Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive222

Two editor war

I've noticed two users, Mudaliar (talk · contribs) and Venki123 (talk · contribs), battling ceaselessly on a number of articles. At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do about it. It has been going on for quite some time despite previous warnings and interventions. Any help from people here in dealing with these two warriors is appreciated. Thanks. The Behnam 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These two may need some forced dispute resolution - they seem only interested in getting the other editor blocked. One of them only recently stopped harrassing me to block the other, and they have bothed filed checkuser cases against each other. Natalie 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could give both of them what they want, if their behavior is egregious enough. Αργυριου (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to work with these users, but their actual responses to my questions are usually rather incoherent or begging the question. On the other hand, they are repetitively battling across a variety of articles and there has been no success in stopping this dispute. I give Venki some credit for trying mediation, even though he listed an absurd number of people as parties, making his attempt futile. Anyway, overall, I don't think giving both of them what they want would be a bad idea. Of course a number of socks would follow, but from what I can tell, they should be fairly easy to catch; these two users have very specific things in mind for these articles. Do what you think is best here. Thanks. The Behnam 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block 'em both for a couple of weeks so they can calm the hell down, and make it clear that if they continue to lose sight of the "build an encyclopedia" concept, those blocks will be lengthened. We've got like 1.7 bajillion pages around here; seriously, can they not find different articles to edit? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A mid-length block for both might work. I would suggest that someone with some experience with dispute resolution keep a long-term eye on them: they were both blocked for 3RR in mid February and it took about a month for their edit war to heat back up again. Natalie 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Require both editors to read "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby" and watch the Star Trek (original series) episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", then collaboratively write a 500-word summary of the stories' thematic similarities to each other and to their own situation. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST P.s Federal Clowns On WHEELS! 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, is anything going to happen? They keep going... The Behnam 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns

Something strange going on at Turtle Creek Chorale. This isn't so much of a content dispute as a plagiarism concern. The history section of this article has been copied verbatim from the website of this organization (this is approximately half od the article). I have removed it twice, and stated on the talk page that it violates Wikipedia policies to simply copy from other sites. It has now been readded with a little note that We have their permission to use it [1]. I don't think this is an appropriate way of writing an article, but don't want to revert again. The editors who are adding this do not respond on the talk page. Cheers. Jeffpw 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no notice on the website granting permission. On the contrary, it states: © 2007 Turtle Creek Chorale. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this site in whole or part is strictly prohibited. I'd say remove it. And I will do that now. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IrishGuy. I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. Jeffpw 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also give them a warning for {{uw-copyright1}} --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as advertising, and unreferenced. Hopefully that will give them an idea how to improve the article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is that I am a mere neophyte in comparison to individuals such as yourselves. My humble apologies for not reading all of the Talk pages as I am still learning this marvelous entity called Wikipedia. My adding information and editing information to the Turtle Creek Chorale article was to improve the overall completeness of the Wikipedia. I have requested that the TCC add a notice granting permission to release their rights to Wikipedia for educational and informational purposes. This is of course to add more accurate and completeness, which is what I hope every contributor wishes. As they are a US 501(c)(3) Not-for-profit organization which seeks to educate, unite and uplift their audiences and members, it would be harsh to state that they are advertising on Wikipedia. In fact, you could view almost any article about a person, organization or corporation as a living advertisement. KZ, I love the superscripts on your Talk & Contrib, perhaps you can teach me how to use them sometime. Happy writing...see you in a couple days after we work this out with TCC website. Michael T McGary 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion of controversial userbox

According to this deletion log, the template was deleted for being inflammatory and no longer exists. However, I have noticed that it has been subst'ed back into the pages of some users [2][3]. Is this circumvention of the deletion appropriate? The Behnam 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I now note that the subst's were done by Khoikhoi in the minutes right before the deletion of the template, who also deleted the template. However, I do not yet know the significance of this observation. Tell me what you all think. The Behnam 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Substitute and delete" is one possible outcome at TfD discussions, even for controversial userboxes. I do not know of a citation, but I'm sure a user more familiar with the circumstances could find one. --Iamunknown 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Under CSD T1, "divisive and inflammatory" templates are not permitted. This prohibition does not extend to user pages per se ... although personally, I think that userbox is probably an all around bad idea anywhere. In any event, that photo is a non-free image and cannot be used on templates or in user space. --BigDT 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I judged this particular box to have been deemed too controversial to exist in the special UBX space too (as it doesn't exist there), so I figured that it shouldn't exist in subst form either. Should I remove them? The Behnam 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only question here is: does the content contravene the user page policy? Answer that question and act on the answer. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It unquestionably violates WP:FAIR#Policy #9 and CSD T1. Beyond that, I'm not going to jump up and down screaming either way. ;) --BigDT 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa Fairuse violation, yes, but as this is now code on the page, not a template, it does NOT violate T1. Nail it on fair use, and dig thour the Userpage rules, but these ceased being templates after they were sub'd. You can embed a template, and you can substitute the code of the template onto the page, two different things. Watch out for the over reaching instructions, it sets bad precedent as subing T1 UBX's before deletion has been somewhat commonplace, and it can allready be easily handled under other rules violations allready -M^ask 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note - I cannot figure out why Tony crossed my post here [4]. I have undone this. The Behnam 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I brought it here specifically to get that question answered since I haven't dealt with it before. I see at as roughly equivalent to having a userbox saying, "This user is opposed to international terrorism" and including a picture of George W. Bush on it. It is definitely divisive and inflammatory, like the deletion log said. I believe they should go and I am not sure why Khoikhoi subst'ed them right before deleting them. Kind of odd actually. The Behnam 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, for good or ill, "substitute and delete" is currently an acceptable decision at TfD. I'll remove the fair use images for now. --Iamunknown 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, BigDT beat me to 'em. --Iamunknown 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I really question the purpose and validity of substituting these before deletion. If they're bad, which this one was, just delete it. Don't keep it around on people's userpages. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that people were going to yell at me if I started editing everyone's userpage, but it's probably justified in this case. I'll delete the userbox from everyone's userpage if there are no objections. Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems best that you do. Thanks for clearing that up. The Behnam 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Important

The Wikimedia foundation Wikipedia Announcement In private talks with long standing wikipedians including Jimbo Wales, Angela, and past and present members of the Arbitration Committee the Wikimedia Foundation has decided there is no other option at the present than to charge people to edit the English Wikipedia. "Advertising on Wikimedia® has been roundly rejected by the community," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikimedia®, "even though we're missing out on about sixty thousand dollars each and every day by not having two Google text ads". "For too long people have been free to hack this website. It's about time they paid" states Theresa Knott the new funding officer. "Allowing free access to all simply encourages vandalism. By asking for a quid an edit we stop kids vandalising, spammers spamming and edit warriors warrioring (unless they are very rich, in which case we can think up special rates)." Minor edits will naturally be cheaper, although the exact pricing details have not yet been fully worked out. Debate on this is welcome. All users should register their credit card at Wikipedia:Credit Card Registration by noon on April 1, 2007. Otherwise their editing privileges will be suspended. Members of the cabal are, of course, exempt.

---

On a personal note. I would like to thank the foundation for giving me this exciting opportunity to increase funding. I have been given no salary and instead take a percentage of the funds raised, which I think is fair. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Congrats Theresa- we all knew this had been in the pipeline for some time. And can I say that I could think of no one better than you to fill this exciting new position. WjBscribe 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Please please don't. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, Ere We Go again! SirFozzie 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is about time. Can you accept PayPal? I don't have international card and want to continue editing here. -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Give us a few mins to set it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little biased against it since I don't have a credit card, but it had to be done. I support it.--Wizardman 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And what if some idiot was dumb enough to post it? Then we'd need it oversighted... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Add temporarily @aol.com to the black listing at Meta and you prevent 95% of those idiots to post it :-P -- (yes, this is a joke!). ReyBrujo 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. I really do have an IBM 5250 terminal emulator on Windows 1.0 here, and it's not working! --Carnildo 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I use my credit card with debit overhaul? (Or is that debit card with credit overhaul?) --Iamunknown 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I put a little notice at the top in case anyone actually does think this is serious. I should make it a bit less aggressive though. I am one of those boring, "this is a serious project" people. :) Prodego ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. This conversation at the bottom makes it perfectly clear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Prodego ^talk 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby invoke Provision 41(k) in my Rouge Administrator Contract of Rights and Responsibilities on the English Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allows for admins under the age of 18 to be exempt from any financial liabilities or payments which may be requested. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on just one minute there mate! Did you read what I wrote? I get a cut! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This will last until the Fair use cabal invokes WP:FUC#9 to remove the logos from that page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously going to blame you guys if I get a heart attack...That's about the seventh time today...paying for editing..grrr... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My contract takes precedence over the financial troubles that may be result from the Wikimedia Foundation's usage of funds. And, in turn, over your commission. Complain to Jimbo for lavishing me such benefits. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey KZ, addicted to the wikicrack are we? That's how the drug biz works, free at first, then … Hey Theresa I'm part of the Cabal right, I still get my fix for free right? RIGHT? Paul August ☎ 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul you're fine don't worry. For everyone else - if you are in the cabal you know it, otherwise (unless your < 18 & an admin (grrrrr!!)) pay up and look big. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of grrrr! I think it might be wise to make sure Bishzilla get's an exemption as well. King Kong ☎ 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, anything wrong about being "addicted?" --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want any money outta me, you'll have to talk to the guy who handles the trust I set up for myself after having received that MacArthur grant not too long ago. -- llywrch 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to pay in jelly beans,but this was deemed an 'unacceptable payment method' :( Lemon martini 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think £1 per edit is a bit steep. Can you make it 1p so when people want to throw in their 2p (2c) worth, they could have two edits?--SlipperyHippo 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more sockpuppets (addition)

Per this case that was moved to the archive, user:Lyzka, which I had assumed was banned for sockpuppetery, has resumed editing the Recovered Territories article. The original sock has spawned others, including 131.104.218.123, user:Garnekk, 190.47.233.156, 131.104.218.123, 131.104.218.46, and user:Garnek1. I propose semi-protection status to the article to prevent the sock puppets from vandalizing the article for a period of a week to see if the vandal is short-term or is here for much longer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another sockpuppet here, I have counted well over 20 or 30 sockpuppets of user:Serafin. When will we learn and ban him like the Polish and German wikipedias already have?

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

check Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, 17 known sockpuppets and 20+ suspected. --Jadger 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I had no idea it was that widespread. I only saw this after seeing the case on WP:ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla extended Serafin's block to six months. Considering that Serafin has shown little desire to reform his ways, I have no objections to it being made an indefinite block. Olessi 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation

User:216.99.60.104 has violated the WP:NPA policy on Talk:Muhammad after being informed of the WP:NPA policy:[5]. after being informed:[6]--Sefringle 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual has used a number of other IPs in the same range to engage in harassment, vandalism and personal attacks, and has evaded at least one previous block:User:216.99.56.235, User:206.126.80.107, User:206.126.80.68, User:216.99.60.136, User:216.99.52.133, User:206.126.80.121, User:206.126.82.92, User:206.126.81.88, User:216.99.60.104 (at least).

Proabivouac 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After edits like this I gave him a warning. He did it again so he now has a 24 hour block for disruption. IrishGuy ^talk 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither warnings nor blocks will do any good: he is obviously aware that he's violating policy, and in the past, he's just resumed editing from a different IP in the same range.[7],[8].Proabivouac 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following diffs suggest a connection between anon 206/216 and User:130.113.111.214, either as the same individual or as a meatpuppet: [9],[10]. [11],[12], [13] [14]. Due to mutual involvement in some fairly obscure articles such as Battle of Yarmouk and Islamic socialism (along with less-obscure ones such as Jihad), coinvolvement in Talk:Muhammad/images representing the same POV, placing successive votes as shown above, and a very close geographical location, it is reasonable to assume User:130.113.111.214 to be connected to User:Bless sins. As the connection (or identity) of User:130.113.111.214 and the individual posting under the 206/216 is obvious, I had at one point guessed both to be anonpuppets of Bless sins - a conclusion I was not happy to reach, as Bless sins, while at times quite difficult to work with, had always proved civil. It may be that they are distinct individuals whom Bless sins had recruited onto Wikipedia, or at least to the depictions discussion. I am inclined to accept Bless sins’ word that 206/216 is not actually him; however his studious and repeated refusal to deny a connection by this time constitutes a virtual admission: [15], [16], [17], [18]. (same direct question, four times in a row, evaded each time.) I am therefore inclined to ask Bless sins to prevail upon his associate (who evidently cannot be blocked) to cease this disruption.Proabivouac 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A ranged anonblock may be called for here. -- Avi 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that many of the edits from this anon are happening at the same time Bless sins is editing but on different articles. See for example the edits by this anon IP [19], at the exact same time Bless sins is editing another article while logged in, if you check Bless sin's contribution log. This suggests that they are different people, but in all seriousness if you make both ranges wide enough you can probably get a match anyhow. --64.230.123.126 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that racist language being used on Talk:Muhammad in this post:

"The fact that Muslims become unsettled when we say that Muhammad founded Islam, but Buddhists have no problem hearing or even saying that the Buddha founded Buddhism (though the Buddha also claimed to have predecessors) says a lot about the Muslim psyche. Arrow740 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

--64.230.123.126 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm tired of this. In this edit I stated: "I AM NOT INVOLVED IN SOCKPUPPETRY WITH ANY ANON LIKE YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF". How much clearer do I need to make myself? At different points in time Proabivouac has accused me of bieng this anon. After he has realized the error in accusing me of sockpuppetry, Proabivouac is now accusing me of of bieng this anon's "associate". Is there some place where I can report Proabivouac for his/her constant lying, baseless accusing and mudslinging at me?Bless sins 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit

User:Gwen Gale was blocked by User:Dmcdevit for having reported a 3RR violation by User:Blue Tie. In addition to having done basically nothing wrong here at all, Gwen Gale has been very active in discussions re the controversy surrounding User:Essjay and the resulting policy questions. Dmcdevit's unorthodox response to an otherwise straightforward 3RR report was unfair, and prevents Gwen Gale from continuing her productive and responsible input on foundation-level questions. Indeed, it appears to have led her to question the wisdom of her involvement with Wikipedia in general. I ask that this ill-considered block of a good-faith, lawful and productive user be reversed as the earliest possible opportunity.Proabivouac 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect; Gwen Gale did not violate 3RR.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And your further reversion of the article in question is Gaming the system. – Chacor 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an absolutely pathetic attitude for an admin, truly. Derex 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Examining a dispute and making a well-considered call does not constitute "gaming the system."

Re "her loss," my ass. We're lucky when serious responsible adults take time out of their busy days to contribute to Wikipedia. It's not at all desirable that/when they're driven off by clueless college kids.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Her choice. We don't care either way. People contribute of their own free will, after all. – Chacor 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to characterizing Dmcdevit as a "clueless college kid". For my part, my previous unblock of Gwen Gale was conditional on refraining from future edit wars, and she then edit warred not too long after on an article regarding the same subject. I'm failing to see what you consider so unreasonable here. I would indeed be sorry to see her leave, but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment I ask that you watch your tone. It is needlessly hostile and I will enforce policy if it continues.--Jersey Devil 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You suffer from the misimpression that edit warring is acceptable as long as it doesn't exceed 3 reverts in a page. Please reread the pages on WP:3RR and WP:BP; it is actually quite clear. Unfortunately, edit warring is prohibited, certainly not "nothing wrong at all", and a blockworthy offense, especially in light of a block a little more than a week ago for 3RR, which was reversed upon her promise not to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To both sides, tempers seem to be getting out of control, all those who contribute to Wikipedia should be respected and thanked for doing so, but from a quick look at the contribs, both sides did break 3RR. Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and sometimes it's necessary for someone outside of the situation to remind that to those inside of it.Just H 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happens when you click the old block button against established users on a judgement call with no clear rule violation, tempers flare. Does anyone really believe that's a constructive response? It's seems to me considerably more harmful than edit warring in the first place. Derex 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not made in bad temper at all, simply explanatory. Was this misindented? Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, I was talking to everyone in this section, not directly to a single person. I don't find the colons to be that big of a deal. Just H 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and Seraphimblade have above claimed that Gwen Gale herself violated 3RR, along with the violator she dutifully reported. That is simply false. To ask for diffs proving the contrary would be mere formality: they do not exist.Proabivouac 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not mischaracterize my statements. I did not say she "broke 3RR", I said she "edit warred". The two are similar but not the same. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to do so. When you wrote, "but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR," this suggested a violation of policy on Gwen Gales' part which did not occur. If you did not mean to suggest that, declining to add "or break 3RR" would have made this more clear.

Ryulong wrote, "They both violated 3RR," which is plainly false, and should be retracted.Proabivouac 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Ryulong. Your statement suggested that Gwen Gale violated 3RR in this recent incident, not on some other occasion. What is so difficult about admitting that you were wrong?Proabivouac 09:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it that way because otherwise your reference made no sense: we do not block editors for alleged past infractions. It is obvious that you erred in your assessment of the issue at hand. You should admit this, and apologize to Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that editors are not again blocked for infractions in the past. It is not however true that those won't be taken into account if a future block is considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted. I'm tired of being being attacked for all of my statements. I recuse myself entirely from this situation, but that does not mean my original review of your unblock request for Gwen Gale is invalid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting her talk page so she can't respond is a hell of a way of recusing yourself, Ryulong. Given that you've already admitted that you are taking this personally, it's an abuse of administrative tools to use them in a dispute in which you are involved. Particularly as you objected to her using the word "trolling" with reference to you. Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you read below? My recusal is gone now, except for the next 8 hours or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's response

The following is a transclusion from Gwen Gale's talk page so that he/she can respond to this thread: (→Netscott) 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I had recused myself, as a result of these edits, I have temporarily protected Gwen Gale's user page for her personal attacks against me, in which she twice mentioned me as "trolling."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this develop and want to state that I support the block - edit warring is bad. And I support the page protection - footstamping is also bad. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{User talk:Gwen Gale}}

Might I suggest you block yourself for abusing administrative tools by using them in a dispute in which you are involved? In particular "for her personal attacks against me," emphasis added. No, well I suppose the rules do only apply to little people. (edit conflicted, was to Ryulong) Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusing that someone who is screaming about the rules doesn't know about the rule against self-blocking. --Golbez 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know about that rule. Do you know about sarcasm and irony? Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's just great. Now he protected his own page as well, so no one can talk to him. [20] Ryulong seriously needs to get the clue that admin tools are not a personal toy. Derex 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And you need to get a clue that he's stressed and stop attacking him. – Chacor 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You know who else was stressed? Gwen Gale. But it seemed just dandy to block her rather than speak to her respectfully. But, as you helpfully noted above, "we don't care" if she leaves. But if someone criticizes an admin, it appears that's definitely worth caring about. Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Per [21], and Derex' comments above, I am now convinced that Ryulong lacks the integrity and maturity of character we should expect from those we entrust with authority, a.k.a. "the tools."Proabivouac 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you are directing that message to me, clearly. The fact of the matter is that she was abusing the editting on her own talk page. And she also attacked Seraphimblade a second time, stating that Seraphimblade's a teenager when he/she clearly stated his/her age on Gwen's talk page. Also, my talk page is only semiprotected because there's an IP user who's being a dick (and move-protected because no one should be moving those pages). You can very well give me a message there, but I probably won't answer as I should have gone to sleep a couple of hours ago and I will be within the next 10 minutes. Consider that the block on myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this is not the first time that Ryulong has blatantly misused the admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that you have referenced Straight Outta Lynwood.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And on both accounts, I am supported by established editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I tend to trust Ryulong's reasoning when it comes to Wikipedia matters however I do not agree with this statement he made: "And it also seems that Gwen Gale has left under these circumstances. His/Her loss regarding a respected Wikipedia editor. That is really poor form and is sooner a demonstration of contempt and lack of good faith. Editors like User:Gwen Gale who make valuable contributions (as an co-editor on the Essjay controversy article with her I should know) should not be spoken about so flippantly/non-chalantly. (→Netscott) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I redacted all of my statements. That was one of them—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please add this war to WP:LAME? I mean, seriously, a dispute resulting in two blocks and a biggish thread on this board over whether to include the fact that two pilots appeared wearing bomber jackets? Do we always note when court witnesses appear in casual attire? Please! Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it was appropiate to block both users, it is inappropiate to reach 3 reverts so as to not go over the 3 revert per day limit, that's edit warring and gaming the system. Dionyseus 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pending RFCU

Blue Tie is now listed in an (apparently--why?) long delayed RFCU:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#However_whatever

As IP info is only good for 30 or 31 odd days, can someone get this before it gets too late? - Denny 06:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:LionheartX

Some admin please take a look at LionheartX's repeated, very disruptive moves to article Chonji. At the talk page, there was a discussion and a vote to keep it at Chonji, against moving to Tianchi. LionheartX keeps moving without any discussion or consensus.

Then he give me a 3RR warning for undoing his moves, and then vandalizes by user page with a "suspected sock" tag. This is very disruptive trolling.

I bring this here because I see he has a history of disruptive behavior. BAmonster 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally titled Tianchi[22][23]. There was never consensus to move it to Chonji. The status quo before the move should be restored until disagreements are settled. BAmonster (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock. He has cut and paste moved the page to Cheonji lake which destroyed the talk page history.[24]. He then reposted a 3RR warning for undoing his moves. BAmonster appears to be a sock because he has made very few edits and seems very familiar with the site.[25] LionheartX 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a user conduct WP:RFC on LionheartX. When I unblocked I gave a strong recommendation to enter WP:ADOPT, which this user disregarded. WP:DE would be good reading. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky

File:Boa.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has now been deleted seven times (in a couple of different versions) as having no copyright information whatsoever. In every case I can recall the image was uploaded by a single-purpose account with no other edits at all, a different account every time. Someone is not learning. Now, I could protect the title but I suspect that they will then upload it with a different filename, and then I will not spot it (I see the bluelink in my deletion log). Clearly someone is not getting the hint, do you think CheckUsers will help to flush the main account out? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with the popups preview, that looks to be an album cover. Is it? If it is then it shouldn't be hard to track down the copyright info, though asserting fair use for it as the primary image on BoA (singer) would be another matter. --tjstrf talk 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't album covers, they are publicity headshots, probably uploaded in an attempt to fill the infobox on BoA. Since that expressly requires a free image, that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Is it just me, or will all of the contributions by Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have to be oversighted? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a vandalbot and indefblocked. UnfriendlyFire 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs a wikibreak avoiding block

This user is going about canvassing for someone to do a GA review of the Islam and slavery article utilizing talk pages that have nothing to do with it. After having removed this talk per WP:TPG, I warned this editor that what he was doing was disruptive and to cease at once. He responded with a flat no and proceeded to re-revert me. This editor is exhibiting very odd behavior today as he has been linking an article that he's written entirely upon original research about Autosodomy to Yoga and Yoga as exercise both of which where "rvv"ed by another editor. In addition to all of this editor has been severly anti-Islam propaganda POV pushing (this addition to his user page is rather indicative). Could someone kindly prevent further talk page disruption on this part of this individual? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a warning about it. Hopefully he will stop. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed all of his reverted messages. He seemed to have stopped... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Shaking my head in disbelief) The guy has just gone from putting the GA request in articles, to putting it on user talk pages. He definitely didn't read WP:CANVASS... I'll let someone else deal with this... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep I see one two three since the last warning on his talk page ... It's clear that this user is not going to stop despite two clear warnings. In addition, the person in question made a rather strange edit to the Hezbollah article in the purported role of a GA reviewer. Orderinchaos 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've enacted a 24 hour block on the basis of the above. Orderinchaos 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is editor is on the way to destruction. He may have no chance to make his time. But seriously..... constant and disruptive/problematic editing on his part is not encouraging for Wikilongevity. (→Netscott) 12:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 is avoiding his block using IP sockpuppetry as User:149.135.84.72, this edit and this revert (to his version) on a DavidYork71 favorite article → Islam and slavery demonstrates. This is not the first time he's edited from this IP range as this edit shows (there he was commenting via that range on a 3RR report against himself). (→Netscott) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's now requesting an unblock. Please be aware as this additional revert illustrates he knew he was blocked when he made that revert. (→Netscott) 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock declined by Yamla. I wonder if a longer block might be appropriate, given the sockpuppetry as well as the canvassing. --cj | talk 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially as we're now looking at a repeat offence - the block around the 22nd attracted similar behaviour. Orderinchaos 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block to 48 hours, in the sense that this is the next logical extension upward from a 24 hour ban. Orderinchaos 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to utilize IPs for sockpuppeting. His latest IP: 149.135.34.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(Above copied from my talk page) Have blocked the IP. What action would be most suitable for this one given it appears he will keep doing it? He is, for the record, blocked for another 35 or so hours under his primary nick. As I've taken the basic actions thus far I'd prefer someone other than myself review appropriately and make the call on any extensions. Orderinchaos 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior to his block this editor was engaging in other disruptive behavior. He wikilinked an articled he created called "autosodomy" to Yoga and Yoga as exercise (both edit were rvv'd by User:Buddhipriya). This combined with other problematic edits makes me think that the project would be better off without the input of this individual. (→Netscott) 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The unjust blocking of Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)

Administrator Gaillimh (talk · contribs) has indefinitely blocked long standing contributor FS for having an "offensive username". FS was previously blocked in August 2005 for the same, but was almost immediately unblocked by another administrator as they didn't find it offensive enough. User:Gaillimh has attempted to get FS to change his username, but FS refused and has been indefinitely blocked. This is a clear breach of the WP:USERNAME policy, which states that if a user will not voluntarily change their name it should be brought up at WP:RFCN. I have raised this matter with the blocking administrator, who has summarily ignored me. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a good block and urge unblocking. Long-standing users have always been asked to go to RFCN and such. It's not a new user. Even then, question, how is it offensive? – Chacor 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As for how it's offensive: Fenian = Irish Nationalist. So I can see how some would see bad in this username. --Golbez 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing the block, Wikipedia:Username policy is clear on this: Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. If the user will not voluntarily change their name, bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should also be made aware of the discussion. The time this discussion can take varies upon how active the user in question is.--Jersey Devil 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe the username is inappropriate, however, but the block was not helpful.--MONGO 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been asked to change it and absolutely refuses. He has pretty close to absolute contempt for admins. This will not have improved that. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocking was forewarned by User:Gaillimh but not 'discussed' in any meaningful sense. It was strictly a 'do it or you are blocked' ultimatum. Play Brian Moore is what the user signs signs all his edits; which was (I think) the compromise reached in 2005. In order to see the "Fenian Swine" you must go to his Userpage. Furthermore, as an avowed Fenian himself (a claim supported by his contributions) he states his use of "swine" is ironic. In this case, given all the facts and previous compromise two years ago, it seems to me that this blocking is totally OTT and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Sarah777 12:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

close to absolute contempt for admins. I resent that comment. There have been far more friendly administrators here than unfriendly. The name is just not offensive in all fairness though. An Irish pig, lets face it lads, thats fairly weak.--Play Brian Moore 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologise. This was based on what was said to me last time this was mentioned. Whatever, I see no problems with your editing, and that is probably all that matters after this much time. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole issue ridiculous, Fenian Swine is not offensive in this case as the editor is obviously a Irish Republican supporter, I think the admin has over reacted.--padraig3uk 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I'll note that the name "Fenian Swine" is indeed blatantly offensive (and he was, in fact, originally blocked for just that reason). With regards to the username policy, and the aforementioned section in particular, Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults are disallowed. Such usernames fall under the scope of what is labelled Inflammatory usernames on the policy page. This applies to this user, as a "Fenian" is sometimes used as an insult directed at Catholics and nationalists. However, if someone is a member of Sinn Féin, he might identify himself and his mates as Fenians, where no insult is intended. It's a bit confusing if you're not from Ireland, and the only similar comparison I can make is that it's a bit similar to when African-Americans use the word "nigga" as a substitute for "mate" or "friend." Conversely, when those outside of the African-American community use the word, it's usually in a disparaging tone. One can see that this user is attempting to use the word "Fenian" as an insult as his full username is "Fenian Swine." As you may already know, swine is a term for pig, which is almost never used in a flattering term. Ironic or not, the username is ridiculous and disparaging towards Catholic nationalists. In addition, if one looks at my discourses with the user, one will see that I had asked him to change his username beginning eight days prior to the block being issused. During this time, I attempted to work with this user and was rebuffed several times. I also ignored his incivility in the hopes that he would change his username. That is, the block was used as a last resort gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For a 2 year old user account, blocking is not the correct answer, and its certainly not the last resort. WP:RFCN is the right place to go. Disagreeing with you on changing his username is not appropriate grounds for blocking unless there is community consensus per WP:RFCN. For an account just created, I can understand blocking and posting to RFCN upon the user's request if this were a new account, but this particular block was very much the wrong action to take. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nominated for discussion at WP:RFCN. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, this block should have been discussed first. There is absolutely no excuse for blocking a long-standing contributor in good standing without at least some discussion here or at WP:RFCN. Ral315 » 07:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

There's something suspicious about Poemswheel's contributions. The first thing he does is to create his user and talk pages, and then they make edits with the false edit summary of "rvv" which are actually vandalism, such as [26] and [27] and most curiously [28]. Should this user be blocked? Resurgent insurgent 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hells yes. I've blocked the account. The "rvv" and immediate creation of userpages seem to indicate that is an account created solely for vandalism. Looks like User:Wbwbr / User:Accountready / User:Enlighter1 / etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Armando12

Throughout the discussion at Talk:Evanescence (specifically Talk:Evanescence#Band_photo), Armando12 has been repeatedly uncivil, issued personal attacks ("you are totally ... brain damaged"), and shown a general level of immaturity in holding a discussion, punctuating almost every comment with exclamations of ridicule ("Hahahahaha! Lol! rofl...the actual consensus was reached after that image!! hahahahaha!"). He has repeatedly stated his opinion that the only possible reason I could want to remove unnecessary fair use imagery from the article is through a deep hatred of the band in question, despite the fact that I have told him a number of times that I have no interest in the band whatsoever (I've never even heard their music) beyond their article. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:69.201.182.76

Reposting old thread, as I've done some research into it.

This user has been tagging many newly created articles for either proposed or speedy deletion, and many of those same tagged articles have been expanded into viable aricles by other myself or others(usually the creators). I though he/she was just overzealous; but eventually, his/her prod/speedy tagging of The KLF(well beyond stub-level)drew a vandalism warning from User:Kingboyk who reverted it back to the last pre-tagging edit. I then realized that he was clearly causing trouble; so I started monitoring his recent edits regularly, and have to revert or de-tag about dozen of prod/speedy tagged articles(none of which I created) a number of which again were expanded to decent articles. To top things off, earlier today he/she vandalized devil's advocate by inserting c's into the middle of several interwiki links. Because a registered user made a good faith edit and failed to notice it, I had to remove the c's myself. Based on the fact that he/she has clear knowledge of prod/speedy deletion policies and abusing them, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this IP may be a sock/meatpuppet of a more prolific deletionist vandal... Ranma9617 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

14 March, anon IP proposes speedy deletion of a recent FA

20 March 01:58 Ranma9617 (talk · contribs) posts a message here about the anon IP

20 March 19:14 The same IP supports an RFA

1 minute later, YechielMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims the IP's edit as his

20 March 19:50 the IP archives YechielMan's talk page

22 March 19:55 the anon IP leaves a personal attack at User talk:Ranma9617

Concidence? Maybe... --kingboyk 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot making supremely trivial edits

EmxBot (talk · contribs) is making a large number of trivial edits (removing the flanking spaces from headers); it's not doing harm, but it's a waste of time and resources. What's our attitude to this sort of thing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be operating outside its approved tasks. I'd agree it's not doing harm, though I can't see it doing any particular good either. By the letter of the policy it can be blocked for operating outside its approved tasks, though it may just be better to tell the operator to stop and seek approval for the task. --pgk 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Someone else got there first, though, and the situation has been cleared up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Danieljake123456 (talk · contribs)

For the entire night this user has been uploading blatant copyvio (ie manga scans) (I gave him 4 speedies [29][30][31][32]) and engage in weird kind of vandalism (Changing interlanguage links [33] and copying the trivia section of an article to paste it again in elsewhere in the article [34]) I have gave him 4 nothanks and 2 vandalism warnings; should I do any more action? _{--Especially I wonder if he is a bona fide editor who mistook WP as fan page space...} --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue

I need some people well versed in US politics to review the contributions of 69.249.195.232 (talk · contribs) please, following an OTRS complaint. OTRS volunteers can check [35]. I'd say this is one who is skirting the margins of violating policy, but I don't know enough about the subject area. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:OttomanReference for WP:NPA and turning Wikipedia into nationalist battleground

For the past few days, this user has consistently attacked me because of my ethnicity and made disparaging remarks about people my people as a whole, precisely due to my additions on the Mustafa Kemal page [36] which he instantly reverted. And while attempting to "explain" to me why my additions were wrong, he referred to me as an "Armenian joke" [37]. He furthermore continues with accusations that I am a part of fringe Armenian political party (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, (ARF) ) whose sole purpose is to essentially terrorize Turkish related articles, that the party supposedly terrorized Turks 100 years ago, and continues to do so now on Wikipedia: "ARF members are attacking everything they found honorable around, this time Ataturk, They are constantly deleting significant information that proves they made mistakes." One successive attack after another, all because he believed my additions were too insulting to the person in question the article is about.

Later, my propositions on the Van Resistance talk page [38] turned hostile when the same user became indignant about them, and again attacked my people as a whole: "When history is written by Armenians with Armenian lexicography it is nice, but rest is bad and ugly. Truth has no value in these arguments" , "MarshallBagramyan says: ""LETS get rid of it" Of course. There is a group of Armenian soldiers which votes to get rid of even the name of these activities" , "It is so dogmatic that the people like MarshallBagramyan 's view of history [my note: that is, in reference to us Armenians]; if the answers of these questions are not in his/her history book (lets say the bible of the truth) the questions are not (or should not be) valuable questions."

All these comments and yet he still feels that it is necessary to add the comment "thanks" at the end of his messages. This user is well-versed on Wikipedia's policies and hence reminding him of so elementary rule seems redundant. I hope the proper action is taken. Thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unban and mentorship for User:Daniel Brandt

Yesterday evening Daniel Brandt e-mailed me with a proposal to allow him to begin editing again. Brandt has been banned for a while now due to spats with some of our administrators; he has been editing Wikipedia since then using a number of sockpuppet accounts.

The premise of Brandt's proposal was that he has a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. He runs NameBase, a comprehensive database of biographical articles citing thousands of reliable sources. Brandt is an "old-school" researcher who would be invaluable to our biographies of living people. Although some people may have old fights to pick with him, he suggested a mentorship to prevent personal disputes from disrupting his editing.

I have decided to take a WP:IAR action in the interest of improving the encyclopedia and allow Brandt to start editing again. You can discuss this decision on his talk page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully he will be able to contribute with useful edits. Who's going to be the mentor though? --Cyde Weys 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone taking issue with that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Has to be Jimbo for mentorship, right? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Editing with socks while blocked is further disregarding our rules. I strongly oppose allowing someone who did that, any second chance! Per WP:BAN, the quality of the person's edits with the socks does not matter. Nardman1 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa! Do you really think this is wise? I think we need two mentors, not just one. I have two perfect candidates in mind for the job. Friday (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

God I hate 4/01/07. :) SirFozzie 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one! It got me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this section and I think it's a good idea but you forgot to unblock him, so I did it for you, but I don't think this guy was too happy about it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fell for that completely. *blushes* Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's evil. Nice one. ;-) -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only word covering this one is D'oh!. 10 points for creativity :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to anyone who unblocked me, thank you! I know I'm not the most liked person here, but I promise to at least try to not cause any trouble. I will of course continue my work off-wikipedia, but I welcome any constructive criticism, and I will certainly take the mentorship under concideration. Cheers all, and here's to a mutually productive relationship. Daniel Brandt 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

↑ This was added by an IP. You know I've never been involved with Brandt and all of the nonsense surrounding his article but understand many many folks consider him a troll, etc. but I will say one thing... the project learned a valuable lesson on the Essjay controversy and from what I understand Brandt was instrumental in all of that. (→Netscott) 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orane Community article and user

This user edited the article Orane Community, which I placed a speedy tag on (I later noticed that he did not actually create the article, but it still seemed non-notable). Then he removed the speedy tag four times, getting a full set of warnings from me, and then placed the hangon template on the article. I did not revert that, but then he removed both the speedy and hangon tags. Should he be blocked and the article deleted, or have I done something wrong? Macintosh User 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula (2nd repost)

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently ([39], [40], [41], [42]). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. [43], [44], [45], [46].

I originally posted this on 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC), but no admin had resolved it then. About two days later, User:MiszaBot II archived it and it still has not been resolved. Squirepants101 14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The same bot removed it after only a few hours. Squirepants101 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax articles deleted, users blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits no longer appear in contribution list

I saw and reverted this but when I went to check the contribtion list there is noting after the 26 March. Makes it hard to warn for vandlism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the server is backed up. The contributions will appear...it just takes a few minutes. There is a serious lag between action and that action appearing on the contribution list. IrishGuy ^talk 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something similar: I reverted some vandalism, but the history said MartinBot had reverted it. Macintosh User 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that just means the bot got there before you. Happens a lot :) Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot has gotten to an article before me before, and then Twinkle showed an error message about it being reverted already. I guess that's because the bot fixed it just a tiny bit before I tried to. Macintosh User 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been noticing the same server lag. Maybe the devs are playing a vast April Fools joke on us. Or the servers themselves! Natalie 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A was created by Sue Rangell (talk · contribs), speedy deleted by me (as an attack on Britannica), and userfied by DRV to User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.. The user page was subsequently MFD'd by Xyzzy n and its current version was recently kept. That's all well and good, but Sue has been trying to add links from Wikipedia:Primogeniture and WP:ROUGE to this essay as it exists in her userspace. She doesn't seem to understand that there is a distinction between User space and Wikipedia space and that cross-namespace linking is bad. I've tried to say as much, but she doesn't seem inclined to listen to me given my previous involvment. Could someone else talk to her? She is a new user and aside from questionable taste in humor seems well-intentioned. Dragons flight 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's by far not an established practice for projectspace essays not to link to userspace; many do. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? Name three examples of user space essays being linked in the body of Wikipedia space content. Some broadly used resources are kept in User space, and linked from other places, but I can't think of any that are essays. If any time content is "userfied" the creator can just replace all the links to the original with links to the User subpage, then much of the point of the process is lost. Dragons flight 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not common, to my knowledge, and I'd like examples as well. ThuranX 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Several of my essays are linked to from project space, and linking from AFD discussions (that are in the project namespace) to user-space essays has been a common practice for several years. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Raul654/Raul's laws and Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Silensor/Schools, for examples. "Cross-namespace linking is bad." is superficial and wrong, which is probably why you are having a difficult time explaining it. A better statement would be a specific one: We don't link from the article namespace to other namespaces (except the category namespace), because it causes problems for mirrors, and causes articles to make no sense anywhere other than on Wikipedia itself. (See also Template:Selfref.) But links between the project namespace and user namespace are not prohibited for those reasons.

  Now whether a link to this particular essay is appropriate is a different matter. My essays and User:Silensor/Schools are not humour, and linking to them is not a matter of "I wrote a humourous essay, too!". So the consideration is not the namespaces but is, in part, whether the link is an aid in the effort of working on the project, and how far it is across the threshold beyond which user space starts to turn into Uncyclopedia. Uncle G 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 gaming WP:3RR

For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is infamous for his alleged antisemitism and Holocaust denial. The lead itself uses multiple impeccable sources to merely state that he has been accused of it, and also includes his own defense that he is not; it was difficult consensus hammered out amongst multiple editors. After finally giving up on deleting the material, more recently Pejman47 has decided to insert an argument that Ahmadinejad cannot be antisemitic because Persian Jews aren't officially persecuted, and because his office once donated some money to a Jewish hospital. It has been pointed out on the Talk: page that this argument is original research, and that he has misrepresented his sources. However, rather than dealing with the issue, he insists that he can insert whatever argument he wants to invent for the sake of "NPOV", and that he will revert 3 times a day for that purpose. His most recent Talk: comment states "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!". I am requesting a block under the following WP:3RR clause:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."

I am hoping that such a block will convince Pejman47 to respect policy, and use the Talk: page, rather than assume that 3RR is a game where you revert 3 times, then wait for the next day. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First "For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is frankly a lie (see my contributions in that article) and almost any where that I had done anything to that article is accompanied with a note on the talk page. And some of them has remained with consensus in talk page. Again Jayjg, is paraphrasing my edits in talk page to support his own POV. Another user also that I have not heard his name has supported my view. I think, every thing else is clearly in that talk page--Pejman47 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

"Frankly a lie"? Here are some of your "contributions": [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion of content, but of your stated aim to game 3RR. That kind of attitude is antithetical to productive editing on Wikipedia, which should be the product of consensus-building etc., and not one of wearing down your opponent. Tewfik^Talk 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a stern warning for this user in talk. I do not think that it will help, but if he persists he will be blocked for disruption ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was warned by me for much the same behavior not very long ago: User_talk:Pejman47/Archive1#Azerbaijan_.28Iran.29_2. He sees edit warring and combative behavior as a legitimate editing tactic, and I think the time for simply warning is already over. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Considering that he has been warned for gaming 3RR twice before and has dismissed those warnings I've blocked him for 24 hrs to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. This sort of behavior occurs all too often throughout WP. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic ip vandalism at Muhammad Iqbal

I request advice on how to do deal with this continuing vandalism - for over a month, an anonymous ip has been attacking this article with precisely the same kind of vandalism. I had blocked the ip a few times - most recently, for 1 month - but using dynamic ips, this person is returning to vandalize. Article protection doesn't work, as this vandal keeps coming back.

Relevant diffs

[52], [53], [54], [55]

Rama's arrow 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. Let's leave the semi-protect there for a few weeks, and hope the IP editor gets bored and moves on. Featured articles in particular should not be persistently defaced. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block urgent

This user: User:Columbia Pictures needs to be blocked urgently - he has created many articles as part of an elaborate April Fools Day joke (see the AfD of the articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures)) and he is creating new articles every five minutes. Baristarim 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.. Baristarim 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another User:TorchLady71 sockpuppet. This isn't an April Fools Day prank, he regularly tries to perpetrate this hoax on Wikipedia. JuJube 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

WP:HAR, WP:STALK issues. This is not a content dispute. User:Orangemarlin continues to label me as a "creationist" on talk pages related to Evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy in an effort to discredit me among other editors who frequent those pages, many of whom naturally have strong feelings against creationists. I've explained (very reluctantly) that the label is inaccurate and that I find his comments and attacks (e.g., "whiny little creationist") offensive. I've attempted for some time now to resolve this issue amicably, or at least courteously. My attempts to simply remove his personal attacks and labeling from article talk pages, even being careful to leave appropriate content, have been reverted by him. I object very strongly to allowing him to leave those attacks and labels on the talk pages for any period of time, therefore I request a block. I'll provide background and evidence upon request, but I would be very grateful for speedy action. Thanks! Gnixon 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Need to be able to see the offense before we can block. Heimstern Läufer 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on it, but it'll take me awhile to identify the highlights. Ambitious admins could pretty quickly see some examples by following the links above. Thanks for responding. Gnixon 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and looked at Orangemarlin's contribs, and yes, this complaint is founded: [56]. IrishGuy has warned Orangemarlin [57], for now, it's probably best we leave it at that. If it continues, we may have to take more action. Heimstern Läufer 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As promised, here are some links:

• Talk:Objections to evolution#Intro. OM insists that the intro to an article on mostly creationist objections to evolution go out of its way to marginalize those religions that promote creationism. The context illustrates how much he was willing to disrupt the flow of the intro to do so.
• Discussions between OM and me (among others), archived from OM's talk page, that illustrate the degeneration of our communication. They begin with my misidentification of his reverts as being due to ownership issues. Also includes discussions with others illustrating his anti-Creationist POV and intent to push it in articles.
• A diff where OM removes relevant and appropriate descriptions of authors quoted attacking creationism because he thinks the descriptions may damage their credibility. Comments in edit history are telling. Another editor [[58]] the POVishness of his edits on the talk page while OM and I are discussing.
• OM kindly provides provides a diff on another user's talk page, pointing to a discussion where other users complain about POV-pushing by a group of editors like OM.

Sorry for not giving more links, but OM's attacks and intentions to POV-push in the articles are present on just about every creation/evolution-related article talk page we have. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: OM has stated his intent to continue stalking me and pushing his POV after the warning that resulted from this ANI post. I really don't have the time to participate in Wikipedia if it means constantly dealing with this kind of nonsense. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If he actually continues with it, report it here. In the meantime, please remember to "take the high road" and keep discussion on the related article talk pages impersonal and civil even if others don't. Cla68 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. You're absolutely right. Gnixon 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Botaylor456

• Botaylor456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I've spent the better part of the past two days trying to deal with this guy. He seems to have created some sort of fantasy persona for himself under the article Bo Taylor, wherein he claims to be a famous Academy Award-winning actor. I put a subst-prod on it, and he removed it twice (although hiding behind an anonymous IP address.) He also created articles about the two characters he allegedly plays on As the World Turns, and vandalized another page (Charles Divins) by editing it to state that this person (who actually does appear on As the World Turns) is his son. He also vandalized several other pages (see my user contributions from 3/31 and 4/1 where I attempted to clean up some of them.) Additionally, he recreated an article called WHAA-TV after it was speedily deleted. This article was a copy of all of the text in the WABC-TV article where he just changed the call letters to some fictitious station. He's done extensive editing on various television news personalities; these may be legitimate, but I don't have the time to check them out. I put two vandalism warnings on his user page, but he blanked the entire page. And someone else also put a warning about removing speedy deletion tags on one of the anonymous IP address user pages that he's clearly using. --Proofreader J-Man 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (note: moved from AIV ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

New user impersonating another

User:Deathrøcker is a new user account which is obviously created to try and stir up trouble for another user, User:Deathrocker....who does tend to make a lot of enemies on Wikipedia...but doesn't deserve to have an "evil twin". Well....maybe he doesn't? 156.34.223.26 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--cj | talk 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Verdict lawsuit

Banned vandal named Verdict (talk · contribs) states, "i will sue you. I am not kidding." This user is already banned prior to the legal threat (see here). I've made a brief note of this on Wikipedia:List of banned users. Am I correct in thinking it's not worth noting this anywhere else? --Yamla 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to have fun being laughed out of the lawyer's office. Actually, on second thought, don't. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be an attack page User:Pieterkonink.

I was not sure were to bring this. This user page appears to be an attack page. --Masterpedia 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The user created the page October 2004, and edited four more times, progressively adding more self-deprecation three times during 2005. They've contributed three good edits and one user talk page interaction during the same time period. Looks like self piercing expression to me. Shenme 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Can an administrator, please, take a look at this? [59]. Seems like a pretty blatant personal attack to me (not to mention the use of vulgarity). It looks like the editor, in question, has already been blocked multiple times for similar disruption and he is apparently undaunted. I'm not sure that another warning is sufficient. (his talk page is full of "final" warnings already) Thanks! Cleo123 06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blockable offense to me. Cla68 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I removed the PA from his post, but I will not block him (yet) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure??? You are not sure???. Please, explain what exactly it is that you are not sure about, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn. Is it unclear to you that the user broke 3RR, or are you unclear that he said on the article's talk page : "And to the moron who reverted my removal of this. Fuck you! I'll talk however I want! I'll fuck anything that moves!" What is it, exactly, that you are not sure of? The regular editors on the Michael Richards' article have been patiently trying to work with this very disruptive individual for some time now. If you, or any other administrator is not sure about this user's modis apperrandi I believe you owe us - and the rest of the Wikipedia community - some explaination as to why you are chosing to ignore what can only be catagorized as very flagrant abuse? Cleo123 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at 3RR just the personal attack. I'm not sure that the attack you linked to is suffencient for a block. I didn't choose to ignore it.I did, remove the attack from the talk page, I did warn him about civility, but I'm not sure that a block is needed at the moment. If you feel he is being overy disruptive for an extended period of time then feel free to start a RFC Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For an outside, uninformed view...come on, that's blatantly an offence that warrants a short block. You can't get away with that kind of abusive nonsense with impunity. Badgerpatrol 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From the blocking policy "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." . (emphasis mine) I feel it's borderline. No one else even bothered to remove the attack until I came along and other editors replied to it. It doesn't appear to have disrupted the debate on the page.Other admins mat very well disagree and decide to block him. I have no problem with that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing to do with me! I would say as a caution however that frustration often brews when good-faith editors see such abysmal behaviour passing by with little of no action- and problems may subsequently arise that could easily have been prevented. I don't see an editor abusing another editor like this ("Fuck You" and so on) as acceptable. It's a curious system- sometimes blocked are handed out for nothing, or next to nothing, whilst in a case like this- that seems to be fairly clear-cut- nothing is done. Anyway, I shall shut about it since it's beyond me to interfere, even if I wanted to. Badgerpatrol 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is making disruptive edits to many userboxes

This user appears to be making disruptive edits to dozens of userboxes, including changing the language used in stable Wikipedia:Babel templates like Template:User fr-0. He/she is also adding an aggressive/hostile section titled "DO NOT . . . " to the page of many of these templates. See Special:Contributions/PatPeter for numerous examples of such edits.

I first noticed this behavior when I reverted an edit made by PatPeter (see [60]), and then his/her response was this very incivil post on the talk page ([61]). All of this certainly appears to be inappropriate and disruptive behavior, and I don't know what to do about it, other than posting here hoping that an admin can help. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is also authoring potentially divisive / inflammatory userboxes

In addition, User:PatPeter is the author of this potentially divisive / inflammatory template, User:PatPeter/User_antigay, which appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#T1 (and salting?). Several of the other templates PatPeter has authored feature the word "hates" prominently, too. These may violate guidelines in WP:UBX#Content restrictions, but I'm not sure if they do. See the bottom of the userpage User:PatPeter for examples of such userbox templates. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AIV

• AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bot may not be working right at the moment. Take A Look! King

Lopez ^Contribs 08:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reverts in the contribs still looks okay. Maybe it was an isolated incident. I notice however that it stopped warning the vandals' talk page. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 09:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• Seems OK now, but I wanted to keep it visible while still clearing the AIV list. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage candidate for blanking?

I noticed Dariusholiday's userpage a month or so ago. This user has made a total of 4 edits. 1 to upload a picture of himself, and 3 to update his "bio and resume". I left a message on his talk page a week ago asking that he either remove his resume or start contributing in other ways here. I've noticed quite a few heated discussions that end up here when people edit userpages other than their own, so I thought I'd bring it up instead of blanking it myself. --Onorem 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear MFD to me on WP:NOT grounds - as that is likely to be WP:SNOW, any admin want to be bold and save us all the bother? --Fredrick day 11:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it as it was blatant advertising and self-promotion. I don't really see any point in an MfD but if someone would prefer that, feel free. Sarah 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Being shown as a proven sockpuppet of GreekWarrior and do not know what to do

Resolved

I am sorry if this is not the right place to seek help but I am currently being shown as a proven sockpuppet of the banned user GreekWarrior here http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_GreekWarrior and to put it simply I am not such nor do I know how I came to be identified as such. Can someone please advise me on how this happened and what I can do about it ? Thanks Erolz 13:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the problem, since the RFCU on GreekWarrior doesn't list you as a suspected sock. To link categories, you need to place a colon in front of "Category" ([[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of GreekWarrior]]). --Coredesat 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this so quickly Erolz 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cruzenstern

Would someone please poke Cruzenstern (talk · contribs) with a pointy stick re this [62] among other things. It's retaliation for an A7 deletion (you'd never have guessed, would you?). I kind of wonder if it's someone's alternate account, but probably just some kid. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like pretty clear vandalism and personal attacks to me, I'd certainly support a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a habit of editing or blanking other peoples' user pages: [63], [64], [65], [66]. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SunStar Net

I protected this page for one hour, the editor appears to not be around and it was getting vandalized as fast as I could revert it. Dina 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

changed to sprotection. Dina 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the accounts are obviously related and seem to be a rehash of some older vandalism, I've indef blocked all those involved so far. --pgk 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was on wikibreak last week, so I wasn't available to respond. This is probably the same vandals who caused my page to have to be delete/restored (ask Luna Santin and Newyorkbrad, they know the full story). --sunstar net^talk 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FictionH

FictionH keeps refusing to take the fair use images off his talk page. He has reverted users who have tried to take them off and has accused them of commiting vandalism. [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. The user has repeatedly been warned about citing sources (see his talk page) and received a final warning about personal attacks. Squirepants101 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This all rings a bell - isn't this likely to be banned Sockmaster ForestH under a new name? --Fredrick day 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm father of Replay7. Check my IP if you want to confirm this. And BTW, images are no big deal, and besides, your report was too late, just check my userpage. FictionH 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed the images five minutes after I reported you. Squirepants101 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are a big deal. They are part of copyright law and by principle, the only space where fair use images are permitted are the mainspace. Not the Wikipedia namespace, any part of the userspace, or the talk pages - only articles. Either way, do not put images into your talk page (or your userspace, for that matter). Constantly putting the images back is disruptive. x42bn6 Talk 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Time of reporting: 22:21 (UTC)
Time of image removal: 22:22 (UTC)
Also, why didn't someone tell me that? FictionH 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the time for reporting was 16 after, not 21 after [74]. Which means it was five or six minutes after this report that you altered your page. IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what? If it's the images, User talk:FictionH#User page told you twice the images were illegal. x42bn6 Talk 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, your response to politely being informed that you were violating a policy (in this case it was having your userpage in mainspace categories) was to demand that the user not "*@^k" with you. So even when you were informed, your reaction was incredibly impolite. And the rest of that conversation continues in the same vein. Natalie 00:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Those first 3 symbols are the "fuc" in the f-word. FictionH 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping my eye on this user. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:65.93.75.136

Would someone please block User:65.93.75.136? Corvus cornix 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV if you will. x42bn6 Talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed the guy twice under AIV and nothing was done, that's why I came here. Corvus cornix 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP violation by Truthseekernyc (talk · contribs)

On the article Harvey Bialy, a new user, Truthseekernyc (talk · contribs), has added material which is a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Diffs are here and here. I reverted the edits and left the level-4 BLP warning on the user's talk page, since it's hard to conceive of how these might be good-faith edits. Could an administrator take a look at the situation? Is a block for trolling warranted? Should this go to oversight? MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not NPOV, but they (mostly) seem to be good faith. Obviously, this is an author who regards this scientist as a villain and charalatain, but he added significant laudatory information as well as significant damning information. There was an escalation, of course, with charges that the guy lives on the Internet and posts nonsense, but I suspect that was a complaint about the article. Nevertheless, the matter should be discussed on the talk page. The factual bits, if they can be referenced, would be useful for the article. If Nature did dismiss him, that should be verifiable. If the board did oust him, that would be verifiable. The BLP issues come from the lack of references. Geogre 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see any "laudatory" information added (the parts you're referring to were simply moved from pre-existing text in the article). My impression is that claiming someone's a habitual user of illicit drugs without any reference has gotten us in trouble before. My personal opinion of the subject probably differs little from User:Truthseekernyc's, but this isn't 'Nam - there are rules, and this seemed way beyond the pale. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Innappropriate username appears to be a "vandal only" account

Resolved

Metallica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a fairly new account. The name obviously conflicts with a notable article subject. And the edits all appear to be vandalism. 156.34.142.110 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indefblocked by Cryptic about a half-hour after your post. Thanks for bringing it up. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me

Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody. Really sorry to be here again but his relentless creepy preoccupation with me just seems to have no end! Looks like clear misuse of the Editor Review process. Suggest a block so he really gets it that he should go edit articles or something and leave me alone. (He does edit mostly naval articles, I mean also better invest the time he wastes being preoccupied with me and misusing the processes here to pursue said preoccupation) Other than Barbara Schwarz a while back, he and I do not edit together!! Unlike User:Smee and I who do edit in the same articles and who have a beef over that editing that we are actually maybe getting somewhere with (see my talk). It has been suggested to me privately that, due to his name being analogous to mine and his preoccupation with me, that he might be an SPA with the sole purpose of getting me, the sole Scientologist that actually does anything in the Scientology articles, the hell off Wikipedia. Given this latest and his continued activity at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3, I am starting to agree with that unnamed Wikipedian. Also, there are also indications in his talk that he was also misusing the RfA process to "get answers". See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody and User talk:Anynobody#Comment on your RfA

"I've actually been trying to get people to notice the first WP:RfC and how it got deleted anyway, so even if I don't get accepted I can get some feedback about issues I've wanted for a while. It's kinda hard to explain, so if this isn't making sense I apologize. For now I'll wait to blow up on my Death Star to get some answers."

Now I clearly see the pattern. (Pattern of harassment, I should mention. (add 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC))) --Justanother 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (add 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

• Well, I won't block Anynobody for trolling, and I doubt anybody else will either. But otherwise I agree with Justanother: this Editor review is a mere troll. I was just thinking of taking it to ANI myself. It's an attack page, lightly disguised as a request for review of Anynobody's dispute resolution skills—and guess what, the example dispute turns out to be that between Anynobody and Justanother— very inventive! And as JA points out, it comes on top of some very strange use by AN of other processes, notably a rather frivolous RFA devoted to attacks rather than any realistic attempt to attain adminship. I should declare an interest here: I'm one of the people attacked, see especially the RFA talkpage. Anyway, I recommend people to take a look at this request for editor review, it's quite a document. In my opinion it should be deleted as misuse of process. Being one of Anynobody's targets, I won't delete it myself, but somebody might like to. Anynobody, please stop all this, leave Justanother and the other people you resent alone. Abandon the idea that you must triumph over your "enemies" at all costs, walk away. I honestly think you'll feel better. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I concur with the above opinion. It was my feeling that, even if the user is gaming the system, the system needs to be honored somewhat. If there were 48 hours without actual progress from someone other than Anynobody at the editorial review, I was going to delete it. If there were 24 hours without any comment from another party, then I would delete it. The point is that this is trolling, but trolls are best starved, not whacked. At the peril of again being misread, I suggest that these are virtual tarbabies: the more you strike them, the more you stuck you are, and so few people are listening or interested in what Anynobody is saying that I suspect it can fail with a whimper. Geogre 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's attack page

Upon recommendation from Admin Tom Harrison, I tagged User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) as attack pages, with {{Db-attack}}. These were promptly removed by Justanother (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), with edit summary: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem. In light of the discussion and subsequent speedy deletion of material relating to User:Justanother, it is in-line with this same sort of thinking to delete this attack page as well. Smee 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• The User was most recently blocked for: "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA" Smee 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Below is the entire exchange from Tom Harrison's talk page. As you can see Tom recognized my draft for what it was, preparation for a formal action on User:Smee. My comment below sums up my position. Thank you. --Justanother 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion

• You recently speedily deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody, saying at WP:ANI: "I have speedy-deleted Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody as an attack page." I would appreciate it if you would do the same for another attack page, User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see complete similarity - it looks to me like preparations for an RfC, but I could be missing something. You might nominate it for deletion with a {{Template:Db-attack}}, or take it to misc. for deletion. ^Talk 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Smee 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Tom. Thanks for your help with the phony Editor Review. Yes, you are right, that is the beginnings of an RfC or ArbCom on User:Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Certainly my user space is the appropriate place for me to work on it. It goes without saying that those are charges against Smee that I intend to pursue. Another editor has already added his experience. After Smee's promise to reform and as a sign of good faith (please see my User Talk) I have put it on hold. If I see a turnaround then I will save it off-wiki and delete the page. I must say, however that, so far, reviews are mixed on Smee. A couple positives but a few negatives too including misrepresentation on my talk page and her unwillingness to accept that I will not delete the page until I see some change. She very much wants the cart before the horse. But I remain hopeful. Thanks for your time. --Justanother 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova)‎. --Justanother 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF?

Tom Harrison:

• Why do you see my attempt to get feedback on my behavior as an attack on Justanother?
• I was asking for a review of how I've dealt with Justanother, how can you see that as a back door RfC on him?
• Why did you delete it without contacting me?
• Did you even read it?

Please restore my WP:ER, asking experienced uninvolved editors for feedback on me isn't a personal attack because the comments are supposed to be about me. Anynobody 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 2 --Justanother 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team trolling/harassment

Please note tag-team trolling/harassment of me by User:Smee and User:Anynobody. Wherever one goes with his frivilous trolling activities the other follows in support and vice versa. --Justanother 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION Justanother how is asking for a review of my behavior towards you either A) Trolling or B) Harassment? Anynobody 04:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: - This was the edit summary of Justanother: Smee, take it to AN/I if you have a problem - DIFF - Therefore, my taking it to AN/I is not "trolling" in fact it was simply respecting Justanother's wishes. Smee 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Basta

Honestly, this is one of those occasions where we really need to feed no food. People can prepare RFC's in their private spaces. People abusing the rules in order to simply say the same things over and over is no good. In fact, abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again" is abuse. Tom, don't answer. Smee and Anynobody, let go of your grievance. Justanother, archive your evidence, if those guys do as they have been urged/admonished to do. If folks keep going, we're going to escalate to blocking stages, and that would make me very unhappy. Geogre 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, your recommendation of archiving is an interesting idea. It should be noted that User:Justanother could be said to be abusing AN/I for "tell me again and again and again", as well... Yours, Smee 11:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Draft deleted by author

As a sign of good faith and in the hope that User:Smee can make her promised changes in behaviour, I have {{db-authored}} my draft RfC/ArbCom User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova), and User talk:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) --Justanother 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Katie Melua

There is an edit war happening on the Katie Melua page[75]. The dispute is about whether an article from the News of the World newspaper, stating that she has had a lesbian affair, should be used as a source on the page. Hera1187 14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With one more revert, the anon can be blocked based on 3RR. Rlevse 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I'm not sure if the anon user is right or wrong about the validity of the source. What is the policy on newspaper's allegations and their place on Wikipedia? Hera1187 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A tabloid newspaper that has been frequently successfully sued for libel shouldn't be used as a reliable source for that allegation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

blatant violations of WP:BLP by User:Zero0000

This editor has a content dispute with several other editors at United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, over the inclusion of some criticism of UNRWA. The criticism is sourced to a reliable source - the Weekly Standard, and to one of their journalists - David Tell. User:Zero0000, who does not like the criticism, has taken to describing the journalist as a "liar", an "unrelaible extremist" and "gutless", and decribing his work as "blood libel", "lies" and "trash"- all based on nothing more than his personal opinions. He has been warned to stop this behaviour several times. Isarig 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not a reliable source but a trashy extreme-right rumor mill. Just because it publishes obvious lies about someone doesn't mean that we have to quote them in Wikipedia. Note that this rubbish appears in David Tell's vitriolic attack on a named UN official (a LIVING PERSON, just like David Tell, but that is fine, apparently). I'm entitled, indeed required, to maintain standards, which is what I am trying to do. I've asked repeatedly for a reliable source for these wild assertions, which is supposed to be an official document of the United Nations but for which not even a vague citation has been given. That's because it doens't exist. --Zero^talk 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, you need to be careful about calling the work of a journalist "lies," especially in edit summaries, because they're hard to get rid of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions of The Daily Standard, but it meets all the requirements of WP:RS, and is a reliable source. David Tell is a journalist , with a WP article. Do you think it would be OK to edit his page and add a paragraph that says 'David Tell is a a gutless liar and an unreliable extremist, whose work at the Daily Standard consists of publishing blood libels? ' If so, I submit you do not understand WP policy, and should not be editing it until you do. If it is unacceptable to write those things at David Tell, it is unacceptable to write them in edit summaries or Talk pages discussing him. Isarig 15:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if you don't accept that I've provided sufficient sourcing, labelling The Weekly Standard "trashy" and its reporting "lies" or a "blood libel" from an "unreliable extremist" on Talk and in edit summaries [76][77] is extremely unhelpful to any discussion, especially since the damning evidence consists of it being a "neoconservative political magazine" [and "favors subjectivity over objectivity", a mischaracterisation on your part of a half-serious interview on its WP entry], in addition to BLP concerns regarding the reporter in question, David Tell. Furthermore, it is not at all accurate that myself or Isarig included any [alleged] "vitriolic attacks" on anyone in the entry or Talk, and I take offence at that assertion. I truly hope that you will return to dispassionately discuss content on its merits alone without any of these kinds of statements. Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCann, Chief, Public Information Office, UNRWA Headquarters Gaza, writes, in part that: The Weekly Standard's characterization of Peter Hansen, UNRWA's Commissioner General as an anti-Semitic "peasant-in-chief" is pure slander and an insult to the intelligence of the magazine's readership. David Tell responds in part that: One of the books in question, for instance, turned out to include such evocative lessons as this: "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should beware of them"; UNRWA's researchers advised the State Department {{fact}} that the phrase could not fairly be considered offensive because it described actual "historical events." ^{(from [78], bold is my emphasis)} Perhaps this unsourced statement in good enough for the standards of the Weekly Standard, but I hardly see why they should be good enough for Wikipedia. Which researchers; what role do they hold within the organization; how did UNRWA leadership respond to this, and so on, are rather pressing questions considering how damning that passage is. It is well known that the PNA curriculum has taken an antisemitic turn in par with the Syrian one, but we do need more conclusive evidence than unsourced statements by WS alleging UNRWA's complicity, complacency, or whatever. El_C 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard clearly meets WP:RS; in terms of accuracy, it's much better than many British newspapers that are freely cited by Wikipedia without controversy. Zero has severe problems with the Wikipedia NPOV policy, and has had similar tendentious edits in the Israel Shahak article. Include the Weekly Standard cite and McCann's rebuttal and let readers decide. -- THF 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly "clear" and scarcely responds to anything I said. And at any rate, "McCann's rebuttal" is absent from the entry. El_C 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The TWS piece quoted is a response to that rebuttal, and no one ever requested it be included. This isn't really related to the post here, which is concerned with the disparaging language that is really out of place in any context, what appears to be the demands beyond those required by RS standards based seemingly on this publication being right of centre, and the removal not just of the "offending" sentence, which could easily be replaced with one of several phrases, but the whole passage, including parts sourced to additional references. Tewfik^Talk 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. El_C 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't see? Do you not see the disparaging nature of of calling a reporter a "liar", "gutless" and his work "blood libel"? Isarig 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that; I don't see how it "includ[es] parts sourced to additional references." El_C 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? I'm complaining about a BLP violation, not discussing the content dispute here. Isarig 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is alleging "slander" on Tell's part, the journalist whom you are quoting without qualifications. El_C 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

McCann is not a WP editor, and didn't make these claims on WP - I couldn't care less what he writes. WP editors can't make these kind of comments, or do you think I can go and edit David Tell and write "He's a slanderer", because some UNRWA official alleges it? Isarig 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like particularly rigorous scholarship, at any rate. El_C 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

again - what does this have to do with my complaint? Is it your opinion that it's ok to violate BLP, so long as we do it to people who allegedly don't exhibit particularly rigorous scholarship? Isarig 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'm no longer going to respond to this line of questioning. El_C 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by this response. You seem to agree that it is inappropriate to call journalists "liars", "gutless" or describe their work as "blood libel" - why do you find it so hard to say this? Isarig 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already said it is inappropriate. El_C 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But I also find it inappropriate to use that quote without applying more rigorous scholarship into what it alleges, while citing WP:RS as the deus ex machina for wer'e-not-going-to-bother. El_C 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia; Wikipedia editors shouldn't describe journalists as "liars", "gutless", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor should Wikipedia editors hide behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects. NPOV, remember? --Calton | Talk 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any Wikipedia editors hiding behind the RS policy to insert unchallenged personal attacks on article subjects on that article. On the contrary, User:Zero0000 has been encouraged to make the article NPOV, by adding whatever counter claims he can source to WP:RS. Instead, he chose to continue his inappropriate violations of WP:BLP. Isarig 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An unqualified charge of anti-semitism isn't an attack? What color is the sky on your planet? --Calton | Talk 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no substance to the claim that any personal attack was issued on anybody except for David Tell. His sourced piece being removed because he was "gutless", a "liar", committing a "blood libel" etc. undermine RS as well as BLP. Tewfik^Talk 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointing new users to external sites advocating wikipedia POV pushing

I'm not sure what policy this would fall under, but it seems like a really questionable thing to do. One editor here has been unable to insert his point of view into a particular article (COI as well) and has written an article on his website detailing what he thinks is wrong with wikipedia in general, and this specific article, as well as instructing readers to come to wikipedia and "fix" these things. That's his business, he has every right to do that.

But recently an editor sent a newcomer a welcome message that included a link to this advocacy page ("For a perspective from another author on paranormal coverage in Wikipedia, go here."). This seems like a big conflict of interest and encouragement to do POV pushing (both the new editor and the one have already engaged in some blatant POV edits, and this seems like an attempt to recruit potential bodies to help in revert wars and such). I'd appreciate if an admin would take a look at this and either make a recommendation or take whatever action is appropriate. At the very least, is it appropriate to remove the link to the advocacy site? --Minderbinder 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is advertising, pov pushing, biting(good way to get a new user in trouble)... I am sure it violates more rules if I think harder. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We've had editors use modified {{welcome}} templates and other messages to new editors in the past to recruit for POV pushing, editing conflicts, or policy disagreements. I haven't yet seen a case where such spamming is useful or acceptable. Warn, and keep us posted here. If he keeps it up, he will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the EVP thing again. There were three or four EVP related AN/I sections in the last month or so, and it's Tom Butler's POV-Pushing again, after he got smacked down for it before. It's all COI, it's all bad faith agenda oriented mavericking, he's been tlaked to before, ban him and be done with it. ThuranX 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if article probation can be imposed without ArbCom, but if so, Electronic voice phenomenon would be a good candidate. I don't edit there, but there have already been 3 checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppets, a clear WP:COI, meatpuppetry and ongoing recruitment of meatpuppets, recurring AN/I threads, 3RR violations galore, etc... MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Community bans can be topic specific, right? --Minderbinder 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd do any good at all. He's been warned, over and over, discussed ad nauseum, and he continues. He won't stop because of a community ban. For the record, here is a list of those previous discussions (in part, there are porobably more on talk pages, etc.): [79], [80], [81]. ThuranX 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer Minderbinder's question, yes they can. Durova^Charge! 09:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Tom has caused problems and still is advocating for changes on EVP (and now Psychic, at Martinphi's request), he has limited himself to talk pages recently. The new editor was pointed to Tom's anti-wikipedia page by User:Martinphi. After the message was removed, he defended the post ("And if I want to do it again, I will. It is not against the rules.") [82] and reverted the removal of his advocacy link, calling it vandalism [83] (he later self reverted this). For any editors or admins who have had to deal with Martinphi, there's a user RFC starting up over his POV pushing and disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. I'd encourage people to give their opinion there. --Minderbinder 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has specifically ruled that using new-user welcome messages for advocacy or wikipolitical purposes is completely unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info (although Martinphi continues to insist that he did nothing wrong with the advocacy link [84]). --Minderbinder 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency measures on Richard Warman

Earlier today, I received a private complaint about libelous information being added to this page by User:Imstillhere. I reviewed the matter, and found the edits in question to be inflamatory, potentially damaging, and cited to a non-specific source: a clear violation of BLP. A few minutes ago, I took the emergency step of deleting the page, restoring it without its edit history, and imposing page protection.

I am not an entirely uninvolved party in this matter. I have been active on the Warman page for some time, and have reverted edits by Imstillhere on more than one occasion. Under normal circumstances, I would not have carried out these administrative actions myself; given the existence of BLP concerns, however, I decided that I would be justified in taking extraordinary steps.

Could I please request that:

• an uninvolved administrator review my actions, and determine if they were appropriate?
• an uninvolved administrator review Imstillhere's recent posts in the deleted page history, and determine if (i) they constitute BLP violations, and (ii) deserve some form of censure?

Thank you, CJCurrie 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref, but as far as I can tell it's a bullshit source. Has anyone attempted to find the supposed transcripts anywhere? Maybe even online? If the source can't be located by anyone, than I think you did the right thing CJC. Although you might want to restore all of the pre-BLP edit history at some point in the near future. Natalie 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Complains should go to the Foundation directly, that is what our office is about. Also, aren't hearings public? I mean, can't you go to some Justice site and download them? I agree that the comments can be considered libelous. I would suggest restoring all the edits that do not contain that information for the time being, and to send this issue to the office so that they can earn their pay ;-) -- ReyBrujo 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that raise GFDL concerns? Better to restore it all, stubify or it to create a stub from scratch. --Iamunknown 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. we'd probably need to either WP:FORGET or Oversight the offending diffs. 62.73.137.190 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping them deleted is fine, but as it stands the page violates GFDL. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Louis Sévèke and adding unsourced name of murdersuspect by anonymous user User:195.169.212.143

Moved back from archive

Hi there,

User:195.169.212.143 is continuously adding the full and not confirmed name of a recently arrested murdersuspect to the article Louis Sévèke. The case is that the name he adds has been mentioned by anonymous users in a forum (www.geenstijl.nl) and therefore he (or she) concideres this as a valid source. The fact of the matter is that the name of the suspect only is referred to by the initial of his last name in the Dutch newsmedia. I've asked the anonymous to give a reliable source (see the edithistory of the article, the talkpage of the article and the talkpage of the user), but he or she refuses to do so and keeps on adding the name. Can an administrator have a look at this and take appropriate actions?

Another fact is that I am administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia, and I also have a problem overthere with someone who keeps on adding the full name of the murdersuspect, claiming that it is on the English language wikipedia. I have no proof, but I suspect the anonymous overhere is the same user as the one that keeps adding the name on the Dutch article nl:Louis Sévèke.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, Tdevries 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this request and would also like to alert admins here to the fact that the disputed name is visible in several edit summaries, which in itself seems a breach of Dutch/US/international libel/defamation/etc. law. (diff)(diff)AvB ÷ talk 15:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to allow the shortened name available in the media? (Martinus Hendrikus T.) I ask this just as a question for my own knowledge, not as an argument for allowing anything. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source; I would say Martinus Hendrikus T. is OK. AvB ÷ talk 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The short name should be OK. Dutch law mandates that the Dutch press may never publish a suspects' full last name; only the first letter may be used. While en.wiki is not strictly bound by that law, it is arguable that it violates WP:BLP. Some weblogs (such as geenslijl.nl) feel they should expose the suspect, but I can say that geenstijl.nl cannot be used as a reliable newssource; their goal is to publish controversial 'news' and hold no journalistic ethics. Having said that, I feel that any mention of the suspects' full name, including edit summaries, should be deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a probably superfluous note note that, as with all negative information about a living person WP:BLP kicks in when we don't have a reliable source and forbids any mention of it anywhere in the encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice nothing has been done. Please delete all diffs of this article containing the suspects' full name. --Edokter (Talk) 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins cannot remove diffs from a page history, you should ask this at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Be sure in this case to ask them (if necessary) to remove the edit summaries as well (since they contain the full name as well). I have never had contact with Oversight, so I don't know if this is done automatically or not... Fram 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes they can, and oh yes I did. However, admins can still see the deleted revisions, oversight should still probably be contacted to remove them totally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade, I think keeping it out of public view will suffice. --Edokter (Talk) 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled User:MiszaBot II

It had stripped at least one closure template when it archived a discussion at WP:CN. I'm going through the board's other archives to see how often this happened. Durova^Charge! 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is usually caused by editors placing the top part of the template above the header, which is incorrect. This happens a lot because the templates lack any documentation. I added some basic instructions to {{Archive top}}, {{Discussion top}} and {{Debate top}} to stress users to use it correctly. --Edokter (Talk) 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Racist user page

Reverting vandalism I came across User:SPONGE's page. When I reverted I was surprised to see a vile and racist Klan page - can someone please blank it / delete it and block this user (who only ever did this page from contributions)? I will go blank the page next, as I don't want this up, but was not sure if that would be better for an Admin to do. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a link to this notice on the page. Here is the diff to see how it was before [85]. Ruhrfisch 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both user and talk pages. Not much to see on the latter. No point blocking if they're not around anymore. Bubba hotep 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ruhrfisch 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Resolved

The edit history has accusations of 3RR violations, but the violations appear to be by multiple people, so I am unsure how to document a 3RR incident. The article needs to be locked to force the editors into dialogue beyond their edit summaries. -Amatulic 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected and those who have violated 3RR have been blocked. Rama's arrow 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And in keeping with the grand tradition, you protected the wrong version! (that is, the version of the person you blocked). -Amatulic 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Database and Belucci

Resolved

User:Calutuigor has vandalized the article Database by moving it - and its talk page - to Belucci, and turning Database into a redirect. I'm not sure how to repair this kind of move and leave Belucci undamaged (assuming it's not a new page created just for this purpose) and restoring its own content, talk page and their associated histories. Other vandalism on "Belucci" is ongoing. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I sorted this? Hope so. I think Belucci was just a page created for this purpose: otherwise the vandal-move couldn't have been done in the first place. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it — the csd for Belucci seems appropriate. Thanks! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems sorted. No problem. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit gaming and other things

I have to bring user Makalp to attention he is involved in edit warring to provide a WP:POINT the user Bohater added him self as the coordinator because he has been highly involved in Kurdish related articles all respected although Makalp is seen disrupting here, [86] his comment "Revolution;coordinator is died, long live new coordinator." one of many edits and reverts.

On the talk page of Ayran his sarcasm does not impress anyone and is disruptive, "Put you project template to CocaCola(also consumed in Syria" another WP:POINT violation and he removes Armenia and Syria in his attempt to remove other Wiki Projects [87], he only left Turkish projects which is very disappointing.

Others include voting for Afd basing on his contributions he was telling others to see his recent contributions in which were obviously Afd's to gain votes which is strictly forbidden. [88] [89] [90] and before these posts were the Afd articles, [91], Thank you, this was a case I have followed during my RC patrol alot goes on. Lakers 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This was talked about much earlier, his English skills are not very good and I don't think that he is harmful. In fact, "Revolution;coordinator is died, long live new coordinator." was kinda funny - even though it is a bit POINT. As for canvassing thing, it still shows that he is naive, because had he really wanted to he could have e-mailed many more people and is useless in any case since that AfD was already listed under Turkey-deletion sorting.. He generally does good work around Wikipedia (especially with templates and certain articles) so if you ever see him do such edits, just leave a note to his talk page.. That would be my two cents... Baristarim 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello I have but his recent contributions again are negative so I posted this, the first note I left was a friendly notice but he again does things that seem to violate WP:POINT, even though it is funny its not really appropriate and that falls under edit war gaming which may lead to a block. Lakers 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 65.96.109.49

User: 65.96.109.49 has been making inappropriate edits to articles over the past few days, particularly Brett. I don't know whether this is the right place to report him, but I thought I should bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia community. Many thanks. 81.158.142.232 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Turkey has been the target of a very persistent vandal who is using elaborate techniques to attack the article. He created 50+ user names, and is so persistent that the page had to be fully protected on March 27 - even the semi-protection doesn't work. It is extremely disruptive since he seems to be passing all the time he is awake in front of his article waiting for an opportunity to vandalize the article. It is an FA, and is really disrupting the work of many editors. No block seems to work, and I feel that something needs to be done since the block auto-expired just this morning and he already came back. I made another request for semi-protection, but what can be done if it continues? We cannot fully-protect the page forever.. Baristarim 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the vandalism/sockpuppetry methods and the fixation on eastern Turkey/Armenia match the style of banned User:Ararat arev. I think a checkuser's about in order here to nail whatever IPs or proxies he's using. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the vandalism is so persistent that even though the page just got semi-protected a moment ago he is still continuing to vandalize the page. Turkey page already got fully protected because of this a week ago, disrupting work - it is FA, therefore there is not a huge list of things that need to be improved, but it is very annoying. It is definitely Ararat Arev, all the IPs he has used have been confirmed as such in the past.. How are we going to proceed to a checkuser? Baristarim 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've filed for checkuser, and also semiprotected the article. Hopefully that'll slow things down to a tolerable level, at least. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected the article after his aged sock Arzeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.. Baristarim 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very weird redirections, etc by user

Can somebody look into Delat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions seems to be redirecting other people's pages? May be the same person who forgot older password or something, so I don't want to just blindly revert. But not sure if it is worthy of a checkuser yet. I asked on talk page also. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They were page moves, and I've moved it all back whence it came. The motivation is still not apparent, but it is believable that it could be the user trying to give the account a new name. I've seen other editors, notably vandals, do this multiple-move thing recently, but this does not fit the pattern. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check and self conduct evaluation request, perhaps with a side of assistance with a user

Howdy! Operating as an editor, I'm having a bit of a problem that I'd like to ask for external input on. I'm posting here because I'd like to make sure that I've got good admin scrutiny of my actions, things are a bit catywonkous. Traditionally, this would just be a run of the mill content dispute, but I'm an admin, the standard dispute resolution techniques seem to be failing, and I'm wondering if anyone has some suggestions on how to fix this.

The article Aces High (computer game) has been recently edited by a gent named Scribner (talk · contribs) who has added some distinctly POV stuff (in my opinion), specifically Aces_High_(computer_game)#Derogatory_Online_Experiences. Originally, I zapped it because I felt it didn't belong (inherently unfixable NPOV issues), then when he restored it, I tried to engage him in conversation to see if we could find some sort of middle ground, because there were no references, and it doesn't seem terribly accurate. Over the course of the past day, he's reverted my unreferenced tags for the section, and has tagged the entire article as unreferenced, even after it was footed appropriately. I don't want to edit war, of course, and I've asked him to come to the table, but he's instead left 3RR notices on my page, deleted the conversation threads on his talk page, and more. I'm feeling a bit frustrated here, and if I were an admin coming into this conversation from the outside, I'd be warning the user to knock off the disruption, but as I'm an involved party, I've brought it here instead.

• Article: Aces High (computer game)
• Talk section where I asked for references: Talk:Aces_High_(computer_game)#Derogatory Online Experience Section
• Note on my page where he accused me of leaving "inappropriate messages" on his talk page: User_talk:Chairboy#Aces_High
• Note on my talk page where he accused me of 3rr after I counseled him on the risks of rv-warring:User_talk:Chairboy#Warning_3rr_Violation
• Section of his user talk that he's repeatedly deleted where I've tried to engage him in discussion: User_talk:Scribner#Aces_High (EDIT: Whoops, he's deleted it again. Here's the diff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
• And finally the two sections on his page devoted to 3rr, my counsel and a copy of his strange warning to me that he left, apparently in retribution: User_talk:Scribner#3RR

I don't think he's a vandal, I suspect instead (just my opinion, mind you) that he may have a grudge against the game or the company. He seems to be using the unreferenced tag as a bludgeon and using the article as an attack page against the online game referenced. I'd like an external set of eyes to help out. If I'm crazy and he's the soul of civility, then I'll take my lumps and learn. If he's being disruptive and incivil, he might benefit from an uninvolved person discussing the issue with him. It's obvious that he's passionate about the subject, I'd hope that he'd turn that energy into either beefing up the disputed section with good references or improving this/other article(s) instead of just leaving threatening messages. Finally, if there are any ways I can improve in how I balance the admin/editor role in situations like this, I'd appreciate the feedback. Thanks in advance, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main article is referenced quite well, and therefore I have removed the tag from the top of the article. The subsection has no references at all so I added some tags there. If references aren't provided within a couple of days, that section should be removed entirely. Unreferenced POV doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Verifiability is required. I put this on the talk page as well so hopefully Scribner will discuss his changes. IrishGuy ^talk 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the section and full protected the article. A citation to a forum thead is absolutely unacceptable, as is the possibly defamatory nature of the material. WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V all apply here. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

63.151.151.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and linkspam

Resolved

Apparently they've done this before in December and less ambitiously in March, hitting several articles with an external link to what resembles a myspace/blog-type site, not an information source. They've been warned before.

What drew my attention was the placement at Roman Catholic Church, which is overreaching at best. Does it seem reasonable to revert the rest of the placements? I see that even at Santería they've been removed twice immediately.

Moreover, would this rate blacklisting "www.santeriareligion101.com" ?

(Didn't know if I should ask here or Helpdesk) Shenme 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but.... If they are adding inappropriat links then warn them with (in this order) or continue on from previous warnings:

• {{uw-spam1}}
• {{uw-spam2}}
• {{uw-spam3}}
• {{uw-spam4}}

If they add more bad spam links after their final warnings then report them to WP:AIV but make sure it is all recent and their is not a large gap within the time period. Hope this helps.Tellyaddict 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Been done did - added uw-spam3 before coming here as they'd been contacted twice before by others. Same link, many articles the same. The question remains about the link - whether this can easily be considered obvious spam and therefore revertable automatically, and whether as such it the link should be added to blacklist. Shenme 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked the user a few hours prior to this notice for spamming. If it continues, the block duration can be extended. Only in the case when multiple ips are aggressively inserting it will I consider a blacklist request, however. El_C 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1/0 thread and possible sock puppet

For some time, 74.211.85.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been posting on Talk:Theory of everything with bizzare screeds about the definition of 1/0. I've been assuming that they're a new user who doesn't grasp WP:NOR (though they're showing improvement in grasping talk page ettiquette, finally). Recently, Trovatore (talk · contribs) reverted such a posting as being from a probable sock puppet of Germanium (talk · contribs), who is banned for similar activities. 1) Can a sock check still be performed this late?, 2) If so, could someone perform one, 3) If there is reasonable grounds for concluding that this IP is a sock for a banned user, could someone put a sock-puppet template on it and 4) block it (if part of an IP pool) or ban it (if static)?

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas 01:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a painfully obvious sockpuppet of User:Germanium and I have blocked it for 24 hours. Anyone else can adjust the block to their liking. Grandmasterka 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You might also want to add the IP mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Germanium to the "suspected sockpuppets" category. --Christopher Thomas 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That report is closed, and it's not necessary to add new accounts to SSP reports anyway if they're as obvious as this, except for the sake of comparison. I've already created a category for this user's sockpuppets. Grandmasterka 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize the report is closed. I already saw the category you created, and was attempting to draw your attention to the fact that the IP noted from the January suspected-sock page is not in this category. --Christopher Thomas 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I added it. Grandmasterka 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatW persistent personal attacks

This user: PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in personal attacks, escalation, and creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to editing to say the least. See diffs:

• [92] Calling an editor "dumb".
• [93] Despising NPA warnings in his talk page
• [94] Calling the same editor "hypocrite"

He has been asked numerous times to cool off, to no avail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, if it is please point me in the correct direction.

On my talk page user Widefox has posted a slanderious lie stating that I have been banned from Wikipedia and other unnamed forums for a dispute with someone else. There is no factual basis for this. The reason I believe that he has posted this lie is an ongoing dispute on the Swiftfox article. He is doing this out of spite, in an effort I believe to use one lie in one place as a basis to start problems in another place. He did that in the past, by saying an unsigned edit was a sockpuppet, even though I have a static ip. He then took that lie and used it in other areas. Is it poossible to have user Widefox blocked from my talk page as he insists on posting lies, slander, and starting arguments with me there? Thank you Kilz 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz is wasting your time - he was banned Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz and is lying. In his own words User_talk:Kilz/Archive "I was banned, because you filed a sockpupet case against me for a not loged in edit. I think whoever banned me had no idea that I had a static IP. Kilz 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

Kilz is currently edit warring on Swiftfox and I'm looking at whether User:Loki144 is his sockpuppet (I don't know yet). He has been banned on other sites re: Swiftfox - see User_talk:Kilz/Archive. Now might be a good time to warn him about wasting admin time, 3RR, and investigate his other problems. I'd like to see a ban of him editing Swiftfox for reasons above. Widefox 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

per WP:ATTACK personal attacks are not allowed. This is a pure example of a personal attack. False accusations, lies, slander. Widefox isnt interested in editing or working togher. He is interested in attacking, accusing and belittling me instead of working togher. Instead , he attacks, he slanders, he has false accusations. Kilz 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you explain why this requires the intervention of administrators in 100 words or less?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Edit warring Swiftfox. 2. accusations of vandalism and personal attacks Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

100% agreement with Ryulong. If you have issues with each other, try WP:DR. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Widefox, I think that you might be confusing the series of events. At Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz it appears that the IP address listed as Kilz's sockpuppet was only blocked (not banned) for 48 hours to prevent Kilz's from bypassing the 3RR rule (c.f. anon block log). Kilz, however, is not currently blocked or banned (c.f. Kilz's block log). Your interaction with Kilz is not beyond reproach itself. I suggest you give it a rest, that you both try to cooperate civilly, assume good faith, and content on content, not each other. --Iamunknown 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Widefox is violating WP:NPA with personal attacks on me. My talk page and the Swiftfox talk page have accusations from Widefox that I have been banned from wikipedia and mutiple other sites, that I am a sockpuppet, that I have broken the 3rr rule. This is slander. Widefox knows that none of it is true. Even if some banning happened in the past, he should not be useing it to try and silence me. He also has a history of posting lies, then refering to the lies in complaints he later files. Kilz 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, please just assume good faith. No need even to respond to this. I in no way doubt that Widefox has every intention to improve the encyclopedia. Nor do I in any way doubt that you have every intention to improve the encylcopedia. Dragging an editorial dispute out will only create more tension between you two. Please, to both of you, be civil, realize that the other editor is trying to contribute productively to the encylcopedia, and talk about content and not each other (that means no personal attacks). --Iamunknown 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to assume good faith, but Widefox's actions are starting to make me wonder if he is assuming good faith. I am wondering why he is posting things on my talk page that have no buisness being posted. Posting things that can only be seen as an attack. I would like to have him blocked from my talk page. He posts nothing there of any value and seems to see it as an oppertunity to cause me problems and as a place to slander me. Kilz 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - yes agreed he was "blocked" 48hrs. Actually, I used "banned" because that's how I remembered it and I'm also quoting *his words*. How can Kilz object to his own words? I followed all advice for cooperating with Kilz before - Kilz rejected 3rd opinion as opinion, up until mediation. I left him months. I'm always doing the work. Other forums banned him for his behaviour re:swiftfox Please check links and compare our editing histories. Widefox 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that Kilz was neither banned or blocked. Users can misinterpret actions taken against them, but it doesn't make their misinterpretiations fact. --Iamunknown 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

he was blocked wikipedia 48hrs! He was banned swiftfox forum permanently, he was told to take his argument elsewhere on other forums. Links in his talk archive. facts. Widefox 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your true motives here. You dont seek to work on the article, you seek to slander me, seek to post things about me, seek to spread as much vinager as you can. Seek to dreg up as much dirt as you can and assume bad faith.Kilz 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - Kilz came to this page to try to get me blocked! He did not inform me - as stated at the top of this page. I have defended myself by giving links about him being blocked 48hrs, banned from Swiftfox forum and warded off elsewhere. His claim was slander, but he does not dispute these facts, and I quote his own words "banned" (meaning blocked)! Widefox 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You were warned in the same section you posted the attack "I take that back, I have gone to an admin, this is going to far.Kilz 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)". Your continued defense of your actions show that you see no problems in your attack on me. That you think its ok to post personal attacks. That so long as its what you remember happening months and months ago you can dreg up anything and post it. What makes it even more unbelievable, is you know the sockpuppet case you filed was for a logged out edit. So now you seek to build upon a false accusation by posting it again, and again. What is the purpose of posting it again? What good can come of it? Kilz 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just cool down for a minute. Stop making accusations at each other and think about what you are doing. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Solution - grant both of us our requests - he is permanently barred from Swiftfox and me from his talk page. Sorry that he brought this here. Widefox 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After a night to cool down as suggested. I ask the admins to please look at what Widefox is asking for. He is asking for me to be banned from the Swiftfox page. For what? This is what he was seeking by posting the attack on my talk page in violation of WP:NPA. He thinks personal attacks are a way for him to win disagreements over editing an article in violation of WP:NPA. His solution is rewarding him for bad behavior. I have not attacked him in any way. But simply ask to be protected from more of the same. He sees nothing wrong with what he has done. He will do so again. His request shows he does not assume good faith. His actions on my page show he does not assume good faith.His actions on the Swiftfox page show he does not assume good faith. Maybe he should be blocked from my page and from Swiftfox since he attacked me in both places. At the very least, I believe he (Widefox)should be told that his actions were wrong. To stop attacking me and focus in on the issues and not me. That he should not repeat them, that he should assume good faith, and that a repeat of his actions will have consequences. Kilz 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The original problem of reverting my edits / calling vandalism is after I left Kilz to calm down for 3months. Widefox 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But you did vandalize the page, you removed tags without fixing the problem the tag was placed there for. While there was a discussion on the section. You also removed requests for citations on areas that were inmho original research by you. Reverting vandalism is an approved practice. I did it once a day. You also tried to put words in another editors mouth, and told me to be quiet on the subject as you sought to influence the discussion. Then when you saw that you were not winning, you posted a smear on my talk page and the Swiftfox page , in violation of WP:NPA. You did not seek help from an admin, you took it opon yourself to make a personal attack. Dreging up the most dirt you could think of, to smear me. You have used lie upon lie and imho you will do it again without at the very least, a warning not to do it. Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I now have attacks and lies about me that cant be removed from my talk page. Something Im sure Widefox knew would be the case, so he placed them there. Kilz 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Second offer - we work together on the page. Normal civil rules apply. Widefox 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You had that option, but instead you chose to break WP:NPA and attack me with a personal attack on both my page and the Swiftfox page. This was not sticking to the content, debating the content of the article. But a personal smear directed at me, dredged up dirt from your memory of the past. It had nothing to do with the current events. Exactly whats to stop you from doing it again? Kilz 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

admins - please see my 2 offers and Kilz responses. I close my defence now. Widefox 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that Wildefox should not be posting on Kilz's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary because it clearly irritates Kilz. And there is nothing to stop Kilz removing stuff he does not like from his talk page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Kittybrewster. I have been told that I am not allowed to delete things from my talk page. That I must archive everything. Are you suggesting that the attack be deleted. Secondly, if I do that doesnt it remove the record of what Widefox has done, and if he does it again I wont have proof to point to? Kilz 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kilz, you should archive most things, but you may certainly remove and not archive what you consider to be personal attacks. The evidence will still be there, just provide a diff link. --Iamunknown 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iamunknown, I just archived the last few days of my talk page and removed the section that was an attack. I provided a link to the diff in its place on the archive page.Kilz 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While Kilz diverts you with his user page, he is using 2 sockpuppets User:IDontBelieveYou User:Loki144 to edit war Swiftfox. FYI he is banned from Swiftfox forum [95] (I can provide more links to his swiftfox licence dispute he is in with the author of swiftfox - this in itself means he should refrain from editing Swiftfox). Please take action before this edit warring gets worse. Widefox 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a new tatic of Widefox. It appears that 2 other editors have in some way agreed with me. So widefox has labeled them as puppets of some kind so he can write them off. He is now ignoring consensus. Secondly, what may have happened in the past on the Swiftfox forum in no way changes my ability to edit the swiftfox article on Wikipedia and make sure that it is as honest and up to date as possible. As you see Widefox is using one tatic after another to win a content argument. Kilz 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I Opened RfC. The content dispute should be taken there now. I do want the start of this edit warring looked at - Kilz actions labelling and reverting my edits as vandalism is not acceptable. I am not a single issue editor unlike him and his possible sock/meatpuppets. Widefox 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your baseless accusations against me (using puppets) is a now reaching a personal attack level. It is an unfounded lie. You are using the accusation to win a content disagreement and to disregard the opinions of other editors who dont agree with you. I find I must respond to this in each place you place it and refute it, least you say that I agree with it in some way by silence. I suggest you stop accusing me of this before I open another incident report, using all the baseless accusations you have made against me as proof of malicious intent. Kilz 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

new sockpuppet of Kilz 130.111.76.121 - total 3 single issue editors +Kilz. Evidence weak - 130.111.76.121 has 2 edits 1. edit of Pabst Brewing Company of Illinois, Kilz state is Illinois 2. Swiftfox. These 3 sockpuppets show similar creation and editing patterns. Kilz has "restore edit of idontbelieveyou" [96]. Widefox 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, so? If I edit anonymously, does that mean I should be indefinitely blocked? No. Same with Kilz. His or her browser lost session data, easy as that. --Iamunknown 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - going along with you...that means 130.111.76.121 is Kilz's IP right? no, it's University of Maine. Kilz said he has a static IP of 67.175.233.209 [97] [98] (Comcast Illinois). Either coincidence about Illinois/Swiftfox or sock/meatpuppet. 4 single issue editors is quite a coincidence! Widefox 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - please see 1. Kilz admitting he is slurring Swiftfox out of spite "Maybe it is spite." [99] ...end of that thread he was told to take the argument off the forum mozillazine forum 2. Kilz was forced to takedown Swiftfox binaries for license violation [100] involving Ubuntu forum staff. 3. Swiftfox forum ban [101]. 4. complaint about Kilz bickering over Swiftfox in Ubuntu forum [102]. More links to more problems in Kilz talk archive. Widefox 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(unin

Anyone who edits and changes something that Widefox doesnt like is now a puppet in his opinion. My IP is static, the admins can check and see that it is still the same. That others are editing and changing things should be no suprize on Wikipedia. That they may disagree with Widefox has nothing to do with me. Even with the knowledge that one is from the University of Maine he still claims one to be a sockpuppet. Has Widefox filed any reports of suspected sockpupptry? Not that I can find, Why? Because he doesnt want to be proved wrong imho.Kilz 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Widefox's next tactic to win a content disagreement is to dreg up more old dirt. He cant prove that 1+1=3 though. He cant prove from my edits or position that I want anything but the truth and all information to be as truthful as possible. Kilz 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I need an admin to step-back and look at the whole picture - Kilz is a self-confessed slurrer of Swiftfox/Jason Halme [103]. What measures do I have, and you guys have to protect wikipedia Swiftfox from this situation? He currently has a green light to whitewash his user page! Widefox 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at your picture Widefox. In order to win a content disagreement Widefox reasorts to a ad hominem argument. Widefox has smeared and attacked me multiple times on multiple pages. Lied that I have been banned , said I have had problems on the Ubuntu forums where I have not(you only show baseless one sided complaints about me there, not any reprimands), said I am a puppeteer over and over(without filing any cases or reports). Written off consensus of 4 other editors(me and 3 others). Why? So that old, non reliable sourced, apples to oranges comparisons, and conflicting data can stay rather than be labeled so it can be replaced and updated. The so called slur (read in context)is reporting a license violation of foss code. The only thing I have removed from my talk is a personal attack, and per above instructions have left a diff link in its place. Kilz 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK we are getting somewhere - Kilz admits multiple complaints. None of which involve me BTW. Kilz - I repeat, see RfC for content dispute. I have provided links for all my claims.

Kilz has provided no evidence for the open claim of Vandalism on Talk:Swiftfox which has caused this escallation. Admins - Talk:Swiftfox please strikethrough that heading with my name in, as per WP:TALK. Widefox 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF says that we do not have to assume good faith with Kilz - a self-confessed Slurrer of Swiftfox[104], and liar (denying Swiftfox forum ban, problems on Ubuntu forum, claim I did Swiftfox (Pango), claims his IP was not blocked 48hrs etc). Widefox 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit nothing, do not put words in my mouth. Something you have a bad habit of doing. That one person on the Ubuntu forums may have made posts about me in no way makes them true. There was no slur on Mozillazine when the statment is read in context. I was not banned. That all this negitive dirt he (Widefox) finds doesnt add up to a hill of beans and is a ad hominem argument used to win a content conflict.Kilz 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Next, You did vandalize (blanking) Swiftfox by removing tags and requests for citations from the page that were placed there by me (requests for citations) and consensus of the editors (out of date and unreliable sources). He did so not to improve the article , but to hide the fact that statements he placed on the article were untrue. Some of those statements he later removed. Kilz 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog

After AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made highly POV edits such as changing collapse to demolition, etc., and here as well then libeled a person here for which we have a bio in a seperate article (Larry Silverstein), I reverted this vandalism and posted a vandalism test level 2 warning on AumakuaSatori's usertalk[105]. AumakuaSatori changed 7 World Trade Center collapsed to 7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein. This wasn't an innocent mistake, it was an overt effort to defame Larry Silverstein and vandalize the article. Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then reverted my warning and instead added a welcome template to this same editors talkpage with the edit summary "replace inappropriate warning with welcome template". Guinnog then proceeded to my talkpage to warn me claiming he didn't see anything wrong "I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article."...as if libel is now an improvement I suppose.[106]. Guinnog has harassed me for about a day now about this, seemingly unable to see that there was nothing inappropriate about me warning another editor about obvious vandalism. It should be noted that Guinnog has made threats to further escalate what is much ado about nothing, I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error...in fact I did zero wrong and his removal of my vandalism warning to instead welcome an editor who libelled another person is highly inappropriate. His ongoing badgering about a lot of nothing is certainly not becoming in an administrator...his "guarantee to take it further" is also highly inappropriate and I see it as a threat to make a poor administrative decision on his part, especially since this is an article that he has had disagreements with me in the past, and his behavior in regards to this same article was a major issue by those who opposed his request for adminship. Perhaps someone can ask him to stop harassing me about a whole lot of nothing, and stop falsely accusing me of vandalism yet he does nothing about AumakuaSatori who libelled a third party. Guinnog was cautioned here about making threats of admin action during this ongoing nonsense.--MONGO 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, not only did a conspiracy theorist finally get admin status, but it was by the thinnest of margins. This is making me rethink my current abstention from RFA. I don't quite know what to say, except that if Guinnog does this again (among other things, justifying libel - I notice that Guinnog, while adding a welcome template to his new buddy, chose not to actually warn the chap for violating BLP, which was the main reason that warning was there in the first place), you should take this straight to RfC and/or Arbcom. I like how Guinnog is inviting this person to 'add their thoughts' to improving the article, as if anything they put remotely belongs. Sad. --Golbez 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog did nothing wrong here and acted in good faith. I would suggest that you do not just try to get rid of every administrator who doesn't follow your instructions, it could lose us valuable wikipedians - Guinnog has tirelessly reverted vandalism since he got here - just see his contribs. I don't think there is any question of his commitment to the project. Please MONGO... just move on for god's sake --I'm so special 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By removing the warning and welcoming someone who added libel without any warning, nothing wrong was done? Commitment is not the only requirement to be a good administrator. --Golbez 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Guinnog absolutely did do wrong, in that these edits were in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Any administrator intervention should have been in support of warning the editor never to repeat this grossly inappropriate behaviour. Whether a polite note to MONGO would also have been appropriate is immaterial. I have blocked that account because (a) every edit appears to violate one or other of the two policies noted above and (b) if it's not a sockpuppet then I'm a monkey's uncle. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the user who reported is removing comments in support of Guinnog under the guise of "RV Vandal" see this diff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I'm so special (talk • contribs) 10:23, 2007 April 1.

User:I'm so special has been blocked 48 hours for trolling ...[107]--MONGO 10:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with MONGO, and I'll state that I have handed out similar warnings in similar cases myself (on articles in the domains I edit). Even though these cases may not technically match our standard definitions of vandalism perfectly, there is a point where reckless POV-pushing becomes so blatant and so disruptive that an anti-vandal response is legitimate. Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that the statement "7 World Trade Center collapsed in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein" fairly and accurately reflects the current state of commonly accepted human knowledge. Even if you happen to believe that the statement is true, you simply must know it's not commonly accepted and not "obvious". A user who makes edits like this is either not acting in good faith, or so clueless about the purpose of Wikipedia they really shouldn't be here. Come to that, there's the very real BLP issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog told me it would have been better had I done a BLP warning instead of a vandalism warning, but seeing that the editor has such a very limited contribution history, his edit appeared to be clear vandalism. User:Tbeatty later placed a BLP warning template on his talkpage. My biggest concern about this entire affair is to wonder why I would be badgered for the entire editing session about a whole lot of nothing when I had hoped to be working on other things of interest to me. It appears Guinnog was trying to goad me into saying something nasty.--MONGO 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Guinogg exercised poor judgment in reverting MONGO and leaving a message on MONGO's page. Guinogg was involved in the article. It is inappropriate to act as both a contributor and an administrator as it has a chilling effect on contributions. At most he should have simply expressed his viw as an editor on MONGO's talk page without reversion and without an administrator warning. That would have given MONGO the choice of amending the warning to be more specific or taken no action. Guinogg's next choice should have been to bring it here for comment. But ating unilaterally was inappropriate considering his involvement. --Tbeatty 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AumakuaSatori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely by User:JzG for blatant violations of POV and BLP. Clearly MONGO acted correctly and User:Guinnog was wrong to defend him. --rogerd 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AumakuaSatori made edits which were POV and BLP violations. No, MONGO did not correctly deal with those as POV and BLP problems, but rather incorrectly as 'vandalism'. No, Guinnog did not defend AumakuaSatori and was not wrong to tell MONGO to stop misusing the vandalism template.

Guinnog was acting, correctly, under the guidance of things like WP:AGF and WP:BITE... new users doing things they shouldn't may simply not know / understand. The proper response is to calmly inform them of things like NPOV and verifiability. It is certainly possible that this was a sockpuppet, troll, or new but equally intractable user who would never comply with policy... but usually we tell them about those policies and block them after they continue to violate them, not before. If we've reached the point where it is wrong to give new users the benefit of the doubt / tell them what is actually wrong with their edits we should ditch WP:BITE and rewrite WP:AGF to make clear that in only applies to 'established contributors'. --CBD 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a standard vandalism warning....indeed, the editing hisory of this probable sock account has at least one other BLP violation and vandalism as well. Replacing my warning with a welcome is ridiculous. AGF didn't seem to apply to me...so obviously "admins" such as yourself and Guinnog would rather AGF of vandals than established editors...how interesting.--MONGO 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just belatedly come across this thread (I'm travelling with limited internet access this week). The violation of WP:LIVING, WP:VERIFIABILITY/ATTRIBUTION, and common decency involved in posting that Larry Silverstein obviously blew up his own building on 9/11 is extremely serious. I don't care precisely what warning template is used, but assertions of that nature must never be allowed to remain posted on Wikipedia, much less being restored by an experienced editor or administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That assertion wasn't' "allowed to remain", wasn't "restored by an experienced editor or administrator", wasn't 'endorsed' by anyone, et cetera. Unfortunately, a less than accurate picture of events has been painted. --CBD 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see that "reverted" referred to the warning, not the original editor, so you can consider my concern modified accordingly. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing Guinnog's note on MONGO's talk page and then the words 'demolition' and 'collapse' I knew immediately what article was being talked about. I'd thought to try to educate him how readily recognizable AumakuaSatori's 'edit' was, but in finishing up my comment I found Guinnog had been at the page for quite a long time, and must know it was a bad edit. I backed off, not knowing what to think. And then re-reading his comment to MONGO, there was "I'd like to see you use discussion and references to reliable sources rather than labelling them a vandal. I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article." That shook me, because if Guinnog had been anywhere near the article for any length of time, and knew MONGO had been too, his comment was pure nitroglycerin. Given my perceptions at the time, and after checking around, I guess I have to take exception to any summarizing that Guinnog was acting correctly with respect with another editor, MONGO. Read the talk page, check the page histories, re-read his initial comment, Guinnog was being provocative. Shenme 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider the situation to be water under ther bridge now, so long as people will not spend hours badgering me about warning another editor about vandalism.--MONGO 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. To paraphrase Airplane!, "Looks like I picked the wrong weekend to move house...". I considered the situation to be already water under the bridge when I last spoke to MONGO about it on Saturday evening when I apologised to him. I admit (as I already admitted to MONGO) that I was wrong to replace his bad warning template with a welcome one; I should have also added a more accurate warning in the 15 minutes before Tbeatty did, instead of getting into an unproductive discussion with MONGO about it, and I thank Tbeatty for that. I never used or threatened to use admin powers over the matter.

The edit which I promised to take further if MONGO failed to correct it was his mistaken reversion with unhelpful edit summary of my (fairly non-controversial) attempt to edit the article, something I have incidentally very seldom done. MONGO explained that he "thought [he] was reverting the vandalism by the anon (sic)". A look at Help:Reverting might be in order; "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." and "Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly". One ought to at least read the edit one is reverting, I think.

I take heed of the opinions of others here, and I note with sadness that some have commented on the matter who clearly have not researched what actually happened. I have always understood that WP:BLP applies to users here as much as to anyone else, and vandalism warnings should not be misapplied by anyone. WP:BITE dictates that we assume good faith in newbie users; I found it instructive how little good faith was assumed on my part. As CBD says, if this is now to be the way that AGF is implemented, perhaps we need to edit the policy to make it clear that it only applies to established users.

Nonetheless I accept that I did not handle the situation in the best way. As JzG says, I should have sent MONGO a note querying his use of the template first of all, rather than changing the template. I thank I'm so special, Chacor and Newyorkbrad for alerting me to this centralised discussion, something MONGO failed to do.

Next time I see MONGO misapply vandalism warnings I think I will bring it straight here and let others who MONGO may feel are more neutral deal with it. As I already said, I sincerely hope there will not be a next time. --Guinnog 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time you harass me about nothing, and make the mistakes you have made over this affair, I won't waste time with an Rfc, I'll take it straight to arbcom. His edits were vandalism, read all about it. Nevertheless, JzG took care of that, he's blocked now, something you should have done yourself if you were an impartial administrator.--MONGO 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I... I don't know if I can say anything bad about someone who paraphrases Airplane!. You've caused quite an internal conundrum.

As for your apology, I will sheepishly admit that I missed it; I had looked through your contribs but somehow glanced right over that one.

But seriously, we don't need to issue total good faith to these folks. I very much doubt that, when pointed out that his theory was not welcome, he would have said, "Oh, pardon me sirs, I won't do it again, I'll go over here and edit an article on grasses". However, I cannot read his mind.

Perhaps a vandal template was the wrong thing to do. But a nice note saying that their theories aren't welcome here? That might be nice.

Either way, I apologize for the brash tone of my comments above. Thank you for responding. --Golbez 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was going to be the substance of my comment at the time to User:MONGO (which I also deleted out of trepidation at the situation). Not finding an applicable template, and knowing that editor's time is precious, I was going to suggest that for situations like this which could be foreseen, perhaps a cut-n-paste text from a sub-page would be helpful. Something that says this same subject edit has been made N to the N times before, and could the contributor please read the talk page archives first, then bring up any new discussion areas on the current talk page, as mere repetition is not a good thing (which is why the revert was done). Of course, maybe the user warning templates people just haven't edited pages where the same edits have been seen literally 20, 30, 50 times before? Could we suggest creating a new template, or else they have to watchlist these pages? :-) Shenme 07:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAND at the top, clearly starts that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."...the edit made by the former contributor in question was overt vandalism in an effort to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...and libel. Guinnog has been backpedaling and goading the issue since he failed to act appropriately in his adminstrative capacity to ensure the vandal wouldn't make the same horrendus mistake again. It's hard to admit when your wrong, and Guinnog does so here only by trying to continue to falsely accuse me of misapplication of a standard warning template.--MONGO 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before (and I was blocked for it), and I'll say it again - can't we just let this go. Guinnog is obviously willing to do so -- I'm so special 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is filing a frivolous checkuser request the way you normally let things go? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

My comments at the above dicussion are being reverted for some reason by User:Chacor and User:MONGO - it's highly innapropriate for the user who reported on the noticeboard to remove other users' comments in opposition - please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2 and User talk:I'm so special for further evidence. --I'm so special 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:I'm so special - MONGO says I am only here for abuse and he will run a checkuser. I need admin attention urgently. Thanks --I'm so special 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious. End-of. – Chacor 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hours. Now, I'm really going to go to sleep...after a final comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose block. Let's see, I'm so special voices an opinion that is removed twice. When he complains, Chacor fishes up an edit that is a day old and you decide that warrants a 48-hour block? Blocks are preventative; your block prevented nothing. --Edokter (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The account is an obvious single-purpose trolling account - the diff was to prove that it's just another troll. – Chacor 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA and WP:TROLL are esseys, not even guidelines. I still fail to see how this block is warranted, especially since I can't even see any incivility from I'm So Special. I still think MONGO and Ryulong are out of line here. --Edokter (Talk) 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he/she actually is missing the point Chacor. I'm actually confused as to how that proves trolling? Could you maybe enlighten us? -- I'm so special 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has filed a checkuser request on Chacor and MONGO. (which has been marked as non-compliant) On another note, please tone town your signature. --Michael Billington (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters

User Stark1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears an uncanny resemblance to permablocked user and sockmaster extraodinaire Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the spirit of WP:DUCK, I'm posting here rather than going through checkuser, as it seems rather obvious from the article interest and POV. Thanks! C ^thirty-three 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Stark1 has now blanked this section of the page, also a very JP-like action. I'm a bit hesitant to block without checkuser confirmation, just because I've had a block proven wrong by checkuser in the past. If another admin is less hesitant, go on ahead, otherwise we should request a checkuser. Heimstern Läufer 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Has CheckUser been done on Jacob Peters before? If so, by whom? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're the one with access to the logs, Jayjg. Here's the page. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You would probably have to speak to one of the previous CheckUsers who confirmed sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To confirm that if he quacks like a duck, he's a duck? I don't understand where you and El C are coming from; is this really considered to be beyond the specter of blatantly obvious? Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail? El_C 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What details? He's a sockpuppet of banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Picaroon 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly familiar with the Jacob Pattern, and I would say this chap is definitely him. He blanked his own checkuser page a while back: blanking the section here is completely in character. We need to be vigilant. I don't say this lightly, but Jacob Peters is deranged and dangerous scum. He tries to come back here, he needs to be kicked out ASAP. Good block. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that any editor deemed to be "Stalinist" is going to be blocked as "Jacob Peters." So, yes, we'll need details. El_C 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling even a banned user "deranged and dangerous scum." El_C 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I call Peters Stalinist? C33, who has found Peters' sockpuppets before, caught this one and requested a block. I reviewed his contribs and it was clear to me that this was Peters. I blocked a sock of his before and this time was no different, save the fact that all of a sudden my abilities at recognizing a duck as what it is are being questioned. If you honestly do not believe that is Jacob Peters, and that C33, Irishguy, Moreschi, and I are wrong, I can request more users who are familiar with him to come verify it. Would you like me to do that? Picaroon 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather understand the why you're certain it's him, specifically, but sure. El_C 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Check through the contribs of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters: this guy hits the articles - and related articles - that his previous socks have hit with exactly the same POV and exactly the same edit summaries. And how many "new" users would have ANI on their watchlist so they can blank a section when their name comes up? Even the edit summary he used for that was almost exactly identical to that one his of previous socks used when blanking his checkuser page! This is Jacob Peters, trust me! I know the pattern like the back of my hand. Other users who are also familiar with the Jacob Peters pattern all agree with me: we aren't all wrong. Sorry for the derogatory epithet, but Peters is not only been banned here: I also recently learnt from another user he's been kicked out of multiple history-discussion forums for disruption. And this user is certainly him. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure Jacob would agree, history repeats itself. Him going for Soviet war in Afghanistan and Red Terror (Ethiopia) is completely in character: his socks have gone for these and related articles, such as Mengistu Haile Mariam, before. As is his targeting of articles relating to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 07:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I've uncovered a series a sockpuppets that have been used to avoid scrutiny from other editors, and also votestacking in AfDs, both prohibited per WP:SOCK.

The timeline of accounts and contributions is as follows:

• El chulito (talk · contribs) - 22:55, 20 January 2007 - 16:41, 8 February 2007

• Jill Teed (talk · contribs) - 21:59, 8 February 2007 - 18:31, 9 February 2007

• Inthegloaming (talk · contribs) - 14:10, 9 February 2007 - 14:55, 9 February 2007

• Conrad Falk (talk · contribs) - 20:47, 9 February 2007 - 02:10, 17 February 2007

• Veronica Mars fanatic (talk · contribs) - 01:18, 18 February 2007 - 00:05, 1 March 2007

• O'Donoghue (talk · contribs) - 11:43, 1 March 2007 - 00:43, 23 March 2007

• Jill Teed (talk · contribs) - 11:54, 23 March 2007 - current

Almost all accounts use a non-standard format for links, in that external links are displayed like this - ([108]). Examples - O'Donoghue, Jill Teed, El chulito, Veronica Mars fanatic, Conrad Falk. The editor also edits anonymously from 216.194 prefixed IPs as can be seen by this previous ANI report. User:Inthegloaming recently made his first contribution since mid-February when he appeared to vote on multiple Irish republican related AfDs, editing the Hayley Westenra article. Shortly before that the article was edited twice by a 216.194 prefixed IP, the first of which introduced the unusual link formatting near the bottom of the 'International success' section.

The accounts were used for votestacking in the following AfDs:

• McCaughey
• Seamus Donnelly
• Tony Gormley
• Eugene Kelly
• Patrick Kelly
• Gerry O'Callaghan
• Declan Arthurs

Checkuser has come back "likely" for User:O'Donoghue and User:Jill Teed and various IPs, I didn't include all the accounts to avoid the problems of a previous checkuser plus it's only my investigation of the accounts since the latest checkuser that's uncovered all the evidence connecting all the accounts together timeline-wise.

This talk page edit seems to be an implied admission of guilt as well in my opinion. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, and by all means follow up with a full checkuser request. Like you, I've had difficulties getting checkuser requests approved for complex investigations. Really subversive stuff tends to look kooky in a short summary. Keep digging and keep me informed about what you unearth. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest checkuser confirms multiple socks, and I'm assuming there's enough evidence to block the ones that were too stale for checkuser? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the confirmed socks indef, and Teed as puppetmaster for 48 hours, as that's the one that's edited most recently. I imagine El chulito is a sock as well, but I don't see Veronica Mars fanatic being used in any of the AfD's in question? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, Veronica Mars fanatic didn't vote on any of the AfDs in question but is part of the series of socks, as the timeline shows. VMF does use the same non-standard link format though as demonstrated by the example (more can be found if needed), so given the timeline and that is there enough evidence to support a block? Also if you check the previous ANI report there's plenty of evidence linking El chulito and O'Donoghue together. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked El chulito, that one was pretty obvious as well, but I'm still really unsure about VM fanatic, especially given that she participated heavily in this AfD, and none of the socks showed up there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked VM fanatic. Recommend a full WP:SSP report on the older sockpuppets to clarify the situation for the uninitiated. Durova^Charge! 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a double disambiguation page

I am reporting here, since I don't know what would be the proper procedure to mend this situation. User:Arigato1 has moved Trelleborg to Trelleborg Municipality and made the old name into a disambiguation article into which he copied and pasted the content of Trelleborg (disambiguation). The result is a double disambiguation page. How should this situation be fixed?--The trollfighter 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted Trelleborg and moved Trelleborg (disambiguation) to that place. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• (EC) I was BOLD and just made a redirect to what I assume is the most common usage. Other than that, you can redirect to the disamb. Still need to check for double redirects, I will do that later or another can. --Justanother 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's now a double redirect Trelleborg (disambiguation) > Trelleborg > Trelleborg Municipality. I've copied the disambuguation text from the history of Trelleborg into Trelleborg (disambiguation). That should clear it up. --Edokter (Talk) 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I will go through it in depth later when I am not allegedly working. I like working on disamb pages. It is kinda like gardening, very soothing. --Justanother 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the main article Trelleborg should be on the town (the municipality), as it originally was, since it is the most notable use of the name.--The trollfighter 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is for you'all that are familiar with the subject to decide. I fixed the weird redirect in the disamb page. You can put it all back from Trelleborg Municipality to just Trelleborg. I assume that there was some logic behind the move though? --Justanother 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been observing Arigato1's edits for a while, and there seems to be some antagonism towards things Swedish in his edit history. I guess his main reason was that the main article was about a Swedish town, but that is only my theory.--The trollfighter 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, the 'antagonism' suspicion would have a good foundation. From one of their edit summaries:

There is no copyright holder. We are not that capitalistic here in Denmark. Just keep your hands off this image.

Trelleborg in Skåne was wrested away from Denmark only a few hundred years ago, so people are still pretty upset.   ;-)   Shenme 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the second part of your statement was ironic. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I will wait a few days before doing a lot of work cleaning up redirects as you'all may just put it right back to Trelleborg, which would be OK, too. After all Manhattan goes to the borough, we don't make Manhattan borough or Manhattan (borough) (except as a redirect) --Justanother 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• My dealings so far with Arigato1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (and his possible socks...) have not been very satisfactory... I'm not totally sure he's on board with our approach here, and I have blocked him more than once already. This incident seems another example of edits by him that are less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew editing in opposition to consensus.

At Template talk:LostNav#Bullets and Template talk:LostNav#Straw poll - bullets or lines? there has been discussion followed by a straw poll to determine consensus. Could an admin take a look at the page and make a determination if there's consensus or not? Matthew seems to be in the minority but is revert warring to his preferred version. I'd like to see the issue finally put to bed but that's never going to happen as long as editors ignore consensus and revert war. --Minderbinder 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, admins have no mandate to authoritatively determine consensus for others outside of policy-determined situations like XfD. You might want to try WP:3O, though. Sandstein 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have opinions from a number of different editors, and what seems to be consensus. The problem is that a couple editors refuse to accept that there is consensus and keep reverting to their preferred version in spite of all the editors who disagree with them (and I suspect they'll keep reverting regardless of how many additional editors came in from 3O or RFC and disagreed with them). Is there any solution to this? Without some sort of admin intervention, I fear the page will just turn into a revert war. I'd still like to get admin input on the situation, could someone please take a look? If an editor is editing in opposition to consensus, isn't that a policy issue? --Minderbinder 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, admins 'can enforce consensus in some circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions seems to apply here,

Closing of a consensus decision making procedure

1) It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As it turns out, the main dissenter here was also one of the main dissenters in that case. It looks like he's not going to admit consensus regardless of the arguments or how many other editors disagee with him. Could an editor please take a look at the discussion and determine if there's a consensus so this doesn't go on forever? Thanks. --Minderbinder 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes side with Matthew on aome issues (e.g. User:Sixty Six), so I'm not exactly impartial, but there is weak-to-no-consensus on using pipes, and I think policy is to use the status quo ante (i.e. - how it was before, for example, AFD nc's are defaulted to keep.) My interpretation, anyway. Will 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Weggie

When I can across Ian Paisleys page I noticed that it had the DUP party logo in the image, I then removed it diff as the image is a logo and fair use and not appropriate for the infobox and stated why, then I noticed that all the DUP MLA's had the image in the infobox I then proceded to remove them all, all of these edits where reverted by User:Weggie without stating why so I asked him diff and was called a vandal in his response diff and again diff --Barry O'Brien entretien 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie is obviously confused about what the image parameter in the politician infobox is for (an image of the politician, not the politician's party logo). While it's also true that there is no rationale for the unfree logo for that article, it is likely that a clarification at User talk:Weggie about what we want in the infobox would be the easiest thing to explain. Jkelly 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel extremely 'miffed' that a lot of my work has been arbitrarily ripped out without the common curtesy of an explanation of why PRIOR to the act. Also, this ai a collaborative project - what you want in the infobox may not be what I would consider common sense where no photo exists - hence debate then removal rather than an explanation of why I am wrong Weggie 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly this is less straightforward than I thought. Others' opinions on using logos as the image in biographical infoboxes welcome. Jkelly 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There’s an ‘every article must have at least one image’ (yes, unqualified just like that) faction out there, so somebody would probably argue that this is a good idea. However, with party logos being usually copyrighted (and non-free), there is absolutely no way that they could be used in articles on individual politicians (we don’t have an Apple logo in iPod, either). The reason is that per policy, we are to display fair use material only where it is not just not replaceable, but also necessary and used in a critical context and for identification. Party logos in biographical articles obviously fail this benchmark. Even where a logo is usable in terms of copyright, putting it into the infobox instead of a photograph would probably give the implied affiliation undue weight (assuming that the person is notable). —xyzzy_n 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie has removed messages from Barryob from his talk page regarding this with the outrageous edit summary of Would you like a chicken supper bS?. This is a reference to the dead hunger striker Bobby Sands, and is offensive to Irish nationalists and republicans, details here and here. He then removed polite messages regarding the civility of the edit summary from Vintagekits several times, with edit summaries of "b" and ",". Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Weggie has also gotten into an edit war on the Ulster Unionist Party page. Trying to bury all mention of PUP/UVF or their illegal activities. --Eamonnca1 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Murder accusation

I dont take kindly to being accused of murder here, SqueakBox 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• "get away with murder" is an idiom. It isn't a literal accusation of murder. Uncle G 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's a figure of speech. Except when it was used in I Know What You Did Last Summer. But that was a bad movie. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing to see here, just a turn of phrase. And I hated that movie, and the sequel (was there more then one? This could be a modern, crappy, Halloween (movie). -M^ask 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Anybody else remember this comic? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Your links broken. I'm gonna cry :( -M^ask 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Paste it in directly or navigate to it from the main page. It's under the archive for 1999, very bottom-left corner of the gallery. --tjstrf talk 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
            • *snort* never saw it before, but well done, I laughed. -M^ask 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Either you're trying to make something out of nothing, or you need to seriously get back in touch with your English language skills. - Mark 07:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Henrygb (talk · contribs) and his sock Audiovideo (talk · contribs)

The Arbitration Committee has learned that administrator Henrygb has been operating a sock puppet, Audiovideo. This has been confirmed by unusually compelling checkuser evidence, and Henrygb has declined to provide any explanation to the Committee for his actions. We note that in addition to double voting in the current Attribution poll, Henrygb has been complimenting his own photography, supporting his own RFA, and double voting at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The Committee does not believe that such conduct is appropriate for administrators, and has encouraged Henrygb to voluntarily resign his adminship. Both accounts are blocked pending a satisfactory resolution of the matter. For the committee, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that before notifying the community, User:Henrygb was contacted privately by email by several arbitrators asking him to explain his actions. He was also contacted on his talk page. I fully support his voluntary desyop and hope he request this immediately. FloNight 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Was this discovery incidental while investigating some other person, or was it a complaint against him or his sock specifically? I would like to know whether it is useful as a general matter for admin candidates to have been on Wikipedia a long enough time that it is probable they would be incidentally discovered as being a banned user, having disruptive sockpuppets, etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was discovered incidentally. The discoverer's eyes bugged out their head when they realised what this was - David Gerard 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is disturbing. Henry has been around for a long time (indeed, his talk page still has a comment from me dated 2004!). This seems out of character, frankly, and I hope that he'll be forthcoming with an explanation. Regarding the remedy, is it normal practice to block the puppetmaster as well as the socks? -- ChrisO 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SOCK "Voting and other shows of support" is a forbidden use of socks. As such Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IrishGuy ^talk 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed the point about Henry voting for himself. That's an absolute no-no. Thanks for the pointer. -- ChrisO 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, as was recently argued in defense of someone else, a two-year-long Wikipedia editor !voting more than once, he may "not be familiar with the mechanics of !voting" and thought it was permissible. Shouldn't he get the "four warnings" to be sure he really understands it's wrong? (Checks calendar, notes with dismay that April 1 is past, strikes out entire paragraph.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is appalling. I think a public apology for abusing everyone's trust is a good idea. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, he screwed up. Badly. But please don't turn this thread into a ForestFire of condemnation like happened to Essjay. Those help no one. Picaroon 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let's not overreact. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings and sock template at User talk:Malamockq.

My welcome page. Nuff said.

This user plays games on the Nintendo DS portable console.

has on a few occasions attempted to remove warnings from his/her talk page, and the sock-puppetry template posted after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lengis. He/she is now edit-warring to maintain this removal. My understanding is that removing warnings and sock-puppet notices is not allowed. If one or more admins feels like explaining this to Malamockq, that would be appreciated. Alternatively, if I'm misreading the policy, I'm happy to be corrected about this. --Christopher Thomas 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Users can remove warnings from their talk pages. Sock notices go on their user pages, but I see zero reason to have one here, unless I missed something from my skimming. User:Lengis is not blocked or banned and has not edited since September 2006. WP:SOCK explicitly allows alternate or secondary accounts as long as they are not being used to evade bans or blocks or used to edit disruptively. Why is the sockpuppet notice, which implies some wrongdoing requiring its presence, there? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to look up the checkuser request to refresh my memory, as it's been a while. They'd been attempting to show magnified support for a particular viewpoint at Talk:Quasar. Nothing since then, that I know of, but I went on Wikisabbatical not long after, so I haven't been keeping track of more recent activity.--Christopher Thomas 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see the need for it now, as they have stopped using the Lengis account and are using Malamockq as their primary. If he/she begins using both accounts disruptively, then one of the socks should be blocked, and the user warned/temp blocked again. That's about it. One indiscretion (assuming it hasn't happened in the 8 months since) should not amount to a permanent scarlet letter, in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Comments from anyone else, before the thread is closed? --Christopher Thomas 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what would make anyone think such warnings had to remain up forever. Sort of an odd viewpoint, isn't it? TortureIsWrong 07:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for cases where abuse is continuing, which are the ones I'm used to. Otherwise you get way too much leniency for repeat offenders. However, in this case, I agree that it's overkill (as repeat offense looks unlikely). --Christopher Thomas 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Dreamz rosez is a disruptive sockpuppet who has been perpetually reverting on Rafida, as can be seen by his contribs. other puppets include: Solaariz dayz (talk · contribs), No problem 1254 (talk · contribs), Shadow gost (talk · contribs). in fact, Talk:Rafida is crammed full of documentation of other puppets of this user. editors have been persistently undoing "Dreams rosez" et al. for a number of months now, and it's frankly becoming quite a pain. administrator attention is needed. thank you. ITAQALLAH 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• the sock is still reverting -_-. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 week for revert warring and sockpuppetry. Indefinite is probably warranted, but someone more familiar with the situation can block further.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Marky48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This seems like a violation of WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is. After seeing some other edits of his, I've blocked him for a week. --Coredesat 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work almost every comment he made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination) was an insult!--Dacium 03:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And he's making more personal attacks after being blocked, too. *Dan T.* 04:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I just got quite an abusive e-mail from him. --Coredesat 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm pretty sure that's not English. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When I did a little research after my last run-in with the guy, it was apparent he was using Wikipedia as a new battleground in an off-Wiki fight: anyone who gets in his way is just collateral damage to him, it seems. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan's incivility and personal attacks

The user MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. Diffs from the March Days and other pages:

• March Days, 00:46, April 3, 2007 (two full reverts)
• March Days, 21:19, April 2, 2007

• 01:44, April 3, 2007 "you cannot even lie well"
• 19:24, April 2, 2007 "I'm truly going to savor the moment your account goes the way of the dodo"
• 12:40, March 27, 2007 "quit pussyfooting around the issues"

He's been told to remain civil and not engage in personal attacks, POV and bias, but ignored those requests. --adil 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has been maliciously editing articles on Wikipedia for over a year, vandalizing them, locking them up, for every allegation of misdoing on my part, I can easily point to 10 more coming from him. He has been voted to be banned for a period of one year by an arbitration committee because of his disruptiveness on Wikipeda and hence, is now trying to destroy whatever he can with the short lifespan he has on Wikipedia.

All this, and he comes to this noticeboard every week to whine that some user has upset him precisely because of his provocative edits in the first place.--MarshallBagramyan 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove and disruptive sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.

This user has been disrupting numerous articles for quite a long time now. I believe that GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and recently NovaNova are all the same person. They use the same style of writing (grammar mistakes, spacing, etc.) and they all have the same subject of interest which are Dalmatia-related articles and removing or vandalising every mention of Croatia in them. I have looked around their history pages and I have found striking similarities in their reverts. I found out that these two members have been involved in numerous edit-wars where they have "collaborated" to such a degree that it took my attention right away. Looking closer I found out that they in fact made exactly the same methods and when there wasn't one there was the other doing the same revert and replying in the same manner. Some of the articles included are: List of Croatians, Giovanni Luppis, Francesco Patrizi, Benedetto Cotrugli, Andrea Meldolla and so on. If these are all accounts of the same person (which I am convinced they are) he is also guilty for vote stacking on as can be seen on Talk:Francesco_Patrizi, this page can also be observed for striking similarity in argumentation of these supposedly two people (it is in fact identical). Recently it seems he introduced another sockpuppet at Giulio Clovio named NovaNova, this article is also where GiorgioOrsini is involved in a edit-war for very long time and now he obviously introduced another sock to help himself. In short due to long-term disruption, vandalism, incivility and extremly striking similarity in edit style, argumentation and exactly the same interests I am forced to request an indefinite block or ban of this user and all of his accounts.

It is certain to assume that Giovanni Giove is the master account, as it is the oldest account out of the three. This person then created his other two accounts in a short amount of time - during November 2006. GiorgioOrsini and NovaNova are his two accounts which are used for rampant edit warring, and personal attacks, and they are also used to create the illusion that their is more than one person who holds these opinions. To get a taste of this report, please see that after a user gave him a legitimate warning, Orsini removed it and was uncivil. Also take a look at this threat/attack.

Looking at each user's contributions, it is highly likely that GiorgioOrisni was created by Giovanni Giove to create the illusion of support for his views on the article "Juraj Dalmatinac". Another point to notice is that GiorgioOrisni's first ever edit was to the talk page of Juraj Dalmatinac, where he immediately started repeating the same words spoken by Giovanni Giove, and immediately engaged in edit warring over that article - quite an unusual thing for a genuine new user to do. Both accounts edit the same articles - often edit warring with other users, most notably on Juraj Dalmatinac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Andrea Meldolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles of famous Croatian/Italian figures. Both account seem to have the single purpose of removing all references to Croatia or Croats on articles of famous historical figures, and claiming them as exclusively "Italian", while calling all other views "pseudo-historical". Both account use the same style of language in talk pages and edit summaries. The account GiorgioOrsini is also guilty of vandalism, by removing people from article lists and then adding words such as "falsifier" to describe someone[109]. It can clearly be seen that these users are in fact the same person.

Name changes/removals

All three users constantly move pages from Croatian names to Italian ones. All three remove sections of articles regarding name controversies and such - and always use the same or similar "reasoning" (e.g, "removed name nonsense", or "pseudo-historical nonsense".

Diffs:

• Giovanni Giove - [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].
• GiorgioOrsini - [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126].
• NovaNova - [127], [128].

Neo-Nazism

In "their" mad fanaticism, "they" frequent the articles Neo-Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Croatia, and try to insert inflammatory POV, and more lies and falsifications.

Diffs:

• GiorgioOrsini - [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145].
• NovaNova - [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164].

Giulio Clovio

The Giulio Clovio article is a frequent target of this one user's heavy POV edit warring. He frequently removes references and text referring to the man as a Croat. On the talk page, and in edit summaries they are always uncivil, and usually use personal attacks.

Diffs:

• Giovanni Giove - [165], [166], [167].
• GiorgioOrsini - [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183].
• NovaNova - [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191].

Blocks

All three have been blocked at least once for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring etc. Giove obviously has the most blocks as this is the master account. [192], [193], [194].

Please look into this

And block the accounts accordingly. Thank You. Sock Buster 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User bringing the charge is:

• a Wikipedia:Single purpose account,
• an admitted sock puppet User:Sock Buster
• forum shopping: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) ; Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove WP:AN/I#Giovanni Giove and disruptive sockpuppetry, edit warring etc.;
• failed to prove the case before, and in fact, found reasonably strong evidence the two accounts were different: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove

All that said, the charge deserves looking into, but, sheesh. I'd appreciate if someone else did it this time, so he doesn't think it's just me persecuting him. I'll do it if no one else does. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)