fatally flawed, and in complete conflict with relativity, Einstein, and all evidence. Jim confidently asserts that no-one has ever found an error in his work; others might say that Jim has never recognized the errors in his work.

Jim is repeatedly disruptive of the physics pages, with attempts to insert his ideas; apparently thinking they need no other citation than his own claims to be applying Einstein, or relativity. The annoyance is low-level, but ongoing. Jim himself is mostly pretty genial, but completely beyond any attempts at reason, as far as I can see.

Recently, he has been making personal attacks and irrelevant distractions in the talk page of Tired light, after an edit in the main page was reverted.

Jim has been warned of the inappropriateness of his recent activity by two, possibly three editors. See the exchange at Talk:Tired light#Are we under attack by theists?; warnings by Fram (talk · contribs) and Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) (me). Basis of the warning confirmed by RE (talk · contribs).

I have also requested on Jim's talk page that he refrain from the personal speculations about me on the article talk page, and placed a warning that on-going disruption would mean I'd hand the problem over to someone else. That's what I'm doing now. See User_talk:JimJast#On irrelevant personal material in article talk pages + on Einstein's Tired Light. (The "Einstein's Tired light" is a characteristic addition by Jim, claiming that Einstein supports his particular Tired light notion.)

Jim's recent attempt to add unverified unsourced original research at the Tired Light page is on 08:39, 24 August 2007; this precipitated the talk page disruptions. Viewing his contributions to the main namespace shows a long pattern of similar edits, on and off over the last three years, nearly always reverted fairly promptly by the next passing physicist. It's a long term thing. Jim used to mark almost all his edits "minor"; he seems to have given that up recently. Contributions in the Wikipedia space show the deletion of several articles he has written, and speedy redelete when he recreated. That was several months ago now. Reasoning with Jim is a bit like slamming a revolving door, so I am placing it here. Drastic action probably not required; but some kind of caution might help. I don't know. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what WP:FTN is for. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, someone likes my noticeboard! Well, we could discuss this at the fringe theories noticeboard - if there's sufficient evidence maybe talk about a topic-ban here later on. Moreschi ^Talk 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... can I delete this alert, or replace with a pointer to the other board? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear talk page misuse, especially after a warning is issued, can simply be deleted on sight. That's what I did before I noticed this discussion, in fact. -- SCZenz 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I see that you are the only one who has any real problem with me. If you just wait for vacations being over the problem will go away by itself since I won't have time for converting you from Big Bang to Einsteinian gravitation. Jim 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Actually, I did refer this to WP:FTN as advised; and shortly after that another editor removed the latest bit of talk page stuff. Better this was done by a third party. As long as Jim continues trying to convert me in the user space, and confines his speculations about my personal characteristics there as well, I'm content. This can be considered closed, as far as I am concerned. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:71.149.142.125

Resolved

This IP editor constantly leaves the following on Talk:Miley Cyrus (creating a section in the process)

"I bet every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy."

The user has also blanked the talk page when someone tried to leave a warning. WAVY 10 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for vandalism after final warning. In the future, you may get a faster response by taking relatively straightforward incidents of vandalism to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An Imposter

Resolved

 – Blocked

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and userpage deleted. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! -- No Guru 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

attack site question

Having not dealt with them very much in the past, do we block users who create off-wiki attack sites about other editors? I found an instance, where, after I was admittedly less than civil with another user in the last month during a dispute, they created a blog posting in which I am called a jewbag, I am accused of lying about my military service, and my full name is used (Which I'm not worried about because it is no secret on the internet, but if it were someone else who wished to be anonymous, I feel like that would be a problem). It's not just me though, they bash User:David Gerard as well. Criticism is one thing. Insulting comments about one's religion and military service is an attack. What is the process here?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it help or hurt the encyclopedia to block that user? Perhaps that is the root of your question. Personally, I would address that question on a case by case basis. daveh4h 05:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the person to make that decision. I wouldn't be the one to block the user in any case, having had a dispute with them. I'm more thinking along the lines of presenting a case for blocking to a neutral, uninvolved admin. The user has been quite uncivil, and does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works, but I can't say that my own incivility didn't contribute to their raised hackles, so I don't feel comfortable with blocking over that. I think the site hurts Wikipedia, and since it is the editor's personally owned site, by extension they are hurting the encyclopedia. But like I said, I'm too far removed from neutral to make a good decision on that ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some specifics might help. For instance, I just reverted your removal of a link to Making Light, the blog of Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Is that the "attack site" that you mean? Because that's been discussed before, and I think David Gerard had a pretty good comment about it, which I will try to locate. Or do you mean some other site? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard's comment is here. His comment applies to several of the threads currently showing on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. A site calling me a jewbag clearly counts as an attack site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard's comment came from May 31. This whole deal came about in the past two weeks. I don't really care about the past content. The current content is an attack site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll doubly note that [[WP:ATTACK}} states (emphasis added)"Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning."

Do you really think that referring to a specific editor as a "jewbag", claiming that I lied about my military service, calling me an idiot, etc....that none of that qualifies as an "attack"? Since when has it been ok to call someone an idiot or a jewbag on Wikipedia? Never as far as I can remember. Akhilleus, I'm going to undo your revert, and ask that we come to an agreement on it here, before you re-add it.

And, as I note, it's not just me. The site owner refers to User:Dmcdevit and User:Alison as "idiot in question", as well as Will BeBack as a "Mendacious Troll". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wellllll, I think that that mainly refers to the posting of a link with the intent of using it to attack someone.... In this case, the link is there because it's the website of the article's subject. --Masamage ♫ 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what happens when the article is still visible as a snippet or archive piece on the top page? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You could wait. The thread will vanish into the archives eventually. Or, you could look again--because the particular epithet you're saying Making Light is calling you doesn't seem to be visible on the front page. (By the way, I didn't see your request not to revert on those pages until after I made my latest reverts, sorry about that.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It pops up every now and then, because at well over 600 comments, apparently people are noticing. Now, when someone googles my name and wikipedia together, the top results are....."FOMG SWATJESTER IS EVIL!" (yes, I know about nofollow). As for the epithet I'm referring to, it's still there. It's been disemvoweled, even, which means that a moderator saw it, but didn't bother to delete it, just left it so that anyone with half a brain could still figure out what it said. Like I said, it may not have been one the last time that the issue came up, but it certainly is now. So....why are we allowing this to remain on Wikipedia?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Insulting comments about people's religion should definitely be a no-no, and deliberate linking to sites that behave like this should be grounds for a block. It is not clear that reference to military service is in the same category, but if its outing a Wikipedian, then aggressive blocking is needed. PalestineRemembered 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the site in question? Your words are utterly at odds with anything someone who had actually seen the site would say. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "jewbag" comment, nor am I seeing anything revealing your full name. All I see on Making Light are some comments disagreeing with your positions on various issues, such as Green Peace, the Vietnam War, etc., all of which they are perfectly entitled to do, and for which it makes no sense to remove a link to the site in the relevant articles. If you can point out specifically where these bad things are written, please do so. It does seem, however, that the best way to deal with this situation is simply to ignore them. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's post #313 in that thread, which has been disemvowelled. That's the way Making Light deals with incivility, rather than deleting the posts. I sometimes wish I could do that on ANI. Anyway, the insult seems to be "jewboy" rather than "jewbag" (still quite offensive either way). But it's pretty clear that the regular posters over there regard the post as trolling and unacceptable behavior, and in one of the latest posts someone theorizes that post #313 was made by someone who's tangled with Swatjester on Wikipedia and decided to insult him in another forum. I think that's plausible. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The forum there makes their distaste exceptionally clear, then turns into a Choose Your Own Adventure story. (no kidding). Although that poster is attacking you, the disemvowelling and reaction make clear the site itself isn't attacking, and discourages such behavior. The authors may be jerks for going after you, but their criticisms are far more legit than the discouraged , censored, attack. ThuranX 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the silliness of the BADSITES pseudo-policy keeps showing itself, as people try to force the delinking of blogs where somebody (not the blogger themselves) made an obnoxious comment. I guess all of Usenet is an attack site too, since people make obnoxious comments there all the time. *Dan T.* 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense whatsoever to delink an external site because some random idiot posted something mean in one of the comments. That basically gives any troll out there blanket license to have any reader participation links removed, including blogs, wikis, YouTube, Flickr, basically any Web 2.0 site, etc. I am increasingly convinced that WP:BADSITES is a nonsense policy. Hell, we shouldn't be allowed to link to Wikipedia, because lord knows all sorts of defamatory content has been posted there! --Cyde Weys 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: SwatJester discovered an anonymous anti-semitic remark in comment #311 of a post on the weblog of Patricia Nielsen Hayden, a writer and science fiction editor. In response, SwatJester wants to delete all references in Wikipedia to that weblog.

If this were wikipedia policy and general practice, an editor could easily remove a link to ANY wiki, news group, forum, or other publicly-editable Web site by arranging for uncivil crticicism of a wikipedian or of wikipedia to appear as an anonymous comment. Of course, the site admins can and probably will delete the comment, but the admin can always raise the issue before the action takes place, and in some cases the Web site needs to follow procedures like Wikipedia's own. MarkBernstein 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Making Light is not an attack site, and further the attack site policy itself is dead as of a while back. Last time this issue came up in connection with Making Light, Jimbo Wales himself interceded to unruffle ruffled feathers. As I said to my friend who just called to intercede on Swatjester's behalf, I am willing to hash out the matter by email or by phone, but lets drop this BADSITES nonsense right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 23:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC) --Pleasantville 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war Abecedare

I'm trying to create an article for the Mythological epic Ramayana Bridge (Rama's Setu). I'm been obstructed from the same. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The current day bridge Adams Bridge is popularly know in the west as well as the east. The mythologies revolving arround the article are different so it was but obvious to have created a new page to talk about the mythology involving the epic Ramayana.

But I was obstructed in doing the same.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion here and check BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · block log)'s history of disruptive editing and frivolous ANI complaints, including another just a couple of days back. Abecedare 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BR. Please try DR or RfC if that doesn't work. You've been told that the last time. Please don't bring here again content dispute. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor again

As he recently did with the Merano article, Gryffindor (his contributions) is unilaterally moving pages related to the Province of Bolzano-Bozen article abusing his admin powers and is trying to call in hundreds of users to move "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" to "South Tyrol". It seems that every 1-2 months he feels the need to do something wrong.--Supparluca 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Every 1-2 months" is being pretty kind. :-) Icsunonove 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actions of User:Phil Sandifer at WP:DRV

Will Admins please keep an eye on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 26? Phil Sandifer prematurely closed the "Child pornography" DRV inappropriately, claiming WP:ARBCOM as the only way to "overrule" him - certainly needs to kept an eye on. -81.178.126.124 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was neither inappropriate nor premature. See [63]. If you have an issue with this, contact the arbitration committee. There's no administrative action required here. Neil ム 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was also not closed by Phil Sandifer, but by User:WjBscribe. Corvus cornix 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is reviewing the incident. FloNight 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive User at AFD

KennethStein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to make a walled garden of articles about himself. He created a page on himself, Ken Stein (speedied and now at DRV here). He also made articles on films he was in; Trees (film) (deleted as copyvio), Polycarp (2007 Film), and Silent (2007 film) (both at AFD now, more on that later).

Apparently, he got into a dispute with Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the DRV, then decided to nominate an article she wrote (Lay Down Sally) for deletion. It was speedied closed as a bad faith nom.

Then, this user created the account BaldDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who then voted "keep" at the AFD for both Silent and Polycarp. A checkuser confimed they use the same IP address here.

Just now, Stein nominated several articles created by a user who voted "delete" at the Silent AFD. (There his most recent contribs, but if you need me to i can find links)

-- New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

--He's just gone on a spree of bad faith (incorrectly formatted) AFD nominations for all articles I've worked on. The relevant articles are The Hamsters. Snail's Pace Slim‎, Rev Otis Elevator, Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist‎ WebHamster 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like he didn't know how to format AfDs, though. I've left a warning on his talk page. ELIMINATORJR 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I block the shared IP puppet account BaldDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); until this gets sorted out.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AfDs for The Hamsters, Snail's Pace Slim‎, Rev Otis Elevator, & Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist have been closed. — Scientizzle 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over his contribs today, and after seeing his most recent ones, I've decided to block for 12 hours to let him cool off and attempt to prevent more trouble. Maxim_(talk) 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with that - indeed, he probably should have been blocked anyway for the use of the sock in AfD stacking (see above). ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive anon user 68.236.58.232

Resolved

 – Reverted and semi-p's

Anon 68.236.58.232 appears to be part of an organized (multi-IP) campaign to continually vandalize Dirtbag. Latest diff [64] includes un-WP:CIVIL edits and edit summary. Request an administrator's intervention. -- Gridlock Joe 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the IP editor and semi'd the page for 48 hours. Hopefully they'll lose interest by then, but feel free to warn any future vandals and report them to WP:AIV. - auburnpilot talk 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sl84

Resolved

Sl84 (talk · contribs) has issued a borderline death threat against me here. Could someone look into this and perhaps be a neutral third party to issue a sternly worded warning? --Yamla 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone took care of it already.  :) --Yamla 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Claim of violation of privacy (not mine)

Can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Violation_of_privacy? A quick check of the article history and talk page reveals what the subject of the article is complaining about. THF 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The sun has over 7 million reads. I would tend to argue that if something has appeared there wikipedia is not your major worry.Geni 00:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_28.Geni 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RJ CG disrupting Estonia related articles, again

User:RJ CG has been edit warring at Rein Lang, reverting against concensus three times in the space of 30 minutes [65], [66], [67], within hours after coming off his earlier 48 hour block [68] for for edit warring another Estonia related article Bronze Soldier. He was previously blocked for tedious editing [69] on another Estonia related article Russo-Estonian relations. He appears to be obsessed with disrupting Estonia related articles [70] and has been warned repeatedly on his talkpage, the latest here: [71], but the message doesn't appear to be getting through, can someone give hime a longer block to cool off a bit and think about his behaviour. Martintg 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please admins. Deal w/ this case and use your tools or whatever you see fit. I was busy explaining RJ CG about his first block for the same behaviour and i won't be explaining myself everytime to make every edit warrior happy. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:I pity this monster man unkind not has created this page as a redirect to the nonsense page of Edfgdfgdfg. Has also moved Super Smash Bros. Brawl to that same nonsense page. Thanos6 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Antandrus (talk · contribs). I'm trying to fix the history split. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Something's up with all the deletion/restore/move work because its not allowing me to revert back to the original version. Anyone care to see if they can patch this up? (Edit conflict:I was typing this post as you submitted that comment darn :P)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because several of us are trying to fix it simultaneously? Right now the history for Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl is still not available; it's still showing as deleted revisions for Talk:Edfgdfgdfg. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh, sorry. Persian Poet Gal's just fixed the Talk history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the talk history is still reflecting only the vandal edits. Ryulong's trying to repair it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Ryulong fixed it, but there's a database lag in the history. I'm staying out of the way for a bit. 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything's fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Bsharvy

Hello everyone. If anyone would like to take a look at Bsharvy's contributions page you will see that his account was made for the single purpose of ruining a now protected page. This user constantly edit wars, argues repeatedly with numerous editors and refuses to 'get to the point' and simply repeats himself over and over on the talk pages while at the same time insulting other users (even the ones he got their attn through a RFC). He has been rude to editors and admins, and even removes admin warning from his talk pages to try to make himself look pristine, and in to my personal knowledge even engaged in an attack campaign against a former user who was a true professional here in WP (who has since left). It also seems that if he can't convince people on the talk pages of the article he tries to either 1) vandalize their pages 2) be as rude as possible to them and try to get them to leave 3) tries to subvert the rules of WP to try to get them blocked or 4) just edit wars with everyone till getting blocked, as a result of this user several other editors have been unable to fix/correct the page on hiroshima and nagasaki. He has no knowledge of the content of the page and repeatedly insults the few experts we had editing the page (myself included). Can't we do anything about this type of editer? I fail to see how pages that require a technical understanding of a topic will survive (w/o being a joke to everyone outside wp) if editers like User:Bsharvy are allowed to remain. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I notified the user of this discussion. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The one and only example of what he means by "attack" and "disruptive" is the claim I am about to make: Virtually everything he says above is dishonest. I have said several times that an editor (Gtadoc, of whom the above editor is probably a sockpuppet) is dishonest. Accusations of dishonesty should be a last resort. We always assume good faith, so several (perceived) mistakes are not cause for accusations of dishonesty. However, sometimes uncertainty about motives changes into near-certainty, and assumptions of good faith are untenable. That is the case for editor Gtadoc and what appears to be his sockpuppet, Allgoodnamesalreadytaken. His distortion (and dishonesty) here is the result of my starting a sockpuppet inquiry (he deleted the sockpuppet notice from his User page, then complained here about deleting warnings from User pages....)Bsharvy 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read his contribs (which I don't think he knows you can do...lol...) you will see that everything I said is true, for instance he attacks editors (Renis, eric, daniel case, and my collegue, whom he mentions and as already mentioned since he is unable to get his way on the one page he is trying to ruin he accuses me and others of random/made up things). Not to mention (I like the word mention...lol), it also appears that he edited some user pages and then tried to accuse others of doing so (though I'm guessing at that, as he says he is "in asia" and the last hit on the IP trace makes it to australia before hitting "unknown"s.) He's gotten into arguments or edit wars with just about everyone who was involved with that page, and I'm pretty certain since his account is a single purpose account that its sole purpose is to be disruptive. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I should make a new section...I would like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken to be given some sort of instruction about his behavior. I put a sockpuppet notice on his User page (which provoked this complaint here). The sockpuppet notice was specified in WP instructions for reporting suspected sockpuppetry. He responded by slapping an (unsigned) vandalism tag on my Talk page threatening to have me blocked, and deleting the sockpuppet notice. I pointed him to the instructions about not removing the notice for ten days, and restored it; he immediately slapped another (unsigned) vandalism template on my Talk page. User_talk:Bsharvy Incidentally, it is now almost certain that he and Gtadoc are the same person, as they have a particular spelling mistake in common, in addition to all the other similarities. See the sockpuppet discussion for more, slightly incomprehensible, personal attacks: [72] Bsharvy 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now almost certain that user:Bsharvy is engaged in wikistalking one of my friends and collegues. Since this complaint is about his disruptive behavior on a particular page (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)...but since he wants to wave the red herring I'll add wikistalking, vandalism, and failure to abide by one of the cardinal rules (heh) of WP found here < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick> . Additionally, I'd like to add that he's been making complaints about user:gtadoc , in particular an IP address in South Asia (where Bsharvy is) made a comment on his talk page and plagerised a signature of an admin and then accused him of doing it long after he had already left WP. (hmm..better spellcheck all that, I'm sure I spelled at least one thing wrong...). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential trouble brewing with User:Reinis

Hi all. Another user asked me to take a look at User:Reinis, particularly wrt his edits to Creationism and his user talk page. AFAICT he's not broken policy, but he's pushed it to breaking point a couple of times and has definitely gone way past a lot of guidelines on things like civility. Unfortunately my time online is really restricted at the moment, so I was hoping someone more knowledgeable about si=uch things could take a look...? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look closer. While I admit, reinis could stand to be more civil, this particular foolishness, grew out of User:Yidisheryid's blank indifference to consensus or policy. Several regular editors, with respect to his obvious inexperience, have patiently tried to explain to him why his (initial) edits to the lead wont fly, and it seems that he understands that now. Why now they're edit warring over adding two spaces to the lead, is frankly a mystery to me though. ornis (t) 02:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for that. As I said, I needed someone with a bit more time to have a closer look at what was actually going on. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also had trouble with Reinis. He gave me a 3RR warning after two reverts, then reverted my edit (baiting me to revert again), then later deleted the same text my edit had deleted. (Huh?)Bsharvy 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Confucious here; btw, the above user Bsharvy has followed around several users and harrassed them (probably Reinis too I think) and I wouldn't take his comment seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted another edit by him on Creation. Looks to be a good editor but has a POV on this subject it seems. Spryde 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I just reverted you, the edit you reverted to was clearly vandalism. ornis (t) 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. My bad. He reverted the vandal and I misreverted him. Ignore me! Spryde 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and WP:FAC KT extinction event

Could somebody please take a look at the ongoing discussions on these two pages and maybe try and calm things down somehow? The debate on both has taken a vitriolic and aggressive turn and is descending into a series of personal attacks which I feel are simply not helpful nor warranted. Would be good to perhaps get an independent voice to give comment before things escalate and get even sillier. Badgerpatrol 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As the principle other party, I am voluntarily removing myself from the discussion, and disengaging. This is just beyond ridiculous and I do not care enough about this. All I want to do is see the article improved, and it apparently is loaded with errors, which I cannot fix.--Filll 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like uninvolved editors to comment, perhaps try a request for comment? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is warranted. I am unilaterally distancing myself from this error-ridden page. I cannot fix it and I cannot encourage others to do so, apparently. --Filll 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would be the next logical step, but I don't want to make a big fuss. All I've done is swing by the FAC discussion and make a few comments that I thought were constructive and were certainly well meant...the only purpose of coming here was to get an admin to swing by the page and tell people to maybe calm down a bit...without wanting to sound like a moaning minny I do think I've been subjected to quite a lot of ad hom abuse that's just completely unwarranted. Maybe an RfC is the right path to follow, I'll sleep on it. Badgerpatrol 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Having now considered the RfC option more fully after another few volleys tonight, it seems that an RfC may not be possible- there are multiple users involved and not all of them have been asked by two or more editors to stop, which is a necessity by my reading of WP:RFC. For a flavour of the kind of thing I'm talking about....this , this, this, (especially) this, this, this, this , this, this, these, this, this, this, and this, all of which can be found in context at the two pages referenced above and on the talk pages of the various editors concerned. If anyone could advise whether a user conduct RfC is actually possible, or otherwise suggest a remedy, I would really appreciate the input at this point. Badgerpatrol 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivil, nor does it not assume good faith. It is a request for help.

This is also none of the above. It isn't even pointed at you. It's a bit sarcastic, sure.

This is more of a personal attack by Badgerpatrol, hardly anything but more sarcasm.

This is undecipherable. Not even sure what Filll was trying to say.

This is a description of how to figure out references. Your implication that every sentence needs sourcing is not common sense. So ConfuciusOrnis should have been more polite? OK, but your comments was uncivil. It got accelerated. Your point is what?

This is nothing more than commentary on a long long long paragraph that was indeed hard to read. You accelerated the uncivil behavior which was accelerated by others. Guilt is equally attributed here.

This is absolutely nothing. Not sure what is your complaint.

He is not involved with your complaint. What's the point?

This is sarcastic.

Anyways, I'm abusing a point. Most of the diffs represent hardly anything at all, and some don't deserve any consideration. I don't get this at all. What is going on with this project? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, most of the diffs above were withdrawn by the author (Filll (talk · contribs)) more than 24 hours before being placed in this incident report. Furthermore Badgerpatrol brought up all the same stuff on WP:WQA at the same time. I have just indicated that the WQA alert should be considered closed. Trying to raised this in multiple forums is not helpful. It fragments the discussion and ferments discord. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted here yesterday evening at 20:34. The response was "take it to RfC". I can't take it to RfC because two or more editors have not attempted to resolve the situation on each of the talk pages. I can't take it to WP:WQA because seemingly it's not appropriate to have both an open AN/I thread and a WP:WQA discussion open simultaneously (is this actually the case? Surely AN/I is not an official step in the dispute resolution process?). The reason frankly that I did not originally post at WP:WQA exclusively was because the first complaint posted was listed as unresolved/stale after being listed since the middle of July. The reason that I then went back to WP:WQA was because there was no meaningful discussion forming here, RfC did not seem to be an option (although my post above was designed to get advice as to whether it still might be) and the incivility (from Orangemarlin) was continuing. I can't help but kind of feel that this situation is being turned back at me when it's really not my fault...or is it my fault? That's pretty much what I'm trying to determine. The reason I include the deleted posts by Filll is because I interpreted his actions in "withdrawing" his comments as passive aggressive, coming as it did 4 minutes after this edit, and since I posted this issue at WP:WQA Filll has left this comment on my talk page which to be honest (without meaning to be rude to anyone) I find kind of creepy and threatening, an aspect of this kerfuffle that has been noted by other uninvolved editors [73]. I'm not sure what else I could have done that I didn't do in terms both of engagement with the editors concerned and in terms of seeking an independent resolution.... Badgerpatrol 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any formal rule that a dispute should not be open in multiple forums. It's more a matter of common sense. It fragments things, and it is going to be taken poorly by the people you are complaining about. It's really annoying to have to repeat a defense of yourself in multiple locations. I made a couple of off-line attempts to reword my closing remark at WQA, before posting it, to try and avoiding making it seem too critical. There seems to be a fair bit of sensitivity here and I don't want to exacerbate that overmuch. In any case, there is now a pointer from there to here, so if your aim is to get more input this is likely to occur.

You did not even mention the fact that Filll (talk · contribs) had withdrawn all those comments, which looks pretty bad to me. Many of them were not actually worth getting upset about. You seem to be wanting to stamp down on him rather than be willing to back off a bit yourself. This is likely to backfire.

I have half a feeling that if you sit on this for 24 hours you might even manage to get a bit more of an appreciation of why a number of people DO seem to think you are a significant contributory cause to the mess. It's not a matter of total blame at all. It's more a case of "dammit, I could have managed that better". Behind the irritation, I think there is probably a reservoir of potential goodwill founded on a common desire to have a good article. The idea is not to find someone to blame, but to look for ways to improve things. I'm not sure which alert should really be open; this one or the WQA one, but I feel strongly that it is disruptive to have several irons in the fire.

One great tactic for dispute resolution is to time out a bit. If this alert here closes, then you may want to try something else. I'd suggest one step at a time, with a pause to reflect between different steps and a consideration at each point of whether there is actually still something to be done or not. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I am passive aggressive? A stalker? Just because I do not want to go through the hassle of an RfC? Hours of wasted time which frankly I do not particulary relish. So Badgerpatrol wants to slam me desperately?

Well I will get involved with an RfC if I am forced. However, I predict that this will not be some march to victory by Badgerpatrol trampling me and will waste a huge amount of time and effort that can be better spent on the article. I might also note, that there are at LEAST three sides to this story. And I have my side, which I have not yet aired, and has at least as much validity as Badgerpatrol's side, and is not particularly complimentary to Badgerpatrol. At all.

Badgerpatrol brought this trouble on himself by being obstreperous, uncooperative and difficult. He started out acting not too different than a troll, which is why he got that unfortunate reception and started off on the wrong foot. He would not explain the reason for his edits, which lead to more bad feelings and lead to him being treated in a harsher way. He refused to explain what he meant when using what appeared to be technical terms which I could not find in any reference. He complained constantly about not having the time necessary to do the editing to fix this purportedly error-ridden article, but seems to have plenty of time to want to start these administrative inquiries.

When I look at the actual edits Badgerpatrol made, I am underwhelmed by most of them so far. I feel like I have been trying to treat Badgerpatrol with kid gloves to encourage him to edit the article, since he is supposedly a Subject Matter Expert, which some reviewers seem to suggest we desperately need to fix this article. So all I want is for him to correct the article. And all he seems to want to do, over and over, is fight. Hmmm...Well if we need an RfC to settle this, then let's have it. But do not think that I will just roll over and let Badgerpatrol stomp me.--Filll 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, just a little point here, DC was criticizing Badger not you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OM you are quite correct. I was responding to Badgerproject's post, which he clarified here.--Filll 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Proud terrorist

Resolved

 – User blocked; email sent to Aussie gov't — Scientizzle 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The user made this unnerving post. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, and probably just a dumb kid trying to be funny. Well, when some government supercomputer picks up on this, he'll have a fun visit from men in suits. It's no worry to us though, user blocked, edit appears to have been reverted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, someone's getting to get lesson 101 in "Why trolling the Internet by making stupid threats is not all that funny." It doesn't look like anything remotely plausible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good banning. Good choice! •smedleyΔbutler• 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, do the Australians celebrate Guy Fawkes? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Australian so I have no idea :p, but seriously I don't know how that username survive more than a few seconds, it was a obvious username block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't. We probobly would if fireworks were legal though. Viridae^Talk 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here, but in the 0.01% chance this is something more than a stupid kid, shouldn't the relevant information here be forwarded to the proper local authorities? On the off chance there's something to this, action might be taken that could prevent something bad from happening; this is the sort of editing that may be illegal (as it involves threats of harm) and shouldn't be brushed under the rug; and even if it's a stupid kid, this type of vandalism should be actively discouraged. All that needs to happen is a checkuser & an email, right? — Scientizzle 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How many terrorists, do you think, would choose such a blatant and ridiculous username as that yet expect to be taken seriously? - Alison ☺ 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, I believe this is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being more than a stupid punk. But if it's not...and even if it's not, it maybe warrants law enforcement attention. Threats of terrorist violence shouldn't be ignored, in my opinion, even if far-fetched. This isn't "I wanna kick John's butt at lunch". As I suggested, all that would be needed on our end is an email with the IP address of the vandal to some (presumably) Australian authorities...they can choose to follow up. — Scientizzle 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree strongly with User:Scientizzle --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions, then, on whom I should contact about this? Is this an email-the-foundation thing, or should I just recruit a checkuser? I'll do the emailing if necessary, I just don't want to waste anyone's time if there's aprocedure for this sort of thing... — Scientizzle 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ has a freecall phone number if you are really worried - but my guess is it is some kid thinking he is smart. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Imagine they have an email too, but I'd agree with Viridae, this is some kid that thinks it's funny. Though even in that case I suppose a visit from the police might dissuade him of that notion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling Australia would be a bit much for me...but without the IP address there's no useful info, right? I'm no checkuser, so perhaps I'll go through the foundation or something. I'm not really worried--I'm sure it's some acne-riddled teen's lousy "joke"--but I see no good reason not to inform the authorities and plenty of good reason to do so. — Scientizzle 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an email address if you want to report something -- hotline@nationalsecurity.gov.au . I haven't done so because I donb't think this is that important, but if you have concerns this might be the way to go. Euryalus 10:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Email sent. The Australian authorities can follow up if they so please. — Scientizzle 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

personal attack

i would like to report a personal attack in the form of accusing a user of vandalism here "Remove vandalism by Cholga, who falsely claims "consensus" on this issue when there is none." the user is also making a false statment and accusing the other user of lying since the talk page clearly shows a clear consensus of 5 to 2.here this user is ILike2BeAnonymousCholga^talK! 08:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, and 5-2 is not clear consensus, it is a bare majority. Suggest getting more input from ARticle Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a little off the subject but AWESOME username killer chihuahua i just noticed it hahhaCholga^talK! 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not a content dispute the article for the disputed tag clearly states why/when that tag should be used and it does not fit this situation so it was removed by Cholga because it is being misused. In doing so Cholga was accussed of vandalism. Accusing another user of vandalism is a personal attack according to policy, that user IL2BA should be warned for this.Cholga^talK! 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IL2BA is wrong on the issue, and on the incivility, but the appropriate step is to take it to RfC. Did you inform IL2BA that you posted this here? Argyriou (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you make a RfC? I did not, am I required to or is it just a good idea?Cholga^talK! 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A RFC might not be the best solution yet, unless there are several editors experiencing problems with the editor who accused you of vandalism (but you can explore the option at the link I provided). I'd recommend posting this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first. (PS your username is pretty cool too.) Anynobody 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia RfAr

ResolvedHe has been unblocked by Fred Viridae^Talk 05:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He (Miltopia (talk · contribs)) was apparently blocked by Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a sock of BLu Aardvark,then he initiated an RfAr on user talk:128.227.195.36. I posted it to RfAr on his behalf. Is this acceptable? —Crazytales (t.) 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. -- John Reaves 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, methinks. Yikes... If Miltopia was really a sock, that has a lot of far-reaching implications. (Begin the WikiDrama!) But I'm not sure exactly how Fred reached that conclusion (although there had been suspicion about Miltopia in the past.) We'll just have to wait and see. Grandmasterka 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred has unblocked him, calling his original block a mistake. Apparently Blu Aardvark has been claiming off-wiki that he is Miltopia. Corvus cornix 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising

User:Capricornis has been inserting material which is clearly not free from various websites, from which he quotes large portions. He erased the entire existing article, replacing it with some polemic essay and keeps reinstating his own text despite multiple warnings. Mr. Neutron 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

-- response by capricornis -- I might be new to wikipedia, and have not engaged in as many wars as Mr. Neutron, so I don't know how to abuse the system as well as he does, but I can read the rules well, and I have not broken any of them. I changed a blurb, not an article, Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which originally contained very little information about the actual event into a well-written, relevant piece of information, which takes no sides, while the original Mr. Neutron's article seems to have been more concerned about proving 'Bulgarianism' than talking about the event itself. The note on the flag and the flag itself I removed because nowhere it is shown how that image relates to the event, except in the caption, which could have been anything.

I might have at one time included verbatim text from websites, even with a proper quotations, but since reading wikipedia policies more carefully, I have removed that text and replaced it with original writing, not original research. The new essay is anything but polemic, it is objective and neutral, intentionally omitting controversial issues like ethnicity of the population and the leaders of the uprising. On the contrary, the main point of the previous article, by Mr. Neutron, seems to have been proving 'Bulgarianism' of the such, relegating the event of the uprising to a secondary importance.

I have repeateadly tried to talk sense with Mr.Neutron, but he has refused any communication, to the extent that he immediatelly undoes any talks I leave on his personal talk page (check his history)

I am open to constructive discussion and consensus.

thank you

btw, he has been spam reporting me to various boards in hope that some busy admin would take his side. please look at this contrib history for further details.

Capricornis 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:82.44.212.202

The above user keeps removing part of the text in the The Cure without giving reasons despite repeated requests to do so. If you look at the user's contributions page it would appear they log on only to edit this article. I would be grateful if a block could be put on the IP address so that the user would need to register and may be more inclined to give reasons for removing the text. Thanks -- JD554 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've spotted the full procedure for warnings etc. Cheers anyway -- JD554 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us! We're drowning!

Can someone please take a look at WP:UAA? We're up to our necks in backlog! --lucid 10:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now now, it's simply a few usernames that are doing little or no harm. Rushing to block them or remove them from a list isn't really on, they could be legitimate users having picked the name of their favorite band or some such. Just work through them nice and slowly, remembering there's another user probably quite like you or me at the other end of the username. Nick 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they're violations or not, the point is that we have a six hour long backlog, not to mention a backlog that's about three or four times the norm. They need to be dealt with. On a side note, matching the name of a company or group is explicitly disallowed even if you aren't promoting them, both because of trademarks and just being inappropriate. I don't see any names on that list that aren't a blatant WP:UN vio, but again, that's not the point --lucid 11:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Six hours, while certainly unusual for UAA, is hardly the end of the world. Unless the editors are actively editing (in which case they could probably be taken to AIV, depending on their edits), it's not a true problem. Breathe in, breathe out. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude... we have a more-than-a-month-long backlog at WP:PUI, go there, not WP:UAA. >_< --Iamunknown 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user

I have received the following message on my talk page:

---

== Sockpuppetry ==

Dear Mike Rosoft,

I write here just to inform you that User:Green Owl (whom you briefly blocked) is a sockpuppet of an infamous wikipest accostumed to stalk wikiprojects with multiple accounts - Here is known also as User:Flavio.brandani and User:succhiacazzo). His modus operandi shown here ("it was my brother") is an old trick of his - another one is a blatant melodramatic selfaccusation and promise of repentance. Obviously you don't have to blindly believe me, on it.wiki our GoodFaith created such damage that we are monitoring his recurrent reincarnations, and more than a year after his infinite ban we collected suspect and evidence which led to this. This user (one month ago we proved that User:Flavio.brandani and were the same user) has currently the following list of sockpuppets around the wikiworld.

Just for your awareness... - εΔω (but in case of doubt ask to Jollyroger too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbiliusMagister (talk • contribs) 08:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

---

Mike Rosoft 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered part III

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

i've totally exhausted my patience on this one. what exactly am I supposed to do with this case?

"User:Jaakobou you've been blocked before for just this kind of outrageous harrassment of people on their TalkPages." [sic]

this is yet another case of personal attacks and incivility by said user after he's already managed to repeatedly accuse me for being a war criminal and almost received a full community ban for a history of improper activity and excessively soapbox behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The repartee between User:Jaakobou and User:PalestineRemembered notwithstanding, User:PalestineRemembered needs to have a mentor supplied or the WP:CSN discussion needs to be readdressed. See WP:AN and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive11. -- Avi 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. You're arguing that PalRem needs sanction for criticizing your past history on his own talk page... and then to support your argument you're listing everything negative you can find in PalRem's past history on the most public forum you can find. Lovely. Eleland 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you directing your comments at Jaakobou or me? -- Avi 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, why do you keep encouraging him? have you taken the time to study this case he keeps accusing me of harassing other editors over? how many times do you think i should explain to him that he's misreading the case, so that he should get the point and stop accusing me of something false? why is he accusing me of anything, breaking WP:NPA, when i am placing a full explanation about a blind revert he had made? is it proper for an editor who's under review to repeat false accusations and add that "If there was anything worthwhile in your edits then I'd be astonished" ?

p.s. you are well aware of his recent activity on the Battle of Jenin talk page so i'm confused by the way you misread this case/statement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:PalestineRemembered

User:Jaakobou has a long record of harrassing people on their TalkPages - he's obviously decided I'm the next easy touch to be bullied. He's come over to my TalkPage with his nonsense from an article's TalkPage, and the words he quotes are from my own TalkPage, an extremely polite version of the finger.

Two admins who got sick of his behaviour in April took him to this AN/I and he was apparently blocked for it. See also [74] and [75], all from the same period. These latter exchanges involve editors who are careful and productive - and yet Jaakobou has been linking to attack sites on one of them. Jaakobou makes ridiculous accusations against me, but is himself guilty of serious disruption. Many people would think his general behaviour and attitude to other editors is far worse than mine - and that the name of his game is provocation.

I've discovered two things recently that would probably entitle me to go over to Jaakobou's TalkPage and retaliate, things that actually do belong on an editors TalkPage (but I refuse to lower myself to Jaakobou's level). It seems he made a ludicrous sock-puppet allegation against another editor in excellent standing, citing me as possibly being involved, but without bothering to tell me. And he's been deleting material presented by other editors at Talk:Battle of Jenin, material that he'd invited himself. The particular article in question is in a terrible shape, and it's down to ownership by himself and a small clutch of other editors.

One of the editors he's aligned with is currently blocked for edit-warring after promising not to do so and running two sock-puppets in clearly abusive ways - when Jaakobou accuses me of having a Mentor who turned out to be a sock-puppet, please note what company he keeps of his own free choice. (Fortunately, User:Specialjane was never a mentor - otherwise he'd realy have fun!).

Naturally, I do not intend to escalate this disruption and retaliate in any fashion, but I am waiting for the community to announce that they're sick of Jaakobou and that his disruption in articles, in Talk and on people's TalkPages has to stop. I'm not aware he does any good to any articles, and clearly does a lot of harm to some of them. His behaviour drives numerous good editors away, here are the exasperated responses of just two of them [76] and [77]. PalestineRemembered 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

User:68.153.118.128

Resolved

Hi. I'm not exactly sure where to request a block for an IP, but I think this is it. User talk:68.153.118.128 has been blocked since August 13, after that expired today, he has gone on another vandalizing rampage. I think he needs to be blocked again. Paragon12321 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

all the wikipedia vandalism related information is listed here, if you need further assistance, feel free to ask. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickvaughn trying to hide 3RR violation

User in 3RR violation deleted report of violations from the 3RR noticeboard after deleting 3RR warning from own user page. If an admin could speak to the user about his actions then I would appreciate it. Darrenhusted 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, to report the behaviour of this person. He has violated 3RR as evidenced by the report on that board. More serious is that he first deleted the report, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=154186675] and then returned to falsify it [78]. Other actions he's taken just today is to insult other users on their talk pages and removed valid comments from his own talk page. JdeJ 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Adjustable gastric band spammer

Hi can you please do me a favor and look at Adjustable gastric band ?

Someone has been repeatedly adding this to the links section and it is just a junkmail page. I have been trying to police it but they have responded by stepped up the frequency of their efforts.

The IP seems to be: 70.155.120.130

They link to www.weightlossbydoctors-DOT-com/lapbandinfo.php

Thanks and please let me know if I can provide any more info.

Jambus 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, which will stop the IP(s) adding links. Couldn't see any good edits from IPs so no big loss. It's easier then blocking the IP, as there seems to be more than one being used. Neil ム 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This kind of report is best sent to our anti-spam team: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Good job fighting this! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine Vandalism (Smd and ILike2BeAnonymous)

Smb and ILike2BeAnonymous have been vandalizing the Bowling for Columbine page, ouright deleting alleged unsourced claims rather than marking them with the , and continuing to deleting them even when I have added sources. Their position is absurd; according to them, not only was Salvador Allenge murdered, no one but the CIA disputes it.Heqwm 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

cf related issue here Rlevse 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that your allegation of vandalism is laughable. Good luck with that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm initially provided zero sources for his first edit. [79] His second edit was a grammar correction [80]. Again, no sources were forthcoming. I reverted the changes [81] because, since Heqwm added the claim, I expected (rightly or wrongly) the same user to provide source material for it. And if not a source, at least have the courtesy to add your own citation tag. The same user proceeded to restore the text without a source. [82] User:Aeusoes1 stepped in and reverted Heqwm, noting in the edit summery, "unsourced and probably false information". [83] I proceeded to add sourced information to the page that was unrelated to the earlier squabble. But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary. [84] Ugh. I was going to continue on like this through the edit history because I've never been reported before and felt the need to defend myself. But since Heqwm has been handed a short block, I will leave things there (and save you a couple of aspirin). If I've learnt one thing it's that I should provide an edit summary for all of my edits. Sometimes they seem so uncontroversial and obvious I skip a few. But it helps to avoid precisely this kind of trouble. smb 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And the bullshit fest continues. I am aware of no rule that every single edit must contain a source. Is that how you think WP should work? You say that your revert was due to the lack of sources, but your edit summary did not, as you now imply, make any no mention of that, or any other reason. This was a rather rude act, but only in first of many which showed you not to be acting in good faith. Aeusoes1 then cited the source issue, and added the needlessly confrontational and arrogant "probably false". "But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary". That's a rather dishonest claim. It was essentially the same claim as before. You were going to continue through the edit history? It just gets worse after that. After my aforementioned edit, ILike2BeAnonymous reverted, putting a personal attack and an unsourced claim of his own in the edit summary. He then performed another revert, calling part of my edit "BS". So I put my claims back in, this time with sources. You deleted them yet again, and yet again gave no reason. So I unreverted. You then reverted AGAIN. So I unreverted again. ILike2BeAnonymous then took over deletion duties. Also, I had claimed that an issue was disputed, and provided a cite showing that a Leftist organization disputed. He dishonestly changed it to say that the CIA disputed it. I corrected it to say that a wide variety of people, includeing a Leftist orgnaization, disputes it. While obscuring who was actually disputing it, he accompanied his edit with the Orwellian edit summary "Let's make it clear just WHO is disputing this here" Then you tagged back in and went reverting despite the fact that I had, by that point, added citations. Through all of this, both of you refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, even though I started a section there.Heqwm 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged my failure to provide an edit summary in the revert. But the edit history doesn't lie. Aeusoes1 did provide the reason (re unsourced commentary) yet you restored the same text regardless. This is not the page to be continuing your battle. The diff's are above. Case closed. smb 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Heqwm has been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged. The edits you were reverting were clearly in good faith and not vandalism. ugen64 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly say the edit were in good faith. I have clearly shown how they were not. Furthermore, reversion policy clearly states that reversion should have a good reason. Your claim that I have been " blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged" is... seriously lacking in veracity. My last edit was on 02:04, 27 August 2007. My response to smb was on 02:19, 27 August 2007. And I did not "acknowledge" the warning; I clearly disputed that 3RR applied. My reversions were combatting what I considered, in Good Faith, to be vandalism. AGF doesn't apply to admins? The four edits cited as "reverts" were: 1:01, 1:51, 1:58, and 2:04.

1:01 I had previously added a claim. Someone asked for a cite. I added the cite. That's not a revert, it's an edit.

1:51 I made a claim, it was deleted with no explanation, and I re-added a similar claim. Arguably a revert.

1:58 I made a claim written in the passive voice with a cite showing that the subject was Leftists. It was "corrected" to falsely state that the CIA was the subject. I fixed it to have Leftists as the subject. Again, an edit, not a revert.

2:04 I reverted a completely unjusitifed revert.Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was about to comment here that edits being reverted here: [85] [86] [87] [88] are not what I would call vandalism, per se. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous made reverts at the following times: 23:54, 26 August 2007 01:53, 27 August 2007 02:00, 27 August 2007 03:48, 27 August 2007. Is he going to be blocked?Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:AN3. Make a "case" there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned, here's my take

1. Heqwm seems to be under the impression that if something lacks sourcing that it should get a cite request. According to WP:V, "any edit lacking a source may be removed." Now, granted, one can instead put a citation request, but in my case I deleted the statement that dictatorial powers and a coup d'état were part of the Iranian constitution because I doubted it very strongly (I didn't touch the Chilean coup statement). I said in the edit summary that this was "probably false" which is neither confrontational nor arrogant as I was expressing my doubt and implying why I didn't put a cite request instead. Sure enough, the statement about the constitution has been dropped.
2. Heqwm, "vandalism" is not editing that you disagree with; removing material that one believes is false, misleading, or otherwise improper is not vandalism, even if you disagree with their judgement. I want you to know this because accusing someone of vandalism is a serious breach of civility and you should not do it lightly. You should also not attempt to have administrative action taken against someone without knowing exactly what you're accusing them of. Remember: whatever they're guilty of here, you are as well.
3. Once Heqwm put this in the talk page, everybody, and I mean everybody should have stopped reverting back and forth. There is a tendency in Wikipedia discussions for editors to make comments justifying a disputed edit and then editing the article accordingly before others get a chance to respond. It gets cyclical when another editor responds in kind and it gets worse when editors use the edit summary box rather than the talk page to carry on the discussion. This is not healthy for Wikipedia, as it violates the spirit of the three revert rule (which is designed to get editors to discuss rather than revert), violates WP:AGF when it is motivated by the assumption that someone won't participate in the discussion if their edit stands as is in the article, and is exactly what has gone on here. If you guys want me to put the difs to prove it, say the word.
4. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the content of Heqwm's edits, and I don't necessarily think anyone should be punished (heck, I know I've done it from time to time) but don't for one second think that sort of inappropriate behavior is justified. It's not. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)