Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive246

Socks of User:Maleabroad

Resolved

 – indefblocked from AIV - Alison ☺ 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some admin please block and roll-back SpatialHarddrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a sock of Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is currently on a vandalism spree ? If someone has the time, perhaps they can also block the other 20-odd active socks of the same user listed here along with evidence, prior checkuser links etc. Do you think it would be prudent to contact the sysadmin of the university lab that this prolific sockpuppeteer operates from ? Here and here are some off-wiki links to an extremist forum where the user admits to his trolling and recruits meatpuppets. Abecedare 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock Shiftgear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now active and is busy removing sock notices from previously detected socks. Can some admin please block the known sock accounts of the user (evidence is available here), namely:

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺ 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺ 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Logistics0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Blocked - Alison ☺ 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ndegree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Philosopher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Share01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solidentry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Blocked - Alison ☺

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺ 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Blocked - Alison ☺ 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Xeron04a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Blocked - Alison ☺

• Timeroom1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. Abecedare 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best approach is to take this problem directly to the university computing center where this malicious user is known to operate and contact the administrative personnel there, using existing Wikipedia procedures for such contacts. Since other preventive measures have failed, use of these external contact procedures is justified by the very extensive sock and meat puppet recruitment tied to this person. Buddhipriya 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of User talk:209.11.242.250?

ResolvedAnthony has reduced the block to 6 months. Will (aka Wimt) 11:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Anthony.bradbury blocked the IP address indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. Before the IP made edits to List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy, it seemed to have made some constructive edits. Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths recommends that IP addresses should almost never be blocked indefinitely. Also, the IP did not belong to an open proxy. Pants^(T) 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking Anthony? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume it was an oversight that this was an IP. As Heimstern noted, it is good etiquette and good practice to discuss an issue with the involved administrator before 'reporting' it here. Daniel 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nudity vandal indef blocked

Alembic922 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been acting on his way for a couple of days now! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Urghh... He/She takes no censorship too far... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put up Image:Female pubic hair.jpg (one of the images used in the edits) up for deletion on Commons. I'd also like to take this time to mention how much I hate not having a mop there, too; I'm completely spoiled here. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I hate having to look for Commons admins to help out :) By the way, {{speedydelete}} probably gets the message across quicker (I just changed your nomination to speedy, hope you don't mind). – Riana ⁂ 15:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind though that image isn't eligible for deletion according to Commons' image guidelines. As Commons is intended as an image repository, the fact that it's unused doesn't make it eligible for deletion (and there's plenty of exhibitionist self-portraits over there). Krimpet (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen images like that get deleted for not coming under the scope, but maybe I didn't understand it properly. – Riana ⁂ 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Riana, you've got more Commons experience than me; I'd be a damn fool to be upset. ;)
I understand that "it's unused" isn't the grandest rationale for deletion, but considering its use only in vandalism, I think that makes for a perfectly fine reason for its deletion (which is what I mentioned). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

His/her edits weren't blatant vandalism though; looking at his/her contributions, they simply tried to insert it into Pubic hair, apparently unaware of the consensus on the talk page that the page shouldn't turn into an image gallery. It was reverted, they added it again two days later, and they were then blocked for vandalism, without any warning. Since they're a new editor, we should probably AGF and assume they probably don't know how consensus and talk page discussion works yet. Krimpet (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Commons does, we can block it by adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list, which I have now done. --BigDT 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do unblock if you feel it was an unwarranted block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin review

[from discussion between Anthony.bradbury and FayssalF]

Hi there; you have given this user an indefblock as vandalism only. You have been both an editor and an admin for longer than I have, so I would not attempt to argue with you; but given that Wikipedia is not censored, I am am not certain that I can see the vandalism. The user is asking for unblock which, of course, I have not done. But I would be most grateful for an elaboration of your reasons.--Anthony.bradbury 09:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. It has nothing to do w/ censorship or otherwise i'd be blocking everyone editing nudity-related subjects. We've been having a lot of disruption cases (see Woman's talk page history where pubic hair is not the subject of the article) and image-related problems lately (please have a look at the actual and related AN/I threads). We can't tolerate that. There has to be a limit by applying WP:IAR especially in smelly sockpuppetry and WP:POINT cases. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He sent me an email early today and it was me who told them to request a formal unblock. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked them with a caveat as they appear to be acting in good faith, if a little misguided; if so, we don't want to WP:BITE. If he/she shows any signs in the future of being a sock puppet rather than just a misguided newbie, though, break out the ban stick. Krimpet (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Month-old revert war needs to be stopped

I have been having a revert war with 81.149.27.200 for around 1 and a half months and previous calls for admin assistance have been falling on deaf ears. I have made some compromises and some edits but the IP simply blanket reverts. This is our diff on Malhotra, this is our diff on Luthra. I came to Wikipedia and worked on expanding and improving articles on surnames, including Luthra. When I came to Malhotra I decided to NPOV the article, upon which the anon started reverting my edits on Malhotra and Luthra (as revenge I guess). But from the diffs you can tell who is right. I tried to initiate discussion on Talk:Malhotra, but no reply. The only time he replies is when I report it to admins, and then he picks up some diffs from March which no longer represent the state of things.

The origins of my actions on this dispute can be seen from my oldest contributions which reveal that I was editing Luthra happily and also adding tags to numerous other Punjabi surnames when I reached Malhotra with this edit. Then I began removing unsourced edits. While the anon has said in the past that my edits are revenge edits for his reverts on Luthra, it makes no sense if you look at history. Please act. dishant 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you wish to be done? I suggest asking the anonymous user to start commenting on the talk pages. I see you've been at it for a while, and I commiserate - I would certainly say that if the user refuses to come to the talk page, then the user could be blocked for edit warring. But until you make this appeal - it just looks like you're both edit warring, as you've both just used each other's talk pages, and there's no way for anyone to verify the material, as it's not on the talk page. The Evil Spartan 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

after legal threats, unblock-maybe review

Can some other admins look at User talk:Nraden#Legal Threats? I'm not sure whether they're complying with WP:NLT now or not (I'm inclined to say no but I could be misinterpreting what the policy requires). Anyone who's satisfied that they are should feel free to unblock; I just wasn't comfortable doing so. ··coelacan 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not remotely. He explicitly threatens a named user ("I never (meant to) threaten Wikipedia or its administrators, only Deborah Vanderstadt"), he likens himself to "a peacekeeping force", and he refuses retract his earlier threat, saying "I reserve the right to take legal action against Debv". The block is good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the latest "I will reluctantly agree to refrain from taking legal action against her for actions on Wikipedia as there appears to be adequate means to redress greivances" that made me think, "maybe". ··coelacan 12:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that in the same edit where he's threatening to sue someone - there's still a clear threat of legal action, and even the (IMO limp) wording of WP:LEGAL does say "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding" (not "...while legal threats relating to wikipedia are outstanding"). So I think there continues to be a clear threat there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. ··coelacan 13:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was resolved quite a long time ago. Isn't there some process to note that? Neil Raden (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of murder

This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, I would like some support in dealing with this wikistalker. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage ♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From the cited diff. "He has already murdered another wikiuser". Andy Mabbett 11:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as literally accusing anyone of murder, given that he specifically couched in the context of an analogy. --Haemo 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me identify myself as lewisskinner, using an IP here, and only here to defend myself (having been blocked, see beow). Of course, feel free to block this IP too after posting.

Secondly, why Pigsonthewing, did you not think to notify me of yet another AN/I complaint made against myself by yourself? (from the top of this page - "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting"). But congrats in finally getting what you wanted!

Thirdly, the accusations of sockpuppetry are a) false, as explained, and b) Irrelevant in this particular incident. But hey, I expect to get that thrown in my face everytime Pigsonthewing has a dispute with me!

Fourthly, to defend the comment, it was a direct quote, as cited on my talk page. Twice

Finally, why does Pigsonthewing seem so averse to coming on to my talk page and requesting retraction of my comments? I can think of only one occasion in which he's ever posted on my talk page, and that was in response to user:Adambro gallant but ultimately (and always destined to be) futile attempt at mediation at User_talk:Lewisskinner/Archive_May_2007#Regarding_User:Pigsonthewing. Why will you not sort these problems out in private Pigsonthewing? Why must you always go to admins? It only wastes their time, our time which we could be spending editing articles rather than screaming each other down and trading insults, and other user's time who have to come here having been dragged in by the insults. I'd have retracted/reworded the comment if you'd asked! 91.105.170.205 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a user to evade a block in this manner? Andy Mabbett 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.105.170.205. That was the only edit, so I don't really think it was evasion, do you? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(info) I blocked Lewis for 48 hrs yesterday for this; the murder comment, in or out of context, was uncivil and inappropriate. If this is felt to be inappropriately harsh feel free to unblock (he's got an unblock request up now). I did not see it as an analogy; if Lewis meant it that way, he should communicate in a manner less prone to interpretation as accusations of physical violence. Neither threats nor acusations of that should ever be taken lightly. Georgewilliamherbert 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [1]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply anything positive or negative about this editor, but maybe some history would be helpful.

I've seen him on this board a few times in the past, and gave my opinion once or twice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#False accusation of stalking. While looking for this post I found another archive where a search revealed a couple of other threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227. Anynobody 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are more cases here, many of which are instances of Pigsonthewing misusing the AN/I board:

• • ArbCom
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Misleading_and_provocative_edit
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Infoboxes
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#vandal & dubious user name
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive237#Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers ownership issues
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Abusive and aggressive post
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#Abuse-only anon user
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#Wizofdahood = vandal only —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.146.190 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Note that the above, unsigned lie was posted from the same IP-block as the above, block-evading edit. The only other edit by the user in this case was to vandalise an article I have previously edited. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this intended to be another false accusation of sockpuppetry against me Pigsonthewing? If so, please stop, it's getting tiresome. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It can't be, since there have been no preceding false accusations; you were sock-puppeting. Andy Mabbett 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the explanation Pigsonthewing? I have since close my Wi-Fi. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I read both your "explanation" and the comments on it by the user who carried out the checkuser: "If that's the case, then, looking at the edit pattern, I find the confluence of interests and writing style remarkable and likely to break new ground in the study of coincidence. Or perhaps not" ([2]) and "On balance, my considered opinion as an experienced checkuser remains to suggest to Lewis "come off it" and to point out that Wikipedia is incredibly tolerant, but we're not actually stupid" ([3]). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One user's word against another is not credible evidence Pigsonthewing. It is an opinion, which I refuted, and offered an explanation against. Please this vendetta has gone too far now. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the lie? How is the second part relevant? Where was the vandalism?

• • Also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Infobox Discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.146.190 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2007.

Lewis, it is not credible for you to expect that an IP address in a block from which you have sockpuppeted extensively in the past to come here and edit like that and for us not to conclude that it's you. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User possibly tried to put Wikipedia in trouble with MPAA

User Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) has put a secret HD-DVD encryption key that the MPAA has been trying to erase from the web (see news article) and has also pursued legal action in order to prevent publication of the key. This is a bad faith edit, meant to put Wikipedia in legal problems. For example from the news site:

DMCA take down notices have been issued to sites like Spooky Action at a Distance and Digg.

The Digg users who published them have even had their accounts closed by mods.

This user's edit and the diff (including my news link, if possible) should be deleted and made inaccessible to protect Wikipedia from any possible legal trouble. By the way this is the same user who last week wrote the words "fuck you" in a hidden comment and edit-warred with admins who rightfully tried to remove it. Last week he got blocked for 3RR, abuse, disruptive editing and his block expired today. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that is needed, since the key is in the AACS encryption key controversy article. That is certainly worse then a hidden comment. Prodego ^talk 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I see, we are safe then. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it as "silly keyspam nonsense", which indeed it is. It's pretty close to WP:POINT - Alison ☺ 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

kirbytime indef blocked

I'm done with him. I don't care whether the key is on Wikipedia or not, but he is just trolling by inserting it in his userspace as a comment. It may be acceptable fair use in the article, it's not fair use in his userspace. I've blocked Kirbytime indefinitely; I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia anymore, if he ever was. If another admin wants to undo the block, I won't scream about it, but unless there is a clear sign of an intent to turn this behavior around, I think it would be ill-advised. ··coelacan 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He's posted an extremely pleasant unblock request. [4]. I don't really understand this whole situation with the key itself; however, it's quite clear to me that Kirbytime posted this as an act of trolling. I will not object to this block given Kirbytime's history of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. We have got to learn the difference between people who are here to help, and people who are not. The former, when they misbehave, get all manner of opportunities to reform, and rightly so. It is too bad we fritter away so much goodwill and energy by extending the same to the second group. Hesperian 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the block log, I endorse the block. He should have been gone a long time ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And note the subsequent (not very) veiled threat to sockpuppet. I should say that Kirbytime has just given his block the strongest possible endorsement. Hesperian 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep.[5] As long as it's agreed this is a community ban, any puppets can be blocked and reverted on sight. ··coelacan 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disgree with indef block. The code is certainly not supposed to add anything to encyclopedia but it is not vandalism either. First of all, it is his own userpage. Our contributions to our own userpages are not supposed to be of encyclopedic value in the first place. Having said that, addition of the code on that page was quite unnecessary. BUT it doesn't deserve an indef block. For just adding a hidden message to personal website. It is true that Kibri have had some blocks over "request" for some sex related pics which I don't approve but I think he has stoped that (or please prove me wrong).

I suggest for an indef block, his case should be submitted to Arbcom. --Aminz 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody WP:OWNs any pages on Wikipedia, including the userpages connected with their accounts. Userpages are not required to be encyclopedic content they way articles are, but they are to facilitate work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Myspace, as the saying goes. And trolling on one's userpage is definitely blockable. 75.62.6.237 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of encyclopedic content or not; but a question of copyright infringement. It may be fair use in the article, and there are reasonable arguments that it is allowable in the article under WP:NFCC. But that explicitly does not extend to userspace. ··coelacan 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What does fair use have to do with this? --ElKevbo 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but Ctrl-F for "I consider it blatant trolling" below, as I believe the block stands on Kirby's intent, regardless of the exact legality. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, I still don't see how a copyright infringment can justify indef-block. It is too harsh. Indef-blocking of a user means that the user doesn't satisfy even the lower standards expected from a user. --Aminz 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the result of an extended pattern of behavior, not just this single issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

agree Kirbytime obviously wansn't indef blocked for the MPAA copyright issue. He was blocked because of a whole series of problems. Neither Wikipedia, nor any decent human being, should ever tolerate pedophiles. The FBI keeps files on people who try to search pictures of child pornography... --ProtectWomen 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with an indefinite block as well. — MichaelLinnear 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we didn't block the user just for pasting the code; there were plenty of other blocks issued in the past feew weeks for causing disruption, including asking for NSFW images at articles, including Child pornography. I feel like we gave this user way too many chances. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370(edit conflict), Kirbitime was asking for addition of pictures but as far as I am aware he has stoped it for awhile (please correct me otherwise). I think it is best to be addressed through RfCs and ArbCom. On the surface, issuing an indef block for some hidden addition to a personal userpage really seems unjustified.--Aminz 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I unblocked and reblocked indefinitely for threatening to sockpuppet? Because he's done that already now. ··coelacan 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of case is a waste of time at RFC and a waste of ArbCom's time. Once a troll, always a troll. Editors that take actions like this are not welcome to continue editing here. --Spike Wilbury 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, it is his objection to "indef-block" for adding something to personal userpage. I think we are moving too fast. --Aminz 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MichaelLinnear, this is not a vote. Please explain your objection. ··coelacan 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is overly harsh. — MichaelLinnear 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, as you may be able to convince another admin: if the block were reduced, when would we be free from his trolling? When would the games stop? Do you have reason to believe that he's going to improve his behavior? I don't mean to pick a fight or anything; if there's answers to these questions that I and others are overlooking, someone should put them on the table. ··coelacan 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I conclude that a more appropriate reason for blocking is "exhausting the community's patience"? —Kyриx 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please list User's faults. Please note that I agree that Kirbitime's instance on porn image was disruptive but did he continue this? I think he stopped it (please correct me otherwise) --Aminz 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Coelacan? —Kyриx 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To you actually :) --Aminz 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I never expressed an opinion supporting or opposing the block. The above was just a conclusion drawn from observation. So I don't quite get your request. —Kyриx 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that :P I misunderstood your comment. --Aminz 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, do you really want me to make a list of his diffs? I'll have to probably split it into 3 columns to prevent the page from getting lengthy. Here's one group diff though: edit-warring with admins. You should support better users of Wikipedia. Realize that you will be helped more if you have good users working with you; at the least not anyone who edit wars with admins, requests child porn, writes the words "Fuck you" in a hidden comment, gives a link to Piss Christ and so on. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that kirbi satisfies the highest standards but that he doesn't fail the lowest ones. Some of these edits may not be justified but may be explained. Aside from these you don't have a good editting record either Matt. --Aminz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with high or low standards of editing, and everything to do with incessant trolling behavior. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all realize that indefinite doesn't mean infinite right? John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hoped to make that clear at the beginning of this section; if another admin honestly thinks he's going to shape up, they can reverse the block. For what it's worth, he's now saying he copied the number there through a sort of misunderstanding.[6] You'll have to read his talk page. But I think the threats of sockpuppetry speak well enough for his intent here. ··coelacan 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider unblocking if I could take Kirbytime's protestations of innocence seriously. But his history makes me unable to believe him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves, i think indefinite means infinite. It means that the user fails the minimal standards. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean infinite. It mean an undefined period of time, i.e. it could eventually be reversed. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think in practice it means the same thing. --Aminz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen indefinite blocks overturned. —Kyриx 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, indef block seems too harsh. Some of the previous blocks were related to asking on the talk pages for porn pictures which was bad but as far as I am aware the user has stoped that to best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with indef. Too much trolling. - Merzbow 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this long due indef block. This is one of the strongest trolls I've ever seen. The longer you keep this user in, the more trouble he will create for users and admins (edit-wars with admins) and the more you'll keep wondering why he wasnt blocked before.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are far from an impartial party in this. — MichaelLinnear 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For whoever says this is copyright infringement, this is not; it might be a violation of the DMCA, but you cannot copyright a 128-bit number. At best, it qualifies as a trade secret, which means that once released to the public like it is now, it is no longer controllable legally. The DMCA is the only law that applies here, most likely. "Fair use" is irrelevant, from what I know. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The (bad) idea is that it's a circumvention tool and thus subject to the DMCA. I agree that it's daft and that fair use has nothing to do with it. --ElKevbo 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I will not express an opinion on the block, I would suggest that any block made should be specifically made for the user's incivility and attacks, not for posting a number which has been run in many major news sources such as Wired, Yahoo News, and so forth. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The block should be applied because he deliberately makes edits like this to cause maximum chaos; his history is full of such behavior. - Merzbow 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider it blatant trolling, the same as if he had written expletives in his html comments (as he did last time). The intended purpose is disruption, even if the action was not a violation of US law. It's WP:POINT either way, and he's given us enough of that. I don't think he's here for the encyclopedia so much as for a "game" inside an encyclopedia; I stand by my block. Again, other admins have the prerogative of reversing the block. I will not. ··coelacan 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, writing hidden stuff on his personal userpage doesn't harm wikipedia nor produce chaos; I assume he is blocked and he is free at home so he started playing with his userpage. The main problem is with the article not userpages (and even then hidden writings). User pages are not supposed to add anything to the wikipedia.

coelacan, I am not saying he satisfies the highest standards but that indef-block(i.e. failing the lowest standards) seems harsh to me. But that's only me. --Aminz 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "failing the lowest standards" stuff is. An indef block represents my appraisal that the net effect of Kirbytime is more trolling than benefit, and that he's exhausted the patience of too many other editors. How many times has he been on ANI in the last month? How much time have we wasted running around this guy? I'm hoping that when this thread is archived, the answer will be "no more". ··coelacan 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the edits he made adding the key, for what it's worth. Might also be worth noting Kirbytime's reasoning for inserting it (I have my doubts - the key was inserted with ":" after each two numbers. This was done presumably to circumvent the blacklist, because I can't think of any time I've seen the key formatted like that...) Ral315 » 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's formatted like that on a couple of websites. — MichaelLinnear 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I have a problem with the block. My only interaction with Kirbytime was the ANI thread where he claimed to be confused about what kind of images constituted child pornography. If someone can demonstrate that he's made recent positive contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd reconsider, but this user seems like a determined, long-term troll to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am personally aware, the user had stopped that. --Aminz 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he was blocked for it. So he moved on to other things, like revert warring and html comment games. ··coelacan 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of "html comment games". Would you please explain it. Thanks --Aminz 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"HTML games" refer to the user putting thing in <!--hidden comments-->. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One example is this edit. You can't see them just looking at the page, but they show up when you edit. Phony Saint 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an unrepentant troll. I was around for his requests for child porn. While he finally gave up that effort he didn't do so quickly. I see some editors here saying he wasn't that bad but I don't see anyone pointing to positive contributions to offset his disruption. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is better off without this user's involvement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who want to review Kirbytime's recent ANI history can see archives 240, 239, 230, 227, 221, 221. ··coelacan 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block. We don't have to put up with this nonsense from obvious trolls.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

an indefinite ban is excessive for vandalizing your own talk pages imho, if he is to be blocked indefinitely it should be done by the arbcom Bleh999 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This block doesn't make sense as the key is out in the open in the Wikipedia article on the subject and Jimbo Wales has said there is no problem with posting the key to Wikipedia. The indef block for this non-"offense" is totally improper. That said, I am unaware of his past history, just that this latest offense doesn't appear to be an actual "offense." --Abnn 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall I unblock and reblock for threatening sockpuppetry, instead? Would that make things clearer? ··coelacan 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't actually threaten sockpuppetry from what I read, rather he suggested being unfairly banned drives some to do so, I doubt he would admit he was going to sockpuppet and thus expose his intentions Bleh999 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read "It's almost like you guys are asking me to sockpuppet" any other way than "I will sockpuppet". ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't comment as I don't know. In all honesty, I can't knowledgeable oppose or support a indefban based on an analysis of his overall behavior as I am not familiar enough with him and this territory. --Abnn 05:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he has been helpful in the past: I first met him and encouraged him to help us out on WP:PNT, where we needed people who could read arabic script at the time. He did handle a few cases. But I understand the sentiment behind his indef-block due to his behavior since then and I don't oppose it. Grandmasterka 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block, the editor has been warned several times. (If one considers previous blocks warnings, which I do). block log Anynobody 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime now threatens "revenge".[7] I don't have enough AGF kool-aid in my cupboard to continue entertaining the possibility of unblocking. Later, ··coelacan 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hos is that athreat of revenge? Viridae^Talk 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Threat or not, it crossed the line into trolling... again. I have now protected his talk page. Hesperian 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For those that don't know, it is a quote from the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare: [8]. --Abnn 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was a quote, but it doesn't appear to be a threat - the context of it says that even more. Viridae^Talk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Kirbytime had contributed for a year without major problems - I recall him being at some times reasonable and at others contentious and not really standing out in this respect - but recently has for whatever reason gone totally rogue. I was amazed to see him resume edit warring to push a completely ridiculous image (since deleted) immediately after coming off a 24hr block for…well, edit-warring, and having only minutes earlier assured others (sort of) that he wasn't going to immediately resume edit-warring after his block expired.

Re his latest behavior, this explanation strains credulity, and who knows what we should make of this Shakespearean reference? ("And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?") Besides the vague hints of a threat, this continues his very odd line of am-I-Muslim-Jewish-or-atheist identity trolling which like too many of his recent contributions seems designed to draw others into pointless discussions.

Were this block infinite and irrevocable, I suppose I might oppose it, but indefinite is a different matter: he is and should be free to petition for an unblock at some point in the future (say, a couple months from now) if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back. In the meantime, I counsel Kirbytime to step away from Wikipedia for a bit and not make the situation any worse by sockpuppeting; see User:DavidYork71 for a user who dealt with this situation exactly the wrong way, and a result has probably blown his chances to come back.Proabivouac 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above statement... He's been okay in the past and we should leave the door open a crack barring further problems. Maybe one problem of his led to another and he let himself snowball out of control... Just a thought. Grandmasterka 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• My patience with Kirbytime is certainly exhausted, though my patience is pretty exhaustible these days. I would think that if he asks nicely after a month or so away form the project, to regain his perspective, we would be quite likely to let him back in, but right now he's looking like a time-sink with no obvious payback for the project. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that too many editors are following Kirbi's edits... :D --Aminz 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

His name pops up rather too often. I have left a note on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with the key is that the consensus over at the controversy article talk page seems to indicate that it should only be presented in the article and nowhere else (that's the primary reason it was added to the spam blacklist-- it was being spammed). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby deserves a long break (i'd say something like 6 months) to review their behaviour and understand that wikipedia is not a game. Instead of editing the encyclopedia we end up having long discussions that we could have avoided. But indef is surely a harsh block. At least they've contributed plenty of stuff. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. We have had trolling, desruptive and pointy cases much more worse than that but people are still present in the project, probably because they changed their behaviour. For me, it should have been 6 months, no more no less. In brief, if there is someone i totally agree w/ in this thread is Proabivouac. Excellent analysis and synthesis. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be considerable support for unblocking at some point in the future if Kirbytime doesn't sockpuppet. So, do we leave the indef on and let him ask after X months, or do we reduce the block now to X months? ··coelacan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer reducing it to 6 months. As i said above, it is too harsh compared w/ many other cases. I don't want to bring names but that is the middle ground i believe. In case of sockpuppetry it will become an indef if not a ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.Proabivouac 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"too harsh" ? This user was requesting samples of child pornography for Christs sake. Kirbytime not only doesn't belong on Wikipedia- he probably belongs in jail. At the very least, he ought to be under some kind of internet equivalent to Megan's law. Too bad we don't have a way to enforce something like that.

FayssalF, you are implying that other users have done worse things than Kirby- if you can name one action worse than trolling for pictures of child porn, please tell me. I'd really like to know.--ProtectWomen 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally like following structured process when dealing w/ such issues. This is my method as an admin. It could satisfy many people as it could bother many others.

Let us be fair and avoid being emotional. We are not a real-life law enforcement body to put people on jail. We do block and ban users from Wikipedia. That is all we can do.

Let's avoid being subjective. As far as the child porno case in concerned, my memory tells me that this issue was considered closed and he got punished and blocked for 48h though it should have been at least a month or that he could have been indef blocked at that time. Since then, he hasn't brought that child porno subject again. So why are we bringing it again and again?

Now, we are talking about his general and overall behaviour. Is is a troll? Yes in many occasions he showed signs of being one. Has he made points? Yes in many occasions. Many have done the same and worse in overall. So i believe now when i say it is too harsh it certainly makes sense and therefore there's no need to bring names because i consider their cases as closed as well until further notice. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, many have not "done the same and worse overall". Anyone who has is permanently blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support for indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. Kirbytime is an intelligent, productive, and generous member of the Wikipedia community. He's been badly wikistalked by an editor who repeats specious allegations of Holocaust denial, and who appears to be obsessed with Kirby's ethnicity/nationality/religion; much of what has been described as Kirby's incivility has been an understandable reaction to this stalker. Kirbytime does have a rather provocative style of talkpage interaction. I don't mean this as a euphemism for incivility; he rarely engages in personal attacks. I mean that he'll take some admirably principled position on something (that denial of history can take forms other than Holocaust denial, say, or that Wikipedia should not engage in self-censorship even when the topic is taboo), and then make his case through tireless talk-page dialectics, often peppered with reductios ad absurdum. These latter are a great gift to his enemies, who can then run to other pages and "accurately" quote Kirbytime in such a way as to willfully misrepresent him. There's something schoolboyish about Kirbytime, no doubt about it, but he's the smart-aleck and the class clown, not the bully – and he's no troll. If he's blocked indefinitely, I will miss his puckish intelligence, and the community will miss his contributions.--G-Dett 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This user should have been gone after the child porn pictures debacle. Instead, Kirbytime was allowed to troll repeatedly with several more blocks until the final (long overdue) indef block. Kudos to coelacan for stepping up todo the right thing --ProtectWomen 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Second that. Finally, someone gets out the troll spray. I support coelacan's block - as she said earlier, the net effect of Kirbytime was more harm than good. That's justification for a block if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support coelacan's bold action. Guy said it best; Kirby is a timesink and his contributions here are not valuable enough to outweigh the community's time that he wastes. Indef is the way to go here. Perhaps it could be lifted in the future if Kirby demonstrates that he understands the apropriate way to behave, but I don't see any reason to just slap an arbitrary time limit on this block and hope he gets a clue in that time period.--Isotope23 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would endorse either an indefinite block (that's subject to review down the road) or a lengthy set block. Kirbytime's disruptions more than offset his positive contributions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point I am not going to reduce the block. If Kirbytime gets it together in two months, six would be too long. At the moment he is quite adamant that he's done nothing wrong. I agree with Proabivouac, "if and when he's regained his senses and is prepared to admit to his missteps instead of pretending he doesn't understand why the community is pushing back", he can be unblocked. He currently shows no sign that this will happen within six months. I say, let him petition when he's ready. This is my opinion, though, and not intended as "I've reviewed my block and found it correct". ··coelacan 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at some of his edits as far back as January, the indef ban is actually long overdue, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been done sooner. Support indefblock/ban.--Wizardman 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• His today's edits at his talk page (i.e. Shakespeare quote) shows no signs of improvement and therefore i support an indef block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But what about...

User:Matt57? This post and similar ones derive from stalking Kirbytime, and in some cases it seems Kirby trolled to see if someone (always Matt) would notice it. While I myself can 'monitor' troublesome users at times, Matt's cross the 'stalking' line because he is obviously "hunting" Kirby. Besides, Matt57 is an obvious tendentious editor (anti-Islam direction), which is detrimental to the community. I don't know all of the details as well as others may as I have relatively few dealings with this editor (and they have been unsatisfactory), but I definitely think that doing something about Matt57 is a good idea at this point. Any ideas? The Behnam 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Matt57's actions are relevant in this incident, unless Matt57 is directly inciting Kirbytime to troll. It seems to be the other way around, from what you say. Phony Saint 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely think Kirbytime needed a big block awhile back during the porn images thing. I'm just suggesting where things should move next. You know, when you have two problems it is good to get rid of both of them instead of just one. The Behnam 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Matt57 is really a problem editor, his name would be appearing here in relation to other editors and incidents, and not just with Kirbytime. — MichaelLinnear 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Behnam, what did I do wrong? If someone asks for Child Porn, does it mean I stalked a person if I reported this to admins, or reverted their disruptive edits (for which Kirby was blocked 1 week ago)? Perhaps you think that Chris Hansen is also a potential stalker of Kirbytime. No sorry, and I do have my eye on yours edits ([9]) like we all do on everyone else's. Please keep your accusations of stalking or disruptive edits to yourself. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Matt57 had been inciting Kirby to do what he's done but that is irrelevant. We cannot prevent/punish people basing on assumptions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, no I didnt "incite" anyone here. I'm not responsible for Kirbytime's actions of asking for Child porn, wiki linking of Piss Christ, edit warring with admins and all that stuff. Good god. No thanks, I havent done anything wrong except go after him, revert his disruptive edits, report him for trolling and all that. The admins made a mistake to let this vicious troll wreck havoc here. The big question I wonder is: How much damage do you let a troll do before he gets blocked? As for the block time, this user should be blocked for atleast 6-9 months regardless of their request to unblock. I doubt he will change though so he's likely to get blocked again, but then again, all you need is good judgement to see that this user is not here on this website for anything good. He does his work on the Reference desks to cleanse himself of the guilt or to use it as an excuse or 'proof' of his good intentions. Then he goes and interwikis to Piss Christ or edit wars with admins. This is trolling par excellence, as a user said above - pretty obvious. Its simply amazing how much time of the admins this person has wasted.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We just said the same thing Matt. I said it briefier than you. I haven't said you did it. "Maybe" means "suppose" in that sentence. I think you thought i was talking about assumption related to Kirby. No i was talking about the assumptions re you "inciting" him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?

I find it shocking that KirbyTime is blocked. He was such a resonable editor. In anycase, was there ever an RfC filed? Is there any compilation of evidence (edits) the KirbyTime has been trolling? Has KirbyTime been allowed to respond to these arguments?

It seems to me the block has come out of nowehere. Can someone clarify this. Thanks.Bless sins 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the above thread, and Kirbytime's talk page, you will find the answers to all your questions. ··coelacan 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now User_talk:Kirbytime is blank. Can you be more specific as to what messages on the talk you are talking about. Also, is there anything offensive KirbyTime did outside his/her talkpage? If yes, has list of those offensive acts been compiled?Bless sins 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless_SIns, read Kirby's talk page history. -- Avi 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page?

If Kirbytime is indefinitely blocked, how is it that he is still able to edit his talk page? Just curious. ---Cathal 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked users can edit their talk pages. Otherwise {{unblock}} wouldn't have a point. -Wafulz 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Even to the point of creating large blocks of hidden text [[10]] which seems to contain vulgar messages intended for other editors and administrators? ---Cathal 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In cases of disruption the talk page can be locked, SqueakBox 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And he's not quite at that point yet. He's storing an old version of his user page in that hidden comment (probably because he's afraid we're going to delete his user page outright, which would be unnecessary). The old version of the user page had an expletive in it, which Kirbytime promptly removed with the next edit. Quite possibly a mistake, and in any case not a big deal. ··coelacan 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:RobertsonRooby

ResolvedUser:Kafziel blocked the user indefinitely. Pants^(T) 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RobertsonRooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of the banned user Danny Daniel (links to long term abuse styled page). The user recreated the hoax Little Professor Oak, a hoax created by a previous suspected sockpuppet of the banned user.

The sockpuppet is still active and is continuing to create hoaxes. Pants^(T) 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JBAK88

Request block for this user for homophobic personal attack on another user. JBAK88 (talk · contribs) has also disrupted in various ways including trolling and racism: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Was previously blocked indefinitely as JBAK (talk · contribs) and Williamdevino (talk · contribs) for death threats, and given a one-month block as User:BOV1993. "88" in username is a far-right abbreviation for "Heil Hitler" - the user (who is openly a fan of far-right causes) has been asked to deny that this is what it means, but has refused to do so. Zaian 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to report this user, when I saw this post. I would like to add the following diff where the user added racist term ("kaffir") to article: [17] --Deon Steyn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user VK35 · jersyko talk 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough - it could also refer to a date of birth (but doesn't in this case). However, in JBAK's case, it quacks like a duck, and what's more, he's been offered the opportunity to dissociate himself from the far-right interpretation, and has declined to do so. This isn't only about the username though. The user's behaviour has been exceptionally bad over a long period. Zaian 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User Griot - continued disruptive edits

Reporting continued disruptive edits by User Griot. User Griot accused various editors of sockpuppetry. Griot then used sockpuppetry and vandalized these editors. User Griot declared his exit from Wikipedia after editing conflicts with Ralph Nader article. User Griot then returned to Wikipedia and began more disruptive edits. Recommend WP admins block User Griot from articles that aggravate his COI issues. 76.166.123.129

Not agreeing or denying what the IP editor said, but I also had a dispute with Griot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SWATjester. Yep, you, me and many others. His SPP, vandalism, disruptive edting is so apparent, it burns the corneas. 76.166.123.129 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: my dispute with Griot ended amicably, and I'm not endorsing a thing the IP says. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor needs to understand not to run to the administrator's noticeboard whenever somebody makes a contrary edit. Note the User: Calton discussion on this page, where 76.166.123.129 also complains about Calton. Note as well Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen. Telegon (user 76.166.123.129) is fond of complaining about other editors but rarely makes any edits. In other words, this person is a very poor member of our community. I suggest not taking his complaints seriously or wasting your time considering this complaint. Griot 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoiler}} tag removal, sans edit summaries

It looks as though there is a a point being made with regards {{spoiler}} tags - Anthony DiPierro is removing them in bulk, with no edit summaries to support the action (see here). I'm going to plump for a hacked account being the cause (no actual edits for a few days, then a rampage of removal - Tiswas^(t) 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• And you'd almost certainly be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Which part? Or have I hit the double? - Tiswas^(t) 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Edit summaries would be helpful. There's been a good deal of discussion on this, some on this page and/or in the recent archives of this page. To sum it up: it's a somewhat controversial action that has some degree of consensus, and it's not vandalism or a compromised account. It would probably have been a good idea to contact the user first on their talk page and ask what's up. ··coelacan 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• My bad on that front - I misread the user page, thinking that the user was a sysop (and, by association, an admin). Leaping, before looking, and all that. - Tiswas^(t) 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Several people trying to delete Wikipedia's spoiler warnings in the RfC have taken to removing spoiler warnings in bulk. Some of them according to the spoiler warning guideline, others not. It disrupts the debate and the editing. The RfC is two days old, and there's been no announcement and very little informing about the attempt to make a sweeping Wikipedia-wide change. That is not "consensus," and that is definitely not grounds to act like their side has already won. A few of them are valid removals of superflous tags, and for that I thank the removers, but the matter should be kept in the RfC - it should not be taken to the streets, as it were, where there can be very little in the way of productive outcomes but a whole lot of edit wars and bad feeling. --Kizor 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is now using WP:AWB to delete spoiler warnings. From the fact that he has done so over 500 times in the last few hours and the list is growing every few seconds, I infer that he's doing so indiscriminately. Apparently, he's trying to remove the spoiler tag from every single plot summary on Wikipedia. This is either an unilateral action resulting from the recently started RfC in progress, or a way to bolster his attempt to destroy spoiler tags altogether. He has not discussed his decision to do this, and there is no consensus that would allow him to do so, and his involvement in the RfC means that he has a conflict of interest with making such a sweeping change. It'd do wonders for my blood pressure if someone was to explain why he is allowed to do that. --Kizor 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When a number of editors start making masses of edits of a certain kind, and the net effect is no ruffled feathers or very few, that's a pretty good empirical definition of consensus. There has been surprisingly little opposition to the edits, and those opposing them have been overwhelmed by those supporting them. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Overwhelmed" being the keyword here. --87.189.99.112

User:David Gerard is currently using AWB to mass-introduce controversial changes to hundreds of articles [18] which breaks several of AWB's rules. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning for details of the controversy. --87.189.99.112

I've restored the comments of pro-spoiler IP which I believe were unfairly deleted. As for the 'consensus', there's the TfD which gained a consensus in favour of keeping spoilers but was closed after less than a day by Tony Sidaway. Whilst the MfD (which was broadly in favour of deletion) was transcluded onto the RfC, the TfD was buried on a sub-page. This disparity doesn't seem right.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed hundreds of redundant spoiler warnings and guess what, almost all of my removals have stuck. In fact, I've noticed that those who revert me are tending to score 3RR blocks (including 87.189 up there) - that is, they're hotheads. It looks like the actual Wikipedia consensus on spoilers is somewhere between "no" and "don't care". Also, I've yet to hear an actual complaint from one of the outside readers spoilers are supposedly for the benefit of - David Gerard 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, AutoWikiBrowser (it's a browser, not a bot, and I look at every edit before proceeding to click the "save button" by hand) is my new favouritest toy ever. I really wish it worked under Wine - David Gerard 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several complaints on the RfC page. I must also point out that it's been less than a day, and that the great majority is in low-profile articles. --Kizor 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know the objectors on the RFC object, to the point where they get blocked for it. My point is that just about no-one else does - David Gerard 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerard has also taken the liberty of removing the part that expressly makes an exception for spoilers from Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates with no more explanation than "removing exception." I know he's quite self-confident, but to do this without discussion when the RfC is ongoing... that's simply arbitrary. --Kizor 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is a "Plot summary" section, then the spoiler is redundant. ^(H) 21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well uh yeah. I've probably made a mistake or two, and I'm sure those will be reverted in due course - David Gerard 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Spoilers often start with the plot section because that comes very early in our common article structure, but they may or may not end there. Without spoiler tags, the reader must assume that the entire article can contain spoilers. Last Tuesday, I found a book on a library sale and checked our coverage. I found a two-line plot synopsis, the spoiler tag, a plot summary, the endspoiler tag, a nifty spoiler-free "themes" section, and external links. I was pleased with what I read and bought it, which I would not have been able to do without the tags. The LOOM article describes how the game's soundtrack is classical music from the Swan Lake ballet, after the plot section, below the endspoiler tag. Music is an important part of adventure games and without spoiler tags, a reader who's not familiar with the game (and there are plenty of reasons for such a person to be reading the article - let's say that he's interested in LucasArts adventure games, has heard that this is a fundamentally different one, and wishes to know how) may not gain the information at all. In any case, please keep further discussion of this on the RfC. --Kizor 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not an advertisement service; although it's good to get people interested in products and stories, it's not our priority. — Deckiller 22:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags should be used for relatively new things, not stuff like LOOM. ^(H) 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is very much not indisputed, and this is being discussed in the RfC. Please do not assume that your side is right and that what you think is policy. --Kizor 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that objection on the RFC is not objection from the wiki in general - David Gerard 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence made no sense to me. --Kizor 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. ^(H) 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Objection from the wiki community in general, I mean - David Gerard 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way - have we ever had an actual documented complaint about a lack of spoilers? - David Gerard 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Humph. I only wish that every plot summary section included the discalimer "Warning: this plot summary may not be accurate, and is not intended as a substitute for actually experiencing the original movie, book, or play. Important details may be omitted or unimportant ones given undue emphasis." That way it solves a number of problems: (1) when a plot summary of a murder mystery states that the butler did it, the reader can fairly assume that there might be a mistake there -- & still be surprised if indeed the butler was the murderer; (2) it reinforces our warning that there are mistakes in Wikipedia, & (3) Wikipedia is not a substitute for doing your own homework. -- llywrch 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Every page includes that disclaimer - David Gerard 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review close of RFC

I have already discussed this with the closing admin on his talk page. He proposed I take my concerns here. I am not sure closing the RFC I filed on MONGO at this time is a good idea. I agree with Guy's motives for bringing the discussion to a close, and some headway was being made at a summary. But he has let the last word (on the discussion page) be MONGO's accusation that the whole RFC was "petty, vindictive and incivil". The summary says that "the complaint has no legs to stand on" "as complaints go this one has no legs", which seems to give MONGO's characterization tacit assent. It should be noted that neither MONGO nor I (who filed the RFC) have endorsed the motion to close. I am not comfortable closing an RFC with two editors (MONGO and I) this far apart and without moving the process further. If someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion could review the decision to close, I'd be grateful.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My contract requires it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The close of the debate as I saw it was that MONGO, while continuing to resist the POV-pushers and conspiracy theorists, should be a little less abrupt while doing so. MONGO seemed to accept that, or at least undertake to give it serious thought. In as much as that was pretty much the stated aim of the RfC, I fail to see what Thomas is complaining about. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If the stated aim of the RFC was attained, why did your summary characterize my complaint as having "no legs"?--Thomas Basboll 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody needs to tell Thomas "enough already." Aside from the RfC, see his arbcom filing agains MONGO -- declined, with one arbitrator going so far as to call it "frivolous."[19] Mr. Basboll's dogged pursuit of MONGO no longer serves any purpose and is becoming (has already become) disruptive to the project. Raymond Arritt 14:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I can see why Thomas is concerned. Whatever the merits of the close (it probably did need to be closed), closing with the comment "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it", and it being closed by an admin who endorsed a view on the RfC which said (in part) "we should give [MONGO] a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks", may be less than ideal from the point of view of neutrality.--Guinnog 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it closed. Frivolous and pointless pursuit and harassment of other editors should not be encouraged or rewarded. --Tbeatty 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they will keep at this as long as anyone will reply to them. Let them have the last word and move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum...well...I've opened the MONGO complaint board which can be linked from my user page or simply by following this link.--MONGO 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Give MONGO cigar! Bishzilla | ROARR!! 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Libel

User:72.143.225.236 has posted extremely libelous statements at Shane Ruttle Martinez. Can somebody take action against the IP and also oversight the offending edits?Frank Pais 02:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't see a need for oversight. It was a BLP concern, to be sure (claim that subject was arrested for assault), with no real source, other than answers.com and the name of a TV episode, neither of which specifically refer to what part of the sourcing contains the actual reference. It's reverted, it needs to stay out, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more than this than first meets the eye. The IP failed to source edits. However, Frank Pais has previously reverted a valid reference to the Toronto Sun, specifically about the arrest. I'm going to reinsert THAT edit, and leave the IP's edit out. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the source: " ^ Jonathan Jenkins. "Eatery 'stormed;' Diners terrorized as Zundel fans and anti-racists clash", The Toronto Sun, September 15, 2004, p. 36"...surely that meets BLP. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and should not be considered a reliable source. Secondly, simply having been arrested isn't enough to be included in the article of a living person. There should also be a conviction, and there is no proof of that whatsoever. My understanding is that the charges were dropped. Thirdly, the video isn't published by a reliable source, but is made by a neo-Nazi outfit and therefore shouldn't be included. It also looks to be libelous from the way it is described by the neo-Nazis. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting / linking / referring to it. Lastly, I've seen various videos online of the day in question, and they identify the person in the picture on the DVD box as being "Jose", not Shane Ruttle Martinez. So, I don't think your action was justifiable.

Frank Pais 14:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is being arrested "not enough" to be included in the article? If someone is arrested, and it can be sourced, then it goes in. It doesn't matter whether there was a conviction or not. As I said on my talk page, if you have a problem with the video, sue them, we're not responsible for their content. Wikpedia is not censored. And all that Jose stuff is original research. It appears you have some very strong POV regarding Shane Ruttle Martinez. Let's not push it with allegations of "libel". It appears to me that you are removing everything that you dislike about him, even sourced stuff. Your removal of the IP address edits was correct: they were unsourced and negative. Your removal of the registered editor's edits were not, they were sourced. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. "Private figures"

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Primary source material from the subject himself may be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. – Jimbo Wales"

First of all, the video is a third party, primary source. Therefore reference to it should not be included, unless it has "first been published by a reliable secondary source." That means the DVD reference is out.

Secondly, you are violating Wikipedia's privacy policy with your speculation about my identity, which was implied by your suggestion that I sue over the DVD. As for the arrest, including a reference to it without a reference to the outcome of the case is prejudicial and possibly defamatory since it suggests the subject broke the law. Since there is no source I can find regarding the outcome of the charge against Ruttle Martinez, no reference should be made to it at all.

Lastly, the only source for the arrest is a tabloid newspaper, and the above quote from Jimbo Wales does not partake of tabloid journalism. If you can find a credible newspaper or other news source that references Ruttle Martinez's arrest, then (and only then) could you even consider including it. But, since that doesn't exist, and since there is no reference anywhere to the outcome of the case against him, then it is clearly a dead letter. Remember, "do no harm", that's what Jimbo says.

Frank Pais 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry when did I comment on your identity? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Swatjester here. "if you have a problem with the video, sue them" is a bit of a far stretch to "speculation about my identity" in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft 2

Just announced by blizzard. Article was immediately hit by an organized vandalism attack. It bears ALL the hallmarks of being a 4chan or 7chan /b/tard raid: apparently organized, rapid fire, timed, edits of things like "kekekekek" and "~desu" etc. Many of these accounts are vandalism-only, so don't forget to do a history check on them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fed up w/ Pokémon circus. This is only one of the 493 fictional species and i've got no idea what's going on in there. So don't count on me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Throwing up the possible sources here won't help anything. Anti-trolling rule #1: do not feed. Watchlisted, in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft one of the best selling games of all time. Unfortunately, it's one of the most fanboy obsessed games of all time too. This page is being edited at the rate of multiple edits per minute, sustained at this point. This bears watching even if you have no idea, solely to stop blankers, and simple vandalizers.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Any possible explanation why Starcraft is relatively more stable than the other? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been out for well over 10 years? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Something strange for you to consider

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cocoabot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/cocoabot. Hmm, I'm not really sure what's going on here. MER-C 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Cocoaguy was planning to create a bot named Cocoabot and someone beat him to it. Question is why didn't he say "I tried to register this account name but it's used now"? ··coelacan 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the account was created on May 18 according to the checkuser, and Cocoaguy hasn't edited since the day before that, so that may explain why he didn't say that. I think the more important issue here is that Salad Days (talk · contribs) said "I don't think this person has a clue" on the request for bot approval and then, according to the checkuser, proceeded to create the account and use it to vandalise. Will (aka Wimt) 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be a requirement in the bot approval that the bot account must be created before it receives approval. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Salad Days for an explanation. Daniel 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Per this response to Daniel, blocking the account would seem the best course of action. I have blocked the account; a review would be appreciated. Sean William 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The block is appropriate, the user has explicitly stated that they purposefully disrupted the project to make some sort of point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the indef-block of Salad Days a bit over the top? It was stupid of him to use the other account to vandalize, but he's a regular contributor who's done a lot of useful work (e.g. on the WP:DEAD project) and to immediately indefinitely block for a first offense seems a bit unfair. Any thoughts? Cheers, Jayden54 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a pre-meditated usurpation of identity combined with deliberate vandalism to get an account blocked to spite a user he disagreed with. This shows the worst qualities in a wikipedia editor and identifies the user as a threat to the integrity of the project. The block is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep the block indefinite. We should not let anyone, not even a normally good editor, disrupt Wikipedia like Salad Days did. Funpika 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional consideration for the folks who have doubts about the motives of this editor, see this edit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though it would be appropriate to summarize everything from my POV here. I first heard about this bot from the BRFA tracker, before it was approved. I didn't review the request at the time. The next time I heard about it was from Nichalp, who was unable to flag the account. From there, the approval was revoked pending registration and identity confirmation. In hindsight, I should have registered the account and emailed the password, but I didn't feel it necessary. Anyway, the operator hasn't edited since then, and I can't email him - it is deactivated. Note that the BRFA page states as the first thing to do: Creating a user account and user page for the bot describing its functions. Once the user returns, we can either change the bot name or request usurpation. In the interim, any community members are welcome to leave comments as to the bot's operation and approval on the request page. --ST47Talk 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indef block, as I noted on Salad's talk page. Daniel 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 wheel war

Thanks to the ridiculous wheel war that's been going on over the last hour or two, I've instituted full protection on this page. I am not going to take any more admin actions in the matter, but I want to say here and now that any more reversions of this page by admins: any more wheel warring at ALL should be met with blocking. Enough. I know I voted in the debate, and I may have protected the "wrong version" - personally, I'm quite well on the record as saying I would like to see a full debate and for process not to be ignored, but I ended up protecting the debate in a closed state because that's where it was when I got there. (And yes, I did have a plan in mind if it was in a non-closed state, but it's kind of irrelevant now.) Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Realizing it is not a vote, the tally is 13 editors arguing to keep the article and 8 wanting it deleted, so why is the result Delete? Edison 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A DRV just closed as restore article, what's going on here? Nardman1 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether for right or wrong, I've sent it back to DRV. I propose that any discussion at ANI be limited to the propriety of wheel warring. Discussions of the article itself should go to DRV. Nardman1 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the very first AfD ran its full course we won't have to go through all this. This is where process is important because we don't want nor need to create a hellhole. —Kyриx 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The first AfD ran it's full close and was closed as a delete - this was reverted against consensus. Nick 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first AfD did run its full course. It ran 8 days I believe. The problem has been the constant running to DRV by people unhappy with the result. WjBscribe 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If DRV sends something back to AfD, you let the new nomination run course. Not close 45 minutes into it, not 12 hours later, not wheelwar with multiple other admins undoing each other's closures. Consensus is just that, you let people comment THEN you decide. Nardman1 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the DRV as "wait", while being edit-conflicted with the nominator's withdrawal. Sean William 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: if it's a true wheel war, how can full protection stop it? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse when somebody unprotects it. That's how it works. Woohoo! Sean William 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is symbolic, I guess, functioning much like a stop sign. You can run through a stop sign, but only at your own risk. —Kyриx 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's a wheel war? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WHEEL. It's a repeated reversion of administrative actions. It's a Very Bad Thing. Sean William 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. The first AfD was valid, and everyone agrees with its validity (not the decision, just the validity). Then is it safe to say that the thing that caused all of this is the closure of the first DRV? —Kyриx 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To some. I think the problem started with the speedy closing of the second AfD - if the AfD that was the result of the consensus decision to overturn ran its course, the second DRV would have never been opened, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True. —Kyриx 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no concept of consensus on Deletion Review. It's a straight vote. This may be part of the problem. Reviews are sometimes robotically closed without any attempt to examine arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an issue i've been trying to change. Not surprisingly, many don't see a problem with the vote counting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree, this has become a problem, with the behavior and attitudes of several people being questionable. It doesn't seem there's any interest in developing consensus, or persuading others to their position. Instead, it seems to me that the way things are being handled is more a case of folks throwing their weight around. Now while rules for the sake of rules are against the spirit of Wikipedia, so is unilateral action that is simply imposing on others in an arbitrary fashion. This situation has become quite escalated for what seems to me to be a minor situation. FrozenPurpleCube 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've been watching this for a while but am otherwise basically uninvolved. What I see are a few things:

1. There is no way this stupid argument will end unless the third AFD is run full course. It doesn't matter what people say in it, what matters is that process occurs. Then people will be able to stop edit warring over this.
2. A few people who believe it should be deleted are worried that the third AFD might close as a keep. I can understand this, from their perspective: maybe if the first arguments from the other AFDs/DRVs are not restated, or if the AFD goes on too long, it might be kept. What's bad is that some of these people, as a response, are trying to stop process to avoid the possibility of it being kept.
3. People are fighting not over the article, but over principles, at this point. Those who want it kept see rampant abuse of admin powers in constant closing of debates with relatively iffy reasoning. Those who want it deleted see an article that is not encyclopedic and an embarrassment, and think the debate has gone long enough and that in order to make sure it is rightfully deleted, the debate should end sooner rather than later.

What needs to happen, I think, is that the process has to be seen through so that people can stop this stupid wheel/edit warring. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

THats what I was trying to do by opening the third afd, it struck me that the only way to resolve that situation at that point was to have an afd that ran full term (and the DRV definitely led to that). It was all going rather well untill that one was speedy closed and deleted too. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Waleed Shaalan

Our article on Waleed Shaalan, one of those killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, was deleted last month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Shaalan, and is now (quite reasonably) a redir to a summary article that briefly discusses all the victims. Today new contributor Headsdraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreated it as a minimalist stub. I've restore the redirect and advised Headsdraft of the AfD discussion. I wouldn't normally bring a straightforward matter such as this here, but in this edit identifies herself as Waleed Shaalan's wife. Can I ask someone more familiar with the whole Virginia-Tech deletion/retention matter than I (and with a gentler manner than I, to boot) to stop by Headsdraft's page and explain things a little more clearly than the link to the rather vexed AfD discussion I've provided will. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI, plus "recreation of deleted material". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam? "Internet Fashion Database"

Resolved

 – Templates deleted and unlinked, user warned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The account Ifdb (talk · contribs) was recently created apparently with the sole purpose of promoting a website called "Internet Fashion Database". It created the template {{ifdb model}} and is adding it to the "external links" section of a lot o articles.

Is that something that should be dealt with, or is it better just let the articles maintainers judge the edits? --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed all transclusions, warned them about spam, and might put the template up for deletion. We don't have the consensus behind that that we do for the links to IMDB, so this is basically just linkspam with a twist. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also {{ifdb person}}. I think it's safe to call this spam. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete the templates and remove all instances. No TFD should be needed, this is purely spam. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Incivility at Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

User:Simplemines needs to be reigned in at this article. His edit summaries are laced with insults like imbecile and stupid. He has been kind enough to actually discuss things on the talk page, but his contributions more often than not insults and accusations [20] [21] [22]. If a neutral admin could look into this, I'd appreciate it, as a review of several editors (including myself) might be in order. AniMate 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected the article to stop the edit war, have warned two users and asked them to participate in discussions, and I will keep an eye on things for the next couple of days. Kafziel ^Talk 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimson Shadow indef

I've blocked Crimson Shadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. The user was acting normally until February, then didn't edit, and freaked out today. I'm not going to speculate about what happened; in any case the user is probably irrecoverable. ··coelacan 02:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35

I just blocked VK35 (talk · contribs) because he is a sock of banned user Dereks1x. Some of VK35's arguments regarding "censorship" of banned users aroused my suspicions, and a checkuser confirmed via e-mail that VK35 is using the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks (he was certainly not editing from Singapore, as he claimed).

Somehow, VK35 was able to edit for about a month and a half, rack up over 1,000 edits, and con his way into a RFCU clerk job. I don't know how much damage he has done, but I'm about to start undoing, reverting, and otherwise destroying his edits where possible per WP:BAN. Any help or advice would be appreciated. · jersyko talk 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you just sign up for the RFCU clerk job and that's it. And he only signed up yesterday. —Kyриx 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35 (talk · contribs) has recently entered an extremely contentious situation involving the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article as a representative of the RFC cabal. First, how do handle this situation? Second, how do I get another representative to get involved, since this article does desperately need a non-bias third party representative. Thanks for any and all help. Shoessss ^talk

Any edits made by VK35 should be removed or reverted per WP:BAN if possible. I would suggest attempting mediation if you have not already if the issue is particularly contentious. · jersyko talk 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can remove his/her remarks from the discussion. That is not a problem. The question is, should I also remove the comments left by other editors with regards to answers to the questions posed by VK35 (talk · contribs). Also, I take it honesty is the best policy in explaining why the remarks were removed. Thanks Shoessss ^talk

How about welcome messages? —Kyриx 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is surprising. VK35 mediated a dispute on Talk:Missouri and actually helped solve it, I think. This is not the first time I've seen a sockpuppet of a banned user act as a mediator, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:67.87.55.10/Serenesoulnyc and socks

Resolved

Could I get an admin to look at this CheckUser case and advise? Thanks — Zerida 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't do anything for this case because i used to edit the same article as this blatant sock. I was just waiting for the outcome of the RFCU. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thatpeteguy

Thatpeteguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got a final warning here, then made these edits:[23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. He also vandalized under 129.82.52.196. He's quite-obviously not going to stop no matter how many warnings he receives. My guess is that it's a throw-away vandalism-only account.--Gnfgb2 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this case of vandalism isn't completely obvious. I have left him a message to source his statements and discuss changes to the article pertaining to the statement about Mr. Musgrave. If he continues, I'd be convinced that this is simply a "throw-away vanslism-only account." (especially as all his edits are Musgrave related statements) If such is the case I he may become the first user I'll block. Signature^brendel 06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user posting at RFCU

Should a banned user be allowed to post comments at checkuser? Should a banned user's comments be kept in a checkuser request out of concern to keep checkuser cases intact?

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. I removed the banned user's long diatribe against Bobblehead, a user in good standing, from the checkuser request per WP:BAN, but it was reinserted by another editor here. I have objected to the reinsertion of the banned user's edits at the checkuser request's talk page, noting that the banning policy allows removal of the edits and noting that the banned user is merely using checkuser as a soapbox. More comments on this issue are welcome. · jersyko talk 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking the CUs opinion on that matter on their talk page -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user · jersyko talk 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, freedom of speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia. WP:BAN does. Your comment sounds eerily familiar to me, though . . . · jersyko talk 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

removed edit by banned user · jersyko talk 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:UCS applies here to. If he's making a legitimate attempt to defend himself or present his view, let it slide. If he's being disruptive and trolling, yank it. Seriously, just think about things and the right decision becomes clear. This doesn't need an AN/I thread. -M^ask? 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation: this is a banned user evading his ban, coming in under a new addition to his 20+ sock accounts, to make a false RFCU accusation against one of the editors who had provided evidence of his sockpuppetry. He shouldn't be able to present any view at all - he has been community banned. And the posts of a banned user should be removed and stay removed. It is a completely legitimate thing to have brought up on AN/I. Tvoz |talk 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, yes. Im retarded. Ignore me :) -M^ask? 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, maybe you just read it too quickly. Tvoz |talk 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User logging out to revert-war

Please see [28], [29], [30], [31], and this checkuser request.

Incidentally, if you scroll down the history here, you'll see him doing the same thing. There, the IP got blocked for 3RR, but no one made the right connection at the time. The user has again violated 3RR here by logging out. Someone needs to either block him for it, or tell him in the strongest possible terms to stop indulging in this sneaky edit-warring. Moreschi ^Talk 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like an extension of the on-going turf war between Wikprojects, abbout whether or not Composers and Musicians should or shouldn't get Infoboxes. Given the duration of this fight, is it really surprising that we're seeing Incivility violations cropping up? Can't the two wikiprojects either sit down and work it out, or else wikipedia will just disband both projects for edit warring? ThuranX 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. This isn't really about incivility, it's about one user logging out to revert-war and violate 3RR, whether he uses insulting edit summaries or no. This particular user has done this twice, and needs to be told to stop doing so, by block or otherwise. Moreschi ^Talk 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Checkuser confirmed he violated 3RR - he ought to be blocked - and perhaps for extra time for being deceitful and logging out to do it. The Evil Spartan 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a niceish warning. If he does this again a lengthy block, it's just sockpuppetry. Moreschi ^Talk 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

The article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is currently being vandalized by a load of sockpuppets. At least three of the accounts have claimed to belong to the GNAA. Penchking33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "Stop accusing me of vandalism, I am a GNAA member, and I'm editing this article with reliable sources" (diff). Gobll03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "revert: IT IS FACT, THIS IS THE GNAA POSTING FACTS FOR ONCE!" (diff). Ninio3030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used the edit summary "revert this, IS SOMEONE GONNA PROTECT THIS?? THE GNAA HATE YOU, AECIS FOR YOUR STINKBROOM!" (diff) I have filed a Request for CheckUser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HighSquires. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And how about this message of Gobll03 (talk · contribs): "LET'S SEE IF WE GET INTO THE TABLOIDS OVER THIS EDITING.!" Aecis^Brievenbus 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected.--Doc^g 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all the accounts. There's been some good IP editing in the past few days; it may be a good idea to unprotect fairly soon. ··coelacan 12:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the 'GNAA'? ThuranX 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gay Nigger Association of America, an internet trolling group. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! And I'd JUST been following the latest AN/I about them on the 'gnaa disambig page'. Sometimes the mind just slips. ThuranX 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be new (to the Internet). If this person is really GNAA, I Am Anastasia. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to remove the semi-protection in a bit. But we need to watch this like hawks - the UK newspapers would just love a story about sick vandalism and bad wikipedia in this case. We are not giving them one. Anyone reading this please watchlist, the article and the images.--Doc^g 12:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until a checkuser either blocks the underlying IPs, or declines the request. ··coelacan 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting something like "Jews did Madeline McCann". Another sock to block, btw. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandalism spree? The edits and the edit summaries are still lingering in the article history atm. Should they be deleted from the article history? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Did anyone notice that Shabzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a compromised account - the edit summaries seem to indicate it. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, they may now have hijacked the account Shabzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The account was autoblocked earlier this week, because the IP address was used by DenmarkEuroB11 (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, checkuserer David Gerard confirms nothing but open proxies for the last month.--Doc^g 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that is just an account which waited eight days before making disruptive edits. Let's not over-estimate this person's sophistication. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definite trolling...

User:81.145.240.170 has been engaging in vandalism in a few places, including Talk:Sailor Moon, and as the notice on his talk page seems to indicate, he is a sock of another user who was engaging in vandalism against User:Eternal Pink(though I don't remember who the other account was; the notice is signed "DUSTKING" but we don't have a user by that name). This is an issue of either disruption or harassment (either fits), and it would be great if an admin could look into this and take any necessary action. MSJapan 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, 24 hours. Trebor 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of the 81.* IPs have vandalised Pink's page and Sailor Moon articles, but the notice on his talk page was somewhat old. Other people have edited from various of his IPs since the time when Dust King was at his peak. --Masamage ♫ 20:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn I was hopeing against hope it wasnt him but it is defnatly the same guy (i wonder if he was the barn star guy to)♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that we're paying attention to him he's starting to be obnoxious again (recent vandalism to Sailor Galaxia and its talk page, Chaos (Sailor Moon), and User_talk:Eternal Pink). We had a CheckUser request out for this guy last time, the intent being to see if he was editing from any other accounts...but right around the time we put it out he stopped vandalizing, which suggests to me that he probably does. Anyway, the case was pitched because of it. I think a new one needs to be made and followed through with. --Masamage ♫ 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

The user here Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) here had filed a report on Rcf at 09:02, 19 May about my behavior, I asked if it is appropriated for him to make such request without even trying to discuss about the matter on the article talk. I no idea how to deal with this guy right here. He had a habit of cheating with his source on the article Ashina, which actually engendering alot of petty disputes currently, but refused to admit his mistake, he also made a personal attack on my talk after we had dispute reverting earlier, and refused to seek for dispute resolution over the article talk when I had requested so. I am irritated and vexed, as he had not only wasted his time, but also mine over these few days. Eiorgiomugini 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFC process is there to help resolve a dispute, it appears that you both have diverging opinions on various articles. By requesting outside(independent) help it will benefit both of you, the articles and wikipedia, please assume good faith with the request and work towards resolving the problems Gnangarra 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another JB196 sockpuppet to block

Resolved

EXTREME T2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see checkuser here. Also if someone could G5 Josh Piscura at the same time please, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – Riana ⁂ 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing - canvassing?

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - please check the contributions. Does this qualify as canvassing? Please see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing - he's recently been banned from making infobox-related edits, so quite frankly it looks to me as though he's looking for people to edit war for him. Other issues aside, is this behaviour against the rules? Moreschi ^Talk 11:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You false insinuations are predictable, unwarranted and breach both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Potw, asking for a second opinion because one is concerned that something might constitue canvassing is in no way a breach of anything, or an insinuation. Calm yourself, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that "asking for a second opinion" is acceptable, and the difference between that and the above breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I'm also very calm, thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything very clever. If you are canvassing, please stop it, or you will be stopped. Are you canvassing? Good faith only goes so far, at any rate, especially with your record. Moreschi ^Talk 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not saying anything very clever." I agree. Andy Mabbett 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not clever or complex. Just correct. Moreschi ^Talk 12:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like canvassing to me. In particular his message is expressly to those who have spoken "against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or in an attempt to reach a compromise solution" so is a message aimed at a partisan audience (only one side of the discussion). It appears to further solicit such contributions to the discussion and is the mass posting of an identical message. Fairly clear WP:CANVAS violation. I'm not convinced its an incitement to edit war, but it does seem to be an attempt to skew a discussion in one direction. WjBscribe 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

People who "attempt to reach compromise" are not "one side" of a discussion.

If I was "mass posting" to a number of people considered excessive, then doesn't that number itself show that consensus was not reached?

I notified people who spoke out against something that there is claim that consensus in favour of it was reached (there is also a claim that they did not do so, but I decided not to mention that) and that discussion continues. If you really think it important, I'll notify those claiming consensus that they are doing so...

Andy Mabbett 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be harassment. Quite apart from which, the people you are contacting are not all those who have expressed any sort of agreement with you in any sense of the word. So, stop it. Moreschi ^Talk 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"That would probably be harassment." ROFL! Andy Mabbett 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

straight forward case of canvassing. --Fredrick day 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were to have notified everyone who previously participated in the discussion that it had resumed with a neutral message that would have been better. Something along the lines of "Hello, I note you expressed an opinion in previous discussions about whether infoboxes were appropriate in articles about composers. These discussions have resumed and you may wish to contribute to them". Instead you only notified the side you agree with, which is canvassing. Generally avoiding mass postings is good. WjBscribe 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mr Mabbett says discussions have resumed. I would disagree with him there, and would object to a message saying they had. Moreschi ^Talk 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Mabbett says discussions have resumed." I say no such thing. I note that they are on-going. Which they are; within the last hour despite others' attempts to stifle them (not least by archiving live discussions). Andy Mabbett

Fair enough - I haven't looked at the discussions themselves. Its not very significant though... Pigsonthewing, you clearly canvassed. Canvassing is disruptive and unacceptable. You will cease canvassing this issue and I warn you that further instances of canvassing may result in a block. WjBscribe 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that my comments were entirely reasonable and permitted by WP:CANVASS, but I have no intention of contacting further editors with that comment in any case. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I didn't notify "only the side I agree with"; I disagree with some of the posters I contacted (though I admit that I am grateful that they were prepared to work towards compromise). Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I see that as soon as someone suggests Pigsonthewing has breached rules or guidelines, he accuses them of personal attacks. How many personal attacks have you made Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-incited page blanking by User:3 Löwi

See here. Discussions and useful edits were ongoing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again [32] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has not been blanked, however TheFEARgod in his own "POV-incited" enthusiasm has been trying to insert a lot of content which is not related to 'Fascism in Estonia'. The content, if properly referenced, would fit in a number of other articles covering, e.g., Holocaust in Estonia, Waffen-SS, etc. Regards, --3 Löwi 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking was done without discussion, disrupting the work of 2-3 users with different POVs. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

There is an ongoing community ban discussion here. Further input is required to determine consensus. Navou 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly remove the "Unreferenced" tag from Mothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the article had no sources cited). Then the user puts in ISBN:0709302177 and there is no mention of this in the ISBN that was given. The user is also on general probation for disruptive behavior. Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references? What can be done? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your objection to using the book as a reference? I'm not sure I understand. I do think asking Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) about this on his talk page would have been a logical first step instead of coming here. --OnoremDil 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no mention of anything to do with the article in the references that Pigsonthewing provided, atleast none that I have found. He has also reverted the article three times in a 24 hour period after being on probation for 3RR. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A book about Mothers doesn't contain information that has anything to do with an article about Mothers?

I could be mistaken, but I believe the probation period is over now. I might be looking at the wrong page though. --OnoremDil 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page, which states here that "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts.", and here that "Pigsonthewing is limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator.". He was also Banned for a year. Since it would not make sense for the total ban and the one revert per week limit to run simultaneously, I'd assume he is limited to one revert per week from when his ban expired. The Case Closed on 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC), so I assume that the one revert per week is still in effect, as we are still within 24 months of that date?

He has also recently had a soft ban on all infobox-related edits. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to buy the book to see it's references? That's not good enough. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Books are verifiable...just not immediately, or can there be no reliable sources that don't come with links? I guess we should just remove the section from Wikipedia:Citing sources that explains how to cite books... --OnoremDil 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "put in" ISBN:0709302177, it was in the article before my edits of yesterday and today; in fact it's been there since June 2004. I note that you have ignored my comment about this issue on the article's talk page; but did post a sarcastic and unwarranted "welsome" message on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, case closed ehh. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not until you withdraw your false allegation:

"Any thoughts on why this user does not want the article to cite any sources or have references?"

Andy Mabbett 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No false allegation here. You removed the "Unreferenced" tag three times. And what, we have to buy the book to see it's references? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable Wikipedia sourcing to require someone to buy a book to see its references. Ken Arromdee 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You could write to the editor who added the book to the reference list, and have him tell you something about it. It does seem fairly obscure. The book must exist, because it is found under that ISBN at amazon.co.uk and is currently available for sale. I couldn't find the book in any online library catalogs. You could ask for more sources to be added. EdJohnston 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I basicly did when I added the tag (that was removed) OK, the article is challenged per WP:VERIFY. There maybe a book out but one should not have to go out and buy a book that may or may not be a reliable source. A secondary source should be provided that can be checked online via a link. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has never been a requirement that a source be online. Books by reputable publishers, by reputable authors, are acceptable sources. Corvus cornix 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Solution

I have added {{Onesource}} to the article. Hope this is OK with Pigs onthewing. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your logic and solution Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu, but as a sign of good faith would you please refer to him as Andy Mabbett? It's antagonistic, unnecessary, and makes you look like a WP:DICK no matter how correct you are when you don't. Anynobody 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't the user request a name change if he doesn't want people to use his, er, username? Dan Beale 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they definitely should, but not abiding by a simple request like using a requested name seems to go against WP:CIVIL. Anynobody 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(It also gives him something to complain about) Anynobody 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He'll complain anyway, he may as well omplain about us using a username he chose! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He changed his mind about the username he "wants" though, and you are correct that he'll probably complain regardless. If 99 times out of 100 he complains about something he is wrong, do you want to be the one he was right about?

The point about actions he could take on his own to correct the name issue is valid though, he could do more to address the situation himself. However by directly doing what he asked you not to sounds antagonistic so instead of calling him by his original name why not call him "editor who wishes to be called Andy Mabbet" or something like that. Anynobody 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of ISOLA'd ELBA

I have blocked ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violating Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Out of the user's near 700 edits, 9 were to articles. The user has only made edits to user and user talk pages and has not contributed in any other way.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Many more await. --Deskana (AFK 47) 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with a block solely on that grounds, but the user's most recent edit is reporting an admin to AIV for a deletion someone else carried out. So in this particular case, the block is perfectly fine. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen them throwing a barnstar randomly at a talk page of a controversial user whom they don't know i believe. Esperanza is not active anymore. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block of people who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Disruption is just the icing on the cake. Sandstein 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Has the editor been talked to regarding this? Navou 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked before at least once for this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack: User:Ramirez72

Here's the diff. --Howard the Duck 10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A review of the edit history there, just going back a dozen edits or so, shows multiple Personal Attacks by Ramirez72, in edit summaries and article text edits, and multiple reverts of his uncited additions, by more than one editor. ThuranX 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's not a personal attack but Ramirez72 has continually (with warnings) removed cite-taggs from articles while writing in the edit summary "spelling" and "fix information".Rex 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is a valuable contributor, but certainly has a history of incivility. The Evil Spartan 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, how is that edit summary not a personal attack. It's completely unacceptable, and the user has a history of problematic contributions, judging by his block log. I'm inclined to block for a couple of weeks, because seemingly previous messages have not gotten through. Moreschi ^Talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not start this edit war with User:Howard the Duck. All I did was corrected the Philippine article introduction and he reverted it back saying it's a POV comment from a Latin American point of view, which is not true. Howard should study his country's history and demography etc. carefully before making wrongfull edits and blaming it on me. I've had past arguement with Howard the Duck before, including the article about the Spanish language. I know how Filipinos are they are very emotional people and loves the United States so much. I know this because I use to hang around with my fellow Latino and Chicano street gangs around the street of Los Angeles County when i was living in California. I have meet alot of nationalisties including Filipinos, which i find very good people and have exchange ideas and talk about their culture etc. There is alot of things that Filipinos today do not know about their culture and history. I'd like to help and expand the articles in the Philippine article, but Howard seems abit bias towards Latinos, and he wants it in his own way.. You might be surprised that the information i have provided in wikipedia articles is true after all..Thanks! --Ramirez72

None of that justifies your inappropriate edit summaries. --OnoremDil 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And tell me how is that not Latin American POV when you insert into every nook and cranny of demographic-related sentences "Mexican"? As discussed on the talk page, if we'd include Filipinos of Mexican descent, we might as well include everybody. The Mexican population in the Philippines is too minuscule and insignificant in the grander scheme of things. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Latino POV, I was only correcting the articles introduction, and I decided to moved the ethnic groups mentioned into the demographic section, to make it more professional. Other countries do not have an introduction which mentions Ethinc groups, that is just trying very hard. And also I defined the Amerindian section issue, since Most Filipinos of Mexican descent are mostly of Amerindian descent, some have White Hispanic ancestry..-- Ramirez

Still, it's a personal attack and there's no valid reason for you to do that. There's a discussion at the talk page and if we'll add a minuscule percentage (less than 1%) of the population, we might as well add all ethnic groups. --Howard the Duck 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look man, You can add all the ethnic groups in the Philippines if you want, And Besides i'm not talking about that. My issue is why did you revert it back?, when in fact it was only doing a minor correction. Look i got nothing against you or your people o.k , man. I personally attacked you because you seem abit arrogant and every edit has to be yours!! no body owns any articles in wikipedia man. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia for everyone to use, regarless of any ethnic or race affiliation.--User:Ramirez72

This certainly isn't a minor edit. And no matter your reason, you still can attack other people. --Howard the Duck 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever man!!!There nothing wrong with that i think it's professionally written, i think there is something wrong with you!!!You make small issues into big issues..--User:Ramirez72

The reason i attack Howard the Duck was because he was really pissing me off about his nationalistic point of views that everything had to be the Filipino or Filipino-American way and every time i add an information or talk about Hispanic issues in the Philippine article he becomes sceptical. Why? -- User:Ramirez72

The reason I removed the citation tags provided by User:RexGermanus in the article "Mexicans of Filipino descent" is because the sentence does not need one. There are Mexicans of Filipino ancestry and they are found in large numbers in Guerrero, Mexico. How would Rex know, he has never been to Mexico nor meet a Mexican of Filipino descent, that's because he has never meet one. I have meet several fellow Mexicans in Guadalajara who posses the Filipino ancestry. I also believe that Pável Pardo the talented Mexican football (soccer) midfielder is of Filipino origin.. --User:Ramirez72

WP:POV, WP:OR. --Howard the Duck 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way ese! Pov or not You will soon realized the information i provided is true. --Ramirez

Doesn't matter. I can say I climbed Olympus Mons and it is very true. --Howard the Duck 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever man!!!Are you Satisfied man!User:Ramirez72

This is completely the wrong attitude for a "valuable contributor" to have (no offense). JuJube 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Iasson sock

Resolved

 – Checkuser blocked 3 IP ranges, hopefully this will stem the tide of socks. Nardman1 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New user Rocksaware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made contributions to pages related to banned user Iasson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This may be an Iasson sock--you may want to have a look.Blueboy96 15:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Loosedoors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Nardman1 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of banned user Iasson, and MfD nomination speedily kept and delisted. Feel free to comment and review if necessary. Phaedriel - 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now also Spokechief (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Angleasked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too ... vandalized MY userpage right after I finished reverting Spokechief's edits. Good grief--can someone create an LTA page for this idiot?Blueboy96 15:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please make a rfcu for Blueboy96 and Gorbrown. Blueboy96 reverted all changes automatically (using TW), but in Gorbrown case he did it mannualy and he changed the old tag. I always wonder who Gorbrown is. Angleasked 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And he also calls me an idiot. I am an apparent sock, but is it appropriate to call socks idiots? Angleasked 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if they're darned. Nardman1 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Blueboy96 and Nardman1 are violating both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and IF there is an administrator who respects policies here (which I doubt) both users should be punished. Angleasked 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, why is it that all serial sock vandals have usernames consisting of two random lexical words sewn together? Do vandals possess some bot technology shared between them that creates these? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is the reason. Maybe not. In any case, lets search usernames consisting of two lexical words and check whether their password consists of the same words reverted. And if found guilty, lets block them asap. Occurtrips 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• two more darned socks: Occurtrips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Welcome Neranei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We should consider filing a checkuser. Nardman1 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Samuel Luo evading indefinite block by ArbCom

Hello, Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using several sockpuppets to evade the block imposed by the ArbCom. (ArbCom decision: [33]) (checkuser: [34]) (recent edits: [35], [36]). He was away for a couple of days, but now he's returned. Samuel seems to have no intention to stop this trolling. Is there any chance to block his IP address permanently if keeps doing this? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After banning User:Fyutii, a new sockpuppet (User:F44u) immediately appeared, see [37]. I tell you, this guy is going to continue as long as he's technically able to. See Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo; all of these are blocked, but he just keeps going and always creates a new account. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest revert, block, ignore. Deny him the recognition of trolling and vandalising. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask several editors to keep an eye on Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi. Samuel Luo's new sockpuppets are blossoming there. If we have enough people reverting, he'll eventually get tired. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have Id'd 3 sockpuppets in the last 24 hours of his, and I admit, they're blatantly obvious as well. It's really, really annoying if anything. Evilclown93 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Libelous accusation

ON the page for the Daily Illini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Illini) there is an accusation against John Bambenek claiming he is a convicted child sex offender. This is a false accusation. It is libel and completely actionable. John is a respected writer and internet security expert. 68.120.68.25 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and blocked the user whose only edit was to insert those lies. It has been added here before back when we had an article on John Bambenek, and it is of course completely unacceptable now as then. Thanks for letting us know. If the libel is reinserted we'll lock the page from editing. Shanes 01:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

apparently this has made the news. In Jan 2007, John Bambenek's article was deleted over allegations of sex offense. The above article was written by him on Jan 5, 2007. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For given vales of "the news". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

that's Bambenek's website, not a news site. Corvus cornix 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not Bambenek's website... at all. If you did a whois on mercatornet.org, or for that matter, even read the "about" page, you'd see that whatever you consider it, it's not run by Bambenek. We're not trying to apply WP:BAMBI are we? Cuz, we can fire up that AfD on the New York Times again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.139.133 (talk • contribs) 04:57, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

Fine. It's Bambeneke's article, not a news article. Corvus cornix 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is not Bambenek's site, but it is his article. Anynobody 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User problems

Resolved

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs) has been blocked 6 times this month for removing sourced info, edit warring, personal attacks, reverting against consensus, etc. He's back and doing the same again. See here where consensus was reached and here:[38] where he again removed the info. Can someone keep an eye on him? Aaron Bowen 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for two weeks. He's already been blocked several times within the month of May. The most recent being a one week block. He comes back and goes right back to edit warring and uses his talk page to make incivil comments and personal attacks. He's left an unblock template so any third part administrator is free to review.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. If someone disagrees, let me know. -- Samir 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vikrant Phadkay

Vikrant Phadkay, a member of the WP:POKE project, has been in opposition to a proposal to merge all the species articles into "lists of" articles. He initially expressed it by nominating List of Pokémon (1-20) and List of Pokémon (21-40) for deletion, both of which were kept. When nominating them he wished us luck in doing the merger [39]. None of this was a huge problem, until now.

Yesterday he got even angrier, threatening that the merger was going to stop now [40] and following up by blanking all of the "evolutionary line" articles [41][42][43][44][45] as well as posting elsewhere telling people to stop merging [46] He has also made personal attacks on other POKE members [47][48] [49]. I reported his spree of blanking ot WP:AIV, but I was directed bring it here. hbdragon88 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for repeatedly blanking articles past his final warning he received yesterday. Krimpet (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet beat me to blocking. I endorse. Trebor 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Druids and Characters of The Mystery of the Druids

I know nothing about this game, but over the past couple of days, The Mystery of the Druids has had some less-than-likely edits made to it, and I've reverted to a stable version several days old. If I'm wrong I apologize, but does this game really have Hercule Poirot, Keith Richards and Gaston in it? And did it really appear in an article in a newspaper which will not be published until 2009? The new article, Characters of The Mystery of the Druids is new, and even less likely. Corvus cornix 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And...what's it got to do with AN/I? Looks like simple vandalism to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell them to take it to uncyclopedia:, perhaps? Looks mostly like generic meme stuff, but it's creative enough they might accept it over there. --tjstrf talk 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What is has to do with ANI is that it's being attacked over and over again and needs to be protected but my protection request has not been addressed, and some admin needs to do something. There are several new users (one of whom made an incivil attack on my Talk page) and several anons, probably all the same person (or else some concerted attack by a variety of people). There are at least three of us now full-time reverting this page. Corvus cornix 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's being vandalized by past vandals who have had accounts here for a long time. Corvus cornix 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by User:777a

Will somebody please do something about the uploads of this user? This person has been notified numerous times that most if not all of his uploads have no source and those I've examined are obvious copyright violations. Most of these images have been uploaded before (and deleted) which only results in the person uploading the same images again, this time under names containing slight typos, see e.g. the images of Danish royalty (Margrethe, Benedikte and Annemarie). Please go through these images. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: an editor has notified me that this account may be a sock of a previously banned user[50]. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4

The said user has falsely warned me on my talk page. He is trying to censor me using false accusation and also using wikipedia as a battleground to censor me. He is giving false warning to keep me from editing/maintaining the article. He has said "Removing POV external links and unreliable citations is not [Vandalism]". This is false because he removed citation from here and has said the source is not RS here but the author of the citation is a reputable Tamil scholar. Please take necessary steps to stop this sort of behaviour seeing that this kind of behaviour really is not welcoming and will make users from editing neutrally to wikipedia. Thanks Watchdogb 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

POV edits and repeat vandalism by Dishant55555 who has received 3 warnings

(The Malhotra and Luthra pages are currently protected from edits until disputes have been resolved) The issues as I see them are -

A) Has Dishant55555 been making grand unsubstantiated POV claims about the Luthra family and citing fake sources ?

B) Has he been repeatedly vandalizing edits by users who have reverted his POV ?

If on examining the below Facts you find that he has, could he kindly be warned/blocked from doing so.

A) Grand unsubstantiated POV claims -- Good example is on the Luthra Page under Role in Society paragraph [51] where he makes the claim and I quote "Luthras are Kshatriya and are known for their prominence as warriors and of the ruling and administrative class." and provides an alleged source for this claim Click here. The link however says that Luthra is an Indian surname NOT that they are known for their prominence as warriors and of the ruling and administrative class. He makes further POV claims about Luthra's prominence in the army but again is not able to provide any reliable source for his claims. The examples of his peacock claims can be see at this link - [52] from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

His exaggerated claims have been removed by Admins recently for example [53] showing that I am not the only one who finds him edits unworthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Other "Prominent" Luthra's Dishant55555 had added include- a "Prominent Biologist" who turns out to be a biology student, a Prominent Politician who turns out to be a losing politician in a small municipal election etc etc. I had reverted these and left a message on the talk page saying I am happy to leave them there if he is able to provide reliable sources for his claims. He has not done so and instead has been vandalizing pages I and other users who reverted his peacock claims including Khatri and Kapoor pages.

B) If you look at the differences in his and my edits on the Malhotra page vandalism of the Malhotra page you can see an example where he has removed dozens of lines of sourced edits with external reference links. He suggests he has tried to talk to me before but has not had a reply which is fictitious. I posted my comments a month ago and on his talk page [54]

His vandalism is now cleverer and he has now changed tack and keeps adding fictitious claims that Malhotra's are Vaishya caste and converted to Islam and have changed their names to persian ones etc. He provides a single reference for all these claims which turns out to be one he has cut and pasted from the khatri page (4th last item under Reference) -even the page numbers match exactly !

He also makes a fictitious POV claim that "Most Malhotra Shaikhs are now settled in Pakistan." There is no such thing as Malhotra Shaikhs as Malhotra's never converted to Islam. A google search [55] comes up with just one entry which is Dishants5555 fabricated entry on here. Malhotra is of course a Hindu or Sikh Kshatriya caste name as can be seen on the [[56]]. In India people are proud of the religion and caste and falsely changing this on a reference work I find offensive. He also makes petty edits such as changing an edit that Malhotra's were the subject of a TV series (which is a NPOV fact) to adding " because of the commonness of the Malhotra name" which is his unsourced POV. He is also still currently deleting most of the Reference section on the Malhotra page.

Could Admins please help and stop User:Dishant55555 from doing this and revert the Malhotra, Luthra and khatri pages back to the NPOV version before Dishant55555 POV edits. "81.149.27.200 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

Is this spam?

User:Studmeister is posting a link on numerous video game pages to an online petition. Is this spam to revert? thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the edit: [57]—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to revert and warn the user. -- ReyBrujo 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah, already done that myself. -- ReyBrujo 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave him a couple of warnings, but did not want to go to the full stage 4 type warnings without asking an admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Atif nazir

Resolved

Messed up totally with this move. Can an admin delete this page, and move back from User talk:Syed Atif Nazir? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind, done by Ryulong. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Insults in foreign language

User: Kuban kazak posts insulting messages in foreign language. [58][59] Please help. Thank you.--Hillock65 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't search for truth in others when there is none in you
2. Please don't withhold from making childish allegations of so-called ukrainophobia, there is enough (heat) without them.

If anyone sees anything insulting in them please tell me so and ban me accordingly for personal attacks. TO Hillock, don't use WP:AN/I to tattle. --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We should try to work this out diplomatically, deplomesitically, and really get our ducks in a row. Just my two cents.EELVIS AARON PPRESLY 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirm Kuban's translations; I ran it through Google. So there's nothing insulting, although it's probably best to stick to English when editing the English wiki. There are already enough avenues for communication to break down as it is. When you have a problem with another edit, please contact them directly first; Kuban could have told you the translations on your own talk page without any accusations being made. --Masamage ♫ 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Zdorovenki buli, Hillock65, pryemno z vamy zapiznatysya. Here you forgot that you do not understand Russian. Budte zdorovi, --Pan Gerwazy 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, please don't leave messages to other users in any language other than English at English Wikipedia, except on a talk page of a user who claims to know that other langauge.

Hillock65, please assume that messages in foreign languages are reasonable, unless you have a good reason for thinking otherwise.

Od Mishehu 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his ability to interpret references in that language... and the fact that the locus of the dispute Ethnic Russians in Ukraine which seems to be Hillock's only article that he edits... I would guess that he IS fluent in Russian. On the other hand there is a very big dispute and his rather aggressive stance is not helping, and if someone likes to mediate then please do so. --Kuban Cossack 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given continuous personal attacks[60] from this user I cannot assume that messages in foreign languages from this particular user are a demonstration of good faith. He had been asked repeatedly[61][62][63] not to bother me with messages in foreign languages, but insists on posting them anyway.--Hillock65 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch: possibly compromised account

Former admin Gurch (talk · contribs) has just gone on an strange rampage of blanking several project space pages, and has been blocked as a possibly compromised account by Pharos. Checkuser may be in order here. Phaedriel - 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is Gurch. After a fairly heated exchange on #wikipedia, he immediately left the channel and went on this spree. Gurch's talk page further proves this. Sean William 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the forty-eight hour block, let Gurch cool down and see if he wants to come back then. I wouldn't object to an unblock-reblock with a different reason now that the question which was put forwarded in the block log has been answered. Daniel 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. Makes sense IMO, vandalizing talk pages is an unacceptable way to let off steam. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol just indefblocked. Sean William 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I marked it as "possibly compromised" because the little experience I had with Gurch previously was as a good editor, and the pattern reminded me of the other incidents. Honestly, I thought he was probably an admin too. Obviously I was wrong in attributing this.--Pharos 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol just unindefblocked[64], looks like a simple mistake. ^(H) 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no... that log has nothing to do with Gurch, but with an old erroneous self-block of Gwernol. Phaedriel - 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Sean William's comment at 02:39, 20 May 2007. ^(H) 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He meant Gwernol had just indef blocked Gurch, not that Gwernol had just been indef blocked - check the date of the log you linked to ;) Phaedriel - 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefblock!=block 'til the end of time. Hopefully once Gurch has calmed down, he will be ready to contribute again - he would be missed if he didn't return. – Riana ⁂ 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, indefblocking provides a disincentive to return. This particular spree was pretty mild. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've lowered the indef-block on Gurch's main account back down to the original 48 hours (and no action taken on the sockpuppet's indef-block). I don't think an indef-block is appropriate in this instance. In particular, we don't indefinitely block people just because they say they are leaving, and Gurch's vandalism, coming from an otherwise well-behaving former-administrator, did not merit anything coming close to a community ban, which is the only way I can see justifying an indef-block on him at this time. Now if he returns and continues to misbehave (which I really hope doesn't happen), then we might need to take further, and longer, action. --Cyde Weys 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, his sockpuppet was not of the "abusive" variety. I don't see a pressing need for either account (or any others he might have) to remain blocked more than a day or so. —freak(talk) 18:22, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol's block was unecessery and disruptive: "Extending to indef, user appears to be leaving, again" Huh?(!) El_C 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This clearly shows Gurch was running an unauthorised bot, as a side point to this. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. Proof that it was a bot can be seen in... what exactly? El_C 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he managed to perform 24 edits over the course of one minute; that comes down to 2.5 edits a second, which suggests he had to be using some sort of automated tool. Krimpet (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your math is so far off as to be funny. 60 seconds in a minute, times 2.5 edits a second, is 150 edits. This is no where close to 24. -M^ask? 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant an edit every 2.5 seconds... That makes much more sense. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious you'd imply that good edits done automatically might be a more serious offense than bad edits done manually. Seriously, who gives a fuck... —freak(talk) 18:22, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

What is important is the process, not the result. Or wait, is it the other way around? I'll have to file a request for clarification with arbcom to find out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Freakofnurture, clearly you don't. Editing on that scale should really be done on a bot account so it doesn't flood recent changes and watchlists. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why mass page blanking doesn't merit a block. Is it because he's an admin who has friends? Corvus cornix 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked. What more do you want? Extend it until the Nader administration? —freak(talk) 18:50, May. 20, 2007 (UTC)

I want an explanation as to why he was unblocked. Corvus cornix 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Majorly: On IRC, he told me that he used javascript to bypass double redirects. I don't really understand why this is a problem; We cut down on the numbers of double redirects very quickly. Win-win. Sean William 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, fast editing like that should be done under a bot account so it doesn't flood recent changes and stuff. I can't see why he couldn't just apply for one, he's had bot accounts before. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at my contribs and I'm seeing 26 edits per minute, etc., using rollback, and I have no intention of getting a bot. El_C 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

See WP:ANI#Reason for PalestineRemembered block

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked and warned to be mindful of Arbcom-imposed restrictions N 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

After being blocked indefinitely due to a community ban, this user was unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, and was specifically warned only to edit the request for arbitration, and his own talk page. However, this user has now violated this restriction on three occasions [65] [66] [67]. John254 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All the instances, with the exception of the username change request, have to do with his Arb case. The username change seems to be an effort to bring the account within policy.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reblocked based on the evidence brought by John254. Since I'm not intimately familiar with his case, tho, I strongly request my actions to be reviewed and undone if deemed necessary. Phaedriel - 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All 3 of those edits looked case related to me. The first is specifically mentioned in the case (an agreement to change the username). The second and 3rd look like attempts to gather evidence or comment. I don't see a violation here. jbolden1517^Talk 03:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The terms of PalestineRemembered's unblocking restricted him to editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, any subpages thereof, and his own talk page [68]. He was not permitted to edit other users' talk pages and project noticeboard pages, even in a manner deemed to be related to his request for arbitration. John254 03:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, a clear violation of the terms of the unblock. Daniel 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to this reblock. These edits by PR were all closely related to coordination of his defense. Though Zscout said to edit only the arbcom case and his userpage, there are other procedural issues he should be allowed to complete as part of his defence. For example, Mark Chovain has volunteered to be his advocate, so he should be allowed to write on his talk page. The username change request was specifically mentioned by PR in his evidence statement at arbcom as a sign of his willing to reform and compromise. The post on the Palestine noticeboard was a request for evidence, which he obviously needs for defense, and I have reinstated it. nadav 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the warning given. I have problems with the terms being applied in that way (that literally). For example if he has an advocate (council) then that page would seem in order. We aren't talking about a vandal here, but rather a tendentious editor. I don't think its reasonable to forbid him from collecting evidence or from consulting with other parties about the case. jbolden1517^Talk 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that PR's case has been a sorry reflection on due process (I encourage all to see the arbcom evidence statements). We should not continue to prevent him from defending himself. (Of course, if he strays beyond these limits then that's a whole other story). nadav 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered can interact with others users on his own talk page. A posting to Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics is probably unnecessary given that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered is already well publicized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and, in any event, need not be made by PalestineRemembered himself. John254 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that he be strongly warned, and that in future he should ask Mark to do such things for him. However, a complete block is inappropriate. nadav 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the unblock was done in order to allow him to defend himself (in the unblock message, it says clearly: Due to the ArbCom case and the need to defend yourself), I think that he shouldn't have been re-blocked, since his second and third edit were specifically for this reason. The first edit, although doesn't fit in with this, should also be allowed on the grounds that a blocked user who has a name which other users claim is problematic - should be allowed, in my opinion, to have it changed. Od Mishehu 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened, the case at the ArbCom is still open and this means that he needs to defend himself again and again until the case is closed. You should not have re-blocked him before having a look at the ArbCom case and what's going on in there. This user has been accused on false grounds and most of the blocks are still being questioned and challenged w/o any answer from the "blockers" (see his blocklog and do the math) ! Arbitrators have considered this case as a hard one and now we are making it harder for them just because he edited something very related to his case. I have to agree w/ ACADEMY LEADER, nadav and Od Mishehu. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that he did canvass for support. Whether or not he thinks that is defending himself or not I'm not sure, but this is canvassing. Again it can be argued that he thought he was defending himself (and I think someone should ask him). In any case, he can stay blocked for now, he has an advocate to speak for him. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The block was not necessary here. The actions were not flagrant deviations from the provision of the unblock, and the reason for the unblock (that he should be able to comment in the RfArb) still stand. If you all want to block him simply because he violated the terms, the block should be short (say twenty-four hours), after which point he would be able to return to participating in the RfArb according to the terms. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that John's assertion that PR was "blocked indefinitely due to a community ban" is incorrect. Discussion closed at CSN and was referred to arbitration, and there was no consensus for a block at the time of the closing. nadav 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely disgusting.

• The CS ban was based on now-debunked information.
• No accusations have been brought against him in his current ArbCom case, despite my requests that evidence be presented. That ArbCom case is starting to look like a way of enforcing a defacto ban.
• One of the biggest proponents of the case has since suggested that the case not go ahead, and the matters instead go through RfC.

The first edit is clearly intended to appease those that are offended by his username. The second and third are clearly attempts to organise his defence. While he probably should have asked me to make the second change, the third was an urgent message asking one his supporters to not contribute to the discussion yet. The new block is not in the spirit of the unblock conditions; his edits are.

I'd normally be one of the first to accuse PR of being paranoid, but this looks a lot like an attempt to prevent him from defending himself. Please give him a chance to do that. Mark Chovain 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think his efforts to canvass were a good thing, though it can be argued that he was only "defending himself". See this. Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be described as canvassing when it's an arbitration case. Additional people might not help the process, but certainly won't be harmful (and if they are, can easily be barred from the case by the arbitrators). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Following this statement by Chovain, who's PR advocate on his ArbCom case, as well as the vast majority of comments above, I'll proceed to conditionally lift his block. I will also leave him a warning regarding edits to pages different than those specified. Once again, please review and rectify my actions if necessary. Phaedriel - 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to this block, as it adds to the appearance of a concerted effort to drive PR from the project. Catchpole 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have advocates in arbitration now? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it gets really bad, he could email his defense to the ArbCom and it can be posted for him by the ArbCom. I have seen it done before, so if it gets really bad, we could choose that route. I didn't see this message until Sunday morning, but I want to make this clear: this might have deserved a warning earlier. I have not seen much about the debate about his username, but it should be done after the ArbCom case is over. The talk page notification was already done, so whatever else he is doing, it should be heavily discouraged. Honestly, no block should be issued now, but let this post serve as a final warning to PR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This block is to prevent what, another violation of WP:CITE? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed because the most compelling points of evidence were cast in doubt. That is to say, WP:CSN worked. PR should be therefore be unblocked without prejudice, and this arbitration case dismissed. I'm still not clear that either party wants this arbitration, which was to begin with initiated by a third party and likely would have been dropped were it not for third-party pressure on PR (see Pawn). Arbitration rightly exists to resolve disputes, not to exacerbate and exploit them. So, yes, I concur that this is disgusting. Unblock PR and takee it to RfC where it belongs.Proabivouac 11:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Logical stuff! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Dispruption by editor

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

Yesterday this editor disrupted Wikipedia to make a point on the Seán McCaughey article, editing anonymously.

The background to the sequence of events is as follows:

Burntsauce has raised the ire of members of the pro wrestling WikiProject by repeatedly stubbing unsourced bios of living people, examples [69] [70] [71] [72]

This has been widely discussed by the WikiProject and on administrators noticeboards - see here, here, here and here. Because I take it upon myself to rid Wikipedia of the hundreds of articles about non-notable wrestlers (which would also allow the project to focus their efforts on their more pressing sourcing problems) the project sees me as an enemy, in the same way as they do Burntsauce.

The IP editor made an edit to a wrestling article, then edits to Bloody Sunday (1972) and the McCaughey article, both of which I had edited earlier in the day. The IP editor even tried to issue me with a BLP warning, when the article makes it clear McCaughey died in 1946.

As can be seen by the edit summaries, they are the same as Burntsauce uses when he stubs wrestling articles, and this is nothing but some kind of juvenile disruptive revenge from a member of the wrestling WikiProject.

WP:A does not mean all material must be attributed to reliable sources, it clearly states it must be attributable which can easily be done with such a short article with two sources as external links. There is nothing in the policy that says inline citations must be used, in fact the policy explicitly states However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found. I do normally use them on most articles, but there was no pressing need for them on such a short article, however I was planning to add them when I expand the article from books in my possession.

Following the IPs edits User:McPhail then tried to report me for vandalism, also also raised the sourcing of the article on Burntsauce's talk page, leaving me in absolutely no doubt that he was editing as an IP and being disruptive.

Please stop this editor from disrupting Wikipedia any further, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits were not "disruptive". Given your propensity to tag articles as unreferenced on the basis that they lack inline citations or footnotes, coupled with your repeated attempts to delete professional wrestling related articles, it's somewhat hypocritical of you to protest when articles that you have edited are held to the same standards. It's not a question of your being an "enemy", or of "revenge", it's a case of applying a common standard to all articles, not just the articles that you dislike. While WP:BLP is not relevant, Wikipedia:Citing sources clearly states "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". Your response to the removal of controversial information on the basis that it was totally unreferenced (and no, a section entitled "external links" that does not distinguish between partisan websites and works of authority does not constitute adequate referencing) was to respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks on User:Govvy. This is a clear case of an editor pursuing a personal vendetta and using Wikipedia policy as an excuse, yet ignoring the rules when they are applied to the editor's own unreferenced articles. McPhail 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, which states this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found. Given the article is a short stub the sources are very obvious. This is a simple case of disruption for the actions of Burntsauce, actions I have not carried out myself I hasten to add. Your actions were clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, which states "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" and "burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material". This qualification applies to all articles, not just the articles that you do not care for. The page has currently been protected in its unreferenced form, which is a clear violation of WP:A. McPhail 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikidiape

Resolved

 – User given warning. -N 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User replaced the link to www.gamesfever.tv with www.gamefever.tv (a spam site) [73] then c/pd the article to 3 different places with the spam link in it [74]. Suggest block this account as spam-only account. Nardman1 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The name is a bit off perhaps? SqueakBox 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the user name, diape is close to diaper, I suppose. If you mean the site name, I don't follow. One is a legit site and one is a spam site. Nardman1 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely I was referring to diaper, using wiki in a name is fine (though using wikipedia is not), clever word game is all, SqueakBox 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator attention: New banned User:Brya sock puppet, please ban.

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. N 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Lodzel is a sock puppet of community banned User:Brya. Please see this edit [75] for all the evidence needed. Brya socks don't tend to be difficult to spot, and they do routinely establish that Brya still doesn't get what it was all about.

Ban link: [76]

KP Botany 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Trebor 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Party (United States)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. N 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

At Christian Party (United States) four edits have been made by an IP. I've reverted my own revert because when I try to do the other three reverts, the software won't let me. Could an administrator please rollback all of the edits? Thanks in advance. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all the IP's edits, but then I noticed that some of them were good. I'm going to try an article re-write incorporating some of the IP's edits. I warned the IP about NPOV. Nardman1 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I stubbed it out further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User left a nasty note on my talk page. I invited them to discuss the matter here. N 00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea trying to incorporate the good text. Odd, almost Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde case, in a way. Anyways, he obviously doesn't know about any of our policies. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm "a thug" as seen here. N 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is unsalvageable except as a stub, I think. The party has seen no reliable third party coverage. I put it up for AFD for notability and verifiability reasons. N 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I WISH HE WOULDN'T TYPE ALL IN CAPS LIKE THAT; THE NOISE IS KEEPING THE KIDS UP. OH HELL, NOW HE HAS ME DOING IT, TOO... HalfShadow 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article was speedied, for those wondering. ThuranX 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:KristinaAlbania, again

In relation to the article on Teki Dervishi, KristinaAlbania (talk · contribs) has issued legal threats, again (diff. – formatted, easier to read), after being informed about our policy on legal threats by me & by Komdori.

See also: AN/I Archive 245: "Possible legal threats by User:KristinaAlbania", 18-19 May 2007.

The details of the edit in question:

Before I made a “legal threat” (and I do intend to go to the end with this matter, if nothing changes), I tried the following...

Unreasonable or not, if I am not to pursue this matter any further one of the following things has to happen...

Not to mention the issue of civility, personal attacks, and bad-faith assumptions:

• "[Ev's] sole purpose is to be provocative and arrogant"
• "user Ev’s intention: to provoke"
• "User Ev, was openly and obviously only trying to provoke, be arrogant (and immoral), and marking “political territories off”."
• it's implied that "[Ev is an] openly Albanian – hating [person]".

Because s/he appears to be new to Wikipedia, and may not have been aware of our policies, I was patient before (see the discussion at Talk:Teki Dervishi), but I made clear that I would not tolerate more of that.

I'm not requesting a block to punish that conduct, but that some third parties ask KristinaAlbania in clear terms to stop issuing such threats and calling me "immoral" and a "Albanian-hating person".

Komdori already gave her(?) some good advice, but I believe a stronger warning would be necessary. - Thanks already. Regards, Ev 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Kristina hasn't been on, judging by Contrib list, to reply to the message by Komdori, so wait for that. Second, A look at her 'complaints' seems to be substantiated by looking at your wide-ranging edits to the serbian versions of disputed materials, then citing that such is 'common english usage' or 'common use on wikipedia' type stuff, thus creating your own consensus to refer to. She also made the point that the UN administration of the region isn't neededon the poet's page, and yet you reinsert that repeatedly. She offered a compromise, you rejected it. All in all, it looks like she did pull the 'legal threats' trigger first, but that that has some significant content, specifically, a new editor, running smack into a provocateur. that you've run right here without giving Komdori a chance to work things out with her only pushes further to make it look like you're interested in escalations. (IANAAdmin.) ThuranX 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith... a provocateur ! I'm really angry.

ThuranX, could you consider for a moment the possibility that I may be right about the Serbo-Croatian forms constituting common English usage ? And that, in that case, those are the forms the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize ? And that that's the reason why at this moment all Wikipedia articles on Kosovar cities use the Serbo-Croatian forms, thus following our naming conventions policy & its associated guidelines ?

Please, show me an example in which I'm wrong about "common English usage", or an instance in which I change a name to a version inconsistent with the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article. Or perhaps should I discuss the issue about what form should Wikipedia use in every single article, searching consensus for the same thing in every specific case, over and over again, ad nauseam, and transform every Kosovo-related article in a new Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) ? Nevertheless, I have asked KristinaAlbania to discuss the issue in the article's talk page. The answer I got was "I don’t care discussing with people like you".

And could you consider that I may be interested in improving the article by providing a better historical & geographical context of Teki Dervishi's birthplace (and that in only 20 words) ? Are you actually saying that our readers would be better off without details, with the sole mention of Teki Dervishi [was] born in 1943 in Gjakova[77]? Period, no more info needed ? In any case, I have asked KristinaAlbania to discuss the issue in the article's talk page. The answer I got was "I don’t care discussing with people like you".

You say that KristinaAlbania offered a compromise, and that I rejected it. Could you please indicate me when/where was that compromise offered ? And when/where did I reject it ? Take a look at the talk page discussion: the only thing that could be interpreted as "compromises" that KristinaAlbania "offered" was 1) that I refrain from editing the article, or 2) that the article be deleted entirely. Are you actually saying that I should have accepted one of those "compromises" ?

KristinaAlbania mentions that this edit was a compromise. At the time, without any communication except edit summaries, I didn't understood it to be an attempt to compromise. I saw it as a simple removal of content. "A mention of only the year of birth and the Albanian-language name of the city", and that in a place as complicated as the Balkans... is that what English-speaking readers expect from an encyclopedia ?

So... trying to make the article more intellegible to English-speakers by following common English usage, contextualizing Teki Dervishi's birth-place and trying to discuss the issues at the article's talk page... makes me a provocateur ???

Finally, I promptly brought the issue here (without waiting for KristinaAlbania to respond and without giving Komdori a chance to work things out) in the hope that a couple of stern warnings from third parties would accomplish a change in attitude. It appears that KristinaAlbania will be editing this article for the foreseeable future... and I would really like to be able to have discussions at that talk page with a bare minimum of civility.

In other words, what I'm looking for is the exact opposite of "escalation": I want help to avoid any future escalations. Help to assure that from now on discussion can be carried out in a civil manner. Some of us are used to work in a civil environment, and place much value on civility. — That "provocateur" thing really made me angry. For crying out loud ! Sometimes I think I'm one of the last persons here that pays any attention to that AGF... Ev 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamming IP

The user at Special:Contributions/59.92.143.16 is introducing blatent offtopic spam on various pages. Did so previously under Special:Contributions/59.92.145.240. Ignored recent warning to stop. MrZaius^talk 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take future events to WP:AIV. Issued l4 warning. MER-C 09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War at Flynn effect

Just look at the page history of that article. [78] The edit war is between Secularrise (talk · contribs) and Ultramarine (talk · contribs). I can't speak on Secularrise but with regards to Ultramarine I have been dealing with him on the Noam Chomsky article and his editing style is one of the most aggressive I have encountered in my entire time on Wikipedia. In late 2005 he had an arbitration case against him for this very reason. I do see anything here that has changed since then.--Jersey Devil 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Secularrise has no edits other than to this article and its talk page (all in the past few days). The way, the truth, and the light 10:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk split

Over the weekend, the Humanities Ref Desk was split in a "bold" move that was not previously discussed.

Unsurprisingly, this has proved contraversial and a certain amount of heat is being generated at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and various users' talk pages.

Posting here to notify admins about the dispute and request help with calming the situation. As you're probably aware, the nature of the Ref Desks engenders a lot of strong opinions and it would be a shame for useful contributors to start talking themselves into the kind of disruptive behaviours that are already beginning to crop up. --Dweller 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tempers fly over the "bold" move. I'm also deeply concerned and frustrated at the unilateral moves that disfigured the board and drove its most helpful contributor away from Wikipedia. Please wait for consensus before implementing decisions of such far-reaching importance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that the "bold" move was previously discussed, twice. There was little support for the proposal when it was floated those two times, but the same editor went ahead and implemented the changes without consensus. -- Diletante 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

sock-puppets allowed?

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block.

quoted from Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks. this straight forward implies that sock puppets allowed until and unless he indulges in blockable behaviour. This is correct policy and many administrators dont know this.

i here request to modify policy to:

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block only if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. 122.167.135.133 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is the administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy is in the next building. Uncle G 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Tamil realted pages

The same set of editors are removing sources, unwilling to discuss the changes to find concensus and are using wikipidia as a battlground, now in the follwing articles

• List of Tamils of Sri Lanka
• Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani
• Sri Lanka Tamils (native)

Two of them are long esatblished articles with attempted vandalism going for a long time. Admin intervention requested. Thanks Taprobanus 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can be done. The only thing i could do is to protect all these articles and ask you to discuss. If that won't help then you may refer to WP:DR process. But do not call other contributors w/ whom you are edit warring vandals as it is not the case according to What vandalism is not. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

remove a deletion request from history

Resolved

Hello, I think by messing about I may have used up a three revert rule. Please can you visit Lee Groombridge and revert to the version that comes just before the deletion request. I am the person that appears and all information is correct. Hope you can help - I'm new to wikipedia. Many thanks "Tinylee 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"

Non-administrative issue, talking to user on his/her talk. – Riana ⁂ 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith image tagging by User:Daddy Kindsoul (aka Deathrocker)

A couple of days ago, User:Daddy Kindsoul tagged several several fair use images that I have uploaded and marked them for deletion. He placed "no fair use rationale" tags on Image:Fleshbot.png, Image:Deadspin.png,Image:Leather.jpg, Image:Gawker new.png and Image:Skyscraperpage logo.jpg, and "no source" tags on Image:Gawker G logo.gif and Image:Wonkette logo.gif.

Under normal circumstances, this wouldn't bother me - in fact, I'd find it helpful. When I find a fair use problem by a user, I usually go through their upload logs, because if they're mistaken about policy on one image, chances are, they've uploaded more images with similar errors.

But I believe those edits were in bad faith for the following reasons.

1. I've recently marked some of Daddy Kindsoul's images for copyright issues and he responded hostilely, calling my notices on his talk page "spamattack", labeling a legitimate fair use concern "trolling tag" and deleting a notice tag. It seems this user isn't willing to play by Wikipedia's image policies, but more than happy to try to get my uploads deleted.
2. In addition to the above edits, the user has taken a hostile tone with me without provocation, in Image_talk:Tevez-WestHamPalermo.jpg while accusing me of lying in Image talk:Myoldladylovesneckface.jpg.
3. The images that Daddy Kindsoul tagged are all website screenshots and logos. It appears that the wording on some of the license tags have changed, but my understanding was that the boilerplate wording within the tags, combined with the "used for identification of ___" notes I left in the descriptions were enough for rationale.
4. The no source tags are ridiculous, since it's rather obvious where the logos came from and who owns the copyrights to them. To pretend that the images are not sourced is pretty obtuse, and the draconic interpretation is oddly inconsistent for someone who recently tried to argue that a screenshot was self created and uploaded a Dean Martin album cover art as a Creative Commons image.
5. Regardless of whether Daddy Kindsoul was correct to tag the images, the issues were simply procedural, and a message on my talk page would have solved them. But Daddy Kindsoul never bothered to contact me about those tags on my user talk page, which is considered good form at the very least.

Considering his history of blocks, this user takes edits too personally and could use another reminder to play nice with others. --Ytny (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those images have usage rationales for being non-free content that you uploaded—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)==

I concede that I misunderstood exactly what I needed for a proper fair use rationale, and that the tagging of the images are technically correct. But that's beside the point. The issue is that the mass tagging was retaliation by a user who has decided I'm out to get him. --Ytny (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If they don't have fair use tags, they don't have fair use tags. Tagging them is the correct action, regardless of the motivation. This is not a subjective call, where their is room for dispute, like with most tags. Take it as a compliment that someone is willing to double-check your work so diligently. --Haemo 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares why he tagged them so long as they got tagged? Fair Use is to be used only under very limited circumstances. He did a good thing. -M^ask? 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on image tagging. They're all resolved (I think) and have proper rationales attached (thanks to User:Eastmain for the help). But can someone remind him that misleading edit summaries and insulting me in talk pages ([79] and [80] is not WP:CIVIL? The user's been blocked multiple times already so it's not like he doesn't know the policy is there. --Ytny (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User 41.205.137.21 spamming flightdiversion.com

Resolved

All of this user's edits exist siply to promote flightdiversion.com and are not in encyclopaedic style or even in the relevant section of the pages they are on. see their [contributions]

Remove and report to intervention against vandalsim, just like any other common vandal :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for linkspam past last warning. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dogmatic

User:Dogmatic is openly (and wrongly) speculating about my identity, contrary to the rules as I understand them.[81]

Please take appropriate action.

Frank Pais 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any inappropriate actions by Dogmatic in this diff. He can speculate all he wants. All you have to do is deny it. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But, if all of this user is doing is trying to guess who this editor is, then we should take stronger actions if needed. Keep us posted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: see above, this is the second time Frank Pais has alleged a user was speculating on his identity. He claimed I was doing it because I directed him to bring his disputes up with the subject in content, not Wikipedia itself. Also, please note that there has been quite extensive evidence on the OTRS mailing list to suggest that he is either Shane Ruttle Martinez, or someone extremely close to him. Finally, note the article in question was locked per an OTRS ticket in progress. Don't take his complaints at face value.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we are both OTRS people, I will discuss this matter with SWAT on a private basis. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NANI Sporting Lisbon.jpg

This is clearly a troll iamge - I can't remember the name of the case, but it's a violation of some arbcom ruling even to upload this guy - let alone that the image is mis-tagged. Could someone please delete the image and block the user? I think the user uploaded some others under different account names, but I could be wrong. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You would be looking for Brian Peppers. Phony Saint 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --pgk 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism

Resolved

I just placed a warning in 202.177.148.110's talk page for vandalism. Another one was vandalized too.

However, from the nature of the vandalism, it is only too clear that this user is the same as 202.80.62.132 and 202.75.200.7 SDas 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything else I should do about it at this stage? The vandalism has happened quite a few times after all. SDas 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty straigt forward case of repeated vandalism and the accounts indeed seem to be the same. Blocked for 24h. Signature^brendel 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SDas 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of highly speculative unsourced material contrary to policy

Please see the editor history of this page. At present there is a mini-edit war over the addition of a section, which is unsourced and the only argument given is "WP:OTHERSTUFFAIN'TSOURCEDANDTHISISSOOOOOBVIOUSIFYOU'REAFAN".

1. (cur) (last) 19:18, 21 May 2007 Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (3,246 bytes) (rv.)
2. (cur) (last) 19:10, 21 May 2007 Matthew (Talk | contribs) (2,852 bytes) (→Cultural references - totally unsourced.)
3. cur) (last) 22:13, 21 May 2007 Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (3,294 bytes) (And you need to read Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. FAs have cultural references and so do practically every other TV related article so I fail to see what the big deal about this one is)
4. (cur) (last) 22:08, 21 May 2007 Matthew (Talk | contribs) m (2,900 bytes) (Reverted edits by Scorpion0422 (talk) to last version by Matthew)
5. (cur) (last) 22:08, 21 May 2007 Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (3,516 bytes) (It's hardly OR. These are pretty obvious references and can be easily verified by watching the episode)
6. (cur) (last) 22:04, 21 May 2007 Matthew (Talk | contribs) (2,900 bytes) (→Cultural references - removed again - no sources. See WP:NOR.)

I'm enforcing our NOR/Verifiability policy aggressively, to no avil, however, as the editor (Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)) doesn't seem to understand the need to source. Applicable policy: WP:NOR. User was warned twice, but removed the comments. Matthew 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the information doesn't need a source and the second its up at the BBC website, I'll add it. I just fail to see why you are being such a dick about that one episode especially when there are much worse cases. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that was the article I was reading... probably because it's a recent Simpsons episode (and I am a Simpons fan...) - if I see more unsourced information I'll excise it if I can't cite it. Matthew 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion0422, I hate to break it to you, but other crap exists. We can not get around to removing it all in an hour, a day, or even a week. Just because there are more egregious cases of original research in other articles does not mean this article gets a free pass. Instead of edit warring over this case, why not go remove those other cases? On another note, calling someone a dick is a personal attack; please do not do it again unless you would like to be blocked, in which case you may by all means continue. Picaroon (Talk) 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're back and still unsourced - and they're still in the wrong. I'm apparently "such a dick" about a few episodes in the most recent season of South Park by these standards, too. --Haemo 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

martin bot

Resolved

caught it make this edit it changed Achaemenid persian Immortals to Achaemenid penis Immortals reverted it myself but keep an eye on it for me thank you 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be because the bot reverts to the version previous of the version vandalized (which also could be vandalized). --24.136.230.38 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

another mis behave! 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You should contact Martin of this, since he is the owner of the bot. Real96 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats by User:Jsw46

After User:Jsw48 and his sockpuppet were blocked yesterday for vandalizing, he has changed his username to User:Jsw46 and has made threatening comments on my talk page. Can someone help me out? Thanks. --Evb-wiki 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He has also vandalized my user page. --Evb-wiki 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I reported to WP:AIV and suggested to Evb-wiki to report obvious socks directly there. Of course suspected socks go to WP:SSP. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I left a uw-npa4 warning on the talk page. No edits were made after original warning. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This didn't need to go to SSP; the post here was enough. Jsw46 is blocked, and Jsw48's block is extended for block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and possible wikistalking

It seems that User:Vlad fedorov decided to "get even" with me after returning back after 3RR block. Today he started reverting all my edits (or deleting large segments of sourced text) in many articles that I edited recently. Please see:

• [82] He reverts my last 8 edits in article Tambov rebellion.
• [83] He reverts 12+ my last edits in article Active measures
• [[84]] same - Nikolai Koltsov. Here he "corrects" direct citation from Nature (journal) by replacing word between two "..." signs [85]

rts previously protected version of article Boris Stomakhin that is curre*[86] Deletion of HUGE portion of well referenced text from article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation - without any discussion

• [87] He reverts edits by me and others in Internet brigades
• [88] He reverts even such minor thing as a category.
• [89] He inserts poorly supported defamatory statements to biography of a living person, although two other editors disagree
• [90] He revently under official mediation, see [91]
• [92] Another deletion of well sourced text without discussion
• He edits in a highly disruptive manner article GRU.

That is all he accomplished today. Honestly, I am very tired of that. Can anyone give me a piece of advice, please?Biophys 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What could I say? Look into Biophys contribs since 9th of May 22:47 when I was blocked. Biophys used this moment to revert all of my contributions and all of our agreements on the articles. So, if Biophys who wasn't stopped by anyone deleting all of mine contributions is not disruptive, then why my edits, returning back the hard work that I have done searching for reliable sources and contributing to the articles, are considered by Biophys as disruptive? Please also tell since what times adding contributions to Wikipedia by me is disruptive and deletion of sourced texts by Biophys is undisruptive? Calling your opponents editing disruptive, vandalous, etc. is very easy way to win the ordinary content dispute, right? I have never reverted your contributions while you, Biophys, was blocked for 3RR. Never! And it is you who is responsible for disruptive editing.

However, if User:Theresa Knott doesn't wish to look at the articles at the issue, let me show some diffs by Biophys while my blocking period.

diff Biophys deletion of sourced judgement of the most respective international organization - changing it to the local US nongovernmental organization judgement. Article Russia. See his comment:"(The statement by Gil-Robles is outdated (2004); the rating by Freedom House is recent (2007). But maybe this statement by FH should be moved to a different place? I am not sure.)".

diff deletion of text concerning the criticism of both the author and the book in Putin's Russia. See Bophys comment:"rv - please read talk page - this article is about the BOOK, not about Politkovskaya. There is a separate article about her. This text was simply cut and pasted from another WP article.)".

diff Deletion of absolutely sourced criticism on the conflict of interests in the organization. Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. See Biophys comment:"(irrelevant info removed, see talk page)". Self-explainable? Other editors - Mikkalai and Alex Bakharev found my information useful, but Master Biophys doesn't.

diff Deletion of the information about a case on which the whole book is founded. Article Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. See Biophys comment:"(remove not relevant information copied from another WP article)". Self-explainable?

diff Reinserting again extreme POV with violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Article List of political parties in Russia. Look into history of this article - Biophys does it systematically and doesn't want to compromise with other editors. See Biophys comment: "(rv - if you want to make NPOV version - please add more things supported by your sources, rather than deleting well referenced text (this may be considered as vandalism))".

diff Reinserting again the whole POV section full of allegations and moved by user QZXA2 to talk page for discussion. Article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. See Biophys comment: "(rv - large-scale deletion of well sourced text without discussion. "Too POV" is not an argument. You can try to make small changes if they are justified and supported by alternative references.)" WP:OWN? Self-explainable.

diff Article Tambov Rebellion. See Biophys comment: "(Removing large segment of text copied from another article, which is completely unsourced. It creates duplications and makes the article unreadable; other edits)". Self-explainable?

diff. Article Anna Politkovskaya - deletion of all criticism section. Comment by Biophys:"(removing a few defamatory statements supported by a single unreliable source and a couple of outdated comments by non-notable people; minor editing. This article is already too long.)". Self-explainable? Any critcism of Biophys political POV - is defamatory in Wikipedia and should be deleted according to him. But if he inserts his extreme POV in the article with violation of WP:UNDUE he than typically says add your POV. But afterwards he begins his campaign about defamation and unreliable sources.

diff Again deletion of the information, that Biophys doesn't like. Again article Anna Politkovskaya and again the same comment:" (Two more non-notable opinions; Mayorov is a sportsmen)".

Yevgenia Albats. All claims of Biophys about defamation and poorly sourced statements are false. All that I described in the article is a well known thing in Russian internet. You may ask both Ellol, Irpen and Alex Bakharev in order to ascertain this. All the sources are provided to every sentence. Most of the sentences have two or more sources.

diff Reinsertion by Biophys of the category "Russian dissident" in the article of terrorist Akhmed Zakayev.

diff. Again editing the article to his POV while I am blocked. Comment of Biophys:"(more proper categorization and more consistent with sources. He is former political prisoner according to Amnesty International.)".

diff Reinserting unsourced POV category. Again. But this time Biophys doesn't provide explanations since there are no sources in support of his category.

Political repression of cyber-dissidents. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced by the court because in his publications he called to exterminate all Russians without any mercy and was calling to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. Therefore he can't be described as a political blogger. Mr. Osama Bin Laden is not a dissident, or he is? Methods of repression are claimed to be stalking, bullying and psychological methods? Well there are no such information in source Biophys inserts - Bagryansky. And the creation of internet teams is described not in Bagryansky but by Saydykov article - and iit is just pure allegations without any evidence - but I left them.

diff Reinserting extreme POV. Article Jeffrey Nyquist.

diff reisnerting absolutely POV opinion with violation of WP:UNDUE.

diff deletion of POV tag without my consent.

diff Again revert to his lovely POV version. David Satter. Comment by Biophys:"(rv to 162.129.250.1 (Talk) at 03:59, 15 March 2007. Same text but better English.)".

diff Reinserting "victim of political repressions" category into terrorist article.

diff Article Internet brigades. Deletion of my tag. As for Biophys claims of deletion of his edits. It is he actually who deletes information that I insert. Just look at that latest diff.

Please also look at the history of these articles - Biophys reverts continually reinsertions of my texts by other users - he continues his work in Wikipedia using the methods of elimination of the information he personally doesn't like. This is an issue in Operation Sarindar, Human rights in Russia, List of political parties in Russia,Anna Politkovskaya, Boris_Stomakhin, Yevgenia Albats. In all these articles Biophys is fond of just deleting of the information. See his edits in history of these articles. He doesn't contribute to the content - just deletes. Vlad fedorov 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As for wikistalking see the history of all the articles involved - I have edited them long ago. Biophys allegations of stalking are very old indeed and see my RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorov where even my strong opponents like User:Piotrus acknowledge that there is no wikistalking.

So I think even surfaced browsing of Biophys edits could really get you into the picture that I have described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biophys. Vlad fedorov 05:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly, for the first time on Administrators board, threats of Biophys.

Biophys regulary "threatens" to publish other such articles. Please see also his threats here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Sarindar#Let.27s_make_small_changes_gradually_and_discuss_every_change_first. And by the way Biophys perfectly fits into WP:OWN definition. He regularly mentions that he created the article and other users are always disturbing him. I think WP:OWN is perfect description of his behaviour. See even the same suggestions that Biophys always writes do match perfectly there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN#Comments Vlad fedorov 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WPIV  ??? Pedro |  Chat  21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me, Pedro. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, article Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation had 65 references before his intervention. Now it has only 10. Still, I am not sure what to do.Biophys 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think that his actions were just a normal editing? Then he will be doing this every day.Biophys 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go back to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was at ArbCom, but yes, something should be done. That said, we can wait a month or two for ArbCom to block the disruptive user, or just speed up the process... considering that Vlad back from his week-long ban is causing disruption and revert warring again, I really don't see why we should burdern ArbCom with an obvious situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And again a comment from a user trying to win content dispute with me on administrator's noticeboard. Piotrus manner to bandwagon his opponents is already a matter of arbitration against him . Piotrus, why reinsertion of my materials which Biophys deleted as shown up here is disruptive? Piotrus, however, also prefers not to explain why Biophys deletion of information that doesn't suit his political opinions is not disruptive. Should I invite my friends here too? Csloat? Ellol? QZXA2?Irpen? Alex Bakharev? And, please, Piotrus, considering that Biophys teaming up with you and your disruptive and tendentious editing are already a matter of arbitration Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, please don't be quite hipocritical by making comments against me. It's typically, look who's talking. You also never explained why you consider series of Biophys disruptive reverts during my block period to be normal. Vlad fedorov 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remain cool and assume good faith please, Vlad. These comments are not helpful in resolving this. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, why isn't user Piotrus assuming my good faith? Is good faith policy is applicable to Vlad Fedorov only? Assuming that I had not disputes with him over last 3 weeks, it is very unpleasant for me to see again how he tries to make revenge on me because of my contributions to Institute of National Remembrance, and because Biophys was blocked for 3RR and got two warnings for 3RR. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In a debate, everyone has to assume good faith. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish Piotrus having to assume good faith. Vlad fedorov 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

O, just by the way, Biophys why you haven't reported to noticeboard this English user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.134.106.8? You gave him so many warnings. Why you haven't reported user QZXA2? You also gave him warnings? And how it comes that so many users disrupt your "editing", Biophys? Vlad fedorov 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Vlad said, everything in my initial statement remains valid, as well as RfC about Vlad's alleged wikistalking submitted by User Colchicum. So, all of this will continue indefinitely unless something will be done about it. Biophys 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Has any form of mediation been tried? —Kyриx 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First attempt was done here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov by User:Colchicum, see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#New_episodes_of_wikistalking_by_Vlad. As User:Colchicum said, "User:Vlad fedorov (and his alleged sockpuppet User_talk:213.184.225.28) is engaged in a long-term wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and Colchicum for several days (since February 14, 2007), allegedly being quite disruptive, and it is likely that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been contributed to by the aforementioned editors (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). This is actually the main point. Regardless of whether his point of view was justified or not, he has been doing nothing but pursuing User:Biophys and User:Colchicum. Informal resolution was attempted at the numerous talk pages" And so on.

Second mediation attempt is this:

• [93] Vlad reverts article under official mediation, see [94] Biophys 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, dear, learn the definition of revert. Revert means undoing other editors contributions. As we look at these diffs, it is clear that I do not delete any edits. I only add my sourced information which you have falsely claimed to be violating BLP. Please do not clogg this page in order to make your point more visible. You complained about my reinsertions of material sterile deleted by you? Well, you've got an answer. You asked about stalking? Well, you've got an answer on that matter two months ago. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As RfC on me was filed by user Colchicum, could you please provide any links in support of your accusation that I pursue Colchicum? If you mean yourself, Biophys, I think that Bakharev, Piotrus and others on my RfC page made it clear that I am not stalking you. But if you choose to pretend you haven't got an answer on your decision, whatever. Vlad fedorov 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no one made it clear that you are not wikistalimg me. Just the opposite. It was not me who accused you of wikistalking (I only joined the case). It was Colchicum who accused you of wikistalking of him and me, just as now I think you are after Piotr. I must tell that Colhicum is the most neutral editor I met in WP - just look at his edits of rivers, lakes and Russian state officials. But you got him. Furthermore, you personally offended him at the talk page of Alex Bakharev - using Russian - to make sure that others do not understand. Biophys 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Biophys you've just made these claims at this noticeboard. RfC by Colchicum is just another instance now. So, if your allegations are false, you should be punished in some way. You tendency to accuse me and then to tell: "I never accused, but Colchicum did" is very interesting. If you are so sure you are right, why you attribute all these accusations to Colchicum? Have I ever edited rivers, lakes and Russian state officials? And this is an answer that your accusations of stalking are false. And it is you who stalked me at Freedom House, by contacting other editors of Freedom House article, and you have stalked me on National Remembrance Institute article, as well as Przyszowice massacre -- and this is a clear matter. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have offended Colchicum? I learn everytime something new from you, Biophys. Could you provide diffs and we all would see what are you talking about? Vlad fedorov 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just said "it is clear that I do not delete any edits". I do not know how to qualify this blatantly incorrect statement after this your edit yesterday:[95]. We had an article supported by 65 references. Your "edit" left only 10. You simply think that no one will check your statements.Biophys 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't deleted it. Together with users QZXA2, Camille Grey and Ellol we moved that section violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to the talk page for discussion and editing. Anyone could look into the history of this article in order to ascertain this. And you, Biophys, is just trying to trick all readers and to defame me. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone, please, see Biophys again deletes all my contributions in Wikipedia. Could anyone take measures against this disruptive individual? Is it no disruptive to delete so many content again?

diff Article Jeffrey Nyquist. Edit warring by deleting the sourced content. He is warring with me and English user 217.134.92.77.

diff Article Glasnost Defense Foundation. Elimination of sourced information on financing of this organization.

diff Article Anna Politkovskaya. Reinserting blatant original research not found in sources. Edit warring with other editors. Vlad fedorov 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Biophys

Now, Biophys, (1) please explain your reverts listed earlier by which you delete all my contributions to the Wikipedia which were done by you while my blocking period. And (2), please explain why you have stalked me at Freedom House, National Remembrance Institute, and Przyszowice massacre articles. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the first two links posted by Biophys. What can I say, I do not see significant changes between Vlad and Biophys's version. Questions are mostly technical. It seems however, that Biophys may still have an eye against the current Russian government, which he sees as continuation of strife against the Soviet Communism. With that, Vlad Fedorev's version (in first two articles) seems to be less politically engaged. ellol 09:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also approve the fact that tensions between Biophys and Vladimir are significantly less than those yet several months ago. I think both users still need a bit more efforts of seeking for compromises, but they are on the right way. ellol 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ellol. And by the way it is Biophys who protracts the mediation over Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats articles. I have asked him to provide his comments, but still he hasn't Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O'K. I have posted my mediation comment:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Boris_Stomakhin#Biophys. This is relevant to the current incident.Biophys 16:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very sad that all this time and typing is wasted on disputes by these two very productive and knowledgeable editors. If only Vlad would try and reach consensus on the relevant articles talk pages FIRST all this could be avoided. My suggestion is for an "umpire" to be assigned to each article that Vlad wishes to edit and Vlad promise to notify his umpire in advance if he wishes to edit an article he has not yet edited but has already been edited by Biophys until such time as he has shown that he better understands that WP can not decide or arbitrate truth - just provide a balanced summation of properly referenced points of view. W. Frank ✉ 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, you should also include articles edited previously by Piotrus, Colhichum, and perhaps other users, see Anna Politkovskaya for most recent example.Biophys 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Frank, please take a look at the edit just made by Vlad in article Freedom House. Vlad said: "Ultramarine you reinsert criticized Black Book of Communism in Tambov rebellion and delete reliable sources on criticism here? I though democracy is not double standards." [96]. I must explain: Ultramarine happened to agree with me that Black Book of Communism is a reliable source in article Tambov Rebellion. So, now Vlad is coming after Ultramarine. Is not this clear and present wikistalking?Biophys 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Vlad Fedorov for a month this time because he started right up again with the behaviour that led to his previous block for a week. Block log. If any administrator can see any point to allowing his behaviour to continue, you know what to do - David Gerard 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys needs to stop using Wikipedia as a tool to spread his anti-Kremlin POV. He has added absurd accusations to the Human rights in Russia and FSB pages and treats them as facts. He almost instantly deleted my attempted balances of these articles before I could add some sources and threatened to report me for "vandalism" TWICE on my user talk page. If anyone should be reported here it should be him QZXA2 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I can't fault David Gerards actions, I have to point out that Biophys is not blameless here either. It takes two to tango. Or editwar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Vlad's block may (or may not) be justified, but I can't see much difference between his behavior and that of Biophys. What's the point of blocking one opponent and absolving the other? Despite our best intentions, we should not appear selective in enforcement of guidelines. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with every word, including the possible justifiability of Vlad's block but for a month? A unilateral blocks of such length are rather exceptional and in most cases the opinions should be solicited before rather than after the block.I wonder how much time DG spent studying the issue, I strongly suspect that very little and he relied on the "advise" he somehow received (from who and how?) in his decision. --Irpen 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a wrongdoing om my side, please tell me what to do. Should I revert all my edits in question back? Should I limit myself by only one revert per day? Anything else? I tried to do my best to follow all WP rules and recommendations and make good (as far as I can) articles. Please tell me what to do, and I will follow your advice. Thank you. Biophys 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)