Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257

Block evasion by banned user

These articles are being plagued by sockpuppets of permabanned user:Dimror (& his checkuser confirmed sockpuppets, User:Vlug etc). He has been adding original research on the number of Muslims in Albania (changing the figure from 70% to 10%) with sources which needless to say don't support his claims. Before he was indefblocked he revert warred with his main username (e.g. [1]). After he was indefblocked, dynamic anon IPs from AlboTeleco Networks have continued his activities (e.g. [2]) and have now escalated to numerous articles. He was banned in early April but the anon edit wars have been continuous until the present day despite having been reverted by numerous users. Can an administrator please take a look at this and do something (watchlist the articles and block the dynamic IPs as they appear, give the articles a couple of weeks of semi-protection, something, anything). The affected articles are (just check their poor histories):

• Albania
• Albanians
• Demographics of Albania
• Islam by country
• Islam in Albania
• Religion in Albania

Thanks.--Ploutarchos 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [3] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [4] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [5] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [6] ,[7]. He has been warned numerous times [8], [9], [10] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [11] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order.

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [12] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [13] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [14] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [15] refering to other users as idiots [16] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [17] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [18] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [19].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [20] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [21] [22] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban. YoSoyGuapo 11:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Loureid

Loureid (talk · contribs · block log) is a high school students who attend my school. Recently he and other students have been causing trouble, both aimed at me and at Wikipedia in general. This is often because of my status as an administrator. However, a few of them have either created or co-created a "political party". Earlier tonight (AEST) Loureid created an article on National Louis Party, which was deleted twice, once under the patent nonsense CSD (G1) and the other under the notability CSD (A7). When I tried to explain why the article was deleted via MSN, he refused to accept it, stating that Wikipedia is "corrupt" and is a "bureaucracy". Around 21:45 UTC, my userpage came under attack by two IP addresses, revealing personal information in the process. I added semi protection to the page and Loureid began to vandalise my page. I added full protection. He then began vandalising other pages. I subsequently blocked him for 24 hours. User:Chacor had suggested a block, just as I was applying the block. Loureid stated he wished to be unblocked, claiming that "HarryBoyles has been on my account hacking into it, he made those changes on my account, i didnt know of them, i wouldnt dream of damaging the good reputation of wikipedia, i belive that harryboyles has an alterior motive to getting me banned, you should concider taking action against him". [23] Charor contacted me afterwards, suggesting I bring the issue here for wider input. I'm planning to talk with the deputy principal at school when it resumes to discuss issues such as this, as well as other incidents. Harryboyles 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'd rather trust you than a group of trollsocks. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention was Chacor's intention of an indefinite block, which is what I was really asking about. Harryboyles 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yamla took care of that after unblock template abuse. – Chacor 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of posting here about your problems, you should go outside and get some fresh air...it seems you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, no?

I'd normally suggest to delete those revisions but the personal information is only your first name, and you actually made your username out of your real first and last name. But then dealing with him in high school is a problem (offline when he'll harass you there). The vandal says (italics used as quotes) Firstly i said "I am way cool!!!, anyone who disagrees is wrong. So Naa Naa Na Na NAA" and "HAHAHAH. I changed it back "[real name removed]", if that is your real name. I am cooler than you! Naa Naa". Maybe you can print these diffs out and embarass them as this makes them sound 10 years old. SakotGrimshine 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.61.178.95

71.61.178.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received several warnings about vandalising pages since this March, but has refused to stop adding Kennywood / Re-Animated nonsense to pages. The IP has never been blocked and his/her edits are sporadic. On top of that, the IP might be 24.3.247.88, who was blocked for ten days on March 20, 2007 for similar vandalism. Pants^(T) 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edits, it appears to be a static IP attacking the same articles over and over. I gave him a 24 hour block for now. IrishGuy ^talk 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:Point

Western Sahara articles I would like some assistance; this editor is disrupting Wikipedia by insisting that a particular issue is POV without resorting to talk or mediation. For instance, he insists on changing a flag template to include a map, thereby breaking its functionality. If you see his edits, he is doing a similar thing on several templates, breaking their functions and creating redundancies in articles. I would be happy to discuss the issue at the appropriate venue with this editor (i.e. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, and consider mediation/arbitration, but all these template edits are basically a proxy for this one dispute as best as I can tell. Please assist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon has done just the right thing. Western Sahara is a disputed territory that the UN is yet to solve the issue. Actually it is arranging for direct negotiations between the conflict parties: Morocco and the Polisario Front. What Koavf has been doing as a fervent militant activist for the Polisario, is to anticipate the result of the conflict and use the flag of one of the parties (guess which) to the conflict as the official Western Sahara flag, whereas WS has no flag as a disputed territory. Therefore, WS should not have a flag template, while the SADR, the government-in-exile of the Polisario has one, and can be used in the SADR articles, but not in Western Sahara articles. The French Wikipedia for example uses exactly the map outline that Juiced Lemon has been using here. So, Koavf's complains are baseless. Needless to remind that Koavf has been so disruptive about the Western Sahara articles that he was indefinitely blocked for more than a half year. He was allowed to edit again as a gesture of goodwill from the community, and here we are again after just one day from being unblocked.--A Jalil 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The changes I have made don't break any functionality. Western Sahara is a disputed territory. The so-called Flag of Western Sahara is in reality the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and it symbolizes the opposition to occcupation of Western Sahara by Morocco. Any use of this flag in association with Western Sahara have an obvious political meaning.

So, I replaced the flag by a map of Western Sahara. I go to post a request for comments in the village pump. --Juiced lemon 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this These arguments belong somewhere else (e.g. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara); the germane issue is the persistent blind reversion and template-breaking and controversial edits on articles with POV tags, etc. I tried to be conciliatory, but you didn't seem interested in listening or discussion, so I've asked for someone else's intervention to mediate, arbitrate, or whatever is needed. One thing that we can't continue doing is changing flag templates to maps so that we have abominations like this and this. Again, to reiterate: you're breaking the template's functionality. Lastly, could you please not use inflammatory language like "fervent militant activist," even if you think it's true? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not abomination. Let me have a different opinion.

Template talk:Country data Western Sahara#Request for Comment: Western Sahara and the SADR --Juiced lemon 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask you about one thing Justin? Do you know that the ANI is not the appropriate place to sort out edit conflicts? You are already discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting where many admins and the project contributors have explained to you why you are not correct. So what do you want exactly from admins to do for you? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Even if that is true, he's now definitely disrupting Wikipedia with unilateral and controversial moves that have no consensus or discussion. See Foreign relations of Western Sahara, which he has moved twice without any discussion. The talk of that page has an extensive discussion on the page name, and he apparently didn't even reference it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting? Who? Lemon? No. He has never set a foot on the article you are talking about. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? He's moved it twice today. Did you even look at his logs? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the government of Western Sahara has been broken up since 2002. So, this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore.

I have not yet read critical comments regarding my last edits. I wait for Justin (koavf) argumentation in the appropriate talk pages. --Juiced lemon 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh "Juiced" all "government of X" articles redirect to "politics of X" articles. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even understand what the comment "this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore" is even supposed to mean. Why should it be that you make the contentious moves (twice, once after it was moved *back* by me) and then expect me to justify myself on talk? Aren't you the one who is supposed to justify moves? And why did you move it to two separate names? And why did you leave behind double-redirects? And why did you chose "legal status of" instead of "political status of"? These are a few of a host of questions that should have been resolved before a unilateral and contentious move that, in my opinion, shouldn't have taken place (cf. with all previous attempts to move that article on its talk.) You either ignored prior consensus, didn't care about it, or both, and that's not exactly ideal editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, you'll find a lot of "government of X" articles which are not redirecting to "politics of X" articles. What I said means that Western Sahara have no government, therefore don't deal with foreing affairs, and a subject like Foreign relations of Western Sahara cannot exist. Such title in an Encyclopedia has not more sense than Foreign relations of the Statue of Liberty.

So, I had two options:

• either to request the deletion of Foreign relations of Western Sahara which dealt with an inexisting subject
• either to rename the article with a name matching an encyclopedic subject

I have choosed the second option. Now, if you can suggest a better name than Legal status of Western Sahara, do it! --Juiced lemon 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another option Or you could have posted on talk and requested comments. That would be the way you should work on a collaborative encyclopedia, and you know that. Consequently, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was enough comments in the talk page, and no permissions are required to improve articles in Wikipedia. You didn't use the talk page for your argumentation neither: you prefer to complain in the ANI. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the contentiousness of this issue; frankly, if you ask me, it would be best if all interested parties developed a common way they can all agree on on how to deal with Western Sahara-related articles on Wikipedia, possibly by way of mediation or something like that. This issue comes up quite regularily, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to develop a neutral, objective and standardised way of treating the Western Sahara issue while fairly representing both Morocco's and the SADR's points of views. —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a general issue regarding numberous confusions between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Wikipedia. Example: In List of circulating currencies (Western Sahara), Moroccan dirham is associated with the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (due to [24]). Use of new templates have aggravated the situation. Such confusions are a godsend for Polisario supporters. I understand they work to keep them. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation I'd be all for mediation if it will stop this incessant template-breaking, reversion, and unilateral moving. This is ridiculous and it can't go on for long. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates koavf refers to were mostly done by him at the time none of us was around. With the problems risen by the naked POV that polluted the Western Sahara articles is becoming a problem for the community and causing tensions, the need for a neutral point of view is necessary as Nightstallion wrote above. How can the flag of one of the parties of the conflict be forced to be adopted in Wikipedia as representing the disputed territory which has no flag, and how come two completely different things as "Western Sahara" and "The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic" be used interchangibly?. The solution could look easy and there would not be a problem correcting the templates and neutralising the wording. Only if there were no stunch activists around. This is the problem that Juiced Lemon is rightly trying to correct, and which is discussed extensively elsewhere like in Dispute_about_the_wording_scope_of_a_stub.--A Jalil 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant The exact features of the dispute are irrelevant, Jalil: my statements still stand. These moves and edits are disrupting, confusing, and should not have taken place, regardless of your personal convictions about the subject matter. He should have discussed prior to make a contentious move, and that is true regardless of whether the contentious move is some propaganda that supports my or your or his or no one's political agendas; that is irresponsible editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks in edit summaries

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

Is this the right place to mention this? Scott 110 has a history of insulting other editors, his last three edit summaries were removing moronic statement again, thats the most idiot thing ive ever read, and removed moronic, uncited statements. He has been warned about his behavious several times but he continues. I just happened to notice one of his summaries in an article I was looking at and I haven't seen edit summaries abused in this way before. 172.215.48.198 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's not particularly nice. Their edit history shows that to be their default setting. I've left a note on their talk page, so we'll see how it goes ... - Alison ☺ 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Such behaviour on the part of Scott_110 isn't appropriate all the time but isn't requiring of immidiate action. A note on the user's page is good. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care....but how is calling a statement, rather than the author of a statement, idiotic or moronic a personal attack on the author him/herself? Look up the word "criticism".Scott 110 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up the terms "courtesy" and "civility". "Ughh..you people are such nerds", etc, etc ... Plenty of examples out there. Like I said, focus on content and not on the person - Alison ☺ 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

stop de-valuing its importance, jerk. Yeah, that sounds like criticism of a statement. There are no "idiot statements", only idiot people. 172.188.21.78 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To find that out you really must have done some research...it must be nice to have that kind of time on your hands.Scott 110 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take that much 'research' - your edit history is replete with examples. Please - take the hint and stop the insults and personal attacks - Alison ☺ 04:58, 10 June 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.

Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation

I need some advice on how to proceed with some allegations being made against me. Please see this user's contributions. Basically, I opened an informal mediation request here in March in order, to address this user's concerns and to provide evidence that I am not involved in a vendetta as the user alleges. I invited them to participate in the discussion here. The user has not participated, seems unwilling to consider my viewpoint, and is now calling me a vandal. The user openly admits to editing under another username and I suspect that they might be the user who wrote these allegations as Anniebelles. This statement seems to support that. I have tried to pursue mediation (I feel that I cannot remain objective about this person's statements) with a neutral 3rd party. The user seems unwilling to participate in any such endeavour. I'm reporting this because a kind fellow editor, who responded to a {{helpme}} request on my talk page here, recommended this as a next step. I have also notified her on her talk page here. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringess, this current complaint is regarding your overall stalking of people like Sardaka, whose "good faith discussion" you removed from your talk page: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRingess&diff=135811311&oldid=135806648# and about how you stalk people to remove their additions, and how you go into topics, remove all links and add an often lame dmoz link and a warning to not add any more links. TheRingess has most recently gone in and removed, without apparently any consideration, the very organized and useful link sections on the Bhagavad Gita page that had been well-pruned through the good work of many editors. Fortunately that page had an editor who knew enough to revert this destruction, but in other pages, many very useful links are lost. To see examples of TheRingess's wanton removal of links, you can look at TheRingess's contributions page and do a find on dmoz or external links, or look at the arguments she has had with other editors. I believe this editor is harmful to Wikipedia. And no, I'm not Anniebelles, and I'm a man (not that it matters, but just for the record). Ganesham 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganesham, why have you rejected dispute resolution? You clearly have a dispute with this editor that needs discussion in a more proper forum. Instead of warning the world about what you think of TheRingess, why don't you discuss your issues with him/her directly? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, in order to emphasize my need for mediation regarding these allegations, I contacted the editor mentioned in reference to the Bhagavad Gita page. I asked this user to comment on my specific edits. My intial question can be seen here and his response can be seen here. I have notified the aforemention editor of my statement here.TheRingess (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree to continue this conversation on the above mentioned mediation page. I'm hoping that we can address Ganesham's concerns that I am actively engaged in a destructive, hurtful, personal vendetta against the subject of a biographical article on Wikipedia (please see user's contributions for specifics, I don't wish to name the article here).TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I don't have time to pursue this matter. If no Wikipedia editors or administrators are interested in checking TheRingess's actions in following innocent editors and deleting their works or in deleting all links from many topics, then Wikipedia will be the worse for it, but it is not my job and no longer my interest to engage with someone who is half cry-baby and half dictator. I'm signing off and no longer participating in Wikipedia as a contributor. Please don't leave messages for me here or on my user page, because I won't be checking for them. Best to all. Ganesham 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was curious and looked to find that lo and behold, TheRingess and his thug buddy editor Buddhipriya went into Wikipedia today and removed every link they could find to the applicable free educational resources offered by the person that TheRingess is already on record as having a vendetta against -- he and Buddhipriya participate in a spiritual group (on and off Wikipedia) that has had a vendetta against the author because she wrote an unauthorized book about their path. This author, of whom I am a fan, is the one who created a website of completely free educational spiritual resources -- she's also the author of Spirituality For Dummies. TheRingess is on record as fighting to remove her wikipedia entry that was created by another fan from England, and which survived TheRingess's deletion attempts. I've added several appropriate links to her resources in appropriate topics, and other editors have apparently added others. Today, TheRingess even deleted two very useful links to her site without signing in, showing up with his isp# at: [[25]], and for good measure, TheRingess deceptivly welcomed himself on his own isp's welcome page: [[26]] (I've received email from TheRingess and know that this is his ISP#). Here is one example from Buddhipriya's rampage: [[27]], where he removes a page with the completely free and very useful text and audio of Rudram, with a note saying, "commercial linkspam selling products" -- something he knows is false if he even looked at the page. Here are a couple more attacks from Buddhipriya just today, each with an insult to the resource: [[28]], and [[29]]. I'm back to retirement from contributing to Wikipedia. Go ahead and let these people ruin Wikipedia with personal vendettas if that is fine with you other editors and administrators. Ganesham

Just for the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (carrying out a personal vendetta against the subject of an article on Wikipedia) I have preferred to keep all communication with this user public. I will continue to do so.TheRingess (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that Ganesham does not agree regarding the removal of spam links. He has crossposted the same complaint [30]. The web site spiritual-happiness.com is a commercial site that advertises books and audio products (see: [31]). For information on spam guidelines, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. As a member of Wikiproject SPAM, I routinely follow the procedures given there, which say that once spam is found, one should look for other occurances of the same spam site. Here are the recommended procedures: "Check for similar links: ... This step involves finding all of the articles that contain a link to a particular site. If a link to www.example.com were discovered and removed in steps one and two, the next step is to use the linksearch command to find all articles that contain such links." That search feature shows that there are probably more spam links to the same site that still need to be removed.

The spam link on the Bhagavad Gita article was removed after specifically getting agreement from another regular editor there that the site should go: [32]

Regarding the claims that I and User:TheRingess are members of the same spiritual community, I am not aware of what that might be. In fact my first significant editing experience with that user had to do with fact-checking an article on Siddha Yoga which I had never heard of prior to reading that article (See: [33]). I subsequently found the editor to be a very balanced contributor. Please avoid making personal attacks in the future and try to comply with WP:CIVIL while assuming good faith on the part of others. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish to comment that I have edited a number of articles which TheRingess has also been working on. I think he is a fine editor. He has been supportive of all edits, even to his own work, reflecting valid citations and references. He has fixed a number of my own sloppy edits and politely informed me on elements of style, etc. He has encouraged my contributions on my talk page and engaged in discussion on articles talks pages. I believe the current dispute in largely a misunderstanding. I sincerely hope that Sardaka will engage in mediation to get an outside opinion on why some of his contributions are being edited by others. -Vritti 07:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check please

See further up the board (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:M.V.E.i.). I indefinitely blocked User:M.V.E.i., a Russian user, for hate speech and repeated severe racist comments (such as the following), directed variously towards the French, Israelis, Estonians, Germans and Balts. And this is just a selection:

• "Half French, which explains his sexual orientation"
• "No such nationality as Israeli"
• "Thats the baltic way, cheat, lie, and when they loose they run to Europe and NATO to complain they are being smashed. Those Balts here are nothing but trolls"
• "Germans are your Enemies yet you were their uniforms and also "worked hard" for the SS in their name".
• "You Balts try to represent lies as truth so you could lower your national shame, it will never happen, the history is against you".
• "Estonian "democracy""
• "Those Estonians who we argue with are eated with self-hate. They know that their grandfathers from the forest brothers and the ss were creeps"
• "He's a German, so I expected it"
• "the Estonians started the Holocaust in Estonia even before the Germans arrived their"
• "you have baltic blood offcourse you will try to denie the crimes of those to who some of your blood belonges to".
• Entire post, personal and racist attack
• "Say thankyou that we, as winners didn't delete you, allies of the Nazis, from this planet"
• "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people"
• "Stop this bullshit. The only reason that the baltics hate USSR, is because they are self-eated with hate. They baltic people feel little, useless".

He has been blocked before, with no effect. He has been asked to stop multiple times (see User talk:M.V.E.i. with no effect). He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets.

I thought this was a clear and obvious indefinite block. However, Alex Bakharev overturned my block and reduced it in length to a month. I've restored it and consulted with Alex, but he is still defending the user ("... if some edit can be interpreted as a racist hateful speech, might be it is worth to ask the author if the interpretation is correct? M.V.I.e. is not a native English speaker ...", "I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech"), and I am wondering if I am going mental, because as far as I can tell the racism and intent is obvious. Was this a valid indef block? Neil ╦ 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at his block log [34], I'd say some drastic action is needed. I'm not going to unblock, and if no-one does the ban is effective. Failing that, block him for a month, and warn him that next time it is three months, then he's out.--Doc^g 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have a separate noticeboard to discuss community blocks. The user is certainly problematic but I see no particular "racist" connotations in his comments. Estonians and Russians are supposed to belong to the same race, for a start. Perhaps he's mad about the Holocaust denial on the part of the Estonian government. A month-block was warranted, but indef block looks to have been motivated by off-wiki considerations. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Describing the French as all gay isn't racist? Describing all Estonians as having SS members for grandparents isn't racist? Really? And I don't understand your comment about "off-wiki considerations". Neil ╦ 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is an extreme form of xenophobia and nationalism rather than racism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. Are you sure that the Russians and the French belong to two distinct races? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're thinking of races too narrowly. The race taxonomy that was generally accepted in the heydays of racism (but most of which has become forgotten by now) is not a desk with Three Big Drawers. Instead, it was a tree, allowing the Nazis to hate the race of Gauls, even though both French and Germans (whom the Nazis generally didn't hate very much) are both of the Caucasian race as a 'main race'.

In general, any idea of ethnically comparative supremacy or inferiority is a manifestation of racism. That with the fall of racists from the power position, the more common categories used are bigotry or chauvinism does not nullify the racist aspect of these ideas. Digwuren 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is normal english usage to say "The Dutch Race" or "The Irish Race" - race is a very poorly defined word - see racism for the subtleties. WilyD 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  Race: I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.

  In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.

  — Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition

  Then perhaps we should stop using vague, fuzzy terms in block summaries. Once upon a time, I was told on this very noticeboard that speaking about racism between Jews and Arabs is technically incorrect and so better avoided. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now you're engaging in demagoguery. If you're unsure of what 'racism' means, you should read the article on racism. But a Wikipedian with your edit count would have known of this option already anyway, right? Digwuren 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This semantics discussion is pointless, there should be no real difference if person says "jews killed by nazis were subhumans" or "balts killed by soviets were subhumans".--Staberinde 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you refer me to a specific edit where M.V.E.i. referred to Balts as "subhumans"? If you can't, Digwuren's pontification indeed borders demagoguery. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't said that he said exactly that, I just brought it as good and simple example. But in reality he said something very similar: "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people)". What would you think if someone said "Besides, Nazi Germany never killed Slavic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Slavic Stalinists killed, there not considered people)"--Staberinde 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are you arguing semantics? That's not at all the point here. His comments are clearly absolutely inappropriate, whether you want to call them racist, xenophobic or otherwise.--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Because "racist" is a stronger term than "nationalist" or "xenophobic". A person indulging in racist remarks should be blocked indefinitely, while a person who makes nationalist remarks is just that... a nationalist; we have plenty of them in the project. Nobody defends the guy's comments; they indeed deserve a month-long block, but he should be given the last chance to repent and reform. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i don't make any distinction. Racist, xenophobic or my mamma name calling are all meant to make others feel like s**t. Calling someone a donkey, stupid arab, zionist israeli/jew or a supermacist american are all the same. I still don't fathom Wikipedia stance on this matter. All personal attacks of any nature should be treated w/ the same degree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All personal attacks are bad, but some of them are worse than others. In other words, not every PA deserves an indef block. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Both "nationalist" and "xenophobic" are self-relative terms. M.V.E.i has, in general, not displayed a consistent nationalist, or xenophobic attitude. However, he has repeatedly made racist claims, noting that racism does not require self-relativeness. In other words, if an Irishman believes that the Yukagirs are inferior to the Bantus, he's being racist but not a nationalist or a xenophobe. In order to be a nationalist, he would need to think that the Irish people are superior to either Yukagirs, Bantus or both. In order to be xenophobic, he would need to have a phobia regarding a foreign ethnicity. Your ideas of "stronger claim" are nothing but a social stigma, caused mostly by the aftermath of WWII; in reality, all of these three ideas are manifestations of the same ur-idea, and their absurdity stems from the same logic. Digwuren 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• One month was enough to see if he'd cool down. We won't lose anything if we test their behaviour change. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Fayssal. Please restore the block to one month. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil's comment that "He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets" appears to have been overlooked in the above discussion. Is this editor currently evading this block? --ElKevbo 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Define "currently". See, for example, [35] and [36]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd define "currently" as "is this editor evading the current block". --ElKevbo 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is leaning toards reducing to one month being an appropriate time out, then I have no problem with this. I would be delighted if M.V.E.i. would spend a month away thinking about his actions, without violating this block through the use of sockpuppets (which would be a first), and return as a civil and valuable contributor, no longer engaging in harassment, racism and hate speech. I am cheered that so many admins believe this will be the case. I really hope it is, too. However, I wouldn't bet one penny on it. Happy for anyone to reduce User:M.V.E.i.'s block to a month if and when a clear consensus is arrived it. Neil ╦ 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And note that I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts for a little while longer yet (he's blocked either way for at least another 29 days, no need to rush here). Neil ╦ 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reducing it to a month w/in 15 minutes. Any objection guys? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I just asked you to wait to ensure there's a good consensus (ie, not you, Alex and Nick). It will make no difference if you wait a few hours. Neil ╦ 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer me to a relevant passage in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN which leads you to discard my opinion as null and void. If you can't, I consider your action rather incivil and would welcome apologies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not incivil, just an oversight on my part. Apologies. Neil ╦ 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No rush. Let's wait. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Has M.V.E.i anywhere appologized for his comments? I mean he has made quite a few edits after being blocked(mainly with block evasion)[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], but I personally failed to see something where he would actualy understand that such comments are very wrong.--Staberinde 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. However, I once saw a comment of him that appears to have indicated that he at least understood wrongness of some of his comments. I can't find it right now, but this is the main reason I'm not objecting loudly to the "let's rediscuss in a month" plans offered above.

However, I'm still rather skeptical in M.V.E.i.'s reformation's possibility, and believe Alex Bakharev is overextending the benefit of doubt.

Considering that per WP:BLOCK, blocks are preventive, not punitive, my understanding is that it is desirable to have a block whose length would be comparable to M.V.E.i.'s estimated time of changing his ways. Without any remorse, such an estimate would obviously be very long. If M.V.E.i. repents and recants his evil ways, this would obviously directly factor into such an estimate.

The state of psychology research being what it is, any such estimate would be quite rough. My experience would suggest about 3 months as the roughly minimum time for a non-coercive reformation of this kind. Thus, I would suggest starting with a three-month block, and not counting upwards from it if he comes back after these three months reformed and then gets into troubles not related to continuous incivility. In a sense, this would be offering him a clean slate as long as he does not fall into old evils. Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So he is unrepentant? Jpgordon explained to him that his behaviour would not be tolerated. If he does not stop now, I would support banning this guy indefinitely. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'now' any better cut-off point than, say, May 10 ([42] -- [43])? Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: I've seen this kind of double measure from the part of Russian admins on Moldova- and Transnistria-related articles. The party perceived as pro-Russian or pro-Soviet usually gets helped in front of the other. Support meaning that minor and some major offences are forgotten for the pro-Russian, whereas rules are strictly applied for the others. Dpotop 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My view: One month is way too short for this kind of hate speech and incivility , no matter what "ism" is appropriate , without any signs of regret. Indefinite block seems just about right, since user has been blocked before, but because there is opposition and given allowance for expression, i think that minimal length for reforming should be three months. However, I feel that there is a most likely unintentional bias in Alex Bakharevs judgment so the final decision on the fate of this block should be made by an unrelated admin. It is hard to pass unbiased judgment on your "comrades in arms". --Alexia Death 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that indefinite block is appropriate. MVEi behaivour is way over line, also repeated block evasions([44], [45], [46], [47]) show inability to learn from mistakes. Finally he has had plenty of time to publicly appologize either here or on his talk page and I would find it really hard to advocate indefinite block if he had said "I am very sorry, it will not happen again.". But nothing like that has happened, on the contrary he seemed to think that shouting "LIAR" with full capital letters [48], accusing others in forming some kind of coalition aganist him [49], asking block of others [50] and accusing others playing cowboy [51], is correct way of action.--Staberinde 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's appalling that we'd even consider allowing a person who repeatedly makes such remarks to keep the privilege of editing Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Estonian users' shouting "Kill him! Kill him!" is absolutely unproductive. Alex Bakharev has "comrades in arms"? Give facts. "asking block of others" is criminal? No. (BTW, do you, Staberinde, remember the case, when DLX, while avoiding WP:DR, cherry-picked Sandstein, who blocked me, new editor, without a warning?) As to LIAR, I'm not a judge, but looks like he wasn't far from truth. Beatle Fab Four 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your own slurs. Please don't put words into my mouth. As you see I'm willing to give the person benefit of the doubt that after three months he can contribute sensibly. My remark on "comrades in arms"(note quotes) was based on impression that he and the subject of this debate have shared a side in number of articles. I however assume good faith in Alex Bakharev actions. And I still believe that final decision should be made by an unrelated admin.--Alexia Death 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is moot to begin with. User Ghirla applies double standards, defending "people of the same blood", yet resenting racism, with a history of advocating indef. blocks for "nationalist trolls"- whether Romanian, Polish, Lithuanian, amend list here. Just the usual "Russian" way of "all hell breaks lose upon you if you disagree and make a big hissy fit if you dont anyway". Im sorry Ghirla, but your history of (ab)use totally discredits your campaign war for incivility based along racialist lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.209.162 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 June 2007

I have to concur with the above statement. User Ghirla never misses a chance to advocate for Russian editors [52][53], no matter what they do. I haven't noticed him admonishing any Russian editors for anything either. People should be judged by their actions not by who they are or what nationality they are. This is the perceived bias that many people notice, when Russian editors get more advocats and always a second consideration that many others don't. --Hillock65 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, I'm glad that your 31-hour block has just expired. Would you put the blame on me again? Of course, there is a great Russian cabal, and Dmcdevit (who performed the block) is apparently part of it, right? User:Bonaparte knows that too well, but he did not miss his chance to join the latest trollfest above. Wikipedia is tolerant, but even its tolerance has its limits. I won't stoop to commenting to this thread again. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte being a troll does not make the provided edits less factual. And the limits for tolerance should be the same for all users. Which reminds me of Bonaparte: [His initial 12 or so blocks, from one day to one week] (by your co-national User:Mikkalai) were not for having socks, but for ethnic and sexual slurs, and this is what motivated his swift ban following the discovery of socks. How about applying the same rules here to your co-national User:M.V.E.i.? Dpotop 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ghirla, please don't insult people's intelligence with the above comments. I have never claimed that my block was unjust or accused anyone in mistreating me, I pointed out your bias in regards to Russian editors. It is everywere. If you don't stoop to acknowledge it, then someone else will. You never miss a point to point out at transgressions of others but blatantly prefer to overlook the same actions by the Russian editors. I am talking about the ones with the picture of Stalin proudly displayed on the front page[54]. The ones who recruit revenge squads on the Russian WP [55]. You not only knew about it, you participated in that discussion thread yourself, and yet never said a word to stop it! And yet you have the nerve to admonish others? --Hillock65 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil has a picture of Hitler on his user page, and so what? Having a dictator's picture on one's user page is not a crime. User:Piotrus wheel warred about unblocking his compatriots User:Molobo and User:Halibutt, and so what? Probably he knows them better then non-Polish editors do. You maintain uk:Вікіпедія:Ксенофобії — НІ! and uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Допомога англійській Вікіпедії, two special pages which urge Ukrainian editors to go to English Wikipedia and support your anti-Semitic edits on History of the Jews in Ukraine, so what? Well, in the latter case I am at a loss for an explanation, since for this very reason the page has to be permanently semiprotected. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, context. That picture is there as a joke - note the caption. This does not mean I am a Nazi (far, far from it). Neil ╦ 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, settle all your disagreements with other users the way you like it, the discussion is not about them. And if their actions are deemed improper by you, is that a reason to justify your own bias? In regards to several month old message boards on uk. wiki, I guess even you can see the difference between asking for attention on a particular article and calling to "help put the user X in his right place" which is the last line in the diff I cited above. I dln't see any diffs implicating me in directing someone to get you or someone else. Additionally, I was not taking "holier than thou" attitude and didn't even attempt to advocate for Ukrainian editors that got banned here. Whatever happens, people should get the same treatment be they Russian or not. Double standards if practiced by someone else do not give you the right to do the same. --Hillock65 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again and again and again, absolutely pointless speech. M.V.E.i is from Israel. Beatle Fab Four 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless, you say? Dpotop 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment the message above. I'm not a specialist in racial purity. Beatle Fab Four 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help at RFCN

Can someone nip down to RFCN, I've closed a discussion as allow because non latin character usernames are allows - 2 users keep reverting me, my fingers edging closer to the block button - hence why I'm posting here. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking either one of us because you are in a content dispute with us is not proper. But don't worry, I won't revert any further your unfair speedy close of an ongoing discussion. Corvus cornix 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have my own opinions about what RFCN urgently needs but I doubt anything will be gained by reiterating them. — CharlotteWebb 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Charlotte, that now me and you can finally agree on something here. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should never threaten to block someone you are in dispute with. Often these cases bring up lack of community support for a policy - why does the English wikipedia allow usernames people can't type and many can't display? It's not clearcut that we want this. Secretlondon 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#だってばよ

I posted a request for comment on the user name of User:だってばよ, which clearly violates policy at WP:UN which says be careful to avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users. User:Ryan Postlethwaite keeps closing the discussion, claiming the name is allowed by policy, but I see entirely the opposite, according to what I quoted above. And not only that, but Ryan Postlethwaite is accusing me of biting the newbie for having the audacity to make a respectful request that he change his name. Corvus cornix 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as they use the English transliteration in their signature, then the username (which is read as Dattebayo) is fine by policy as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, so if conrnux would like to stop being a dick and read policy before blind reverting me. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued amazement at people who think it's civil to call someone else a dick... /wangi 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if they revert my policy related closure - thats what they get. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The constant banding of WP:DICK really does piss me off... It's the assumption that it's not a "big deal" to badge someone as such... Well, lets look at it another way - I could say stop being a complete cunt. That's pretty much as acceptable where I come from :) Apologies for the off-topic rant. /wangi 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More of the same from Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to think that my repeated civil responses to the user were somehow biting him. Corvus cornix 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:DICK suggests that anyone invoking it is also one. Secretlondon 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I did read the policy, I've been quoting it to you. Alright, whatever, you want to allow people to have user names that only look like squares or question marks and can't be differentiated from anybody else'se user name with square or question marks, who am I to question an exalted one admin "we're admins, we don't work by consensus", indeed. Corvus cornix 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think we've all been saying. So what we should be doing is advising the user to change his signature, not telling him his username is just fine as it is. So the request should not have been closed as "allow," but as "allow on the proviso that the user change his signature to one that is readable by English users." Exploding Boy 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've told the user to do so on his userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(after much edit conflicting)The former prohibition on non-English names is not really enforced any more. At some point in the not-all-that-distant future, we are going to have m:Single User Login and we certainly aren't going to refuse to recognize users who register to other wikis then. If someone is going to be a regular participant (as opposed to just doing minor updates here while focusing on another language), as said above, they should be encouraged to add something English to their signature, but we can't really disallow these names any more. One thing that is really a good idea for everyone is to download some of the more common Asian font packs - that way, you can differentiate between nonsense (? marks and squares) vs international characters. --BigDT 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on en.wikipedia does not override consensus in the wider wikimedia community. This username is *permitted*. If this person edits often they may want to also include a latin signature, but that's for another day.

If you are seriously still having issues with squares and question marks, then please update your system. Software written this century typically has adequate UTF-8 support.

--Kim Bruning 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know what system they're using? How do you know it's not nine years old? How do UTF8 Japanese characters render on, say, a Braille display? Andy Mabbett 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They have their own braille system. See Japanese braille.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why would that be available to an English-language-Wikipedia user? Andy Mabbett 10:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ... there's no reason to be rude about it. Asian font packs are not automatically installed with 2000 and I could be wrong, but I don't think they were with all versions of XP. --BigDT 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And should you be on a public computer, you may not be able to install Asian font packs. Phony Saint 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Single user login has been in the not to distant future for well longer than I care to remember. --pgk 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In an MMO I play, such updates are called to be showing up Soon™.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the Duke_Nukem_Forever development team will get right on it as soon as they've finished the current project. --pgk 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the requirement of intelligible usernames from the nutshell of WP:UN to reflect current understanding of the policy. nadav (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is flexible - if the community wants usernames they can type and display then they can have it, surely? Policy is not law, set in stone. (The underlying argument is presumably about language imperialism, however as a user you function much better with a username people can read. Asking people to change their username to something that doesn't show up as blocks doesn't make you a nazi). Plenty of public computers don't have those fonts - and even with the fonts you can't type them. Secretlondon 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Prematurely. The policy clearly states that user names must not be confusing. We can't reasonably expect every user to have every character set installed on his or her computer. And even if we did, we can't expect every user of the English language Wikipedia to be able to read every character of every available language. Exploding Boy 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, my PC is less than two years old and runs on regularly updated Windows XP, and this username prints out as little squares on my monitor.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  ; 24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Uses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary 24.190.180.244[56] which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question [57] and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications [58] and when he gave a fairwell speech [59]

Warnings for 3rr violations [60], Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" [61] [62] His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda" [63]
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing credibility...you wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my country...so i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home..[64] "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [65]
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks [66] with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. [67] Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR.."[68]. Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking [69] [70]. Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. [71] Non- NPOV opinions, [72] Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " [73] Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material [74] , rationale behind support of a president [75].
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user [76] As well as removal of warnings on talk page. [77] YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Being Stalked

I'm having trouble with the editor User:TheRingess, who follows me around and chops my articles up. With the last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, she turned up before it was even finished and started chopping it up.

I'm not the only one who's had trouble with her. I got a message from User:Ganesham, who said he's had the same problems and had to change his name to shake her off. Apparently, if she doesn't like you, she watches you and chops up your contributions. It's got to the point where, if I want to write an article, I have to ask myself how TheRingess will react to it.

Someone please do something about this woman. She's ruining Wiki for so many p[eople.

Sardaka 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in the article you reference... she did some wikifying, removed personal email addresses, and reformatted your references so they fit the Wikipedia format, and those are all things that needed to be done. I don't see where she 'chopped up' the article at all- she seems to have improved it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you need to provide some diffs for what you claim. I generally turn a deaf ear (er, I guess a blind eye, in this case) to complaints that don't provide any evidence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like article ownership on Sardaka's part to me. I've looked at a few diffs ([78], [79], [80]), where Sardaka uses "my article" alot and where he demands explanations for all the changes (which are quite harmless). He also feels he should have been personally notified for the AfD on "his article". Meanwhile, he didn't bother to notify TheRingess about this report.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know the definition of "stalking" on Wikipedia myself, since I've been accused of doing it. When you observe somebody doing an edit you disagree with, then look at that user's edit history to find other similar edits, and possibly alter or revert them, is that "stalking"? *Dan T.* 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know. Stalking would be doing that just to annoy and disrupt that user's activities.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracking a user's edits you think is prone to making mistakes, vandalism or spamming, is common practice. Especially if those edits are in your area of interest. I haven't seen any evidence that TheRingess is following Sardaka around in bad faith.--Atlan (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not have found this thread if I had not been checking up on my own incident report regarding an editor who refuses to enage in mediation with me regarding very serious allegations of deliberate malfeasance on my part (there allegations are that I used Wikipedia to carry on a personal vendetta against a specific person who is the subject of an article) see #Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation.

Thanks to the editors who decided to respond. I like to think that it's always a good thing to have my own edits reviewed by fellow editors.

This is actually the 2nd time Sardaka has created an incident and not notified me. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Deletion of contributions].

I have to express that I feel somewhat stymied in my attempts to discuss material with this user. One such attempt, on his talk page, to discuss my specific edits, seems to have been ignored. See here

In one statement he made it clear that he thought I was engaged in "ownership" of a particular article. See Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 3#More on deleting other people's contributions.

TheRingess (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any merit to the charge of stalking. On the contrary, keeping an eye on the edit history of users once a problem has been identified elsewhere is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. My impression is that User:TheRingess has been doing exactly what editors are encouraged to do, which is demand compliance with policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR, and that these requests have not been well-received by User:Sardaka. If there is any problem here, it is with User:Sardaka who has made a number of uncivil comments in connection with this matter, and also in the course of discussion on an article that he or she authored which was eventually deleted (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shakti_mantras). User:Sardaka showed unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedures during that debate by deleting comments that I made regarding the article that in AfD (see: [81]). User:Sardaka, who may be unclear on Wikipedia procedures, has now taken this matter to the Village Pump: [82]. Buddhipriya 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of TheRingess and Buddhipriya trying to delete Sardaka's work. [[83]], where TheRingess and Buddhipriya are drowning out the only objective editor's suggestion to keep. And a link to some other documented examples of their personal vendettas in action: [[84]]. Over and out. Ganesham 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Over and out? Is that some kind of joke? The first diff is just a delete comment in an AfD discussion, with absolutely nothing to substantiate the "stalking" claim. Even crazier, the second diff is you calling TheRingess and Buddhipriya thugs and claiming they are ruining Wikipedia. You certainly didn't help Sardaka there. If anything, you got yourself a block for personal attacks out of this.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (that I have used Wikipedia to further a personal vendetta against a subject of a biographical article), I have preferred to keep all communication regarding these allegations on Wikipedia (for obvious reasons).TheRingess (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a note of support regarding TheRingess, I was requested by Sardaka to review her editing pattern, and yes I fully concur, the edits are entirely helpful. However, regarding Ganesham, nearly all the edits are criticising TheRingess, so the account could be a sock. Addhoc 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of crossposting going on at this point. I have replied to some of these matters here: [85]. The possibility of some sock at work did not occur to me, but I am wondering what a checkuser would show. Buddhipriya 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Durovina (not Durova)

Resolved

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

Based on the user page comment about whack-a-mole and the very odd pattern of user contributions, I believe this is a sock puppet of a banned user. Could an admin look at this please, and also see if those pages moves need to be undone. This looks like it could be sneaky vandalism. See also this complaint about Durivona copying somebody else's user page, in part. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user? Or is it merely a suspicion? Evilclown93 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Evilclown93, unless some concrete evidence can be provided. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the user page and the user's contributions. I believe Willy on Wheels has a history of page move vandalism. How many new users show up and start moving pages on day 1? How many new users say "let's play whack a mole." I posted here instead of WP:SSP because there are multiple issues: socks, sneaky vandalism, and inappropriate user name, if the user is seeking to disrupt by causing confusion with the real Durova. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Durovina hasn't edited in two months, so perhaps we can take a bit of time to figure it out. Or just block it as disruptive and leave it at that. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is check if those pages moves are legit, and if not, fix them. I don't know anything about nobility and titles. Somebody who does should look at this. We shouldn't leave socks laying around so they can pop up and do damage later. Semi-protection stops new users, but not aged socks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com, Alison will be happy to confirm it by the contribs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I left her a message. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

When a new user cuts a chunk from another wikipedian's userpage to make a userpage for himself and adopts the name of another wikipedian who is mentioned just below, I have some trouble in assuming good faith. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This account's actual contributions don't appear to be vandalism. Account was created April 11, made a couple of dozen normal-looking contributions, and then stopped the same day. (I did not see any page moves, just some redirects that appeared normal). Indef block is probably justified (pending user's clarification) based solely on the boast about sockpuppetry on the user page. (That's like waving a 'please block me' flag). If this is a sock of a banned user then adding that template would also be helpful. EdJohnston 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet of banned editor, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) - all the usual tells are there. Indefblocked now - Alison ☺ 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• And well, well - here's the answer - Alison ☺ 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock IP 87.234.91.126

Resolved

 – unblocked by User:Eagle 101 - Alison ☺ 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This IP has been blocked until 13:30, 25 May 2012 because the computer behind it was an open proxy. This long term doesn't make any sense since this is a dynamic IP (ISP is QSC). (I couldn't even ask earlier because even logged in users with that IP are blocked from editing here.) --32X 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask the blocking admin, User:Eagle 101. If you find yourself autoblocked because you are using this IP address, add {{Unblock-auto}} to the IP talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Investigate, delete, salt block

Resolved

 – article salted and protected

A case probably needing investigation, deleting, salting, and blocking has come to my attention. This newspaper article led me to this Robert Crampton wikipedia article, which I tagged for feletion, appears to habe been deleted and then recreated. I looked at the first edit by the guy who recreated the article and his name and first edit seems like maybe he and his friends should be blocked. Something spamish/trollish is going on here by multiple accounts. WAS 4.250 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Article salted and protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishbone Ash

Please see the history of Wishbone Ash; the user DiamondJack (talk · contribs), along with two IP ranges, 212.139.77.242 (talk · contribs) and 80.47.54.122 (talk · contribs) have been vandalizing the page. I put in a request at WP:RFP so that the 212 IP range would desist from replacing the Creative Commons image Image:281873485 4eae256491.jpg with the WP:FU image Image:Band 1989.jpg. I also went through the page and removed WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:NPOV/unsourced statements. Diamonjack has returned and mass reverted again twice in order for the information of "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" (a different entity then Wishbone Ash and given mention at Wishbone_Ash#2000.E2.80.93present already) to continue to exist. I am bringing this here because, even though I feel this does not break the WP:3RR rule, I want someone else to see and possibly evaluate this situation and whether the recent edits should be wholesale reverted. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I reverted back, noting that I never removed any thing about the other "band" and requested on the users page not to revert it. Most of all, the user is removing the protection tag. Please advise. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've warned User: DiamondJack for 3RR just now. Also, the article is now fully protected. This has been going on for months and really needs to stop - Alison ☺ 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User 71.235.81.39

Resolved

 – user blocked for 48 hrs

This editor has been reported before, but no action has been taken. The editor continues to attack other users, including his most recent edit (not sure how to link it, but Talk:New England, time index 9 June 21:29 UTC is one instance). The editor has been warned about civility many times, yet no action has been taken. Please consider this user for blocking for violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA to name a few. Thanks for your time. Neo16287 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?

I've just blocked The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for this. I'm getting ready to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message, but I'm wondering, has this user ever been constructive? Is there any reason not to just go to indef now? ··coelacan 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A no brainer, Coelacan. Indefblock indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm asking is if we indef, this one might just sockpuppet, whereas this account is not hard to keep tabs on. I know this is hard to predict, though. =/ ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, has his account been compromised? Based on his edit histories, It is very unusual of him to go rogue. Indeed I agree with the indef block, but only as a temporary measure until things sort out.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised. I don't think this is unusual; are we talking about the same "Anonymous One"? He's been planning this. I knew when that question showed up on the reference desk that there was trouble ahead. Other users warned him not to "make an ass of himself" but I'm honestly starting to wonder if he understands what that means. ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• What the--?! That behavior is unacceptable. Based on this diffs above, I support the indefblock. Again, that behavior is not tolerated.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. There's absolutely no excuse for his actions tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reported him to Coelacan to begin with, I strongly support this block; however, there should be no problem allowing him back if and when he apologizes for his behavior and pledges not to repeat it, or anything remotely like it, again. Perhaps he should individually apologize to each and every user he harassed.

Though having looked further through his contribs, there seems to be a good deal of religion-related disruption; more than a matter of a simple apology would be needed, more like a very broad topical ban. Not sure.Proabivouac 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my…User talk:The Anonymous One#BlockProabivouac 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is persistently and perversely disruptive on topics of religion. He has form for this behaviour. His indignant responses to warnings and blocks show no sign of acceptance that his behaviour is unacceptable. Support indefblock. Worries about socks should play no part in the decision making on this issue. --Dweller 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock, per lack of contrition shown on his talk page. Rationalizing that kind of harassment is not acceptable, ever. I dunno how much weight my opinion carries as a non-admin, but under no circumstances should he be allowed back.--Blueboy96 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been an unmitigated pest ever since he got here. His latest tirade of attempted self justification indicates that he still has no grasp of what this project is for - and more importantly what it's not for - despite having it explained to him a number of times. He is here for only one purpose: to seek out people of various religious convictions and confront them with comments which he knows full well are going to be inflammatory. Since he shows complete inability to take on board what is said to him and modify his behaviour accordingly, I am definitely in favour of an indef block. His disappearance will be a positive benefit to the community here. --Stephen Burnett 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it depresses me, endorse. He was told from the second he got that list (well, category) to be responsible and courteous with it, which he blatantly went against. That was bad enough, but then he tried to defend his actions... I don't feel it's possible for him to have any positive effect on Wikipedia or it's community. A quick glance at the numerous warnings on his talk page is sign enough for this -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can someone please do something about this user: Filips 85 and his anon alter ego 91.150.121.215 (the IP is probably the same person before he registered). He did blatant vandalism to several articles regarding Dražen Petrović, Goran Ivanišević and Marko Perković. His only aim is by my first impression only to vandalize articles, especially ones regarding Croats. For what reason I do not know. --No.13 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum;WP:AIV would be. Second, he's not correctly warned. See WP:WARN. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I registered only recently. Thank you. --No.13 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated NPA

Not sure if this is the correct forum but don't know where to go. Omegatron has in the past days taken it upon himself to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.[89][90][91][92][93][94] (I provided the discussion since just reading his comments suffices, if needed I can of course add the seperate diffs) For some reason he ignores my repeated requests to stop this behaviour. His most recent response is that I should start an RFC.[95][96] While I don't think it warrants that I do want him to stop using ad hominems on my person. Specifically, how is does adding tags to his article to ask for WP:RS qualify as being disruptive? Could somebody advise/intervene in this matter?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time Omegatron has been warned for his repeated attempts at making false claims of disruption, his use of ad hominem and misrepresentation to try to browbeat someone and then using the "report me" taunt. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Fnagaton 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC is more appropriate here? Evilclown93 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing where Omegatron is acting significantly out of line. Simply stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith. If/when he stated that you were trying to be disruptive, then this would be frowned upon.

In your own links, I see Omegatron attempting to contact you only to be stonewalled, while his attempts to contact other people with opposing viewpoints have resulted in a civil consensus. I imagine this situation is very complicated and nuanced, but from what I've seen, there is no need for administrative intervention against Omegatron. –Gunslinger47 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In my links you see Mr O going around calling me disruptive and tendentious. Have you understood why? Because he does not want to produce WP:RS, and let an advertisement be either altered or deleted. In any case, I think if all editors were allowed to call opposing editors all sorts of names we mights just as well get rid of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Heck, what is the point if "stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith." Let me state the belive that that particular user is a (fortunately I do accept that I need to refrain from such statements)Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that Omegatron is making false accusations of disruptive behaviour when editors make changes he doesn't agree with. That and the general bad attitude. Fnagaton 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is back

Resolved

IP blocked (several, actually) (But really, use WP:RFCU for this.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One of our favorite puppet shows, JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is on the loose again. Three socks have popped up today:

• BBPscar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CICPpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scream Machine 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hopefully he'll eventually give away his open proxy so we can shut his mic for good.--Blueboy96 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And Scallop pope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not blocked yet. --YFB ¿ 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out 219.71.242.145 (talk · contribs). May be the range -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, he's not really "back" -- it's more like he never left. But yeah, Moeron; that IP looks suspicious. --Haemo 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Next up, Homie quarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ! --Haemo 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this corner, 68.14.37.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Haemo 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ding ding: 24.109.87.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trumpscoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --YFB ¿ 04:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you get IP addresses, don't bother hitting them with 48 hours. Assume they are open proxies unless you have evidence to believe they are not, and in def them (had a discussion with jpgordon, who is the checkuser on this) we can confirm it by looking them up on the RBLs list. SirFozzie 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This Day In History error on main page

Resolved

I'm not sure where to post this and I think time is probably of the essence here. The "On This Day" section shows that the U.S. paid $6,000 for ransom of U.S. prisoners in the First Barbary War but the article says $60,000. I think someone left a zero off. Since admins can edit the main page perhaps someone can fix it. I posted this at the Anniversaries page too. Thanks JodyB _talk 10:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Merope has corrected this. — freak(talk) 10:44, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)

Password requests from an IP address

195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has sent me 4 password requests over the course of an hour, can someone please block this IP address for me?? I reported it at WP:AIV but was told that here was the best place to mention it, so I'm mentioning it here.

If the IP address is blocked it'll probably stem the flow of password requests... --SunStar Net ^talk 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from AIV, once, before you reported second time. Like I said there, I dont see the anon making any on-wiki edits requesting password. Nor were the edits vandalism. How was the request made, then? Email? If so, blocking wont have any effect. You better create a filter in your mail service. --soum ^talk 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the change password requests, unless you enter the password it sends you then your account will remained unchanged. It is just a way that people can bug you. ^(H) 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been getting one or two of these a day for the last few days and I've been studiously ignoring them. I suppose it is just low-level irritation, presumably from some problematic user one has warned or blocked. --John 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten these too and did not know what they were. I think this type of harassment should be considered a reportable offense, with a warning message put on the talk page of the IP address just as one would warn for any other type of vandalism. Is there a set of standard warning tags for this? Buddhipriya 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Physik/User:Dude user page issue

Resolved

Physik wanted to change his name to Dude, so he moved his user page to User:Dude. Obviously, this is not the proper way to rename an account, but he didn't know that and I've directed him to Wikipedia:Changing username where he said he wants a different name. Could an admin move User:Dude back to User:Physik over the redirect and delete User:Dude? Also, he's got some images on there that he probably shouldn't. This may be a good time to discuss that with him. Leebo ^T/C 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I've removed the fair use images from the userpage too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll continue to answer his questions when he has them, but this was a great help. Leebo ^T/C 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like User:Seewolf

Someone seems to hold a grudge against Seewolf (talk · contribs) and Benutzer:Mnh, both admins on the German Wikipedia. I have just blocked Harald "Seewolf" Krichel muss weg! (talk · contribs), but a quick look at the history of Seewolf's userpage shows a lot more vandals:

• Mnh lutscht den Schwanz von Harald Krichel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (translation: Mnh jerks Harald Krichel's cock)
• Mnh stinkt! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Mnh smells!)
• Harald Krichel ist ein Grüsel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald Krichel is a freak!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel stinkt wie ein Jauchefass! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel smells like a manure tank!)
• Harald "Seewolf" Krichel wixt beim Scheissen! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Harald "Seewolf" Krichel masturbates while taking a crap!)

In the user creation log, I've found the following accounts:

• Mnh du dreckiger Arsch! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mnh lutscht fremde Schwänze! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harald Krichel hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf hebt seinen Schwanz raus. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Seewolf steigt mit Mnh in die Badewanne. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The vandal also seems to be active on other Wikipedias: nl:Gebruiker:Mnh lutscht Administratorenschwänze!, nl:Mnh ist ein Arschloch!, nl:Gebruiker:Da hat er recht. Seewolf ist ein Schwein!, it:Utente:Mnh onaniert beim Scheissen!. This doesn't include IP vandals. Please keep an eye out for anyone targetting Seewolf or Mnh, either in username or in edits. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And for future reference, the following vandal accounts are also related:

• Harald Krichel stinkt! Pfui Teufel! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Harald Krichel ist eine Sau! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Aecis^Brievenbus 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen and other stuff

68.60.137.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making unsourced and POV edits, particularly with the Hayden Christensen article, which s/he has "warned" me not to change. Ironically, I've incorporated some of hir changes into the article, but that's apparently not good enough for them. They have been previously warned and blocked, but continue with the same behavior. If they could please be blocked for whatever the maximum possible length might be (like, at least a week?), that would be lovely. Thanks all. -Ebyabe 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I reported this at WP:AIV, but they referred me here. -Ebyabe 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP a little note about owning an article, and that improvements should be encouraged. Keep us posted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankee! Although I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of warning them, based on the prior pattern of behaviour. I know, I know, assume good faith. We'll see what happens, but sometimes a leopard just doesn't change their stripes. Or something like that. :) -Ebyabe 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin blocking an IP indef

Resolved

86.146.160.218 only made 5 edits to articles, which looking at the contributions didn't even seem to vandalize anyway, and it has been blocked indef by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs) for some reason. Is there any particular reason he did this? because inef blocking an Ip seems unfair. Francisco Tevez 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its fine, he reduced the block duration. Francisco Tevez 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little note: the future, it would be better to discuss things like this with the admin before posting here. Have fun wikiing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq (talk · contribs · logs) and Personnal attack

• Would not this deserve reaction : [97] ? Alithien 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible disruption

User:Hubier (his contribs) has been uploading dozens of images with no sources, no fair use rationales and using them to replace all of the James Bond film posters. Just about every one was deleted by a bot for having no information, so now he's just replacing the current posters with red links. I don't know if he knows they are all deleted. I didn't know where to take this, because it doesn't seem to be a clear case of vandalism, just plain disruption. The posters he was trying to use, even if they had sources, were not better than what was already there, some looking fan made. He was asked to stop several times by myself and another editor, but he refuses. I was hoping for some assistance on how to handle this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I will unblock this user if he agrees to abide by our non-free content policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like he's decided to simply not log in. User:72.205.56.90 put in the image that Hubier uploaded. Diff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious sockpuppet User:BryanFromPalatine is back

Resolved

 – Already blocked -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Dean Hinnen, he claims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.163 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs on which your claim is based? Looking at your edit history, all you've done on Wikipedia so far is claim FreedomAintFree is a sockpuppet all over the place. I wonder how you've come to that conclusion.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. - Merzbow 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the above user (Xboxwarrior) quacking? Interesting contribs. - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated purging of text

Akhristov (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes text from the article Podilsko-Voskresenska Line w/o any real reasoning [98], [99], [100], [101]

Considering that there was no consensus on the talk page, I was wondering could this kind of extreme WP:POINT-violating behaivour be classed as Vandalism. I mean the article is a subway line and the text he is removing is of the language that the whole city speaks. And his only reason is I really have a strong point of view on this.... Do politics justify disruptive behaivour? Considering that these four (as of me writing this) edits are the only ones he did to the article so far. --Kuban Cossack 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the user is violating WP:3RR. I will place a warning in his user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is real, and a consensus was reached prior to the edit war. User:Kuban kazak has a prior history of edit warring, see [102]. My reasoning is on the talk page, and Kuban kazak was continuously reverting to his revision, which didn't gain consensus yet. This is why I reverted to my revision, since it gained prior consensus. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I marked this incident as unresolved until my comment above is commented on. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not a unilateral near-violation of 3RR. Both parties should have been notified of that. Anyways, protecting the article was the right call. Also, the comments by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) at Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line#Russian name seems to be assuming bad faith. His contibs history shows him as a good editor, but block log suggests he is a bit over zealous.Corrected username. — Alex^(U|C|E) 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that umber of edits is not the yardstick to measure the validity of an edit. It should be on the merit of the edit in question. --soum ^talk 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that two days back he was blocked for edit warring for one and a half days on another Russian/Ukranian dispute. As soon as he gets out of the block, he starts doing it on another article. That aspect does bother me. --soum ^talk 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want sysops to do? To support one of the parties to this content dispute? This noticeboard is not part of dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not take sides, be impartial. Both sides should have been warned for impending 3RR violation, thats my point. Its us admins who have to act on the merits of the case, not merits of reporting. Its our responsibility to ensure that content dispute does not end up being disruptive. --soum ^talk 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the dispute has matured into a WP:MEDCAB, if anybody is interested please participate. --Kuban Cossack 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

Could someone please take a look at what this administrator user:Alkivar has been doing. On more than one occasion he has removed huge chunks of information from an article, then proceeds to fully protect it so that no one else can edit it! (like in this case [103] [104]). Surely there is no policy that allows this is there? Where we have to seek the permission of an Administrator to edit an article? 124.176.27.127 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that doesn't look right at all. An editor has contacted Alkivar on three occasions about this article without receiving any response. As it does not appear to be a correct use of an indefinite full protection, and as Alkivar has given no response to inquiries, I'm going to restore it to semi-protected. I'll leave a note on Alkivar's page linking back to this discussion. -- Merope 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Biographies of living person, the policy which governs biographical articles, says to remove any text that is not attributed to reliable sources. So, the removal is justified. As for the protection, people were reinserting the unsourced content without addressing the concerns. So, protection is also justified. Though whether an indefinite is proper or not I'm not sure. But indefinite is not infinite. Please find references that you can attriute such content to, without which they are not allowed here. Even if the article is protected, you can discuss the changes on the talk page. Once you are done aggregating the sources, request an unprotection. --soum ^talk 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hum and look at the differences it's burntsauce again. I've got to ask - is Alkivar in his pocket? --Fredrick day 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like enforcing BLP to me. ^(H) 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that this was all "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" (emphasis added)? Seems a bit excessive to me particularly when the admin in question has not responded to multiple questions about his edits. --ElKevbo 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that removing that much material went too far. He even took out basic information like a description of his role on AFHV and what he's currently up to. I would say about 75% of the removal was inappropriate since it wasn't nearly contentious.--Wafulz 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support bringing this back to semi-protection (I semi-protected it last month due to libel concerns) — if the material was unsourced, which was largely the case, then it should have been removed according to policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

(this argument is identical to the one a bit below this, resubmitted in some sort of lag-time glitch. The only difference is that an additional admin weighed in below.)

Arcayne (talk · contribs), who has been involved in a five-month, protracted conflict with me on Children of Men, has begun following me to other articles in order to disrupt, this time ALF.[105] I politely asked him to stop, [106] at which point he ignored my concerns and responded with a series of personal attacks and incivility on my talk page and other places, consisting of "You have absolutely nothing to say that I find compelling or interesting", and "That I happen to notice that a disambiguation that I happened to visit is being messed up by someone means I will contribute" and "You are a pariah in the Wiki community." [107] [108] [109]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [110] [111], in the process ignoring the consensus on talk and reverting myself, User:JHunterJ, and User:Bkonrad. An ongoing discussion about this topic is also occurring on Talk:Alf (disambiguation). He has now attempted to add nonsensical comments to a closed move request from 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC), in the process voting "strongly oppose" based on nothing more than opposition to me.[112] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[113] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it is ammusing to see double, I would suggest that dispute resolution is that-a-way -->. Viridae^Talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and personal attacks are a dispute? I'm just asking for the behavior to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while Virtiditas and myself have disagreed mightily on content within the CoM article, that was the only place wherein we really had contact. I believe that the user has made more than enough personal attacks to warrant a stronger AN/I report against him in the past, but it was just myself (other editors wanting nothing to do with him), which wouldn't meet the 2-editor requirement. Reporting him for past 3RR violations has actually gotten both of us blocked for edit-warring in CoM, and has caused me to withdraw from the article significantly (this would not be the first time an editor has withdrawn fromt hat particular article due to Viriditas' behavior) Clearly, I dislike the editor in question, and will make every attempt to ignore the young man in future dealings, but being accused of wiki-stalking is rather serious.

No, I haven't been wiki-stalking Viriditas. I have over a hundred articles on my watchlist, and came across the Alf dispute by happenstance. It wasn't until I was already involved that I learned it was one of Viriditas' edited articles. That's when the accusations of wiki-stalking arose from him repeatedly. Actually, I have noticed a great many other times where I have made a comment in many different areas wherein Viriditas injected himself into the conversation, seemingly out of nowhere. This rather tells me that my contributions are watchlisted by him, which is frankly rather creepy when the editor watchlisted isn't a friend or a like-minded contributor. I could pull up these instances, but I pretty much brushed off the occurrences as bothersome but not really all that important. But I can provide them if requested. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it bears mentioning that this would not be the first time that Viriditas has made unsubstantiated claims against me. Back when I first started editing in WP, he accused me of sock-puppetry, when someone else disagreed with his edits in Children of Men. Later, he accused me of meat-puppetry in the same article, nearly ruining a WP newbie's impression of the Project in the process. This is just another one of those times. I am not making excuses for my less than polite addresseing of Viriditas (I was wrong), but I think there is just so much you should have to take from a bully before pushing back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

user: LessHeard vanU has assumed bad faith and lied that I have trolled

I am just here to make sure someone keeps an eye out on this administrator and talks to him about assuming bad faith and lying that I have trolled. He told me I was trolling and trying to cause trouble for no reason, so I'm afraid he might block me for no reason like he's done in the past. What he is referring to as trolling is actually about an observation I made about user Danielfolsom. I have actually been more than patient with user Danielfolsom. He told me he was going to get uncivil with me and he didn't care if he broke the rules, and instead of reporting him, I responded very politely towards him and instead complimented him if you look here. [[114]] [[115]] Anyway, I let Daniel get away with that comment without reporting so the user and I should be on good terms.

Anyway, I have taken a look at the Migospia talk page, and there's a very long, drawn-out argument going on between Rockpocket, user: LessHeard vanU and Danielfolsom. I know Rockpocket and Danielfolsom have a tendency to gang up on people, and it really wasn't fair to the editor they're ganging up on. Anyway, I notice Daniel has agreed with Rockpocket about how unkind it is to use the word newbie and berates Migospia about it for the majority of the argument. However, Daniel only used the word a couple days ago without ever being told it was wrong. I point that out to Daniel right here. [[116]] I also do it in a friendly manner as noted by this [[117]]. I was hoping the editor would understand since I didn't report him when I could have a couple days ago.

However, Administrator User: LessHeard vanU calls it trolling, in the 2nd to last paragraph right here [[118]]. I'm only informing the Administrative noticeboards so they can keep an eye out on him. He HAS unfairly banned me in the past, only for 3 hours so I never even knew I'd been banned until it had been over for a great deal of time so I chose not to report the administrator here at the noticeboards. I mean, just by the length of the ban, I think he knew he had no right to ban me at all. He actually banned me only because I said I was going to show the warning he gave me to wikipedia because I felt he wasn't willing to discuss things with me, but only get defensive with warnings.

The point is, I certainly wasn't trolling in this issue where I point out, in a very friendly way, that Daniel has used a word that he is berating another user for directly after Rockpocket has already talked to the user about the word being bad. I have brought the issue here for someone to talk to LessHeard VanU because I wasn't trolling and he may try to impose another unfair ban at some point and abuse his powers again. If you could talk to administrator and let him know that I wasn't trolling and to use good faith, I would very much appreciate that. EverybodyHatesChris 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing people of lies, in bad faith, is trolling. You're arguing over the use of the word "newbie". How dumb is that? Not to mention you're stating " I won't let <administrators name here> abuse their admin powers the way that rockpocket abused his. FOMG admin abuse. You all need to just drop the issue and stop whining about stupid things. [119][120],[121],[122],[123] ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why EHC was there in the first place. But yes it was stupid at first but it sooned turned hateful and hurtful and did not need to happean and Daniel needs to like EHC not be a troll. A troll is someone who comes into a conversation trying to start things for their sick pleasure thats what Daniel did and needs to stop because it was hurtful. That's all I am sayin there was no need it was pointless just a ploy to hurt people--Migospia†♥ 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully Swatjester. You're making incorrect remarks. I AM NOT arguing over the use of the word, "Newbie!" Daniel and administrator Rockpocket are the ones upset at Migospia for using the word newbie. I did not bring up newbie being a bad word. User Rockpocket and Danielfolsom are berating Migospia about it, so I point out that Daniel has used the word as well and Lessheard told me I was trolling. EverybodyHatesChris 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone just AGF for a moment?? --Dark Falls ^talk 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have. It's administrator LessHeard that has not if you read what I wrote. It's most important for the administrators to know the rules because they can ban and block people and do so unfairly. He really does need to be talked to, guys. I can't stress this enough. Someone really needs to step in and make sure he's assuming bad faith and lying about me being a troll like he just has, and then abusing his administrative powers by banning me for telling him I was going to go to the administrative boards because I didn't think I deserved a warning EverybodyHatesChris 03:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:209.247.21.121

I received a message in my email that this user attempted to retreive a new password for me. Looking through the contribution history, I see nothing but warnings and vandalism. Would it be appropriate to ask for a block? -N 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me after I blocked 204.108.96.19. The next day I received an email stating that I'd requested a new password from the IP 204.108.97.205. Both are registered to the Los Angeles Unified School District. I don't think it's much to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

Arcayne (talk · contribs), who has been involved in a five-month, protracted conflict with me on Children of Men, has begun following me to other articles in order to disrupt, this time ALF.[124] I politely asked him to stop, [125] at which point he ignored my concerns and responded with a series of personal attacks and incivility on my talk page and other places, consisting of "You have absolutely nothing to say that I find compelling or interesting", and "That I happen to notice that a disambiguation that I happened to visit is being messed up by someone means I will contribute" and "You are a pariah in the Wiki community." [126] [127] [128]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [129] [130], in the process ignoring the consensus on talk and reverting myself, User:JHunterJ, and User:Bkonrad. An ongoing discussion about this topic is also occurring on Talk:Alf (disambiguation). He has now attempted to add nonsensical comments to a closed move request from 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC), in the process voting "strongly oppose" based on nothing more than opposition to me.[131] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[132] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it is ammusing to see double, I would suggest that dispute resolution is that-a-way -->. Viridae^Talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and personal attacks are a dispute? I'm just asking for the behavior to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you, in this case, Viriditas. You've taken unreasonable control over Children of Men, and have prevented other users from adding any material that you personally don't like, whether it meets the standards of the policies or not. Arcayne was a new editor when you first did this to him, and was understandably bewildered by it. As for the other examples you give above, you're telling only half the story, as you know, and I see that Bkonrad has abused his admin tools during the dispute, perhaps because you requested his assistance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while Virtiditas and myself have disagreed mightily on content within the CoM article, that was the only place wherein we really had contact. I believe that the user has made more than enough personal attacks to warrant a stronger AN/I report against him in the past, but it was just myself (other editors wanting nothing to do with him), which wouldn't meet the 2-editor requirement. Reporting him for past 3RR violations has actually gotten both of us blocked for edit-warring in CoM, and has caused me to withdraw from the article significantly (this would not be the first time an editor has withdrawn fromt hat particular article due to Viriditas' behavior) Clearly, I dislike the editor in question, and will make every attempt to ignore the young man in future dealings, but being accused of wiki-stalking is rather serious.

No, I haven't been wiki-stalking Viriditas. I have over a hundred articles on my watchlist, and came across the Alf dispute by happenstance. It wasn't until I was already involved that I learned it was one of Viriditas' edited articles. That's when the accusations of wiki-stalking arose from him repeatedly. Actually, I have noticed a great many other times where I have made a comment in many different areas wherein Viriditas injected himself into the conversation, seemingly out of nowhere. This rather tells me that my contributions are watchlisted by him, which is frankly rather creepy when the editor watchlisted isn't a friend or a like-minded contributor. I could pull up these instances, but I pretty much brushed off the occurrences as bothersome but not really all that important. But I can provide them if requested. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it bears mentioning that this would not be the first time that Viriditas has made unsubstantiated claims against me. Back when I first started editing in WP, he accused me of sock-puppetry, when someone else disagreed with his edits in Children of Men. Later, he accused me of meat-puppetry in the same article, nearly ruining a WP newbie's impression of the Project in the process. This is just another one of those times. I am not making excuses for my less than polite addresseing of Viriditas (I was wrong), but I think there is just so much you should have to take from a bully before pushing back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An odd speedy...

Resolved

I just deleted User:Chris Dreyfus and I've got to sign off for the day...Could an admin or two check it out? The page was initially created by Chris Dreyfus (talk · contribs) as a full article, some sort of cut & paste of Alfred Dreyfus with a few changes. It was edited by Islingtonlad (talk · contribs) to seemingly make it applicable to a real-life Chris Dreyfus, apparently Ukportal (talk · contribs), who blanked the page & subsequently asked for the speedy.

I speedied it to be on the safe side with personal info, and I'm bringing it here for more eyes. I've got to go now, so if anyone thinks an RFO is a good idea, please do so. I certianly don't have time to email the user to verify anything right now...is there anything that should be done? Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was there, but based on the information I have it looks like the speedy deletion was a correct decision, and nothing more needs to be done. YechielMan 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back...I appreciate the support, YechielMan. I think all I'll do is message the parties involved of my actions and be done with it. I'll give Ukportal a link to the RFO page. — Scientizzle 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lizziebor

Could an admin or two review the block/unblock/reblock of Lizziebor (talk · contribs)? This newbie may have used a sockpuppet IP and inserted false information into the article Lucille Ball, but I'm not sure if these offenses are enough to merit an indefinite block. The user is rather new, and might not know better; on the other hand, he/she may have bad-faith motives. Any opinions on the matter? Gracenotes^T § 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, giving them a second chance. I rarely support indefinite blocks for first offences. Would be happy fot eh block to be re-instated if she is caught again. However I am hoping that won't happen. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Benito

Once again, the user "Benito" (a.k.a. Benito484847, Benitothedon, and Benitoisback) has returned to harass me and vandalise my user page. He's now "OTINEB," which, as he points out on my talk page, is Benito backwards. This is the third time he's flouted the block. Is there anything more permanent that can be done to stop him? --Juansidious 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I'd suggest reverting and ignoring, denying recognition, etc and he'll eventually get tired and decide to go outside or something. If talk-page harassment becomes an ongoing problem, let me know and we could consider temporary semi-protection. You could also consider a request for IP check at WP:RFCU, although I couldn't say for sure whether they'll go through with it. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

BassxForte (talk · contribs) / Vilerocks (talk · contribs) shares his password

User BassxForte, who is also user Vilerocks (as claimed on both user pages), admits he shares his account password with other people here [133], who apparently use it for occasional joke edits.--Atlan (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him go out onto the actual articles without my supervision, my userpage(s) are the only things I let them run wild at. BassxForte 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has a history of unproductive editing and behaviour going on since January, and he is on very, very thin ice at the moment. I have made unsuccessful attempts on ANI, RFC and CN already. I plan to take it to Arbitration very soon. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. I just accidentally stumbled upon his comment on that talk page. His history of unproductive editing is therefore not really an issue here.--Atlan (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying how it's relevant. The relevant part is that he is extremely unlikely to change any of his habits, so if you want to try to make him stop sharing his password, it won't work. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that, I, the correct user of this name, was in complete control of those edits when they were made. Vilerocks 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does one person have two user names? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? --myselfalso 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was probably due to this whole password thing, but he got his old account back. He probably doesn't know what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the rule existed until just now, when you mentioned it. Furthermore, the rule you gave mentioned that it is "discouraged", not that it was against the rules. Vilerocks 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, on one userpage I provide a link to the other, making it bluntly obvious Vilerocks and BassxForte are one and the same, and I havn't attempted to use the Vilerocks name to bend the rules to my advantage. (In other words, I haven't voted twice on a poll, used them ti suggust that there are more people arguing in my favor in an argument, etc.) BassxForte 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have an issue if you have two user names. I just thought that Sock puppetry didn't allow this. Obviously there are cases that having an additional user name might be necessary. But the issue at hand isn't having two user names, the issue is that you've shared your password. --myselfalso 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him just run around wikipedia wth my password randomly, looking through my contribuations history( for both accounts) the only thing he ever edited without my supervision was my userpages. Vilerocks 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's just not allowed to share an account.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vilerocks just finished a 24h ban for 3RR(hence the lack of reply), and I don't know much about the bot archival on this page so I'm killing two birds with one stone here by notifying you about the ban as well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive revert warring

Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are currently engaged in a massive revert war concerning external links on a large number of pages. Both users have been warned extensively about their behavior, but continue to persist in it nonetheless. See, for example, the page histories of Hideki Matsui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ichiro Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kevin Youkilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hank Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ross Baumgarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It may be advisable to enforce the portion of the three-revert rule which states that

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

John254 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

• Nishkid64 is now mediating and this seems to be more chill for the moment.--Chaser - T 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the links are "Yankees Suck" I'm fine with it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Red Sox fan, there's a joke in there about Yankees Suck being NPOV.. but I won't go there ;) SirFozzie 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl isn't stopping. On the Wikiproject baseball talk page there was consensus about certain external links which he agreed with...then he turned around and deleted them from article anyway [134]. He is also deleting wholesale information from Kevin Youkilis again. IrishGuy ^talk 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, when I tried to contact him about it on his talk page, he blanked it with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. Another attempt at contact was again blanked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend blocking in this circumstance, it's clear at least one of them simply isn't listening. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has blanked my attempts to communicate three times. He doesn't seem to care what other editors or admins think. IrishGuy ^talk 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl does not respond well to any suggestions that his actions are not the correct ones. I had a recent disagreement with him over my asking him to only tag articles for speedy deletion that actually met the criteria, and he got very haughty indeed. The usual thing to do when an editor fails to respond to requests from multiple others to stop what they are doing is to make them stop what they are doing for a period of time. Neil ╦ 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh you guys have got to be kidding me. First of Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable. I have started blanking my talk page because everyone and their mothers comes by to drop a Warning or threat. I have engaged everyone where possible, including irishguy. I too fell victim to something that Neil did to me and called IrishGuy an idiot. I promptly appologized on his talk page and will be happy to provide a link if need be. That aside, more people like to talk about me than the actual issues. I have read WP:EL many times, I have asked for advice from outside parties, MANY times, and all i get is a bunch of people who cry about the fact that i am BOLD. I am receptive to open discussion and happy to go along with consensus, but I am not going to let a few misguided people "put me in my place". You guys come out of the woodwork to do nothing but complain - JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER!!!! I tagged a number of pages as CSDs because they are not for notable people. Was a discussion started? No, I was called an idiot and a disruptive person because the nominator feared the content would be removed. Might I point out that CSDs allow Admins to review the situation before they act on it. I removed ELs in favor of incorporating content into the articles. Was I engaged for discussion appropriately? No, I was told I was violating every "rule" under the sun. And far from it. People - I'm here and I'm bold. Deal with it. Beyond that, JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT AND MAKE IT GOOD!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We would all love to "stick to the content". However, when your sticking to the content impinges on the work of others, it becomes a problem that needs to be addressed. Also, "Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable" - I would like to you either back this statement up (I don't believe you could) or rescind it. Neil ╦ 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If any blocks are issued (or this is solved in another way), Hideki Matsui should probably be unprotected. I gave it a few weeks of full protection after someone reported a revert war to WP:RFPP. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has little (as in no involvement with baseball articles) and just happened to be watching the project page for other reasons when this went down, and who had had no contact with any of the parties at all before, I'd like to say that other than the revert warring, Tecmo's behavior has been pretty above board, and almost everything else I witnessed has not. I'm very tired of everyone going on and on about Tecmo's behavior when at least on the pages I've been watching there's been almost no content discussion, and often no attempt at content discussion, but a straightforward focus on personal attacks, vendettas and commentary. Even when it's not mean-natured, too many editors seem far too interested in what other editors are doing when and why then in the actual content of the articles and it's a real problem. I've been trying to moderate a few areas of discussion and steer that discussion back towards content and it's been working with too few of the editors. This is being discussed further down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk  23:43, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Jones articles

Resolved

There are two Jack Jones, British politician and Labour Party MP articles: Jack Jones (politician) and Jack Jones (UK politician).
I'm unable to move the articles and request that they be moved to the existing named pages.
The Jack Jones (politician) article to be moved to John Joseph Jones,
and the Jack Jones (UK politician) article to be moved to John Henry Jones.
Cwb61 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please make sure there's no double redirects left. Neil ╦ 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pages. I've made sure there aren't any double redirects left.

I request the #REDIRECT pages Jack Jones (Rotherham politician), Jack Jones (politician), and Jack Jones (UK politician) to be deleted. With too many #REDIRECT pages with Jack Jones and politician, causes confusion. Cwb61 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the last two to Jack Jones, the disambiguation page. The first one is fine. Neil ╦ 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cwb61 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Manchurian candidate

This user fabricated a vandalism warning on another user's talk page and signed it with my signature (diff), probably in response to a couple warnings I gave him on his talk page (see User_talk:Manchurian_candidate#June_2007). He has been trolling quite a bit in general, but he does seem to also have a number of good faith edits. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's totally inappropriate -- it's not acceptable to fabricate warnings like that. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the template might do that, but I don't think that's the case here. --Haemo 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear that he purposefully fabricated the warning. What's worse, the the warned user was actually blocked after the warning (and then unblocked, thankfully), and he actually believed that I made the warning and left a notice on my talk page asking why I had warned him so severely. Does this warrant a block, considering his past malicious activity? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Drennleberrn

Resolved

This looks like an ED attack by User:Drennleberrn. Per arbcom ruling, I believe this warrants a block? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could see a block for personal attacks, disruption, trolling or harassment, but what does an arbitration ruling have to do with that? Anyhow an administrator has already warned him for it. --MichaelLinnear 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Drennleberrn hasn't been involved in a case. Warning is enough.--Chaser - T 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling referenced is, I believe, a statement that links to attack sites should be removed. Whether this constitutes a "ruling" is a question I'm not going to answer. Natalie 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point; Drennleberrn is now indef blocked. Given the trolling history of this account I'd have to say that was a good block.--Isotope23 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) blocked and unblocked re: Chiropractic - review requested

This has been a rather strange issue, but earlier tonight I addressed a report on WP:AN3 that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) violated 3RR on Chiropractic by reverting the removal of a sentence by other users who were working on the article at the time. There is a discussion on the talk page about it, and the 3RR report can be found here. I blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours for what I believed was a 3RR violation, but after looking at this diff, I'm not so sure I should have. Steth reverted an attempt to compromise on the issue shortly before I blocked QuackGuru, and he has been warned for edit warring on a related article. Steth appears to have a conflict of interest on the issue and pushing a pro-traditional chiropractic POV on various articles. Given these developments, I've unblocked QuackGuru. I need to know if this was the right decision, and whether it was or not, what should be done about this. --Coredesat 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring and WP:3RR makes very few exceptions. I can't see what the status of the other party (unless the sock of a banned user) would make. --pgk 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Steth has now continued the edit war against AvB, which might help clarify who is the real problem. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Should I have blocked them both? --Coredesat 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs) II ban evasion

ORIGINAL POST EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [135] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [136] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [137] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [138] ,[139]. He has been warned numerous times [140], [141], [142] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [143] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order. New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [144] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [145] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [146] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [147] refering to other users as idiots [148] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [149] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [150] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [151].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [152] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [153] [154] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

END OF ORIGINAL POST

new incident following original ban for ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban.

utilizing more IP's to evade original ban 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . original ban on account EdwinCasadoBaez hasn't been extended. YoSoyGuapo 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  ; 24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Original postUses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary 24.190.180.244[155] which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question [156] and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications [157] and when he gave a fairwell speech [158]

Warnings for 3rr violations [159], Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" [160] [161] His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda" [162]
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing credibility...you wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my country...so i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home..[163] "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [164]
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks [165] with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. [166] Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR.."[167]. Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking [168] [169]. Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. [170] Non- NPOV opinions, [171] Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " [172] Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material [173] , rationale behind support of a president [174].
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user [175] As well as removal of warnings on talk page. [176] YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

end of original post There is no campaign against this particular editor. There was a huge sockpuppet issue on article dominican republic which was reported on AN/I [177] as well as the use of multiple accounts. One sockpuppet case was proven to be inconclusive, [178] but another was found to be confirmed [179] Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . The talk pages were frequently vandalized with personal attacks even after the page was protected.

User:Avfnx leaves many vandalistic commentary in addition to those mentioned above with reason for edits to include [180]

12:11, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)
11:41, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (USA won it independents in July 4, 1776 should we put that in here too, haiti facts on Haiti page)
01:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Juan Pablo Duarte (let the editing war start..wohooo)
16:40, 20 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Dominican Republic (Trinitario weren't racist, stop this propaganda against Dominican...I know there a anti-Dominican movement going on but don't mean we going take this laying down.) . These types of behavior are in violation of WP:Civility as well as vandalistic and the utilization of trolls. YoSoyGuapo 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eyeballs requested on Glenn Greenwald

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been adding poorly sourced and probably libellous claims to Glenn Greenwald (see e.g. [181]) and related articles, including Sockpuppet (Internet), How Would a Patriot Act? and Michael Barone (pundit). (See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn Greenwald.) I've indefinitely blocked the user for repeatedly ignoring BLP warnings, evading blocks by using numerous open proxies and repeatedly posting personal attacks against a number of editors - this has been going on since the end of April. However, the user now claims to be working with others on an external forum to coordinate further attacks on Wikipedia articles (diff). It would be helpful if editors could watchlist Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act?, Michael Barone (pundit) and Sockpuppet (Internet) for a while. -- ChrisO 09:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted! --Haemo 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Ryulong (who never seems to sleep!) - usual Rms sock stuff, NYC IP address, etc - Alison ☺ 10:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

216.194.0.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com, currently stalking and reverting my edits, including reverting back to this egregious BLP violation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · logs)

Resolved

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reason – Single purpose account to promote a non-notable group/object – This user had created an article – 10 dollar e-reader, which obviously was spam and fits under WP:CSD#A7 criterion. The problem which I see with the block is that Wikiboxatgmail was not warned even once before the block. His article was deleted and he was blocked *poof!*. Wikiboxatgmail, who is a newbie user, has over an email, informed me that he had created an account Dejabox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was also blocked, although I am not sure about the reasons, as it had been created on 4th June, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. He had previously created another account which has a fair amount of productive edits – Bomardv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My contention is that, as this user was blocked without any prior notice or warning, his block should be undone and policies explained on his talk page, so as to assist him to become a valuable user. In any case, should he start re-creating the deleted article again, he can be blocked. Relevant discussions – [182], [183]. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to be on for a few more minutes, so I will state my own case before this whole thing gets blown out of proportion.

Wikiboxatgmail was blocked for the very reasons stated in my block message. He was here to write a page on a proposed project that he is working on and involved with, and then use it to link back to his own home page, which is currently linked on my user talk as well as Nick's. The only reason that his account was created was to promote his object and not contribute to the encyclopedia in any other fashion. While there was no knowledge of the other account (the one from December/January) and that one was used properly, the Wikiboxatgmail one had not been. He, was as I saw it, spamming, and when he posted to this board to try and keep the article on his personal project that he has linked from his personal webpage, I saw the spamming even more, and blocked, and deleted the article, a redirect he made for the article, as well as a disambiguation page that was essentially a soft redirect to the article, and the images off of his website that were for the article.

When he responded to the block message with, "It has become obvious that you misuse your rights as an administrator to compensate and promote yourself I will recreate the article and come back and talk to you" I contacted a checkuser via e-mail to see if he had any other accounts, and Dejabox was uncovered. I didn't want to have another MyWikiBiz on our hands, so I blocked the Dejabox account, as well. If the "second chance" he is given is accepted, I will not interfere with his actions, but if I do see the article again, and he's the source, I will block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators and established users alike are supposed to leave appropriate notifications and warning messages before blocking or reporting for blocks. This user was not even warned once. And in the end, you fished and got another one of his account, which neither has any edits nor is liable for abusive sockpuppetry. I think his statement on the alleged abuse of your tools cannot be said to be entirely inappropriate, since you chose to block him without talking. What else would you expect from a newbie user? On what basis are you making the Wikibiz connection? I ask for another administrator to look over the situation and unblock as soon as possible. The block can be restored if Wikiboxatgmail is genuinely disruptive, but from what I saw on the talk page of the article deleted, he was trying to engage into discussions with another user. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but from the prior messages left on his talk page, he was told to go about things other ways, and then came here (or WP:AN, check his contribs) to try and get his way and retain the article. If you want to unblock him, fine. I'm getting tired of being scrutinized for these kind of blocks where I use my discretion on newish accounts that act somewhat disruptively.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I will leave him a note on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Ryulong's actions here. While maybe 1 in 100 spammers and trolls might be reformed into a useful editor, it is not worth treating the other 99 with kid gloves to get the 1. I don't believe for a second that Wikiboxatgmail didn't come here specifically to abuse the system, and should thus be blocked on site. --Spike Wilbury 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things: 1) We don't like email addresses in the username. 2) We don't like many uses of the word Wiki in the username. 3) certainly, we don't want it associated with a commercial, most likely for-profit, business. WP:USER block anyone? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-jkb-'s repeated revealing of my personal data

Since 23 December 2003 I used to have another account (V. Z.), but I dropped it, because -jkb- used it as a pretext for wikistalking and harassing me.

I have to choose another account (Zacheus). But -jkb- had spied it and since that time he use it for repeated revealing my real name (last time here, although he was warned not to that: "First, there is no reason you need to continually bring up V. Z.'s former name. All his edits are reattributed to User:V. Z., and the harassment policy specifically mentions not bringing up user's real names after a name change. You may certainly point out that User:V. Z. now uses the account User:Zacheus, and you may have a case to make that V. Z./Zacheus are disruptive and harassing you. But please do it without using his real name." by Thatcher131

That's why I seek his ban to edit the Wikipedia. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that -jkb- called me a vandal ("the deletion supported some more vandals who were forcing the deletion here and also in other wikipedias; two of them, User:Zacheus and the user editing like 71.99.xxxxx"), which is the personal attack. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it will be an arbcom case but with him accusing you of the same. If they accept the case, that will be the best place to thrash this out. --Fredrick day 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See please Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Personal attacks / publishing of personal data by user Zacheus etc., thx, -jkb- 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well, see also the answer on User talk:Jimbo Wales#my statement to a deletion fyi, :-), -jkb- 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty bold of jkb to file an arbitration case against VZ for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing today. I have half a mind to ban them both. Thatcher131 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what did I do bad? Have I repeatedly breached -jkb-'s privacy? Obviously, I did not. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate undeletion of HHO gas?

Moved to related thread at WP:AN.

Adding a timestamp so this can be auto-archived as appropriate... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MONGO

User:MONGO is going on a rampage altering archived project and talk pages, etc., to "enforce" his interpretation of policy on linking to sites (in this case, regarding Wikitruth, a site that has a page on Wikipedia, and about which MONGO only very recently changed his mind about whether it was an "attack site"). It is my understanding that archived pages are not to be edited by anybody for any reason; they are there to preserve history. *Dan T.* 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the full record of that websites mirroring of deleted pages and other attacks. Once I was, I saw it as necessary to delink to that site as much as possible. Someone please tell Dtobias to stop wikistalking my edits. Archived pages are not exempt from being edited to remove attacks. The banner on the top of them is there only so people understand that if they have new comments to make, they should do so on the active discussion page since no one will likely be responding to them on an archived page. Dtobias, do not wikistalk my edits.--MONGO 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• While utterly pointless, removing links to attack pages out of archives isn't really inappropriate. In general, he should probably be leaving a template or such in their place, but whatever. WilyD 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that we routinely are removing fair use violations from archive pages. Archive pages are not inviolate. NoSeptember 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  He's indiscriminately removing all links to the sites in question, as usual. See my essay for some reasons why this is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unarchiving to comment. Please see instructions at the top of this page: Please don't try to stop other people from discussing by inserting the {{discussion top}} — {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions. WTF? My own talkpage archives keep popping up on my watchlist because some bot has had its mysterious way with them—"substituting user signatures" and whatever. Here's one at random. And as NoSeptember points out, FU violations are continually being whisked out of there. I've never seen a template left in place of the removed material. Should I start reverting the bots...? Please cut it out, DTobias. We don't do edits that have no other purpose than to annoy, no matter what the banner at the top of archive pages says. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

So once again MONGO gets off scot free, while the person who criticizes him gets slapped. There really does seem to be an "untouchable caste" here. *Dan T.* 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This racing through Wikipedia with a black censor's pen is just embarrassing to the entire project. The primness, the hysteria, the hypocrisy.--G-Dett 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the harassment and the offsite attacks. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could I have missed that?--G-Dett 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are attack sites whether or not the links exist on so called "archived" pages. Who cares if their links get deleted? --Tbeatty 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mongo's actions are clearly disruptive. This is an attempt to enforce a failed policy proposal via edit warring and must not be tolerated. *** Crotalus *** 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was an ArbCom ruling, as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom dont create policy they interpret it, and in that sense we are a democracy, SqueakBox 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• It is an Arbcom ruling (in addition to common sense), that unneeded links to attack sites should be removed with extreme prejudice. That does not mean that someone can arbitrarily declare something an attack site and then remove all links to it. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• And Arbcom, as is its right, has chosen not to confirm that principle in subsequent decisions[184]. Risker 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try again. The arbitrators who voted against that principle did so because they thought its language was too broad, not because they were against the principle per se. jpgordon made the point that the language should have said something like "sites that commonly include attacks". And the very next principle, which passed, illustrates this, because it is a ban against ED links - and ED is a site that most certainly "commonly includes attacks" and outings against Wikipedia editors, as does WikiTruth, as can be seen by a 5-second perusal of its front page. - Merzbow 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mongo actions: he is doing the right thing Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikitruth an attack site? Does there need to be some kind of clarification by ArbCom like what was asked for with WR? Can't a bot be written to remove the links that MONGO is removing? Is Miller lite less filling or does it taste great? daveh4h 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:BADSITES would be good as it would state clearly which ones should be removed. Right now say for Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review while obviously links to pages that contain personal attacks should be removed as personal attacks, links to their main page or parts of the site that don't have attacks are unclear. Without WP:BADSITES all we have is the spam blacklist and I think people are allowed to remove links to that. If anyone can get ahold of Kelly Martin who appears not to be on Wikipedia anymore but is on IRC maybe, she knows more about how Wikitruth is an attack site. SakotGrimshine 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. EITHER ArbCom's decision may be taken as a statement of policy, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong, OR policy is established by the community by individual bold actions, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong. No administrator action required. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is edits like this one and this one that are relevant here. In these edits, MONGO removes whole citations from articles not because they are bogus but simply because they contain URLs that hyperlink to a site that xe thinks should not be hyperlinked to. The use of such pages as sources is bad because there is no evidence of a process of peer review and fact checking being involved in their publication, and because they are the subject talking about itself and not independent of the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources.) But challenging them, and the content that they are the sources for, should be on that basis (and indeed had already been raised on that basis, per the notice at the top of that article), not because of the domain name portion of the URL. Uncle G 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a distressing circularity to arguments that "it's policy because it's what people like MONGO do"... anybody (like myself) who disagrees and tries to revert such edits gets called a "stalker" and threatened with blocking (see comments left by an admin on my talk page)... once the opposition is intimidated into silence this way, then it becomes "policy" because it's a BOLD action that was unopposed. *Dan T.* 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should link to wikitruth or are you arguing for the sake of procedure? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. SchmuckyTheCat 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to present an argument, I'm am trying to clear up Dan T's position. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we should link to it when and where it makes sense to do so, and not link to it when and where it doesn't make sense to do so. Of course, probably everybody believes that; they just differ on when and where it does or doesn't make sense. I think it makes sense to link it on the article about the site itself, possibly on the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, and probably nowhere else in articlespace; in project, user, and talk space there are occasions when it might make sense to link it in the course of making a point of some sort. Going in and unlinking it all over the place in archived talk pages and the like almost never is justifiable, unless the links are directly being used as personal attacks. *Dan T.* 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think leaving them in the archives makes sense when it makes it harder to keep track of it when using Linksearch. Also, archives are not immune to editing and enjoy no special protection under policy. Since talkpage keep their own history archives are simply there as a convince. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does anybody have a need to "keep track of it using Linksearch", anyway? Unless you're going out of your way looking for something to be offended by, like the bluenoses do with regard to "indecency on the airwaves", anyway. That always strikes me as silly; better to live and let live. *Dan T.* 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

I should mention from the start that I do not and have not edited baseball articles, except for gnomish and fairy-type edits. I happened to be watching the WikiProject Basebal page when a "discussion" about WP:ELs got a little out of hand. I should also point to these comments on my talk page that were posted while I was writing this up.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Deletions by Tecmobowl of hundreds of baseball urls w/unique information; failure to discuss; edit warring.

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche and Tecmo had been edit warring for days about ELs. Tecmo had started doing a clean-up of a lot of baseball pages. A large portion of his edits were and are completely straightfoward. Most of the pages had and do have a TON of ELs and in addition to individual ones being totally inappropriate, the list itself was way to long. He removed a lot of:

• open-wikis where no stability decision had been made
• bios that included no unique information (often being used as a crutch to add more to an article that was very short)
• pages with excess advertising
• pages that related indirectly to the subject of the article

The part that seemed to be a sticking point was removing duplicate statistics sites. A lot of baseball articles seem to have four or five statistics sites as ELs. People didn't understand what the problem was with keeping all of them, and even the people who saw the problem couldn't agree on which to get rid of as the content differs slightly between them (some say). That part is a content dispute that the community has to work out.

Rather than a clean-up, the deletions were of urls with unique information. The current substantive discussion has centered on Fangraphs, which contains 69 unique categories of information. It is not clear to me that Miss M appreciates the significance of those statistical categories. It may be that someone with a greater familiarity with baseball statistics might better appreciate how that renders the url unique. There has been no disagreement that any urls that are wholly duplicative in data and functionality are appropriate candidates for deletion. That has not been evidenced, however, in the urls under discussion. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But the behavior needs administrative intervention. I first commented after a few days pointing out that while Tecmo was explaining his edits, no one was commented on content, but going on about who did what to whom. My comments at the wikiproject on both behavior and content can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Comment from Miss Mondegreen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Consensus ignored; More urls deleted by Tecmo.

As to which I responded, in part, "The second focus of the above conversation consisted of discussion by a number of editors as to why they thought the urls should not be deleted. I gather that you missed that. I'm confused as to why. You indicate above that the discussion makes "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the above you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has clearly had some problems. He's gotten in trouble for a 3RR block, and he's been doing more than a little reverting. But if what I've seen extends elsewhere, I understand why. One clear problem he has is that it may take him a day or two to respond. People are commenting anywhere and everywhere they think that they can get attention from the person they want it from and discussion is spread amongst several talk pages, the wikiproject and user talk pages. Just the incessent blanking of his talk page every time Epeefleche warns him has to take up time. If he warned Epeefleche the same way, neither of them would ever do anything.

Actually, Tecmo has a history of making deletions daily. Except when he is blocked for violations. In addition to the two 3RR blocks mentioned in the above paragraphs, Tecmo was blocked on June 10th.[185] That's 3 blocks in the period of June 7-10. And as to the discussion, it has been centralized at [186]. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But, Tecmo has explained his edits and been willing to discuss. For the most part, he hasn't really gotten content related responses back, or he's gotten ones back that are irrelevant or on another planet. When he has gotten content related response back, they tend not to be from the editors personally involved in this ongoing struggle. To often, the dialog trends to personal attacks and commentary. The wikiproject discussion started out as an attack on Tecmo--Epeefleche came there to ask for help dealing with him, and help reverting his edits--he'd run out of reverts. And he got it.

This is untrue on many levels, as [187] demonstrates. He has failed to discuss, and failed to hold off on his deletions during discussion. He has received enormous amounts of thoughtful, analytical, substantive response -- including from 2 admins on the baseball wikiproject, and at least one statistician. Miss M -- who do you suggest track down the deletions that he has made in the past, as to which there is consense that they should not have been deleted? Deletion before discussion had a deleterious effect on Wikipedia in these instances. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo was also attacked for not responding to comments on his talk page, when discussion was already occuring in at least two places. Harsher comments sounded like, "let the bully have his way".

Baseball Bugs then came to my talk page (persumably noticing that Tecmo had been there) and literally spammed me with every thought that came into his head. They weren't real attacks, they weren't real defenses, he was just telling me what he thought and what and what could possibly might be happening that should be checked out. My attempts to get him to focus on content only brought me more comments about personal issues, and my replies to him on talk pages were again answered on my talk page and not the article one.

I also attempted to mediate the issue of one particular link on the Shoeless Joe Jackson page. It took me days of commenting on the talk page mainly to myself to get Baseball Bug's attention, and I'm now spending way too much time attempting to get him to answer straightforward questions (formatted as a straw poll for convience), and I really can't mediate this screwed up party anymore.

Baseball Bugs wants an Rfc on Tecmo--who is possibly the only involved editor who I don't think needs an Rfc at this point. He's at least been explaining his edits and willing to participate in a content related discussion and doesn't fly off the hot seat every five seconds. He also seems willing to listen to other editors comments about both content and his editing habits, which means I'm not as worried about some of his bad habits--he seems much more willing to work towards consensus, and willing to change.

Some editors have advised dispute resolution, and I really don't think that's what's needed here. There are some content issues that need to be solved, sure, but there's not point in discussing those or anything if the editors in question won't focus on content, or the issue at hand. I think administrative intervention is at this point become necessary to even get to the point of dispute resolution. Tecmo has just had a been blocked for 3RR and I think still needs to go more slowly, lest he be blocked again--edit warring and communication via edit summary are NOT the way to go, but I think that Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs might need thwapings: personal attacks, edit warring (getting others to edit war for you), and comments that do nothing but stonewall are not the way to go either.

I might need a thwaping? It would be most appreciated if you would elevate the level of your comments. Thanks. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Be kind, be cool: While my comments sound harsh--I am only posting here as a last resort--this has escalated and escalated and I did not see this stopping. Harsh comments and diff pulling from months and years ago will only escalate the situation further. I'm looking for help cooling the situation not escalating it. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:52, June 10 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for a summary, please. Admins are loath to read long entries. —Kurykh 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure there is a way to summarize, what Miss Mondegreen said pretty much nailed it on the head. I'm happy to have polite and engaged discussions about the content at hand, but I'm also a big fan of WP:BOLD. I have gotten in the habit of blanking my talk page (even of things that are very complimentary) simply because it is so hard to follow all the different conversations and because the aforementioned users simply spam me with bogus warnings and such rather than engage in discussions on the content at the relevant pages. I'm happy to talk further if need be and I will say that I am aware of the 3RR and my violation of it. And happy to expand on that, but can we get away from the "who did what to whom on what date at what time and why" and just get back to the content. //Tecmobowl 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a summary is not necessary; however, it would facilitate a quicker and clearer response if or when needed. —Kurykh 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's actually a summary. The problem is that widespread and out of hand. The very, very, very short version is--there's been a massive edit war between Epeefleche and Tecmobowl ranging across probably 100 baseball articles--maybe more. Tecmobowl started to go through the baseball articles and make them compliant with WP:EL, and Epeefleche started reverting him and once this had hit over a dozen articles and Epeefleche was out of reverts, Epeefleche came to the wikiproject and asked for help (i.e. dealing with Tecmo and reverting the edits he continued to make). He got help--if you count a lot of editors screaming and some helping him revert Tecmo help. Almost all of the discussion on the project and other pages has been personal in nature, a lot bordering on or outright personal attacks.

The content issue is that of the multiple statistics sites. The articles Tecmo has been cleaning have four of five sites that have almost identical statistics for each player. Tecmo is almost always reading WP:EL perfectly--doing absolutely straightforward edits. There are some judgement calls, but it's a ratio of 6:1 probably, maybe more.

Problematic editors I have encountered in terms of personal attacks and unwillingness, or inability to discuss content have been Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs (though I'm watching a fraction of the pages). Tecmo is losing his cool (though I understand why), but I'm less worried about that as he's continually comprimised, returned to talk pages to discuss and answer questions and work towards consensus and his behavior seems malleable. Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and some of the other editors who have been particular vitriolic are worrying me at this point. This has gone on for a while now, doesn't show real signs of slowing or stopping and there's been no real changes in some very problematic behavior (though with Baseball Bugs it may just be a real lack of understanding--it's hard to tell). Miss Mondegreen talk  23:57, June 10 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously complaining about vitriolic comments from others when you said You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up. to me? Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite serious about that. The talk page of an article is not the page for your personal attacks or your diatribes on whatever else is bothering you in wiki-life. And, if you have other comments, questions or concerns that have nothing to do with the straw poll question, click the little plus button at the top of the page. It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:27, June 12 2007 (UTC)

I have already said it before, but I will remind you once more to read WP:CIV. I never personally attacked anyone on that talk page...quite the opposite. You are the one calling others names and insulting the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you/Tecmobowl. Learn to be civil. IrishGuy ^talk 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Polite discussion? Three times I tried to contact you about blanking sourced content on your talk page...and three times you blanked it. Once with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. IrishGuy ^talk 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This same issue is also listed above: Massive revert warring. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note to your previous comment in this section, I responded to you several times on your talk page (where I subsequently appologized) and then engaged you in a most friendly manner on the article where you had an issue. This is deplorable people - JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT. //Tecmobowl 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm gonna make this short and then I'm going to only chime in where necessary. This is the history for my talk page and this is yours. I blanked EVERYONES comments for some time and responded to you five minutes after your last post to my talk page. I don't think anyone here would call that unresponsive. You introduced your self to me with a warning, not exactly WP:AFD. As I said on your talk page, I am sorry for the edit summary where I blanketed a number of people as idiots. Rather than skirting the issue and pass it off for what it really was - a reaction to ludicrous behavior - I appologized to you promptly. You continue to harp on that, and I'm sorry. At this point, we can either move on, or you can continue to bring it up. If you want to cite me for violation of WP:NPA, then do it. But I am not unresponsive and I am BOLD. MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER PEOPLE!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I look forward to an admin resolving this information.

Summary. In short, Tecmo has deleted 100s of urls from baseball bios. His initial reason, since disproved: "they are not unique." Other editors differ with him. First, Tecmo refused to discuss this on a talk page before deleting. Now, he discusses, but deletes concurrently. There have been multiple requests that he desist with his deletions, including requests from 2 admins in the Baseball Wiki project. He has ignored them, asserting that to do so would not be bold. We have therefore discussed substance while Tecmo continues to delete. We have obtained input from 9 editors as to 4 of the urls, as a starting point. There is consensus, in my view, as to each url. Tecmo refuses to respect the consensus as to the Fangraphs url, and has not reverted his deletes as to the other urls.

Full Discussion. [188] contains most of the pertinent discussion.

Disappearing Entry. I made an entry on this page 6 days ago, concerning Tecmo's behavior, at Miss M's suggestion. It has somehow diappeared. It was at: 06:30, June 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring). Can someone please explain how it was lost (or deleted)? Similarly, all of my entries, and warnings and bans from admins, have also been deleted by Tecmo from his talk page. I'm not experienced enough to determine how it was deleted, and by whom.

There's a button at the top of the page called "history". You click that and go back until you find your addtion. Then you click on the edit diff and go forward until you see the diff where your section disppears. It should not have been to hard for you to figure out by the enormous box of archives in the top right corner of this page that this page is archived automatically. The section was archived. No one commented, and so 24 or 48 hours later (I can't remember which) it was archived.

However if figuring out what happened to your comment from a couple days ago is beyond you, I'm troubled. Your leading a crusade against Tecmo--and you've made a complex issue about the deletions of multiple kinds of ELs into an issue about ONE specific EL. Perhaps you shouldn't be yelling about revertions and performing them yourself if you don't have that kind of experience and can't understand anything more than the basics. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:27, June 12 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring; Initial Failure to Discuss; Deletion of 100s of urls. I initially asked Tecmobowl to not edit war after he removed a Fangraphs url (which I pointed out has unique information) from the Sandy Koufax external links section. Instead, he continued to RV. His only comment was an unsupported one, later proven to be quite untrue, inserted in the edit summary of his changes, that there is nothing unique about the Fangraphs url.

I asked him concurrently to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing. Instead, he again deleted the link.[189] While he failed to talk on a talk page, he instead deleted unique info urls from additional pages I had edited, such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, and Brad Ausmus. Even as I complained about that on the talk page, he made similar inappropriate deletions to 12 more bios. On his talk page I asked him to desist, discuss, and bring in a third party to discuss if necessary. Instead he ignored me, and deleted urls from nearly 10 more baseball players. I made the above-referenced posting on Baseball Wikiproject asking for help, and asked the 2 admins on that project to help. Tecmo then wrote, in his first talk page response: "The burdon (sic) is on you to explain why these sites should be linked to on the pages they are. Until you do so, they are expunged. //Tecmobowl 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" Admin "Nishkid64 then responded: "Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at ... any other baseball statistical website.... Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page." Admin Wizardman then wrote to Tecmo: "I assumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop." Tecmo subsequently, during the substantive discussion, deleted what are now hundreds of such urls. I requested help in someone stopping the deletions. Tecmo deleted more urls. I wrote: "I reiterate my request that Tecmobowl now, during the pendency of this discussion, restore the urls that he deleted from the talk pages."

Fangraphs. I discussed the substance of the Fansgraphs url. Summarized how 7 of the 9 people discussing it found it useful. Tecmo's basis for deleting Fangraphs had been: "it is not unique information." It's been demonstrated, however, that to the contrary the url has loads of unique information. I detailed its 69 unique categories of information, and indicated that it provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections, a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Also, as Sanfranman pointed out, it has unique formating. Tecmo had written himself, as to that observation, "THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING A VALID ARGUMENT....For you, it is how the data is presented...Can we at least all agree that the data is not unique ... The presentation is however." Still, Tecmo maintains now that there was no consensus. And continues to delete the Fangraphs urls.

Next Steps. I would greatly appreciate an admin's help. Tecmo has deleted a large number of urls as to which he lacks consensus for deletion. I would appreciate his: 1) desisting in deleting such urls (or being blocked therefrom); 2) his restoring those urls that he has deleted; and 3) his restoring other urls that he has deleted as to which no consensus for deletion exists -- we can discuss the others on the Baseball project page as well, once this has been addressed.--Epeefleche 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're asking admins to explicitly intervene in and enforce your side in a content dispute. I can't see that happening. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not been here before. What can I ask for? Problem 1 was Tecmo's deletions while failing to discuss. Problem 2 was deletions during discussions. Problem 3 is deletions contrary to consensus, as to 4 urls. Thanks for your guidance.

Also, can you tell me the answer is to this question: "Does one need consensus to engage in large-scale deletions of this sort, or to stop large-scale deletions of this sort?--Epeefleche 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of wanting admins to step in to bring a halt to an edit war. That sounds reasonable. Protect the article, thrash out a consensus through civil discussion, implement it when an accepted outcome develops. Any volunteers to be umpire? --Pete 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tecmo has deleted urls at many dozens of articles. Is there an easier approach than protecting each one? Tx. --Epeefleche 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Look, I don't care about the fangraphs link and that's certainly not why I came here. I came here because I see one editor, who I don't think is behaving particularly well, getting completely railroaded by editors who are behaving badly/abysmally/ not paying attention to the situation.

After days of focusing on the editor, discussion finally did turn to content--editors focussed on one EL. Not even the issue of the statistics links in general, just one of them.

When Tecmo is approached reasonably, he reacts reasonably. I see no reason for him to stop removing ELs (though he shouldn't edit war the way he does). He's supposed to hope that editors stop focusing on personal issues and start focusing on content and this time actually address more than one EL? That's ridiculous. Had the wikiproject comment, or any of the comments aimed at Tecmo said--"don't remove multiple statistics sites yet, give us a chance to agree on which one or ones we think should be used", I think, or hope he would have not deleted them. There would have been good reason to. But that issue wasn't even raised until I raised it, and I got about three responses. That's not helpful.

And then there are all of the other links he removed that people reverted him on, Epeefleche especially but they didn't ask for an explanation on which part of WP:EL said it was a bad link, or when given one say "I disagree that number x applies, look at number y". And yet, these reverts stand. WP:BASEBALL members are violating WP:CONSENSUS (they won't discuss the issues and they're ignoring the consensus that WP:EL has), they're making personal attacks right and left, they're ganging up to revert one person--in fact, Epeefleche can to WP:BASEBALL for help because he was out of reverts and he got it--from admins too because they wanted discussion to take place but no one did anything when one side refused to participate in discussion. Discussion can't happen when one side won't participate--and it's editors on editors and whichever side has more reverts is going to win, regardless of what our guidelines say, and this isn't how editors are supposed to behave.

They've asked for comments from outsiders at various points, but then when they get them, the comments are ignored. I asked content questions and I heard about who did what to whom. I warned people that they were breaking policies and guidelines right and left and was ignored. I post this, and I'm told that I'm wrong, this is really an issue about one statistics EL--even though half of the ELs that are being reverted have nothing to do with statistics. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:21, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been playing very close attention to this matter. Shortly prior to Tecmo's 3RR block, I was involved with a dispute stemming from his nomination of numerous articles for speedy deletion. I felt that the nominations were done in contravention of deletion procedure and may not have been done in good faith. When asked specific, content- and procedure-related questions about his motives (in order to confirm good faith), Tecmo refused to discuss the matter further with me. Please see the related discussion on my talk page and at Patken4's talk page. Caknuck 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Caknuck in re his specific issues with Tecmo

That's my point exactly about Tecmo--if he isn't attacked, he talks. He left you a comment asking you not to remove the tags, and you left him a content related comment, but one that wasn't in good faith and accused him of bad faith edits elsewhere. He's gotten somewhat better at responding to that sort of thing--he explained himself on wp:baseball not just to me but to people who were attacking him also. And in that case, you're right--Tecmo didn't understand the difference between generic stub, and stub that fit a csd, and he was using his own reasons he thought it should be deleted and sort of merging them as reasons for a csd. But both discussions I saw got off track very quickly--one turned into a discussion about stubs in general and the other turned away from content altogether and moved to behavior.

The problem with your response to him was that you outlined the CSD requirments as though he hadn't bothered to look at them. As though if he had, he would have agreed that they didn't fit the CSD requirements. You were basically telling him--these are the CSD requirements, obviously they don't fit, even a moron can see that.

It should have been very easy to outline the CSD requirments, in a way that assumed that he had seen them, and explain why the articles didn't fit, what kind of article would. If he still disagreed with your decision or thought that they should be deleted anyway, he could put them up for Afds, because that's the proper procedure for those cases. Then you should have reminded he should notify the involved wikiproject (and if he's going to be doing mass taggings, it's easier to make an announcement and then add a list of the articles that as they're tagged). Then you could have tried to engage him in debate about why he was doing what he was doing, or dissuade him from his intended path.

Instead, you accused of him of bad faith, and your content related response to him could be read a few ways none of them good. Either you thought he was purposefully doing things incorrectly or that he didn't bother to look things up or that he was an idiot or....any of the ways it can be read--well they aren't good. What was there for you to discuss? You grouped his opinions on stubs with his actions--making the same mistake that he did, so when you told him that his opinions were wrong, I can see why he would have really thought it was a differece of opinion. You need to draw a clear line between procedure and opinion. What CANNOT be done, what SHOULD be done, what you THINK should be done. You grouped them together as one, YOU were RIGHT and HE was WRONG. What you should have told him was: This is PROCEDURE: this is how it works and applies in this case and why you were wrong. X is the correct procedure for this case. If you are going to do X, Y isn't mandatory but you SHOULD do this, and PERSONALLY, I would advise against X altogether.

Does this help? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:46, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Something's rotten in the state of denmark:editor's claim that their on-wiki abilities were stolen by the evil Tecmo

Pretend that Tecmo really is the enormous problem that everyone says he is. When I ask why not do partial reverts, or if there's an issue with the ones that I think are straightforward, or if the wikiproject is going to discuss statistics, then I should get an answer, not a personal attack, or more blathering about fangraphs. Tecmo inserted something that people thought was a COI. Yet it's still being reverted as a spam link when I reinserted it because after looking at the WP:EL guidelines and the pages of discussion (mostly personal attacks, not much content), I think it's an appropriate EL. It's almost as though every person I run accross has a COI AGAINST Tecmo. Which is a little scary. Either there's loads of content related information that I'm JUST MISSING....that no one will mention because they are so mad at tecmo or it's so screamingly obvious that I just can't see it, or every single editor I've run across is so mad at tecmo that they don't care if the website he adds is a good EL, they want it gone. They don't care if he's removing ELs that are completely off-topic, they'll revert blindly. And they'll personally attack me when I defend those edits because I don't see whats wrong with them. I'm seeing a massive campaign to shut down and editor and I don't get it. Is tecmo behaving perfectly? *&#$*#&$&* no! But he's behaving better than almost any other baseball editor that I've come accross in the short time that I've been following this. And he's been hounded more than any other. I am very afraid that consensus is going to win--and it's going to be personal consensus of not liking someone. And the spillover is incredible. Does not liking, or in fact hating Tecmo really prevent someone from being able to answer a content related question? Is that what I am supposed to get from this Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs, Irishguy, etc, etc, etc? Is that what all of the pointing is supposed to get accross? That it's not really you? That normally you could answer questions and deal with content disputes just fine, but when you hate one of the editors involved your normal editing abilities disappear? You can't even paritially revert a page, or provide edit summaries or explain why? You just have to continually hit the undo button? And the only explanation for this is because Tecmo did something? Pretend he did everything you say he did. He stole your abilities to explain yourselves and edit like a normal wiki editor too? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:46, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the users hating Tecmo. Granted, if this problem is STILL going on now then apprently someone's being rather disruptive. Seeing as how Tecmo has the block, the blankings, etc...--Wizardman 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)