Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket #  and VRTS ticket #  for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice^✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice^✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice^✉ 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice^✉ 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Thuranx, I don't read his statement that way. I read it as him being honest and non-delusional about his own innate motivation and world outlook and recognising that it will take a big and constant effort from him to adapt to our collaborative way of doing things.

But I do think that this is a dialogue that you (and possibly others) need to be having with Callmebc himself - which is why I would strongly plead again for his talk page to be unprotected right now. Alice^✉ 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A little late to the party (been away for Christmas) but I'd just like to add that I support an unblock and am willing to do it myself. I'm going to leave that action up to Haemo, of course, but I wanted it to be clear that there are admins willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's three admins who have clearly stated they are willing to unblock and I concur that unblocking is best left to Haemo who says that he is in constant contact, but what about the page protection? We need to be fair not just to Callmebc but to those who have reservations and wish some dialogue so that they can be reassured (or otherwise). Would one of you admins please unprotect the talk page right now as I can not see any objections being voiced to that unprotect after more than a week of discussing Callmebc's block and user talk page protection. Alice^✉ 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the torrent of abuse that he previously let loose on his Talk page, I'm not willing to unblock the page. He's in contact with Haemo so that's fine as far as communication. My own unblock offer does not require discussion, just a simple yes or no (which can be communicated by email). Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing productive that can come from this user on the Killian Documents issue. He should be unblocked only on condition he stay away from that topic, per Guy. Otherwise he'll go right back to insisting on including his original research in that article (and I'll be happy to return from my Wikibreak for the express purpose of stopping that from happening). - Merzbow (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I emailed him a little while ago to try and wrap up this whole thing. I will keep everyone posted! --Haemo (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alice^✉ 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and I know that this section will shortly be archived (into oblivion?) so, would it be possible to drop me a line on my talk page (or by e-mail) when there are any developments, with this particular Callmebc theme since this whole page falls off my watchlist after 9 days? Happy New Year!Alice^✉ 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

I was asked to take the issue to ANI instead of commenting on 3RR, so this is what I'm doing. Today there was a 3RR report against User:Jaakobou by User:Bless sins. In the discussion that ensued, an impartial administrator stated that two users were edit-warring (Jaakobou and Eleland), and action must be taken against either or both, because neither is completely innocent (or guilty).

There was also a small discussion which I consider fairly irrelevant, but whoever is reading this will probably want to read it as well. In any case, even though the 3RR case was disputed and wasn't a clear violation, an administrator (User:Tariqabjotu) decided to block the accused party (Jaakobou) for 84 hours (a very long block, although understandable because it's not his first). He also didn't say anything against Eleland, who was involved in the edit war, not even issuing a warning on his talk page, or anything of the sort.

The obvious initial problem is that an admin acted against only one user in an edit war, whose 3RR was disputed, and against the wishes of another admin. Normally, I wouldn't say anything, because who am I (a non-admin) to question this decision? However, the problem here is the User:Tariqabjotu is highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians, and clearly is not an impartial admin. At the very least, he could have left a comment and asked another admin to do the block.

I am therefore appealing the decision and hope it is fairly reviewed by other administrators. I also invite uninvolved users to comment on what seems to me like a conflict of interest.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey omitted the fact that, as I said when I responded to the 3RR report, Jaakobou has been edit-warring on several articles over the past several days (such as House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know). After blocking Jaakobou, I took a look at Eleland's edit history and saw no such pattern of edit warring. One must note that the discussion on WP:AN3 only surrounded the edits of Jaakobou and Eleland on one article, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm okay with objections to the block (although I firmly believe the block is justified), but accusations of conflict of interest are misplaced. Ynhockey's latest comment on WP:AN3 shows what obviously is him jumping to conclusions about how certain admins react in response to touchy subjects. Contrary, apparently, to what Ynhockey believes, I don't pigeonhole people as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" and make decisions based on those assumptions. So, I would prefer Ynhockey not do the same to me. Ynhockey does not know what I believe about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and as well, because my beliefs, especially on that subject, have no bearing on how I act within this project. His assertion that I am "highly involved in articles related both to Israel and the Palestinians" is an exaggeration and, more importantly, I am not involved in any conflict with Jaakobou (on any of the aforementioned articles or elsewhere). Decry the block if you must, but this idea that anyone touching Israel-related or Palestinian-related subjects is editing and acting from a biased standpoint is harmful to the welfare of our articles related to these subjects. It's no wonder many of our Middle Eastern articles have repeatedly been the subject of fierce edit wars. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I did not imply that you were either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, sorry if it came across this way - indeed the other two users I mentioned were clearly pro-Israeli and another clearly pro-Palestinian, that does not include you. I was merely commenting on the fact that you are highly involved in articles related to Israel and Arab countries (and by extension, Islam), and if 7 of your 15 top-edited articles are on these subjects, and you helped bring 2 to FA status, does not mean you are highly involved, then I don't know what does. I just thought that an involved admin, even if not in the specific article being disputed, should not pass judgement over articles they're close to. I probably would've disputed your decision even if you protected the page, for example, which would've been my suggestion/decision if I was an admin.

Secondly, it is wrong to say that Eleland does not have a history of edit-warring. Clear examples which come to mind are Saeb Erekat (for which he was reported for 3RR) and Battle of Jenin, although I'm sure I could dig up a dozen more if I actually went over his contributions.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong interest in the Middle East, but that still does not equal being highly involved in every Middle Eastern subject. Involvement in (for example, as you mention in your latest comment) Islam-related articles is still quite a leap away from being involved in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, there is far more to Israel and Jerusalem than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinians. Although those subjects are certainly related to the articles, you will see I stay away from articles more central to the conflict (such as, for example, Israeli-Palestinian conflict). As far as I am concerned, a conflict of interest is only of concern for a block or protection when there is a conflict with a specific editor or article. Neither is the case here. You have provided evidence that I edit articles related, in varying to degrees, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you have provided no evidence that this has impeded my judgment, or made me biased, in blocking Jaakobou based on entirely different articles. If anything, the fact that I have been able to contribute substantially to Israel and Jerusalem and bring them to featured status is a testament to my ability to keep relatively neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, take out the conflict of interest claim and you leave what I believe should be the real purpose of the discussion – whether the block was fair, my interest in the Middle East notwithstanding.

Eleland's edit-warring on Saeb Erekat and Battle of Jenin dates back to (as recent as) December 4 and September 30, respectively. Jaakobou's edit-warring on Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, and Islam: What the West Needs to Know dates back to (as recent as) December 29, December 29, and December 29, respectively. I have no doubt that Eleland has edit warred on several articles during his time on Wikipedia, but the proximity of Jaakobou's edit-warring across multiple articles is the real issue. Jaakobou's response below further reinforces my point that there is an problem; he does not appear to understand that his edit-warring is unproductive, and claims he hasn't been edit-warring at all. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's edit-warring on Palestinian right of return, on the other hand, is from December 30, and includes a violation of 3RR, so it is clear that he is edit warring across multiple articles, and that this behavior is current, not some ancient history. For the sake of even handedness, you should either cut short Jaakobu's block now, or block Eleland, whose behavior is identical. 213.239.207.90 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like both users were edit-warring and since both have a history of making contentious edits on these sort of articles, both deserve similar treatment. However, I think jaakobou was acting in good faith, and not trying to push his POV and when I just looked over some of Eleland's latest contributions I saw at least one case of obvious POV-pushing that cannot be reasonably considered as good faith and loads of personal attacks. It seems that when we have 3 editors on one side of an issue and only 1 editor on the other side watching an article, the numbers "win" and the one gets blocked when really both deserve to be handled similarly, as just because someone didn't revert more than three times (and didn't violate the letter of 3RR), it doesn't justify his edit warring. Yonatan ^talk 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post this on behalf of Jaakobou. Nick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding block reasoning:

Following this [1] (static version) WP:3RR complaint by User:Bless_sins.

I admit of being involved in a high volume of edits on a number of articles and also admit to what could be construed as an edit war together with User:Eleland on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, inspection into my '"edit warring on a number of articles"'[2] reasoning stated by User:Tariqabjotu is superficial and incorrect as well:

1. Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian - My recent conflict with Tiamut, was by no means an edit war. He had a misunderstanding regarding the history of the region and we resolved it (I believe) quite quickly when I added the reference/source to my correction of the error-ed text ("Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN: 965-07-0797-2).
2. Second Intifada - There was a multiple user conflict, which consisted of as many as 6-7 participants. After an edit war was already ensued between two very different versions - I've engaged in the article with a major attempt to resolve the disputes [3]. After resolving two of a the many disputes the discussions devolved into reverts once the issue of "intifada (uprising)" was a bit stuck but I have again reopened, a second discussion attempt on that issue [4] and it seemed to be moving quite reasonably. I don't believe that my attempts to resolve the disputes on said page should be portrayed as an edit war and stand against me on other article disputes.
3. Islam: What the West Needs to Know - In this article, for some reason, User:Bless_sins (same editor who opened the 3RR) claims that it is a BLP violation to re-write what a participant in the film stated and to support his BLP theory he removes the entire synopsis section. [5] I don't see my objection to this as an edit-war at all.

Considering this overview of the disputes and my efforts to resolve them, and considering that Palestinian-Israeli articles are filled with high emotions [6], incivility [7], pov accusations [8][9][10], and pov violations [11].

I believe, just as the first admin who inspected the 3RR notice believed [12], that if 3RR rules are to be applied to me regarding this dispute (where I have reverted 3 exactly times), then they should be applied evenly.

Lastly, if the descision is made to block anyone, and because I was given 84 hours. An inspection into my block log shows that apart from one 3RR mishap in July, my 3RR blocks were all rescinded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jaakobou's description of the facts is simply not accurate. The reference he added to his edits at Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian did not address the concerns I raised regarding his rather polemical insertions of material there. I have sinced retained the reference he added but removed the unsourced additions, while adding a source for an item he tagged as lacking in sources and doing a general copy edit of one of the sections in question. He has also been edit-warring at October 2000 events, changing a sentence sourced to two references to read as he pleases, despite my attempts to reason with him on the talk page. Tiamut 14:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that tariqabjotu made an error of judgment in his reason to block Jaakobou, but not Eleland. I don't believe there should have been any block for either since both have made exactly 3 reverts on this issue within the article and have started discussion on the talk page. I'd also like to suggest that many good editors go 3 reverts (not 4) on the Israeli-Palestinian articles without expecting to be blocked and it would be an interesting development if suddenly we are going to change the way blocks have been implemented thus far. Please, if there is a policy change on this, let us all know about it beforehand. That is my opinion anyhow, from reading and following these articles he was involved in of late. Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record Jaakobou made 4 reverts not 3. Eleland made less than 4 reverts (else I'd have reported him/her too).Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I must not be making myself clear: Once again, I blocked Jaakobou for the sum of his edit warring, not for the edit warring on just House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please get the facts straight. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC

It is my perception of the WP:3RR intention is that reverting an editor on different issues does not add up into a single issue, meaning that, each count as separate issues (imagine 5 editors arguing over a 5 issues). Therefore believe it was only 3 reverts and not 4. Also, Jaakobou explained the true nature of the "sum of his edit warring" and I honestly believe you have made a judgment error here blocking only one of the two, incorrectly declaring him as a rotten egg, while missing Eleland's activity on articles such as Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also now where he helps User:Bless_sins avoid 3RR by reverting for him with the same dubious justification at the Islam movie article. Seeing that discussion were already on their way on talk, I think you should have only protected the article. The block will certainly not resolve the content dispute and everyone must wait 84 hours in anticipation. Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

YnHockey, I can understand when you say User:Tariqabjotu has edited, in the past, Israel/Arab related articles. You also agree, with tariq (and myself), that he/she is a completely neutral editor, neither 'pro-Palestinian' nor 'pro-Israeli'. In that case I don't see any conflict of interest. The fact that tariq is involved means he/she is very familiar with types edit warring that takes place in such articles, and how admins usually handle this. In that case tariqabjotu is a suitable admin for the job.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the use of 3rr as a weapon in a content/POV push dispute. It certainly seems like some members of the community are keeping it as a weapon to beat their opponents with... Rather than blocking editors, who seem to be disengaging from the edit war, shouldn't the blocking admin have protected the pages in this case since discussion on talk pages had been occuring? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages are generally protected when there are several different members in each of the edit-warring parties. In this case it appears to be a case of Jaakobou alone against 3 editors. Also, insisting that a user follow wikipedia rules is not a 'weapon to beat opponents with'. You are forgetting that the 'opponents' wouldn't be in this situation if they observed wikipedia policies like WP:3rr.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What Happened

A number of users (Timeshifter, Tiamut, Eternalsleeper, and MathKnight) sought to add new content to the article Second Intifada which a number of the editors (Michael Safyan, Armon, Jaakobou, and Tewfik) deemed objectionable and in violation of WP:NPOV. Many of the editors sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Jaakobou made considerable efforts to resolve the editing conflict in this manner. However, some of the less scrupulous editors sought to push the new and biased content. Jaakobou followed proper protocol by reverting these controversial edits while the issue was being discussed on the talk page.

If anyone ought to be blocked, I think it should be those editors who ignored the ongoing discussion on the talk page and who sought to push their objectionable new content. Although those who support blocking Jaakobou attribute the block to a prior edit regarding wikilinks to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Second Intifada article, this conflict took place a long time ago and is not the actual motivation for the block.

In conclusion, I object to the blocking of Jaakobou on the grounds that:

1. Jaakobou followed proper protocol in reverting controversial edits and sought to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page.
2. Those seeking to block Jaakobou are equally, if not more, guilty of edit warring given that they disregarded ongoing discussion and instead sought to make their controversial edits.
3. The alleged reason for blocking Jaakobou (wikilinks to House demolitions) is quite different than the actual reasons for the block.
4. The alleged reason for blocking transpired a long time ago which, by any reasonable statute of limitations, ought to be disregarded.

Please see the Revision history of Second Intifada, the objectionable edit, the Second Intifada Talk Page. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what are you calling the "alleged reason" versus the "actual reason" for the block. -- tariqabjotu 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By "alleged reason" I mean the stated reason which was used to justify the block to the administrative board. By "actual reason" I mean the reason why the block was sought in the first place -- that is, Jaakobou's reversion of the controversial edits. That the block was sought for this reason is evidenced by the fact that the stated reason involves a dispute which transpired a long time ago and by the fact that threats to block Jaakobou were first raised in the discussion of the controversial edits which Jaakobou reverted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the reason for blocking. I thought it was a 3RR violation of Second Intifada regarding wikilinks to the House demolitions article rather than a 3RR violation of the House demolitions article, itself. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou is a hugely problematical editor with almost no understanding of the policy of the encyclopedia or scholarship - or indeed the English language. His bluster, ownership of articles (and TalkPages) is totally inimicable to the project. He has consistently escaped censure for rampant abuses - and we can again see the personalised attacks that have allowed him to get away with it for so long. The admin in this case has looked at the evidence and (as best as I'm aware) applied a reasonable sanction for the breaches alleged, likely unaware of what went before. Having discovered the blow-back he may feel severely bitten, but it is to be hoped that other admins will not be as spineless as those who've become aware of this situation before, and failed to do anything about it. 3RR is almost the least of the problems. PR^talk 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued problems by User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

Resolved

 – Magnonimous and his sock drawer blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 14 December 2007
• 24.36.201.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing since 5 December 2007

Articles

• Coral calcium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coral Calcium Claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created 20 December 2007 by Magnonimous

(Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [13], so I'm assuming these are the same person.)

Magnonimous behavior problems continue and are getting worse. See previous ANI at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161

Since this last ANI, he has removed a number of tags including an afd notice from Okinawa Coral, the latest pov-fork of Coral calcium, and has spammed defamatory accusations to multiple talk pages: User talk:Ronz Talk:Stephen Barrett User talk:Magnonimous User talk:B User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf and User talk:Levine2112 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Afd notice was added without justification, without notice or relevant talk, and went against the general consensus we had on the talk page. I believe MoonLightGlory's contribution removed significant amounts of POV content from the original quote-unquote Coral Calcium article, and seemed to relieve the edit warring, at least temporarily. In retrospect it seems ridiculous to add more POV content to an article to try to balance it. I wish I had done what he/she did in the first place, and removed that crackpot's ramblings from the original article altogether. Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now. Magnonimous (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I had NO IDEA :-] about the ban on canvassing. Where did my mind go hm hm hm. Secondly, it's hardly defamation if presented as an opinion on an opinion based page. Magnonimous (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Magnonimous meant by, "Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now." He replaced the content of Coral calcium completely by that of Okinawa Coral, which is up for deletion as a pov fork of Coral calcium. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Above action was not without relevant support: "I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article, removing all poorly referenced material. However, I see no reason to change the name. Okinawa coral is a subset of coral calcium, so redirecting would seem entirely inappropriate." Someguy1221, some might say this verges on consensus. Magnonimous (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, I apologize for my colleague's continued dredging up of past issues that you shouldn't have been bothered with in the first place --Magnonimous (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for ongoing disruptive conduct, including removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted content forks, canvassing, abuse of article talk pages, WP:BLP violations, and a generally unconstructive approach. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Alot of good material was being trashed by a couple editors who don't understand NPOV and the fact that all significant POV are included in Wikipedia articles as long as they are well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. We don't publish the "truth" here, we publish verifiable POV. That is regardless of whether they are considered facts, opinions, POV, "the truth", or whatever else one chooses to call them. What we don't publish is OR and articles that don't meet notability requirements. -- Fyslee / talk 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, as soon as he was blocked, Jerome709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was autoblocked as a result. I'm assuming that means they are socks and based on the disruption I've seen from the two of them, I'd support a community ban. --B (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the ban; this has been going on for too long. As I said in the first ANI report, Magnonimous is a clear spa, who every couple weeks gets an idea that no one agrees with, leading to edit wars, an ANI report, and warnings all around. The fact that he's also a sockpuppet suggests to me this account was created with the express purpose of editing tendentiously, while avoiding any consequences following him to his main account. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this just got more interesting [14]. If this claim is truthful, then 24.36.201.161 is a shared private proxy. The IP that left the message for me is an open proxy and I have now blocked it. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous if anyone is interested. I have removed the direct block on Jerome709 pending anything interesting from a checkuser. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone following this, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous has proven Magnonimous and Jerome709 are working from the same computer. --B (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued ban evasion by Arthur Ellis

Community-banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) now seems to be using 209.217.93.84 (talk · contribs). I think we need a block here (which would be his fourth this week). For more background, please see see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly bear Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden in mind? There may be a case for letting him edit this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you read the Proposed Decision page of the case that you just cited? Arthur Ellis was banned by Arbcom from editing articles relating to Canadian politics and the blogosphere, then had his ban widened for having violated the first ban by editing Rachel Marsden. Then the community hardbanned him for continued ban evasion, and the Arbcom rejected his appeal of the community ban. You might also want to check out the vandalism in the edit histories of the Arbcom pages that you just cited; most of it is from Arthur Ellis IP ranges. If an edit needs to be made to that article surely someone other than a long-term Wikipedia vandal and serial BLP violator can do it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the Rachel Marsden RFAR the ArbCom judged Ellis's edits to be in accordance with BLP. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether Athur Ellis is a serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying he's unlikely to be violating BLP on this article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all people mentioned in an article. He violated it today with this edit:[15] But moreover you are missing the point of banning someone from the project. When someone has given us a stream of vandalism and harassment, we want that person to and stop interacting with us and to forget about Wikipedia. Back to my original point: If an edit needs to be made, anyone can make it and defend it. If you need more eyes on the article, why not ask the thousands of active editors in good standing to watch it instead of inviting back (of all the people in the world) a long-term vandal and serial BLP violator? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to continuing the above discussion, could someone block this IP please? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC) He is at it again... I will leave it be since I do not want to get involved in this. Brusegadi (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellis is more right than wrong on the content issues, at least with respect to the edits made from this particular IP address. Ellis refuses to play by our rules, which is a problem; unfortunately there are rather more people interested in making sure everyone plays by the rules than there are interested in watchlisting biographies of minor public figures. The article originally spent many words elaborately painting her as a sexual stalker, all from reliable sources but all negative and out of all proportion to her importance. That has been repeatedly trimmed but now we have 400 words on how she has lost her two most recent jobs, again portraying her as disturbed without coming out and actually saying so. (The tactic of saying "Joe Smith vigorously denied rumors of X" is a very clever way of being able to say "Joe Smith is X" without out actually saying it.) Frankly this has gone on too long already. Thatcher 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the entire article has been deleted though? Marsden is a notable person that seems to have attracted a person that has a strong dislike for her. I would think stubifying the article and semi-protecting it would be a better option than deleting the article of a notable person.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, when most people break the rules around here they do things like revert 5 times in 24 hours. When Arthur Ellis breaks the rules he does things like replace the user page of a female editor with the C-word. (You probably didn't know that his behaviour was this bad; in the spirit of WP:DENY I have avoided bringing it up until now.) This is not the kind of guy we want hanging around here, period. I would really appreciate it if we could show some solidarity in making this person feel unwelcome. I respect your point of view on the content issues. However please make your arguments about content without implying (perhaps unintentionally) that Arthur's ban is based on technicalities. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Arthur Ellis and I have never replaced anyone's page with the "c-word". It seems any time Canadian editors have a fight or problem the blame is laid to me. I also see a list of Arthur Ellis sockpuppets. Yes, some of them are mine, some are not. I refused to accept a 1 month block imposed when I WON the arbcomm case on this article a year ago. Clayoquot and a handful of other editors got me banned forever. Fine. But I won't let them define the Internet reputations of people I know. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

This user is making useless edits to bypass redirects in violation of Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. When I explain this, he calls me "an insensate policy wonk". What should be done? --NE2 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or articles concerned? Avruchtalk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec]FCYTravis (talk · contribs) is making perfectly valid points on your talk page. I don't see the issue with changing a piped link that heads to a redirect into a piped link that goes directly to the target article. This is a completely pointless revert and an edit war worth WP:LAME if it continues. Please find a way to solve this dispute that needs no admin intervention... — Scientizzle 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that they are useless edits, and should not be encouraged. They also increase page size. --NE2 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more useless to edit war and argue over harmless, if useless, edits. — Scientizzle 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If it stops the useless edits, it might be worth it. --NE2 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Edit warring is by defenition more harmfull then a harmless edit. The only reason WP:REDIR states not to change links is to prevent confusion over future articles that may be created in the context of that link. The edits you are warring over do not fall under that reason, as these redirects only apply to spelling of a link, not it's meaning. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo (talk · contribs) & Ungurul (talk · contribs)

Moldopodo complains about Ungurul

User:Ungurul, before vandalising the article Balti steppe, has never said anything on the relevant talk page. Further, this user has simply replaced every word "steppe" with "depression" and also added diacritics signs everywhere. None of these edits were justified. For none of these edits has user Ungurul tried to reach a consensus in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

User:Ungurul, also present on German speaking Wikipedia (according to me, as uses exact same insults and numerous personal attacks), - ref. [16], [17], on French speaking Wikipedia ref. [18], [19], [20], [21], on Romanian speaking Wikipedia (was blocked for obsceneities written in Romanian) ref.[22], [23]. User Ungarul was asked to stop personally attacking me under the above mentioned user names on all Wikipedias, to stop insult/personally attack me and vandalise disussion pages by repeatedly deleting sections containing discussion and research of consensus on the proper city name in the cocnerend language, namely on French Wikipedia).--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Further explication of User:uNgarul's actions may be also found at my talk page, and namely at its edits history (the same applies for other language version Wikipedias). thank you for your time.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Ungurul complains about Moldopodo

Can one look about the behaviour of this user? He was blocked for a week, now is again trolling and being disruptive. I mean this guy is not accepting official name of cities and he's been blocked in others wikipedia as well. See French wikipedia for example. Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo --Ungurul (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Ungurul (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for harrasing Moldopodo (talk · contribs). These two just can't get along... — Scientizzle 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not harrasing him, I just asked him on his talk page something. One can see my edit there. A very innocent question. Ungurul (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia projects are completely autonomous, at least in regards to user conduct, so whatever actions Moldopodo has undertaken on other projects should not be taken into account here. Whether he accepts official names or not is a personal matter. What should matter here is his conduct in seeking or following consensus and generally abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. I agree that Moldopodo has not been the ideal editor in those respects, but to be fair, you have also breached various policies, and Moldopodo's actions should be seen in the light of these mitigating circumstances. TSO1D (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he's being very disruptive. I see that others from other Wikipedia also dealt with him properly. By blocking him. Ungurul (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I blocked him once, and I'm not going to do it again on your say so. You can both get along, or you can both be blocked. You are being as bad as each other. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because I simply revert his POV pushing and I respected the rules. He didn't accepted even the consensus on talk page. See that he's reverting. Ungurul (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See his disruptive trolling on Talk:Bălţi 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the statement that I did not look for consensus. Please check relevant talk pages on any language on Balti, Balti steppe, everywhere I engage in the research of consensus and discussion, everywhere I always source my edits, and may be I am too strict by requesting the same from others. Also, User:TSO1D please provide a diff for your statements and namely where I personally attack User:Ungurul. To avoid repetetive attacks from user Ungurul, please find below a copy of my unblock request, where all is explained with diffs: Wikipedia 3RR says: reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents); In the present case, User Ungurul (just as User Dc76) never tried to reach consensus or to prove whatsoever, they just simply pushed through their unjustified personal opinion, without any single reference to a verifiable source, nor any other type of explication (talk page is empty), which is moreover, their personal invention called 'Balti depression'. How can you reach any consensus or any discussion if the person is not writing anything on the talk page. The only thing Dc76 wrote on the talk page (Balti steppe does not exist, that's why it will br moved to Balti depression). Please, have a look at just some randomly googled and selected links I have provided on the Balti steppe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balti_steppe), check also references and link on the last version of Balti steppe article itself, as edited by myself last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balti_steppe&oldid=179776522). User Ungurul. nor User Dc76 had not even tried to present any proof on the talk page. That's why it is mere vandalism and that's why the 3RR rule should not apply to me in this case. User Ungurul has edited much more than myself and violated 3RR much more times. Even if you consider my edits as "reverts", please check attentively, as I was continuing to write portions of the article this morning, user Ungurul kept deleting it and renaming it in the same time. These were not proper reverts from my side as I was continuously adding new text, pictures, links, etc... Also, Balti steppe is a widely known and studied gegraphic phenomenon, it is an established name for grassland type in Moldova. To the contrary Balti depression simply does not exist and the first time I saw this was from User Dc76. I also understad why no justification or attempt to find consensus was found on the Balti steppe talk page. It simply because there is nothing to prove it (google 'balti depression' and you will find 0 results pertaining to the topic). Not only the term is inexistent, the geographic phenomenon of Balti depression is inexistent as well. Look now at Balti steppe talk page, where I provided a random selection of available on internet references to Balti steppe, check also references on the Balti steppe article itself(http://www.biotica-moldova.org/ECO-NET/part6-2-2.htm) and and Britannica Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9012051/Balti), but also: Scientific Ph. D. Research dated 2006 on Fertility of Chernozem in Balti Steppe (Beltskaya Steppe/Бельцкая степь in Russian)(http://www.cnaa.acad.md/files/theses/2006/5617/stanislav_stadnic_abstract_ru.pdf), press article in the major Moldavian newspaper (http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/06/03/0000.html), travel company site(http://www.spectrumtravel.md/eng/country.php?c=3&cid=13), Draft Assessment Report for establishing a national environment and natural resource information network compatible with the UNEP/GRID (http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/moldova/md_assm.htm), Beltsy Steppe(http://www.justmaps.org/flags/europe/moldova.asp), Belcy Steppe in Columbia Encyclopedia 2007 sixth edition, link to European Commission mentioning Balti Steppe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_emerald_network/Pilot_project_Moldova.asp), National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md (http://www.cnaa.acad.md/en/thesis/5617/), Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement (http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/moldova/Biodiv.htm) etc. etc... Balti steppe article is properly sourced. Have you found any source for Balti depression? This is why the 3RR should not apply to me, or rather apply, but with its exception. User Ungurul clearly violated the 3RR and this more than once, bringing all vandalism to the article. Please tell me why did you not unblock me taking in consideration the disruptive vandalsising editing undertaken by User:Ungurul, as suggested initially by User:Dc76, and why if you intend to keep me blocked, why was I blocked for one week and User:Ungurul for 24 hours. I would also like to check users for socket pupetting User:Bonaparte, User:Ungurul (uses exact same agressive style, does not listen to arguments and does not provide any sources, edits exclusively on Romania and Moldavia related topics), Utilisateur:William_Pedros (on French speaking Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Pedros) (exact same style, calling me right off "vandal"), User: 89.185.33.40 (exact same editing style, calling my sourced edits "vandalism") and User:Dc76 (initiator of the page move); also User: 89.185.33.40 used exact same language as Dc76: "pushing POV, bordering vandalism, and edited only on Romania and Moldova related articles, namely to make sure that Dc76's edits or ideas are brought back. Thank you very much in advance for your answer and most importantly: "Happy Christmas!" (even if you do not celebrate it today)--Moldopodo (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

There is no way I'm reading that whole thing. Can you just discuss it without edit-warring or making personal attacks? Is that really so much to ask? Avruchtalk 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you can see all how disruptive he is. Imagine how he destroyed all the articles with huge talk pages like this one. Yet, he said he never attacked me or he was never beeen disruptive. This guy is a troll, and a vandal. No wonder he was blocked so many times. Ungurul (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there was no single personal attack from my side regarding User:Ungurul, however, there were plenty from his side in my regard, and the last one just here[24]. Please, do take some time and have a look through my arguments and presented diffs. --Moldopodo (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Everyone can see, now you'll be blocked for good. People are tired of you and your vandalisme and trolling. --Ungurul (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

and User:Ungurul continues:[25], aslo check how User:Ungurul renamed this whole section "Banning user Moldopodo"--Moldopodo (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Don't worry, you're just a vandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo

• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

Time to block both?

New section header so this doesn't get lost in the flurry of polemics above. I propose that these two editors are both acting disruptive. If each continues to rail against the other here (and in other forums, such at article talk pages and admin talk pages fishing for blocks) they would best serve the project by losing editing privelages. You two have a content dispute, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the proper forum. — Scientizzle 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking when reviewing this mess of a thread. I'd support a block of both for mutual disruptive unpleasantness and wastage of WP:ANI bytes. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd support a double block; neither of them seems able or willing to just discuss their disagreement like reasonable adults, and I'm tired of them looking to us to referee this lame edit-war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept to be blocked for one month if Moldo is blocked also. Anyway, I was the good guy here, because I didn't accept to change official names and I was not disruptive and I didn't fill huge talk pages like he did. One can check. Ungurul (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And also please remark that everything was OK until he get unblocked. He was blocked for a week last time. Ungurul (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a child. Shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a child. But he is not. Ungurul (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked them both for 14 days. When the blocks expire, anything more disruptive than good-faith dispute resolution, if necessary, won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scientizzle. Moldopodo and Ungurul, when your blocks expire you're welcome to contribute to the peaceful resolution of this content dispute at Talk:Bălţi steppe. Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Account of Moldopodo unblocked. You failed to look into user contribution history. For last 7 days I see no disruption of wikipedia editing. This is an outrageous abuse of admin privileges. `'Míkka>t 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An "outrageous abuse of admin privileges"? I fully disagree. I won't revert your solitary sysop undo of a supported (see above) admin action without discussion. But I'm nonplussed. These two, continually bickering over many, many pages, was considered disruptive by several editors. — Scientizzle 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has be no discussion or support for an unblock, nor has an attempt been made to contanct the blocking admin prior to it. Wheel warring is considered improper behavior for an administrator.--Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this unilateral unblock, which I think is in very bad form, and about your comment, which I think is unbecoming an administrator. I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair. Also, a statement such as "outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is way out of line considering the support expressed for this action above. Mikkalai, I recommend that you retract that statement and reinstate the block of Moldopoldo. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend y'all stop wikilawyering upon me and address the issue: for the last week there was no any disruption of article ediing from the side of Moldopodo. Your refusal to admit an error confirms my opinion about certain attitude about way too trigger-happy administratitis. The fact taht he person is kinda inconvenient does not mean taht you have to hit in on head after the first cry wolf wthout looking into the essence. If you disagee with me please provide example of the disruption and we shall talk. It is especially outrageous that an attempt to involve more people to resolve a conflict between the two by posting in this page was an argument in favor of block instead of help. What is wrong with you people? Did they spoil your holiday supper or what? <sadly shaking the head> `'Míkka>t 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The expression "I fail to see what relevance a previous lack of disruption by Moldopoldo has in this affair" makes me wonder: who of us is crazy? Or wikilawyers already concocted a policy that you may ban a person for last year snow? `'Míkka>t 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One important note: There was no disruption from Moldopodo for a week at least partially because he was blocked for the week of December 23-December 30. I'm willing to concede that maybe Ungurul (talk · contribs) was a bigger problem in this case, but Moldopodo not being disruptive on articles during his or her week-long block for edit warring is hardly a strong argument for an unblock. I'm a reasonable guy and will listen to reasoned arguments, and had this been brought up to me directly I may have been convinced to unblock the account myself. — Scientizzle 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor can see thusfar that this discussion as has the previous ones, contradicts an unblock. and by no means could this discussion be consrude or intrpereted as a consensus for an unblock. More troubling is your confrontational attitude, and rejection of community input and its consensus process.--Hu12 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a reasonable editor and I have to say I was uncomfortable about the block of Moldopodo. What exactly (with diffs please) did he do wrong? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this unblock, because whereas I have often disagreed in the past with user Moldopodo, and he always describes me as his nemesis, I think that in this case he did not really do anything severe enough to deserve a two week ban (or any ban for that matter). However since both he and Ungurul were blocked simultaneusly for their mutual conflict, I think that since Moldopodo has been unblocked, Ungurul's block should also be reviewed and shortened if not completely set aside. TSO1D (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ungurul was persistently teasing and harassing moldopodo and I am strongly against the unblock. On the contrary, Moldopodo was discussing unguru's ridiculous edits mixed with lies. This very thread was started with false accusation by ungurul. Super-admins decided to play annoyed unstead of looking into the matter. `'Míkka>t 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. No one (including myself) looked into the matter deeply enough. I am strongly opposed to unblocking Ungural who was clearly only trying to get Moldopodo blocked; clearly disruptive in my book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that ungurul's actions were more severe and that he should not be immediatly unblocked. However, since both users were banned for engaging in a disruptive conflict more than anything specific, it seems hardly fair to pardon one of the users and let the other serve the full block. So I reduced Ungurul's block to three days. If any of them starts edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, the original block should be reinstated. Actually it might be wise to do a Checkuser on Ungurul, he could be a sock of Bonnie and then the result would be clear. My actions were based on the assumption that he was a new user. TSO1D (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

←A few points, some I've previously stated above:

• Ungurul (talk · contribs) was clearly disruptive and a block to this account appears to be well-supported, even if it has been shortened.
  • Any sockpuppet suspicions should have been brought up much earlier and much clearer. If this is possibly a banned user causing trouble again, that would have been nice to know yesterday.
• Moldopodo (talk · contribs) was sucked into this by the frenetic accusations of Ungurul, and I'm willing to concede that Moldopodo appears was less deserving of a block (of any length) than Ungurul. Moldopodo's statements and actions in this last round were light-years more appropriate than Ungurul.
  • That said, the statement that Moldopodo hadn't caused any disruptions over the last week is misinformative, as Moldopodo was blocked for a week on December 23 and couldn't cause any disruption during that time.
• I am sufficiently ignorant of the details of Eastern European geography that I am ill-equipped to analyze all of the "factual" statements thrown around in this and other forums. The content disagreements between these users that has previously resulted in numerous edit wars and blocks for both. The repeated characterization of each others' edits as vandalism and trolling had the distinct feel of an overly heated content dispute, one in which neither party was willing to tone down the attitudes or rhetoric.
• Moldopodo has starred in previous ANI threads: edit war with Dc76 (talk · contribs)[26]; complaints about TSO1D (talk · contribs)[27]; complaining about admin Nat (talk · contribs) as well as TSO1D[28]; more TSO1D v. Moldopodo[29]; and more here and here and here and the most recent iteration. And there have been at least suspicions of abusive puppetry by Moldopodo, too. In any case, I did see much of this prior to my enacted block (despite claims otherwise): Moldopodo has displayed some tendencies of the classic tendentious editor, focuses all efforts on a particularly tendentious arena, and has certainly conflicted with other tendentious types. This sort of resume, admittedly, often makes other uninvolved editors (myself included) less patient with drama-producing (or alleged drama-producing) edit warriors in more esoteric fields. This is futher compounded by Moldopodo's communication style that makes it difficult to wade through his/her side of the various issues. All of this combined quickly sapped my patience, I admit.
• Finally, I object to a few things specific to mikkalai (talk · contribs):
  • My block summary was not a "false reason" as you claimed in your unblock summary (though I should have selected "disruptive" over "edit warring") and the lack of disruption in the prior week is a sham of a defense (vis-à-vis Moldopodo’s week-long block during said period).
  • Making statements like "User ungurul is an ignorant arrogant person and suspected sockpuppet" does nothing to defuse the situation (without evidence or elaboration on the sock allegation) and can appear to be evidence of a bias on your part, deserved or not.
  • Characterizing my action as "an outrageous abuse of admin privileges" is more than a touch hyperbolic.
  • Had you brought any of this up on my talk page or via email before unblocking I would have listened carefully; I am very comfortable admiting and resolving any mistake I may make. I hope you and other editors will not hesitate, if necessary, in the future, to contact me prior to any unilateral action opposing or undoing my adminstrative activites.

— Scientizzle 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• All this smoke and mirror does not address the one and only basic question: which exactly disruption happened during the last week that warranted a very long block. BTW a nice move to turn tables and turn discussion into how bad I am. I describe the action in question as blatant abuse of admin privileges and you did nothing to change my opinion. And I will act exactly the same way when I see the one next time, and you may sue me. I may give a slack to a childish anon vandal and warn him 3 times before blocking, but we are talking about inappropriate acions of admins here. I could have understood that you alone misjudged in a hurry, but when I saw several of you banding up into a lynch mob chanting: "I don't want to read all this bullshit he wrote, just hang him high block him deep and done with it!", it really ticked me off. `'Míkka>t 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And your stubborn attitude is glossing over that I have admitted to some mistakes and also explained some of the mindset in which I worked. A good-faith mistake is not the same as abuse. There's no smoke and mirrors here. I am in no way describing way in which you are "bad", I just noted a couple of specific things about your response that could have been done differently (better, in my opinion) to reduce drama, namely discussing directly with me your opinions. I see nothing more that needs to be done here (all blocks are set to everyone's satisfaction?), but I'll welcome any further comments on my own talk page. — Scientizzle 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I admit that I was not reading very carefully your preceding detailed response and your admission of mistake was lost from me. For that I apologize. I have already explained that were you alone, I would not make any fuss of it. The real problem is how you managed to get an unanimous support in this page. I understand that one person can make a mistake sometimes. But really worrisome was that several people here happily displayed a mob attitude without minimal inspection. It took me only 3 seconds do realize that moldopodo cound not have possibly done something bad during last week. And it does not really matter whether he was blocked or was busy boinking his girlfriend. I may only conclude that the miltuperson decision was made based on a hearsay and vague memories taht yes this guy was nuisance in the past, let's nuke him now. And this is way not the first time I see this attitude. I don't care what opinion you will have about me after this, as long as you and other who reads this be less jumpy to conclusions next time. `'Míkka>t 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks, has anybody checked if Ungurul isn't just another Bonaparte sock? Bonaparte has been after Moldopodo for a while, and the style fits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jim62sch

NB. The Videmus Omnia aspects of this thread have been referred to ArbCom. Further discussion should concentrate on addressing the original post by Chris Cunningham. Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See this edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC) to reinstate a diff provided by Chris Cunningham when opening the thread. dave souza, talk 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC) User:Jim62sch disagrees with my editing style, although he didn't see fit to really explain why in my sole previous encounter with him (and, per his comment there, was quite flippant about the idea of providing a reason in an RfA). However, this sort of comment is beyond the pale. I'm being treated like some sort of vandal, or serial abuser of the system, and don't deserved to be talked about derisively in the third person on random article talk pages.

His last comment on his own talk page, along with the general attitudes conveyed within, suggest that this is indeed what I should expect from him in future. I'm not sure how to handle this, especially as I'd rather not go through the same torrent of personal abuse and pointed insults as I did from the group of editors in question as I did during my RfA. However, while walking away from homeopathy entirely was okay (first step: back off), I'm not prepared to simply keep retreating every time I'm attacked like this. Suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit you cite is out of line, although I don't see the relevance of the other two edits. I've given Jim62sch a WP:NPA warning, and a link to this thread. Sandstein (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than handing out a template warning I'd have been inclined to ask why Jim, who joined Wikipedia over two years ago and has over 8,000 mainspace edits, should consider that drive-by edits without discussion are characteristic of Thumperward. YMMV, of course; I have become so cynical that my first reaction to any report by a user I do not know is to investigate their behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll hear Jim's side of the story soon, and I have now changed my template warning to a more personal one. Still, even if Thumperward should turn out to have conduct problems of his own, edits such as this are not acceptable under WP:NPA. Sandstein (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the "assuming good faith" part. I joined WP more than two years ago and have > 10k mainspace edits. The links I provided show why Jim responded like this: a spat with User:Orangemarlin over homeopathy three weeks ago which resulted in a heavy battering of my RfA by sympathetic editors (including Jim62sch) with whom I'd had no previous interaction. I'd hoped to resolve this by walking away from the article, but that's apparently not working. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking away from which article?

In any case Chris, when you make substantial edits to an article, edits that significantly change the article (especially a featured article), and neither leave messages nor engage in any discussion on the perceived merits of your edits it is quite difficult to WP:AGF. The edits appear to be just as I said: hit and run changes. I'll note that PL, an excellent editor and the main writer on the article, has left very cogent statements here. Apparently the merits of your edits are escaping both of us.

Finally, given that I made an observation of the behaviour of the editor, not of the personality of the editor, I fail to see how NPA applies. No offense, Chris, but the manner you went about making the changes was simply wrong and keep in mind that at no point did I claim that you were a vandal or serial abuser of the system.

Note, Chris, I could claim a vio of NPA on your part given your comments above and the fact that you felt the need to include unrelated diffs in an effort to "sully" my reputation. Of course, I won't, as I'm not into silly tit-for-tat games, but I definitely could. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the way I was editing: I'm following WP:BRD, and I've replied to PL on talk now that he's explained his reasons for reverting. I feel that your attack on me on the Nostradamus talk page is a continuance of my previous (albeit vicarious) interaction with you on the homeopathy article and my RfA. Misrepresenting my edit history in a manner which is clearly intended to be derogatory ("glad you caught him") was clearly meant to be insulting, and bringing it up here (when frankly I didn't feel safe bringing it up on your user talk) is in no way a personal attack. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly bullying, given what passes for civility these days, and the NPA warning seems excessive. Again, admin warnings require having a sense of proportion in addition to diligence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So, Chris, you can read intent? Really? So much for that there WP:AGF stuff (at least as a universal concept, anyway). You don't feel safe on my page? I'm sorry Chris, but I don't even know how to address that one ... to the best of my knowledge my page isn't booby-trapped and the same folks that frequent my page frequent this page as well, so I'm afraid I just can't see the genesis for any fear. Nope, I just can't.

Oh wait, was it this? Well, quite honestly, yes the teacher will find his career ended when the school board informs him that it is in his best interest to resign. See, that's known as exercising one's political power -- just like the parents did in Dover. The board members found their careers ended. If someone harms my children in some way, you can be sure that I'll take legal action to rectify the injury (as I did with a school disciplinarian who is no longer employed by the school district). Not that this has anything to do with Wikipedia, but since you brought it up ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean Chris Cunningham is pressing this An/I because a bunch of us voted against him in the RfA???? Are you serious???? You were battered at the RfA because of YOUR behavior at Homeopathy. My friends did not show up to batter you, it is in fact a group of editors here who observe a whole host of articles, making certain that the NPOV is strictly followed. I would suggest heartily that you spend a few moments to consider that these baseless accusations against very good and very prolific editors are only going to hurt you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the RfA comment thing, but, now that you mentioned it (the RfA that is), there is something I'd like to reclarify:

As I posted at the RfA, "I don't think explaining one's reasoning is imperative, or even necessary in the case of RFA's as they are functionally elections. Explaining one's reasons in such a venue may be a nicety but it is hardly a requirement."

Explaining oneself on article discussion pages on the other hand is, if not required, damned close to it.

Odd, I hadn't even realised the connection between Chris being mad at the outcome of his RfA and this AN/I. I must have been exercising too much of that there WP:AGF.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see the RfA material being dredged up again. I was hoping, and I still hope, to support Chris in the future when he is put up again for admin. In fact, that has been my plan. However, if this is going to be used as an excuse to blow every tiny dispute up into a huge mess and for recriminations to be slung around, this makes me wonder about maturity levels, and readiness for more responsibility here on Wikipedia. Chris, just try to show some class so I can support you wholeheartedly next time around for admin, ok?--Filll (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been the victim of Jim62sch's off-wiki harassment techniques in the past; this is something that has even been called to Jimbo's attention (and Jimbo promised a blockban, though it unfortunately never happened). I'm willing to provide the evidence by e-mail to any established user that asks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're going to bring in outside evidence? Oh, yeah, I remember you. You battled Jim and others over your aggressive stance on images. That's just a content dispute. Let's get real around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another member of the club. You don't believe Jim would engage in off-wiki harrassment? Jim threatened to contact my employer on a suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network. After viewing his e-mail, Jimbo said "In my opinion, that's enough to ban Jim62Sch right there. This is not the kind of person I want participating in Wikipedia, period, full stop.". Unfortunately there was no followup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I'd rather see it than believe it, where's the diff? And let's see if there was any context. Because Jim is here. And what club? And did I say Jim wouldn't engage in off-wiki harassment? Honestly, how much drama do you enjoy having around here? Since I'm a huge supporter of protection of Intellectual Property rights of owners (for example, I don't think music should be freely shared without explicit permission of the copyright holder), you will note that I rarely supported anyone who "steals" intellectual property. Moreover, you could have my support in these disputes over images, except you aren't very nice to those who "oppose" you. I think you are the perfect example of WP:KETTLE with respect to Jim. But since this isn't about you, and it's about Thumperward getting overly upset about Jim, let's stick to that issue and only that issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've forwarded the evidence to the ArbCom mailing list, as it includes addressees whose names should remain confidential at their request. However, I'm now starting to wonder if I was just being jerked off in the responses to my earlier complaints to to keep me from raising a stink, seeing how exactly nothing has happened in response to pretty serious allegations, except for some "I feel your pain" responses. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri)(legal threat removed by TK)&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this, some kind of blackmail attempt? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go to arbitration ... seriously. Contacting employers of good faith Wikipedia editors (or threatening to do so) is unacceptable. --B (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(intimidation removed by TK) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez B, I thought you quit and you'd only worry about that 3rd rate technical school in Virginia. Now you're threatening Jim, and he doesn't care about the 3rd rate technical school in Virginia either. But as for contacting employers, yeah too bad, (intimidation removed by TK) And if Jim is using federal computers to come here, then turnabout is fair play. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't wasted your tax dollars, I've only edited while off-duty. I even double-checked following Jim62sch's earlier spurious allegation to make sure. So I'm not susceptible to extortion in this regard. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Extortion? I though you said it was blackmail. In any case, I asked you a simple question, (intimidation removed by TK) All you needed to do was respond that you weren't doing so and that would have been the end of it, I would have apologised for assuming in the face of much evidence that you were. Very simple really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we take a step back here and think about what kind of environment we want to edit in. I'm well aware of the federal government's policies on computer use; many, if not most, private employers have similar (though usually less draconian) policies. Yet I would venture to guess that quite a few editors contribute during their work hours. Do we really want to suggest that any of these users, should they make the mistake of providing too much identifying info, be at risk of real-life disciplinary action at their job as a result of good-faith contributions to Wikipedia? If that's the precedent we set, then it's going to create an atmosphere that drives away useful contributions and editors. I have a lot of respect for Jim and OrangeMarlin, but I'm really uncomfortable with the direction in which this is heading. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I do not edit using government computers. What anyone else does is on them. Admittedly, I could have phrased the question more delicately, but given that federal employees are the target of many waste fraud and abuse charges, it irks me to see them violating federal policies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it irks you or not sending an email like that is harrasment ans not allowed here. Do you understand? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone (Jimbo?) can confirm VO's claims, I think this user should clearly be banned. I usually agree with you on articles, OrangeMarlin, but you seem way out of line here. Maybe the SA block and all of this drama has gotten to you. I think you should take a brief wikibreak for your own sake. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd object to a ban on the grounds that I've yet to see any evidence of actual bullying. I'm not even sure of why think anyone here would need to take a wikibreak. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for arbitration. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin appears to say that threatening government employees should be acceptable because he pays a lot of taxes. I think the argument betrays a lot of accumulated wikistress, and sincerely and sympathetically believe that OrangeMarlin should celebrate the New Year away from the internet. Cool Hand Luke 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think you need to go get drunk and quit putting words in my mouth. Happy New Year!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth? All I see in this thread is just nonsense being blown way out of proportion. What does any of this sniping and stupidity have to do with writing an encyclopedia?--Filll (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to see what your buddy Jim62sch has been up to? Should I post his extortion attempts right here at the noticeboard? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds serious. Have Jim arrested, drawn and quartered!!!! Happy New Year!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[We don't allow posting of private emails. I've deleted it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]

Yes, let's hide the evidence, even though it came through Wikipedia's e-mail system. Maybe I should also include Jimbo's quotes regarding it, though they weren't good and indicated Jim62sch should be banned. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already quoted Jimbo. Let ArbCom deal with it. In fact, seeing as ArbCom are looking like they will accept this case quickly, I'm going to archive this discussion now. Further arguing here will not be constructive. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia reverted my archiving, noting that there are other issues being discussed here, which is fair enough. I still feel the Videmus Omnia-Jim62sch aspects of the thread should be wound down, and Chris Cunningham's original point addressed instead, and have added a note at the top of the thread to that effect. Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To see respected editors cheer on an attempt by another editor to blatantly blackmail a member of the US armed services in this manner makes me sick to my stomach. A happy new year indeed. - Merzbow (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to contact an enployer in order to cause a wikipedia editor real life stress is absolutely a blockable offence, and if that's what Jim62sch did he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Orangemarlin's defence of such actions is appauling. What on Earth are you thinking? This thread needs to stop now as people are behaving so badly. Let the arb com deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott, you seem to be jumping to conclusions on the basis of an extract from a discussion, cited out of context by the complainant whose side you're taking. Such speculation should be treated with due caution by arbcom. Best return to the subject of this section. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was basing my comment on what Jim62sch said in the thread above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiight. The first diff (which had gone missing) shows an arguable civility problem, taken here rather than following the suggestions at Wikipedia:Civility. The second diff appears to indicate that any unexplained 'oppose' vote at an RfA is taken by Thumperward/Chris Cunningham as something of particular note, and the third is a point made in a discussion between Jim62sch and other editors, which Thumperward/Chris Cunningham had not participated in. It was on Jim62sch's own user page, and he made the point that he would not tolerate a teacher breaking the law by attempting to indoctrinate his children in an unconstitutional way. Why Thumperward/Chris Cunningham thinks this suggests "that this is indeed what I should expect from him in future" is unclear. As for suggestions on how to handle this in future, my recommendation is to take care to provide edit summaries and raise any potentially controversial issues on the talk page at the time of making the edits. WP:BRD can readily escalate arguments unless care is taken to explain actions. That's hardly "retreating". .. dave souza, talk 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A small group of editors, most notably Orangemarlin and Jim62sch, has been demonstrating an extreme lack of civility, combined with regular personal attacks and what I would describe as a "pack mentality" - tantamount to playground bullying- towards those that they disagree with, for some time now. They are aggressive, the assume bad faith constantly, and at times their behaviour towards other editors is so obnoxious as to very nearly veer off into self-parody. That's not an attempt at a personal attack, that's an attempt to state the situation as it is. Abundant evidence can be found by anyone who cares to even briefly look through contribs. This behaviour is unacceptable, it poisons the atmosphere, it drives good-faith editors away, and it is anti-wiki. The real life harassment claims, if true, are utterly unacceptable, but that is a matter for the arbcom. The incivility and wanton aggression can be dealt with here. This has been going on for some time, and I'm sorry to say that because they haven't bullied or insulted anyone important, nothing has yet been done about it. I have posted on this board before regarding a similar situation and it was ignored. I would like to think that I'm a good faith, albeit casual, long term editor of wikipedia with a few thousand unspectacular edits to my name. I don't relish being afraid to contribute to articles or talk pages in case I get battered by a bunch of bullies. I should point out that I am somewhat familiar with the editing of this group and they are dedicated encyclopaedists with numerous substantial edits. It is their behaviour on talk pages and in edit summaries that poses the problem. But either WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF etc. mean something or they don't. If they are meaningless, let's stop pretending that they matter, repeal them all, and make Wikipedia a free for all, with all the consequences that that entails. But if we still want to preserve them, then we as a community need to do something about editors like this. I certainly do not want to see anyone blocked or banned unless imperative. What I do want to see is some recognition that abuse towards other editors is wrong and a genuine commitment to alter behaviour appropriately. This issue is one that has been simmering for some time and perhaps Chris Cunningham's post above provides the catalyst for a wider resolution.

I fully expect to now be ripped to pieces by the editors concerned, as has sadly happened a number of times in the past. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sensitivity is appreciated, but you're going to have to show that your interpretation of discussions is correct before escalating this discussion. I've always taken considerable care to be civil and polite, but can recall having been accused of breaching WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF etc. when cautiously pointing out the actions of other editors. . .. dave souza, talk 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you are a close associate of OM, Jim62sch, and their colleagues, but in my experience at least, you have always been perfectly civil, genuine, and acted in good faith. Can I ask you to give your own take on things? What's your view of the behaviour towards others of OM and Jim62sch, for example?

Detailed diffs are abundant and there are many, many examples of incivility, attacks and the abrogation of good faith. I'm not going to spend an hour picking out examples and formatting them for this discussion on New Years' Day. As a general point, I think it would be useful for any any editor who actually takes an interest to take a look through the contribution histories of Jim62sch and OM and form a general impression of their conduct and style of interaction with others, rather than me taking a number of individual edits out of context and placing them here. Do we as a community think it's now acceptable to behave this way or not? It was not when I first began editing here a couple of years ago, but Wikipedia has changed and maybe I haven't changed with it. I am genuinely interested to hear peoples' opinion on the subject.Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak of anybody involved in this but I have twice warned Orangemarlin about breaching WP:NPA and WP:CIV and he is unrepentant, not seeing anything wrong in what he says. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I suggest finding some diffs as evidence and starting an RfC. If enough people support an outside view that some of these editors are being incivil, then that will be an important step in dispute resolution. Alternatively, if enough people support an outside view that these editors are not behaving as you've said, then this will also be an important step towards resolving the disputes. If you do this within the confines of an RfC, that should avoid any pack mentality that may or may not exist. It is also the case that experienced editors can get jaded and start taking shortcuts and exhibiting a siege mentality. That does need to be addressed when it happens, but diffs are needed to demonstrate that it has happened. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say I agree with most of what ChrisC and Badgerpatrol have said about Jim and OM. They do overstep the mark at times and become uncivil. I have seen this myself. However, to be scrupulously fair to them both I would also say they can be very dry and witty and even hilariously funny at times. In that sense they can be viewed differently according to one's own mood, stress-level and attitude. When interpreted in this dry and tongue-in-cheek manner their comments do seem much more harmless and just genuinely funny. Maybe the attitude of the reader contributes to how their comments are interpreted? So maybe they do need watching but a ban seems a tad draconian at this stage to me. Just my ten cents FWIW Peter morrell 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above by several contributors. If an editor confronts the same complaint by the 20th or 50th incarnation of the same sock puppet in the last couple of months, one can experience burn out and perhaps not always be as polite as one might be otherwise. It is not always appropriate, but it is quite understandable. I think that blocking for the examples I have seen seems excessively Draconian. This is unfortunately the consequence and other side of the coin of demands that trolls, POV warriors, sock puppets, meat puppets etc be given more respect than established productive editors.--Filll (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, I'm quite sarcastic. Peter has noticed this and we've enjoyed some interesting sparring because we are both sarcastic (just on different sides of the alt med issue). But, because of that very enjoyable sparring, I have a lot of respect for Peter -- his crazy alt med ideas notwithstanding.  ;) I'm sorry that others can't see that sarcasm very much reflects the mind of the individual, and tends to point toward a certain level of intelligence.

It's funny, sarcasm appears to have been developed by the Greeks, satire by the Romans (our intellectual forebears), and we find it necessary to reject both on sensitivity grounds. Sad. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Resolved

Sock of banned user blocked. miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to state first and foremost and apology for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I was only the CIyde Vandal and the Clap Vandal. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing.

- Encyclopedist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merdanda (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is reformed, look at his edits to User talk:Merdanda. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was really hurt that he called me a faggot. I'm not a faggot, I'm a dyke- users who make inaccurate edits really shouldn't be editing at Wikipedia. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Love it, FisherQueen. ...don't you wish your username was hot like me....don't ya? :-P miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's Jonny the Vandal / Mike Garcia, not Encyclopedist. WP:RBI is the cure for that guy - Alison ^❤ 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

obvious AFD socks

Lastchild is apparently using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicRack. S/he created the article. The socks are:

Solano2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Clayton.Aguiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users both have very few edits and used similar arguments in the AFD. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is not true. I created this account to add an entry to my favorite ComicReader program (I guess almost everyone starts that way). I added an entry which was speed deleted in about 1 day. After a week i found out that a different person has made a ComicRack article. As it was marked again for deletion, I just added some comments to the deletion discussion board. I'm new to this wikipedia thing, but the experiences i had in the last 2 weeks have almost destroyed any liking i had for wikipedia. As i do not how to prove that i am not Lastchild, who this JetLover is, and in general in what beehive i've stuck my head, those who are in power here should do whatever they like. --Solano2k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To a normal user like me, seeing your first and only (non-deleted) edit looks a bit suspect. The use of "Do not delete" has also shown to indicate a relative new-ness to Wikipediam whereas veteran users use "Keep". Will ^(talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they're socks or not, but while rzgofv's argument looks like lastchild's, solano's did not to me, and in fact, i supported a "keep" based on his argument for parity between the file format and the software supporting it. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD are discussions, not votes. So socks should not matter if they don't have valid arguments. I am not supporting socks but merely saying that the creators are wasting their energy.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't appear to be socks through Checkuser; it might be the case that a call to action was posted to some website or mailing list, but these appear to be different people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed Solano2k. Sorry. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally commented on that AFD that it smelled like socks; specifically, User:Rzgofv made his first contribution there. I find it hard to believe that someone would create an account then make a beeline for AFD 21 minutes later. I brought this concern up with User:Snowolf but was told to WP:AGF. I did leave a note on User:Lastchild's talk page, but the user seems to have been offended, and accused me of personal attacks, so I just requested that they follow Wikipedia's policies and stepped back.

Also, I don't believe Solano2k is the same user; the style of writing and way that they formatted their comment on AfD was slightly different than Lastchild's, in a way that is pretty hard to fake. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A Favour Please

Resolved

We have a new User:I LOVE THE JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, & RINGO. He started out by making changes to Beatles'-related articles like this [30], which I reverted leaving pointers in the edit summary. Having put advice on policy on this talk page, he then blanked it & redirected to The Beatles and carried on his unencyclopedic additions. I left him with a VW3, since I think he should have had the message by then, and a Welcome pointing him the direction of policy. He then did this : [31]. I am reluctant to engage if this is his tone and ask if someone will leave a note about WP:CIVIL and the use of Talk pages for him. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've honestly never seen such a reaction like that. I think his edits to the mainspace are generally good-faith, just misguided.J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i left a level one warning about civility towards other users, its just the generic attack1 warn, so if someone else wants to leave him a message feel free. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to keep an eye on his contributions as he is showing signs of a vandal account. If anyone is doing the same remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to monitor User:ILOVETHEOC (contribs)as well. Similar usernames, similar editing style.Kww (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems to have the same issues re WP:OWN, not to mention edit summaries (is this a record for the number of cumulative capitalised "fucks" in a summary?). Added to the list. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - User has sense not edited, it is a possibility (s)he has left.Tiptoety ^talk 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Block by admin User:Sandstein

This involves a 3RR report I filed here. A relatively new user is trying to exclude a certain paragraph largely because he doesn't like a word in it. I told him on the talk page and in edit summaries that this content was sourced and that was not a reason to exclude it. He ignored my warning against edit-warring and reverted four times. I reverted three time. In response to my post about the 3RR violation, Sandstein blocked me for "edit-warring." Would other admins please comment on this action, and give their policy for blocking. "Edit-warring" is vague and subjective. It is unfair that admins block other users based on subjective judgments when other users would not be blocked for the exact same behavior in other situations by other admins. Arrow740 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Each decision is made on a case by case basis, apparently. Is there any webpage, where I can get more information about such blocks?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the policies applying would be WP:EW and WP:3RR. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, that's the point. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein blocked Imad marie (talk · contribs) as well, and that is what I would have done as well. It takes two to edit war. The fact that Imad was the first to revert should not disadvantage him, and allow you to call him out for doing the same thing you were doing (edit warring) simply because he hits four first; as WP:3RR says, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". It was just you two reverting, with no edits in between. If you had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. If Imad had not continued to revert, the edit war would have stopped. So, you should both be blocked for edit warring; you both committed the same infraction, numbers notwithstanding. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I didn't violate 3RR, he did. Maybe you'll admit that. I already know your opinion; I should be blocked whenever I reach 3 reverts, even when combating sockpuppetry. By the (not quite coherent) philosophy you're espousing here, anyone who uses even two reverts could be blocked for edit-warring. You're giving yourself too much power. Arrow740 (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh common Arrow740, why do you think these fellows wanted to be an `admin` in the first place? Obviously to exercise power, of course they will give themselves `too much power`..And dont use too much confusing logical reasonings when dealing with Tariqabjotu or Sandstein, they wont be able to follow you, and you might end up being blocked again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.217.15 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents Sandstein's wrong. I took a look at the 3rr report and you've reverted vandalism 3 times. According to 3RR , removing vandalism is an exception to 3RR.

The 3rr shows, just as you said that IMADMARIE was removing sourced content and you were restoring it. The block needs to be removed - 3RR on ARROW740 never happened, per policy. Just my .2 Cents The Alien from another world formerly known as Kosh Vorlon, previously of Vorlon Homeworld, some where in the Taurus constellation —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all removals of "sourced content" are necessarily vandalism. See WP:VAND. P.S: Could you please shorten your signature, as per WP:SIG#Length? Sandstein (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Burntsauce

Je suis un Hippo (talk · contribs) is claiming to be a sock of Burntsauce (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blockinated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a sock puppet, more likely just some random troll stirring up trouble. Note he also claimed to be the banned Brian G Crawford. 75.175.21.206 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the single post IP evaluates what is or isn't a sockpuppet.[32] Durova^Charge! 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather strange

When this sockpuppet identified himself on Burntsauce's talk page, he announced his name as Brian G. Crawford. After a quick search, it turns out there was a User:Brian G. Crawford (who is banned) and after a search into his contributions of both editors, it seems the sockpuppet had a problem with Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin and JzG [33] and it was no surprise when I looked at Brian G. Crawford's contributions had a dispute with these editors.

This is all very confusing considering Burntsauce was confirmed to have been meatpuppeting for User:JB196, a totally unrelated banned editor. Considering Brian G. Crawford = Burntsauce per that "confession" of sorts, I will tag Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford, but it seems really, really strange that one banned editor, Brian G. Crawford, would create an account to become a meatpuppet for another banned editor, JB196. — Save_Us_229 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that tag, a claim made by an IP editor for whom we have no evidence of any connection to either is not a valid basis on which to make such a claim. —Random832 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do we have any evidence linking this to Burntsauce? I've been in contact with him via e-mail, and Brian G. Crawford is not Burntsauce's real-life name. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you have been in contact with him enough to know that. In any case, User:Je suis un Hippo is tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet, so besides the 'confession' (which I guess is deemed invalid), why is User:Je suis un Hippo still tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet? Shouldn't it be moved to a Brian G. Crawford sockpuppet? — Save_Us_229 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue IP rangeblock

67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for abusing sockpuppet accounts (being a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), despite his strenuous denial that he's been editing legitimately and not being a sockpuppet. I think Special:Contributions/67.135.49.177 will be instructive in determining why he's been disruptive.

I recently asked him a legitimate question about whether he plans to constructively edit any pages once the block expires. In response, he undid my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 180656254 by Elkman (talk) - rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". That pretty much tells me that he doesn't plan to do any constructive editing.

I have blocked his entire range of IP addresses (67.135.48.0/23) for three months and protected the two user talk pages that he's been using. I'm reasonably convinced that he has no plans to edit Wikipedia except to make complaints about Wikipedia administration. Frankly, I'm tired of his continued abuse of his user talk page(s) to go on about his grievances. Since I've placed a rangeblock that may affect users of a small ISP based in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, I'm posting here to get feedback. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That seems to be casting a rather wide net, for three months. Is he that disruptive? — Coren ^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh - definitely using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Blocking an entire ISP seems too extreme. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A /23 block is only 512 IPs. These are all the anonymous edits from that range up to August 4th, 2007. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate reading about these situations. being as careful and narrow as possible almost always lets them back in, then they get ip after ip blocked piece-meal, leading to frustration and irritation; blocking massive ranges which assure the editor can't get back in easily run the risk of blocking other contributors. I'd like to go with 'let them register', but that often falls on deaf ears, and the 'anyone can edit' clause. well, we're not precluding registered users, just IP vandals. I suppose the 'right' thing, by current WP standards is to unblock the range, but I keep thinking about all these declarations here on AN/I to crack down on vandals, and how wimpy they wind up being. Given that almost all were by the vandal in question, I say let them stand. The other IP in that range can register. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, the main account itself isn't blocked. So an anon only block on his IP range is going to let him edit from his account. Of course, this may be a good thing - it will force him to use an account rather than obfuscate behind multiple IP addresses. --B (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Forcing" someone to use a registered account is the wrong answer - it's a violation of the privacy policy, which states that editors may edit logged in or not. Can someone explain the point of blocking an ISP to prevent anon editing by a person whose main account isn't blocked? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has imposed a sanction that editors are limited to one account before, so I don't see why that would be totally out of the realm of possibilities. I was more or less tongue in cheek about that part, though, obviously using an ISP block for an editor who isn't even blocked isn't quite right. --B (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering the rangeblock based on the opinions above, but I'm going to wait until the morning (CST) to make the decision. I still don't think he has anything positive to contribute here, and I don't like the idea of users using talk pages to bash Wikipedia and its editors, but maybe the rangeblock is overkill. Other opinions are welcome. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main account isn't even blocked. So right now, it's in a logically inconsistent state. It doesn't make sense to block the range if the editor can just edit using his account. So something needs to change - block the main account or unblock the range (or both).--B (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - also, it's not up to Elkman or any other single admin to tell an editor where they may or may not edit. The more I look into this, the uglier it looks. Guy should never have blocked an IP for sockpuppetry to begin with (editing anonymously is specifically allowed by policy, and cannot be "sockpuppetry"), and this answer to an unblock request only seems liable to inflame the situation rather than improve it. I still don't understand why this person was blocked, anyway - it looks to me like it was possibly over a content dispute, which should have gone to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Has the IP/Jinxmchue edited outside of his usertalk space since the block? If all he's doing is being obnoxious on his IP usertalk page, and he's not actually disrupting articles or editing other spaces, then a range block definitely seems like overkill. Right now, he's just ranting on his IP usertalk page. I'd suggest semi/full-protecting the talk page with a clear explanation that he's abusing it. If he starts using his dynamic IP to evade the block and edit article-space, then a range-block might be appropriate. Just my 2 cents. Also, Jinxmchue edits to provoke a reaction and constantly seems to be in a state of barely contained rage. I still have a couple of... er... colorful emails he sent me after I blocked him for 3RR long ago. He's best ignored or flyswatted rather than nuked. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Videmus, I think (though am not entirely certain) that JzG blocked the IP because Jinxmchue was using it to evade a block on his main account. That was a correct block. As for range blocking to stop an unblocked editor from editing? That's a different story. --B (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there was no block evasion - the IP was blocked for 31 hours on 30 Nov by Adam Cuerden. On 2 Dec, Guettarda blocked the main account for "block evasion" on the IP even though that block had already expired. On 3 Dec Guy blocked the IP for sockpuppetry. Unless I'm missing something, the only good block is Adam's. And the more I look at that IP's talkpage the more it looks like a volatile person was cyber-bullied and provoked into getting mad on their talkpage, which was then used as an excuse for talkpage protection and "harrassment" and "trolling" accusations. That is a thoroughly despicable tactic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP was being used to evade the block put in place by Adam, so blocking the IP was the right decision. Blocking the IP for a month instead of merely blocking it for the time of the original block was a bad decision. --B (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Adam blocked the IP, not the account. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 15:17, 30 November 2007 Adam blocks the IP for 31 hours. Jinxmchue edits with his account starting at 20:24, 30 November 2007 and continuing until blocked by Guettarda at 00:23, 2 December 2007 for block evasion. The IP does not edit until after that block expires, so yes, you are correct and I was wrong. --B (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam blocked Jinx for a 3RRvio. After he was blocked, he switched to his logged-in account, and was editing outside of his userspace before the block expired, and was repeating the same edits for which he was blocked. So I re-set Adam's block, and posted notice of the block here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? --B (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Guettarda here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree your block was 100% correct. JzG's block is the one about which I said I was mistaken. --B (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why are there edits from your IP to Natalie Erin's talkpage that say "natalie erin is a big dyke"[34] or "natalie erin is bitch ass dyke"[35]? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did an IP lookup - it's the IP for Michigan State University, so there's going to be quite a lot of users on that IP. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's right ... it appears to be the computer lab at MSU. Many people could be using that/those computers. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rangeblock and the two protections I just placed. As for the existing block of 67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), that's a block that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) placed, and I'm not going to undo that -- that's wheel warring.

Apparently, I'm the one who screwed up here. Apparently, I can't do things correctly around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a one-month block 29 days into it would not be wheel warring. --B (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed an unblock request on the IP talk page, and request a neutral review. This looks to me a bad block by Guy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was placed because of disruptive edits using that IP (which had no evidence of other uses, so no obvious danger of collateral damage) combined with querulous complaints on the admin noticeboard, the while absolutely refusing to admit to any fault, notably with these: [36] [37]. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me, he admitted it was Jinxmchue. Jinxmchue and his IPs do little other than edit war and push their POV. We should waste less time with such foolishness and concern ourselves instead with helping those editors who are capable of presenting minority POVs without the attendant problems that editors like this bring. It's pretty clear that this editor has used and will continue to use IPs and his account in combination to evade scrutiny and blocking, and there seems to me to be adequate support for editors with a problematic history being required to keep to one account. No provacy violation exists, Jinxmchue freely admits these are his IPs on his user page. Jinxmchue needs, in my opinion and I'm guessing that of Felonious and others, to "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it's logically inconsistent to block his IP when his account is not blocked. --B (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more of an argument to block the main account too than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against anything other than logical consistency. --B (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy - if the reason was blocking was edit-warring or POV-pushing, why does the block log say that it is for sockpuppetry? And why a month? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As to whether 1 month is an appropriate block length for edit-warring/POV-pushing, it may be, given that this user (as both User:Jinxmchue and various IP's) has run up a number of prior 3RR blocks in a short time and has continued to edit-war. As to why the block log gives sockpuppetry as a reason, I don't know, though my suspicion is that there were multiple issues which Guy deemed block-worthy (recidivist edit-warring, POV-pushing, block evasion) and he grabbed one from the drop-down menu. As to whether the IP should be unblocked, or Jinxmchue blocked, or some other combination of actions, I have no opinion beyond the one expressed above - that this is an irascible editor spoiling for a fight, and others have obliged him. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can speak to the quality of Jinxmchue's edits, but the actions on the other side seem to be an unworthy attempt to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by unwarranted use of admin buttons. I'm particularly concerned by FeloniousMonk's actions - he apparently was involved in the dispute, then placed an {{IPsock}} template on the IP userpage against the user's will, then protected the page while involved in the dispute. I don't have any involvement in the Intelligent design/Dominionism area (except for a long-ago dispute regarding non-free images); it seems that users involved in this area are willing to engage in tag-teaming and provocation to enforce their point of view on the articles involved. I'm not saying the blocked user was correct, I'm saying that there seems to be some questionable use of admin buttons by users involved in the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that;s an assumption of bad faith, and extending greater good faith to an edit warrior than to several long-standing contributors. I picked one moth because that's what I usually use in cases of block evasion using what appear to be stable IPs - I use a week or less if the IPs seem to be reallocated frequently. Feel free to help the user fix his behaviour problems, though. I don't think that would be at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this doesn't explain why you blocked for sockpuppetry when there was no sockpuppetry. I can't even see that there was any block evasion. Can you please explain (citing policy as necessary) the reasons for your block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Violating his block by editing logged out

1. 1st block of Jinxmchue for 31 hours, 1 December 2007
2. Editing from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007
3. 2nd block for evading the first, 3 December 2007

Admiting that he violated the block: "Nope. Block period has passed. (I even logged out to see if I got the block message, which I didn't and knew I wouldn't.) Please go harass someone else or find yourself in danger of losing adminship."

Admiting the IPs are his:[38][39][40][41][42]

Your frantic arm waving and claims about Jinxmchue being the aggreived party here are as baseless as they are disruptive, as is your grudge filing against me at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:IPsock and attempt to ban another who's opposed Jinx's disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim62sch. Your time and effort would be better spent finding constuctive ways to contribute to the project rather than stirring up drama and settling old scores... it's becoming disruptive and appears to be spreading. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "evidence" shows that the user didn't edit outside of user talkspace during his block. Would you also care to explain your protection of the user's IP userpage while you were in an editing dispute with the user? Your time and effort would be better spent engaging in constructive ways to avoid conflict, rather than misusing your admin buttons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you kidding? His userspace is User:Jinxmchue. During the block he edited his IP talk page, WP:AN/I, 6 times total and my talk page, twice. All while he was blocked.

When you are so wrong on the basic facts Videmus, how do you expect us to take your other claims at face value? In addition to getting simple but crucial facts flat wrong I don't think you understand how Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging apply here well enough to be making the accusations and slinging the mud you have been. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<This is the sort of attack you can expect if you run afoul of the WP:Intelligent Design folks. Nothing above explains the bullying, intentional provocation, or out-of-process page protection FM has engaged in, but we get plenty of ad hominen. Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. When you are shown to get the most basic and crucial facts wrong you blame me for providing the diffs pointing it out and claim I'm bullying? Right. That's called 'victim bullying', and it won't get you too far. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland101 and Tsourkpk

Resolved

 – Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole. Thatcher 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 is impersonating an administrator by threatening me with a block here [[43]] as well as here [[44]]. He has joined some sort of counter-vandalism unit and is pretending to have the ability to block me. This constitutes bullying and harassment and I would like file a complaint against his behavior. He is very aggressive, seldom consulting the discussion edit before making controversial edits, and accuses everyone who undoes his edits of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as his contribs log attests. He has repeatedly slandered me by baselessly accusing me of vandalism and sockpuppetry, and has even tried to "eliminate" editors who disagree with his views by trying to frame them for tag-teaming, as can be seen here [[45]]. His attempts to intimidate and silence thos who oppose his views are extremely dangerous to Wikipedia, and I would like to request that he be disciplined.--Tsourkpk (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the other particulars of this situation, those are standard messages and it's widely accepted that non-administrators are allowed to use them. —Random832 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised this Tsourkpk is trying to make these allegations about me, as he has a history of simular attacks. They are all false. I have never claimed to be an administrator. I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject on user warnings all I did was use the appropriate templates on this users talk page after vandalism. I never claimed to be an administrator and take offense to this personal attack. As this is not Tsourkpk first time and has been warned I suggest action be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did is not vandalism. He accuses EVERYONE who disagrees with his views of vandalism. Take a look at his contribs log, just about every edit summary contains the word "vandal". He is using the templates to try and initimidate me. This is classic bullying and needs to stop. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides that fact that most of my contribs no not contain the word "vandalism", I do allocate time to correct vandalism in the encyclopedia. I am in no way trying to intimidate anyone, I am just going by the WikiProject on user warnings. You shouldn't fear anything if what you have done is right. Recent types of vandalism by this user have been removing sourced text from articles and adding incorrect unsourced un-encyclopedic text to articles. Ireland101 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None of your "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS and are only intended to push a particular POV. This is why all your edits have been undone by myself and other users (whom you have also tried to silence). --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source in question is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This is defiantly a reliable source. Please stop with the false accusations. Ireland101 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So that I do not need to start a new thread this is were I am reporting this user.

Tsourkpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeated vandalism in many articles. Has been warned numerous times however has chosen to delete many warnings on talk page. Has been warned to Level 4. Examples of vandalism:

• removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly[46], [47].
• added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly [48], [49]
• made changes against talk page decision [50]

There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour. Action needs to be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. None of the "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS. Regarding the Greeks article, the source is original resrach and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. As for Bryges, all I did was undo weasel wording. This is bullying and an attempt at intimidation. If any action needs to be taken, it is against Ireland101. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to try WP:Dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that you consider mediation as there isn't very much that ANI can do - in neither case is there blatant vandalism or bad faith edits. --B (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source about the Greeks appears to be reliable. It is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health, a scientific agency. I don't know about the other two though. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 thank you for posting your finding, Tsourkpk seems focused to making people believe it is not a reliable source. I do not know of the other sources Tsourkpk is talking about, as this is the only one I have added that I can remember. Ireland101 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, I think you really need to rethink your entire editing strategy hear. I see in your contributions history plenty of revert warring and use of somewhat hostile edit summaries. Especially in this most recent edit war, I see very little evidence you actually tried to discuss the issue. What you have to realize is that edit warring without discussing the content dispute at hand is plainly an unacceptable practice. Even after reverting vandalism, you're accountable for that revert, and expected to provide a reason if asked (reason here is more than just listing policy shortcuts, you should be able to explain how they're being violated). As for the issue at hand, except perhaps for blatant attack sites or personally published work, determining whether a source is unreliable is something that is going to require discussion. Not to satisfy yourself, of course (I'm sure you've already made up your mind), but to satisfy everyone else and arrive at consensus; for if you don't, then any admin is just going to see this as an edit war and block you if it continues. And when you can't reach an agreement (which I don't see evidence of your even trying) you ask other editors for their opinions through requests for comment or the less formal requests for third opinions. And last but not least, always keep in mind that neutral point of view is about confining included points of view to those that are noteworthy and reliably sourcable, and not about keeping out any point of view that might be considered offensive. So to put this all in a nutshell: Except when reverting very obvious vandalism, you should try more discussion and dispute resolution, not because you might be wrong, but because admins don't care if you're right; edit warriors get blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 has already been warned not to try to impose tiny-minority views on Wikipedia. The study in question simply regurgitates the findings of an earlier and extremely controversial paper by Arnaiz-Villena and his politically-motivated colleagues in Skopje, using a single genetic marker to make far-reaching claims about the origins of the Greeks. Naturally, the results have been seized upon by racists and nationalists with a bone to pick against Greece. However, as the Arnaiz-Villena paper has been comprehensively discredited by mainstream geneticists, anti-Greek activists have turned to the more recent Tunisian study which uses the same single genetic marker, i.e. the same methodology for which the earlier paper was so vigorously criticised by Cavalli-Sforza et al.: "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics." In other words, the source fails to satisfy WP:V. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps you are ether mistaken or deliberately misleading people. The study in question is not the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Ireland101 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nrswanson article hijack attempts

Nrswanson (talk · contribs) and 2-day-old likely socks Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs) and Voicequeen (talk · contribs) are attempting to replace the established article Voice type with tne Nrswanson-written Voice classification. (I have no opinion on which version is right or wrong; however, Nrswanson has been asked to contribute to the existing articles rather than attempting end-runs around WP:CONSENSUS.)

Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new(/sock?) accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge")[51] in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type,[52] copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.[53])

A sock puppetry report has been filed here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

I'm bringing this to ANI because this user is disrupting quite quickly. Nrswanson has already been rebuked for a similar stunt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto, yet shows no interest in changing, continuing to edit war by restoring his Falsetto register fork of the Falsetto article [54] [55] (with help from his sock[56]).

I should cite WP:OWN in here somewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's amazing. I note diff over a span of edits on 5 Dec, Nrswanson builds UP the article, adding his version, then methodically strips away all the old stuff, making it look like good faith edits, but by the end, it's all his. Ironically, he slaps an 'unicted' template at the top. Then he protects it via edit warring, sets up a redirect... what a mess. It should be reverted to the 1 Dec version, befoe he took it over. It's defintiely WP:OWNed by him. That level of action, I'd support a block, as an editor who finds the sneaky methods used to be disturbing. Finally, The actual content cahnges are problematic, because he takes out examples, and explanations, assigns gender roles without citation (it is true that only men are allowed to be basses, or are men basses by biology, not women?) and so on. His whole rewrite smacks of game-playing, and should be disallowed. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for full page protection on Falsetto register (which should be a redirect to Falsetto, per the AFD). I'm not sure the WP:RFPP staff get what's going on, so I'm not confident this page will be protected. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the forking of voice classification and redirected to voice type, I will review the rest for OR and other issues, I don't know how current Miller's The Structure Of Singing might be in terms of current mainstream thought, so anybody who knows please let me know on my Talk page, as that would be my major source for a review of his contributions. I've watchlisted Vocal resonation, which superficially seems OK but is woefully think on citations for the amount of text. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Just voicing full support for Guy's reversion ofthe article to its' pre-Nrswanson state. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reverted Nrswanson's reversion on Falsetto which discarded the merge decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. (Nrswanson gives the same reason he gave reverting Falsetto register: "premature merge". Can we block this editor yet?)

I don't know what to make of this, but Nrswanson is applauded by Moreschi (talk · contribs) [57], and defended faithfully by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) (WP:SPP/Nrswanson [58], [59]; Talk:Falsetto[60]) Both of these editors are regulars in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, seem wiki-familiar with Nrswanson, and have a history of fixing Nrswanson's poor edits (such as creating all-caps titled articles). I don't know if Nrswanson's edits are somehow imposing a "WikiProject Opera" bias upon these articles, but there is no evidence of puppetry involving these supportive editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Look, gentlemen. This fellow's made very fine edits to countertenor and whistle register in particular, and we shouldn't really throw that away on the basis of unverified allegations. I think he knows what he's doing. I also take exception to being accused by implication of spreading such a ludicrous notion as "WikiProject Opera bias" and meatpuppetry. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of diffs here to verify "allegations", and your comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson implies you may have read the thing. I don't see how you can defend this behavior. Albert Einstein would get kicked off Wikipedia for this kind of editing. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see Morschi supporting off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry. Whether you percieve it as 'good' or 'bad' forthe project, it's not how things are supposed to work. Off wiki cooperation and plannign happens, can't be stopped, probably shouldn't be, and often helps the project. However, when it's all about a conspiracy to force OWN and POV on the WP, that's a problem, and needs our attention. ThuranX (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Elkman blocking himself?

This is bizarre. I guess it's related to the User:Jinxmchue discussion above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bizarre self-enforced wikibreak? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a stunned message on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I spy satire. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• don't worry, admins do this all the time. I can list at least four other admins who've done this ;-0--Phoenix-wiki 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Raymond Arritt (talk) raises hand sheepishly... it was an accident, honest —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to do that, per the blocking policy, right? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thar's right.Although it's less damanging than it was in the days before logged in users could edit from blocked IP ranges. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101's behaviour

I couldn't help noticing what this user has been doing recently since from his very start on Wikipedia he obviously aimed at pushing some sort of agenda into so many articles - thus getting into many conflicts. What I think is he needs to get some sort of a formal warning so he stop pushing for the same things in so many articles (most of them totally irrelevant to his ideas) and most of all to stop calling people vandals for every single revert of his edits. I'd think he might not know what a vandal is, but since he's got the current infoboxes on his page he ought to be well acquainted with the subject. Just to prove my words he are his reverts on the Rosetta Stone article [61][62][63] It is obvious he is adding some pretty strange and poorly sourced info to the article (as a few editors tried to explain to him on the talkpage, but he persists on pushing it. He has persistently referred to other editors as vandals despite the fact he got explanations as to why he was reverted. Here is the next example on Bryges where in his edit summaries he has strange comments like [64] [65] spiced with threats that a user'd be blocked. He are his reverts on Macedonian dynasty [66][67][68]- I'm not sure if this removal of NPOV as he describes it compiles with any policy. I was going to point to the Vergina Sun article as well, but the revision history is full of Ireland101's edits (and with word Vandal again). It's the same with Hellenization - I'll highlight just a few edit-summaries [69][70][71][72] Then comes Macedon with edits like [73][74] - he seems to be using the administrators as some form of a threat so the others do not try to edit the page (I'm only sure he lied when he said this). I already mentioned his edit-pattern and how he adds the same things to other articles as well (Samuil of Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia, Justinian I, United Macedonia, Philip II of Macedon, Kalash‎ and so on. And moreover in all this articles he is editing against at least three or four other editors (that is on every single occasion). He got warned on a number of times by others on his talkpage (without anyone calling him a vandal), but as obvious he continues to do the same things. --Laveol ^T 10:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth notign that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ireland101_and_Tsourkpk is also about Bryges and Ireland101. He does seem to be pushing this Macedonian Identity thing pretty far and wide, and the rampant threats to get everyone else in trouble are pretty repetitive. ThuranX (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole under the Macedonia arbitration case. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism (and changing content that he likes is not vandalism). Thatcher 02:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: User talk:65.35.219.74 - Disruption via {{NoAutosign}}?

Resolved

 – NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a new one for all you admins. User talk:65.35.219.74 added {{NoAutosign}} to their talkpage. This would be perfectly fine if they weren't (deliberately?) leaving their comments unsigned. Diffs:[75] and [76] (which contains an attack against SineBot as well). Could this be considered disruption? NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not constructive. The editor's contributions suggest that constructive editing may not be the point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, not disruption. Now if someone could tell them that WP:NOT and others doesn't apply to Lamest edit wars, then maybe they would quit vandalising too. I'd do it but I usually unintentionally make things worse.NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would help much, all things considered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked, reporter admonished viz 3RR

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on wing chun and WingTsun. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He also keeps insisting on wikifying a group of words on the WingTsun page, even though he's been told by other editors and my self that no such page exists, please stop per the established guidelines. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. I'm requesting administrator intervention. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Koonleg50 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disregard of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. In the future, it's preferable to get an admin involved before reaching 8RR on both sides, as you've both technically violated WP:3RR. However, since it appears from my review that Koonleg50 is clearly editing against policy while you are reverting to a stable and well-sourced version, I've blocked him alone rather than both of you. Call it WP:IAR if you like; it's open for review as always. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it and apologize for my part. I guess I thought by continuing to try and reason with him on the talk page it would finally get through. If he does it again after the 24 hour block or from an anonymous IP, I'll just come here right away. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777's deletion game

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past few months, has turned wikipedia into a deletion game, he is nominating hundreds of articles based on fictional topics for deletion using the AFD and PROD process, claiming they are not notable, when they are, Star Trek, Futurama, and the elder scrolls related articles have all been targeted and the topics are notable and they have big fan bases however he claims they are not notable and gets people who are not fans of the topic, and so will not be intrested in the topic to know what it is to claim for delete. This is all he ever does and it is causing a lot of disruption and it is reflecting that editors like him are destroying wikipedia, he is becoming very unpopular because of this deletion crusade and if anyone tries to talk him out of it he threatens them. Blueanode (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's customary to provide actual diffs of disruption if you're going to accuse someone of it. From perusing his contribs, a lot of his AFDs have ended in delete, redirect and/or merge, so he's clearly not starting them without merit. Further, you may be interested in this essay; being important to a lot of fans does not translate into actual notability. And since, at heart, all I see is a broad content dispute, you may consider requesting comment on this user. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD is a process available to all users. He is perfectly entitled to nominate any article that he believes should be deleted with a reason based in policy. You also have the right to vote keep stating a reason based in policy. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is massive amounts of articles on fictional works that totally ignore policy, that's what is causing the deletions not rouge editors. Ridernyc (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconding Someguy1221 here. Extensive fancruft belongs to dedicated wikis; I suggest Wikia's services. Wikipedia on the other hand, is an encyclopedia written from a real-live point of view and doesn't need an article for each Wazza-Bazza-Pistol someone, somewhere thought up. This is not a game - this is called building an encyclopedia. Миша13 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is unfair. Blueanode (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're also free to propose changes on any policy's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This all raises an interesting future discussion (if there is not already one) to be held elsewhere. I was thinking only recently that a number of Star Trek related entries could be better off on the Star Trek wiki, and Family Guy on the Family Guy wiki. I'd also suggest episode guides should be scrapped, but that would be against policy. May go around Wiki now and suggesting a lot of articles for AFD. Thanks to the editor who started this thread for giving me the idea Whitstable (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This recent arbritration case may be of use to editors here. I agree that rouge editors are not the problem; poorly created content is. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion regarding editors and the use of TW to mass nominate articles for deletion may also be helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict encountered)

one explanation for the expression of angst: I have seen a lot of traffic on AFD generated by Judge. My understanding is that WP:FICTION is a disputed guideline, which is the source of much of the friction. There is a general misunderstanding on the part of many of the people who have authored the articles coming up for deletion that WP:V is non-negotiable and that the potential for verification through reliable sources (rather than primary sources) is needed ... it would actually be better for Judge to be focusing on nominating items for their inability to meet the verifiability criterion, which is a much stabler plank to sail on than notability criteria. Why is the notability criterion creaky? Because it is potentially negotiable; consider the people notability guideline for entertainers that states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I've seen this invoked a couple of times (I don't have diffs at hand right now - it is infrequent) successfully. There are some aspects of "fancruft" that could pass this notability criterion if it were included in WP:FICTION - some, not most; something like "An in-universe fictional element is notable if it has a specific, significant and demonstrable "cult" following or real-life influence". In the end the "game" that Blueanode refers to might well be an attempt to get as many articles gone before a new version of the WP:FICTION guideline is in place that would allow them to stay. As pointed out, Judge is well within his rights to do this and might well argue (I would argue this as well at this time of year for some of my actions) "I have time now - I didn't have time before". It is unfortunate, though, that Judge is doing mass deletion nomination while the guideline is being re-drafted ... but there is no reason to ask him to stop, nor any justification to do so. I believe that other Admins would agree with this, as reflected by the comments above. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I would suggest personal attacks are not the best way forward. Whitstable (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be mudslinging from both sides here and to a lesser extent here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even without WP:FICT the articles still fail basically every policy, WP:RS, {{WP:PLOT]], WP:OR, WP:V, while notabilty is offten the reason cited it's not the main reason,99% it's actually WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The large numbers of keeps that appear in many of those discussions suggest that a good deal of editors believe that the articles pass these guidelines. A big problem is that the guidelines and policy pages are themselves edited constantly and so what someone sees in one instance and cites as policy may be changed even minutes later when someone else decides to cite that page. I had a nice discussion about this matter recently. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If it can be shown I have done something wrong, other than occasionally beginning to lose my cool, I am more than willing to be given guidance as to how to proceed in the future. But it seems to me than many who would keep fiction articles outside of current notability parameters are taking their anger out on me and others who are following existing policy on fiction and notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Commenting as a 7000+editor and a Trekkie: I have already discussed this briefly with Judgesurreal777, as I was concerned that he was raising too many PRODs at a time for defenders to be realistically able to improve/merge/otherwise rescue them. However, apart from that, I have not come across any cases where I dispute his judgment, and I do not support the complaint against him. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

JudgeSurreal777 has an attitude problem. If a AfD is not going his way, or if this one dissenter, he is very, very quick to anger. A few diffs from a recent AfD debate is a small percentage of these outbursts.

• Completely condescending and disrespectful towards admin
• Further condescending tone against same admin
• shouting down 2nd admin

He acts as though he is at war with those who support the articles, per comments like this. In AfD comments he has often slipped in remarks like this that only attack how well the article is written, rather than the importance of the subject.

Some of these articles do need to be nominated for deletion, but his explosive temper and probable priority conflicts raises the concern that he does not have the correct mindset about handling this in a respectable and responsible manner, and that he should either slow down with his AfD noms significantly, or let someone else handle this responsibility. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (moved here by Whitstable (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

• How about if the two sides came up with some kind of triage system in the relevant Wikiproject, to sort them into unambiguous deletable cruft, subjects worth working on to see if they can be sourced or merged, and unambiguous keeps? Articles on fictional subjects sourced entirely from primary observations are a plague - virtually everything linked to Bionicle fundamentally fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NOR and probably WP:NPOV, and I don't think that's the only place where unchecked fandom and lack of an appropriate subject-specific Wikia or fanpedia has led to Wikipedia becoming the place to document your favourite Lego brick from your own microscopic examination thereof.
  So, it would be better if the fiction lovers and the cruft-deleters worked together to actively purge the project of the worst of the crap; working together would help both sides to appreciate the good in the other. Remember, folks, that the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing. we have already run through the Pokemon universe once, with good results for the project and a much more solid base for the remaining articles. It may well be time to review some of the other genres in this way. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about blanking every fiction article and starting from scratch? Or at least looking at every article again and judging by policy? Whitstable (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fails to recognise that many fiction articles are the result of good, thorough research. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not insult other peoples' work regardless of your conception of its worth. You know that it engenders hostility if that's a word, and helps with nothing. --Kizor 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Fair enough, I should have made it clearer outside of the edit summary that I was only being half-serious. But there does seem to be a problem here - WP:FICTION being disputed does, in some circumstances, appear to outweigh other policies that are not disputed. As Guy says, "the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing," and I cannot agree any more than I do with that. There also appear to be problems in the AFD system in that those who are more likely to take part in Star Trek-related (for example) AFDs are quite likely to be Star Trek fans who will vote to keep, whatever policy is involved. But yes, will agree with Guy that a lot of further discussion is needed elsewhere on this one. Whitstable (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to Guy, not you - the suggestion of destroying years of work made me visibly cringe, but was not an insult as such. (Sorry if the * made it unclear.) --Kizor 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, must be the time of year! Hope worthwhile discussion does come of this to the benefit of the project Whitstable (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment why is this still even being discussed. there has not been a single bad faith nomination shown, The editor who complained basically admitted his issue is really with policy. It's been shown that the editor who started this complaint has been uncivil in the past. Conversations about policies on fiction are pretty much a waste of time here, nearly every guideline on fiction is being rewritten right now. Ridernyc (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gerda9

Resolved

 – for now, page protected as redlink

Gerda9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned only with repeatedly creating Future food. User completely refuses to engage in any discussion either on his/her own talk page or the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation. The user was not greeted in polite way. The repeated deletion of their contributions may naturally be considered as an annoying harassment of a newcomer. I suggest you to review Don't bite newcomers and WP:VANDAL before labelling someone "vandal". Also, please assume good faith to understand that the person simply does not know wikipedia ways and places to talk. `'Míkka>t 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one has left a note requesting that this user engage in discussion - I see only templated deletion messages on the talk page. I left a note asking the user to stop re-creating the page and instead discuss the reasons why it's being deleted. If they keep going with article re-creations after that, then a block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the page be salted, may be easier? Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec] Awesome! "protect" on redlinks. I love that. I've given it six months, it's clear the time is not yet ripe but it might be one day. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already resolved, but:

I only used the vandal tag as a way to easily expand the user's contribs, talk page, logs, etc. I wasn't implying the user was a vandal.

The templated deletion messages on the user's talk page do invite discussion, which invitation the user has not accepted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I use those templates myself, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I've just become a bit more sensitive to how forbidding and unintuitive Wikipedia's system has become, so I try (not always successfully) to err on the side of a more personalized and informative message when time permits. Anyhow, it looks like things are resolved, and I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, MastCell. I just wanted to clarify since I was challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) - is this person's User page grounds for indef. blocking? Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Hut 8.5 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some fool kid. I'd like to go to his talk page and taunt him "Go on then" but I wont. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Block on DarkFierceDeityLink--too lenient?

Can some other admins look at the 24 hour block I just placed on DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It relates to the user's increasing belligerence and incivility topped off by this gem. Now that I look back at the edit that set it over the edge, I'm thinking maybe I was a little too lenient. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've only looked at his block log so far, but since he has already had a short block for incivility which didn't seem to curb him my first thought would be to up ot to medium term. Say a week. But like I said I haven't looked into the history. What provoked the ourburst? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL warned EveryDayJoe45 with a vandalism warning and called him a "waste of sperm". I came along and changed the heading on that and warned DFDL for incivility. This prompted this discussion on my talk page. EveryDayJoe45 responded to DFDL with this which had a personal attack in it. EveryDayJoe45 was upset because he was warned for an article he has never edited and because he was attacked as a "waste of sperm" by DFDL. I warned him about the personal attacks which is when DFDL posted this to my talk page which prompted the blocking.

DFDL had been on my radar for the last couple of weeks because of vandalism to the Jamie Lynn Spears article and talk page which were completely out of line and violated BLP. Thoughts with this background information now? Metros (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DFDL's on my list after placing an {{indefblockeduser}} tag on User talk:V-Dash, although he was not indef-blocked. Good block. -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll keep an eye on him too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawat-e-Islami threat

See this threat. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And another - [77]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's comment Those are worrying; while the threats are highly unrealistic (if this sort of thing were possible we would've fallen to 4chan ages ago), they do seem to foreshadow that the article will be seeing some more activity... perhaps a semi-protection? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need worry about the threats. I suspect the anon has severly underestimated the regular traffic we get. However I have semiprotected the article for a week to stop the vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tens of millions of Dawat members in small-town UK, eh? Avruchtalk 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether the person making the threat is a significant member of the organization (who can carry out this threat) and insignificant member. The one who made the threat could even be trying to make the organization look bad (a concept not unlike straw puppetry).Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible ban

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Silly people, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090 for relevant information. Redspork Friend001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another House sock as per the checkuser, did this in an attempt to get Redspork02 (talk · contribs) into trouble. House has used a variety of socks and has generally been a right pain, see things like this, this and this, and so as far as I am concerned he is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. I post here for review and to see if anyone disagrees. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support While he was not a good editor, some of his editing interests coincided with mine. So while I support the notion of a community-ban, I'd appreciate not mass-deleting all his articles, some of which I've provided references for, others of which I may find time to work on eventually. Amerique^dialectics 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User Barefact (talk · contribs) and personal attacks

Barefact (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against me before [78]. He has been warned before for doing this: [[79]] but no action was taken except a warning. Thus realizing no action was taken last time, he did it here again: [[80]]. He calls me a "militant ethnic editor". I should not have to tolerate this, but do not want to escalate my language to his level. I explained the logic of my revert in the talkpage of the article and the issue was an editorial dispute. But his labeling [[81]], which he has been warned for before , makes resolving future editorial disputes harder. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's anything more here, these diffs are only deserving of another warning. Two incivil acts seperated by 10 months don't warrant administrative attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like another adminstrator to take look. Specially in the light of the first attack and the second one. Also taking into consideration the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan articles which covers Turkish and Iranian articles and demands civility from users. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AntsOnNuts

Links: AntsOnNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not too sure what to do. User:AntsOnNuts Has only made one edit but it could be interpreted as a threat - given the username - to vandalise in the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but...? Whitstable (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a threat, but I do see it as an account that will only be used for trolling. That diff is just an attempt at getting around BLP. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As EVula says, not an immediate threat, but keep an eye out for things worsening, and block if necessary. Anthøny (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just {{usernameblocked}} the account. It's clear from the comment that the username is intended to be construed in a vulgar manner. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:146.115.43.96 continues censoring wikipedia in numerous edits

Many of his edits relate removing cited information on negative receptions that a band he likes has gotten.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][[92]

He has been warned numerous times against doing this.[93] Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor hasn't consistently removed information, given that the 146.115.43.96 (talk · contribs) contribs' are few and far between. I don't see the text all that damaging, but the album did receive some positive feedback based on a general Google query and that needs to be attributed as well, to provide a balanced viewpoint. The IP hasn't been given sufficient warning templates either.

This is also an issue that doesn't really require administrator attention. If the edit is disputed among several editors, including IP addresses, you should take it up with dispute resolution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Y2008 bot bug

It seems that the vandal-reverting bots are lagging behind UTC time, and are putting "December 2007" when warning users (see [94]). Bot owners should try to fix this, since bots are probably going to give out hundreds of warnings by the time 2008 reaches the western hemisphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that they are just in a different timezone to the Wikipedia servers, one where it's still December 2007 at the moment; give them time to see the New Year in. If it's still happening 24 hours from now, that's another matter. -- The Anome (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Two hours to go where I am. I'm still waiting for the Times Square ball drop :) Voice-of-All 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And I just saw the Space Needle's fireworks show. :^) -Jéské ^{(Auld lang syne)} 08:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Move protect/deletion request

Resolved

miranda 03:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to page move vandal by JtV, please move User talk:Jetlover to User talk:JetLover. Delete Jetlover's talk page. Also, move protect my talk page and user page and JetLover's too. Thanks. miranda 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And, protect this little fiasco, too. User_talk:Mr._Bracey. miranda 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fastnaturedude threatened

Please look at User:Fastnaturedude (if it hasn't been reverted yet). An anon has threatened this user. The user had contacted me personally, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with this, and I'm not available to edit because of real life plans. Anyone care to investigate further and follow through? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant diff is this one, to make it easier for everyone. WHOIS shows the IP is registered to comcast in Michigan, so probably static. Would probably be easy enough to report to the appropriate police department if anyone cares to. While normally these things are shrugged off, Fastnaturedude has identified himself as a Michigan resident, so there's a good chance this might have actually come from someone who knows him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the user saw the threat (as evident from this), I'd say if the user wanted authorities contacted, s/he would have done so. I don't really think anybody else needs to do anything, except give the IP a block. A look at the contributions from it show that whoever has been using it since the 13th of December isn't being constructive, at all. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scuse me, but why is it this guy makes a deaththreat and isn't blocked?Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure is a good question. For quick and easy blocking (by whatever admin gets here first), here are the links: 69.246.79.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP (for anonymous use only) for one year. I've never dealt with a death threat block before so if another admin with more experience in these matters cares to vary that, I'd have no complaints but would appreciate a note so I can learn from the experience. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comcast IPs are generally dynamic so I shortened it to a month. It should have a new owner by then. Mr.Z-man 04:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- if you're happy, I'm happy. A month it is. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed by this. The same IPs have edited Fastnaturedude's user page at another wiki and he has not complained there. In fact, there's this edit tying the user to the IP. Color me confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 article

A vandal is superimposing graphic photos over the 2008 article. -Gilliam (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved and the vandal blocked. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the user that made the edit. I have a feeling he's a sock of someone; need it to perform a RFCU. —BoL 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop overreacting. WP:RBI. And Checkuser is not for fishing. —Kurykh 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates edited to add the images were {{Roman}} and {{Future}} by the way. Kesac (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And, for more beans, {{C21YearInTopic}}. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, call me crazy, but is PeeWee back despite the fact his IPs are blocked? —BoL 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK you are crazy, seriously who cares? We get vandals all the time. Stop overreacting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Debbiesvoucher

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Those aren't diffs, by the way. To get the diff links, copy the "last" URL. JuJube (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Elonka

I, PHG, am placing this request following a suggestion by Admin and Bureaucrat User:Wknight94 [95]. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for 4 years, have contributed hundreds of new articles, as well as created 7 FAs. I have been however in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now, since I started an article on the Franco-Mongol alliance back in August 2007. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history (see also FAs I created, such as Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greeks, Imperial Japanese Navy, History of Buddhism etc...).

The subject of Franco-Mongol relations seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether these was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her agressiveness in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). Mediation was started but came to a halt a the mediator Tariqabjotu felt that "further discussion was improbable of producing result." (here).

Now, Elonka, newly elected as an Admin, continues trying to raise and inflate any issue she can find to threaten me with the worst. From my Talk Page: "Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia." (Elonka 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [96]), "Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop." (Elonka 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [97]).

I would like to require a warning and reprimand against Elonka for harassing a well-meaning and prolific contributor. Please help find a way to stop the agressiveness. I am just here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters in regards to this incident(as they only have a few more technical features available to them than a sysop), but User:Wknight94 is an admin but not a bureaucrat. Dureo (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has now been informed of this thread's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I note that Elonka's comments about POV-forking, as per the last but one para, appear to be justified and supported with links / diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't turn this into a redux of the last 50 page AN/I report concerning these editors. Thanks. Avruchtalk 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's putting erect penis photos all over Wikipedia

Image:Bbefore after.jpg Image:Ejaculate.JPG

Look where they link to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely PWeeHurman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How desperately sad, or is it sadly desperate? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, ??? —BoL 05:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blow of Light, please assume good faith. What proof do you have to offer us about the indentity of the vandal? Daniel 05:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to blacklist the images? How is that done for Commons images? Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, guess I have to explain things all over again. You see, when the PeeWee vandal hits, he usually mentions something about penises on user pages, or articles, in which all of them are protected right now. His IPs aren't supposed to be unblocked until later this month. And as for the Commons images, you need to blacklist them in commons or something. —BoL 05:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Said behaviour isn't exclusive. Using the same rationale, you're a sockpuppet of a bunch of other users who abuse their userspace. See the flaw? Asserting "Definitely PWeeHurman" without any evidence to confirm it is irresponsible, and something that got you into trouble with your old account. Daniel 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been watching me and the others. More like Meats. You know what I mean? And I do have evidence, look at the MO, man, he puts penises, although you do got a point there, he does it on mainspace and userpages, but this guy does it on templates. I'm speechless. —BoL 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have been watching you and the others — why wouldn't I, given the horrid past most of you have? Having a method which isn't mutually exclusive doesn't make this person a sockpuppet of the person you accused. Daniel 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

never mind... —BoL 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Easier perhaps to upload a local copy and blacklist it here. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Please see the history of Penis. There's more than one vandal attracted to that topic. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's willing to do that? And call me crazy, is PeeWee back? —BoL 05:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images can be blacklisted using MediaWiki:Bad image list. No local copy is needed. HOWEVER, if there are images that we are 100% sure are not going to be used on Wikipedia, administrators can upload and protect an image over top of the name to block them. I had suggested this a long time ago for any commons images that don't meet our content policies but get inserted into articles anyway, but it never went anywhere. --B (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the two images. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, the account wasn't who Blow of Light incorrectly accused (something he has a pattern of doing), but rather checkuser suggests it was Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Daniel 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... —BoL 06:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sergyz did "Future" and "21C" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's down though right? —BoL 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been blocked yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he has.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, there was no block warning on the page that's all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protected many of the templates used on year articles which I see no recent edits as high risk template to prevent vandalism of this kind going forward. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell cares who's doing it? Just revert, block, and ignore. No reason to claim it's one person or another. Giving them recognition is what causes more issues in the first place. Cowman109^Talk 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent disgusting vandalism

I went to User:Judgesurreal777‎ and some anonymous IP put something on it that may be a virus or something, but my browser (Internet Explorer) changed and had an obscene image on it. Please remove this or revert it, but again, I urge whoever to be cautious as when I went to that page it temporarily messed up my browser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Didn't see what it was though. I went straight into the history of the user page, reverted, then looked at my diff to see the changes. —Kurykh 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's goatse. —Kurykh 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A different anonymous IP has reverted back to the obscene, browser changing image. When I clicked on the user page, the regular Wikipedia page shifted into something with swear words and a semi-blurred nude image that took over the whole browser. Anyway, another IP is at. It may be worth protecting his page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done the minute before you posted. —Kurykh 07:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the fast response. By the way, what is "goatse" or do I not want to know? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year!

goatse.cx - it was a famous shock site / trolling image - Alison ^❤ 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should have figured we might have an article on it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for reporting this latest rash of vandalism. Does anyone know of a way to remove said images from my userpage history? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Do not remove

Resolved

 – WinHunter ^(talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do appreciate a good joke once and a while, I absolutely do not see why this template has been placed in the template namespace. Will someone move this to Gurch's userspace and delete it from the template namespace. — Save_Us_229 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this request belongs on AN/I, could just move it yourself and tag it for deletion. --Charitwo ^talk 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking Gurch? - Alison ^❤ 07:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, non-AN/I material, tagging this as resolved.--WinHunter ^(talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI - removed the CSD template (it was author requests deletion, posted by other than the author) and left a note here. Avruchtalk 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

LHC link addition

I've brought this here for another admin to review the problem, as I think there is potential for conflict of interest as I work at CERN. User:76.89.246.73 is adding what I believe to be original research to Large Hadron Collider. The editor was given uw-spam1 by User:Closedmouth, then uw-spam4 by myself. He left a message on the talk page to which I responded here, and has since re-added the links and Closedmouth as reverted again. Could someone else review the problem and take any actions required, to avoid any accusations of impropriety on my part. Thanks. ^Khukri 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK now it's getting serious please see this ^Khukri 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor claims to be David Hochman, "a journalist from the new york times". The IP address appears to resolve to New York, but I find it improbable that a journalist from a publication such as the NYT would edit Wikipedia in this manner (see also the IP editor's comments at User talk:76.89.246.73). It appears more likely that the IP editor is acting on behalf of http://www.lhcdefense.org, links to which site he has been repeatedly trying to add to the article. If no further activity of this sort occurs, no administrative action would seem to be necessary, otherwise a block for spamming and harrassment might be appropriate. In addition, someone who manages to find Mr Hochman's e-mail address (I didn't) might want to inform him about the weird edits someone has made in his name here. Sandstein (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I have nothing to hide with respect to my previous edits, or my work, the threat of being outted leaves me feeling quite uncomfortable. OK it's most probably a hoax, as I can't imagine such a well respected journalist leaving so many grammatical errors, but nonetheless I do take it quite personally. ^Khukri 12:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tenkasei Ryo

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

This user states he is 13 years old and appears to be Italian with limited command of English (though his vocabulary seems more extensive in the specific area of invective). For some reason I can't really fathom he seems to have picked on Ryulong, launching a series of diatribes, vandalism and attacks from this account and a number of IPs. User:the_undertow blocked the user, rightly IMO. It seems to me that, whether or not the attacks are taken as meaningful or not (and frankly calling someone a pedophile will warrant a lengthy stay in the sin bin, for my money), in my judgement the individual is simply too immature and too confused to make anything like a productive editor at this stage. I have tried to explain this, but others may wish to pitch in. As unblock reasons go, "THIS USER DON'T LIKE TO BE BLOCKED" does not get into my top ten. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block and Guy's explanation of the block. This does not appear to be a productive editor by any means. However, the undertow did not handle the situation in a sufficiently professional manner. It would have been helpful if the block summary had contained a reason for the block, and block notices such as this one and protection summaries such as this one just leave me scratching my head. Sandstein (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it was informal language targeted at the user's level. Whether it was a hit or a miss is open to debate. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This user originally showed up at one of the articles I've been working on by putting in a lot of mainly incorrect information under 79.21.76.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) where his first edit was to put in the incorrect information and attack me. He came back to the article multiple times, undoing whatver attempts I made to try and improve the article, by actually finding a reference that refuted what he had been putting in and {{reflist}}. The full list of IPs used can be found here. He had registered as Ryurenjaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and performed similar edits, until I attempted today to try and see if he would listen to reason. Instead, he remained stubborn, vandalized my talk page, the talk page of the article, and his own talk page. I had asked him to act like an adult under one of his IP editing sprees, to which he added this epithet, called me a drunkard in Italian, something I don't know the proper translation for, and generally was a pain in the ass when I was trying to discuss things with him. His actions led me to semiprotect my talk page as I was getting tired of having to rollback his attacks every minute during the New Years celebrations with my family. The last thing he did was blank the article talk. This user is on an Italian ISP that appears to give him a lot of leeway in coming back as he pleases. I would have blocked this user myself, but I was trying to see if he would stop acting like a petulant child. I was wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this guys is, indeed, teh suck. — Coren ^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. He's teh suck. the_undertow was on top of his game on this one. Lara❤Love 16:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyric the whatever, back as anons - harassment

Resolved

86.156.113.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

205.250.116.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

60.242.32.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Continues to revert closed AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Design Panel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK

I suggest they be protected for a while.

see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Cyric the All - harassment

--Jack Merridew 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

76.195.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK; this is likely coming from some off-wiki forum. I hear-tell this commonly occurs on the likes of 4chan. --Jack Merridew 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 219.77.82.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the ARK Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And 79.68.178.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the Zlango Afd. --Jack Merridew 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note I've indefinately fully protected the three afd's listed since they are only historical records there isnt any need for further edits anyway. Gnangarra 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:

• 66.25.95.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now reverting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode) as above. --Jack Merridew 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikep2008a

Hello,

I find the first sentence of his userpage not really appropriate with our scope (building an encyclopedia). Would you agree with that ? I put a message on his talk page but I think it would require some people to track that. Thanks. Poppy (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the use of non-free content on userpages is not allowed. I've left a message to that effect. -JodyB _talk 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, too - and I've removed the first sentence and fair use stuff. diff Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User is repeatedly re-adding the non-free content to his user page, despite the warnings: here and here. I've once again removed the content ,which has now been done a total of 1, 2, 3, 4 times by different editors. I've also left a 3RR warning for this user. I see a block in the near future if he continues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back further, User:ImageBacklogBot (User:ST47) also removed the non-free content. --Jack Merridew 15:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 hour by User:JodyB. Probably keep an eye after the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that whole User page one big copyvio, since it's a cut and paste from the Kylie Minogue article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock(pardon) user:71.149.161.91

Yes, can I have a admin to pardon user:71.149.161.91 on the act of making "death threats". The act of "threats" was caused my idotic moron friend that came over to my house to "house sit" while I was shopping at Best Buy . I didnt know he was going to mess with my pc okay. I told to keep "watch" of the house. Okay. I didnt place a "death threat" to the user:baseball bugs. Okay, that was not me. I am applogizing on his behalf. I didnt know he was on the computer at the time okay. I know he screws around wikipedia, I told him to stop yesterday, and he is not my friend anymore okay. I am sorry for this okay. Administrators of Wikipedia I say to you reading this I'm sorry for this that has occured. I'm sorry for the user that was "threaten". It not a funny, nor was it joke. My friend was just being a idoitic drunken fool that was listening to music and typing bull crap on wikipedia article talk pages. Again I'm sorry to those that were affected by this maater. If you want to talk to me you can do so on my user talk page . Thank you for you time.75.8.80.102 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very simple way for you to solve this: get an account. _TheIslander 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that I was away from the computer at the time. I didnt know about this until I saw the admin message.Eldorado91 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't really me it was my friend/neighbor/brother/coworker/dog" is one of the oldest of excuses used and is almost invariably false. Edward321 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard it before too. Both the above user [98] and the IP address in question [99] are now blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt do it there I said it okay. I'm sorry for this "incident". Can I be forgiven. Can we have a peacful solution to this matter. If this is solved , this will never happend again.I guarantee it.And also can Baseball Bugs stop saying that I have sockpuppets I dont even know what he is talking about , I never ever created one before. Nor have I have done okay. Stop making that accustation that I have a sockpupper Bugs. My demands to this ordeal to end peacefully are all follows

1. A pardon on the blocked users names 2. Accepted applogy from Baseball Bugs and the other person that blocked the ip 3. I shall make sure this never happens again, it was just a one time thing , my idoitic friend did okay. So Baseball Bugs, and the other guy that blacklisted me I am sorry what has occured ,and I am waiting for someone to accpet this applogogy that have I have stated. This was a mistake. I am sorry for my friend caused on the Bhutto page my friend did okay. I wasnt there, he messing around on there to. I am sorry for that to. I was aware of that until I read the talk page. I am tired of everyone "pointing fingers" at me. Okay, I'm sorry there okay. We are only humans, we all make mistakes. My friend didnt was not serious about the "threats". Okay. So I am sorry for that.75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's supplied us with a couple more IP addresses that need to be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, before you ban me right here. Let me say to you man to man. I am giving to an appology my idoit boy friend is to stupid to do. "I'm sorry", Okay there. Can you accept. I am not a sockpuppet I dont even know what your talking about man. Eldorado91 is my personal user name dude. I am sorry for this "incident". 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what User:Edward321 said above; you've had a history of making personal attacks before... Who's to say that it wasn't you in the first place? You've said "it wasn't me" - but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it was you. Please just accept the admins decision to block your account. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you dont agree with then I'm sorry for what ever my friend did on the computer. I appolgize. Also I'm requesting a mediation/conflict dispute. Okay. I want this to be settled calmly okay. We each talk this calmly okay. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming all of this stems from this user [100] with whom I and someone else (also vandalized) were having a problem, on some Bhutto pages. Also, the admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but using an IP address to get around a block is probably considered sockpuppetry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Bugs, I never herd of this user named Mosura. What are you talking about. Mosura who in the world is he. Okay , bugs first of all I dont know what or who is a Mosura. Second, I said to your many times I'm sorry, and Lastly if my forgiven I will not make vandalism again , or nor my friend. Okay. My friend made the "threat", but not really able to do it. He is just a idoit. So I'm sorry for that. Bhutto , vandialsm I am sorry for that to. I am asking for a second chance in 2008 . Can I be forgiven in the halls of the Wikipedia I am asking you all and God for a second chance. Well we all make mistakes I know that. I am just sorry for what happend there. 75.13.16.43 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is having difficulty keeping score (I know I am), the following are now all blocked:

1. 71.149.161.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Death threat
2. Eldorado91 (talk · contribs) - Incessant begging and trolling
3. 75.8.80.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - More incessant begging and trolling before block
4. 75.13.16.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Eldorado91 evading block:

—Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A death threat has been made - what other option is there apart from contacting the authorities? Otherwise the excuse of "it wasn't me" will be made all the time. Let the user explain the situation to the police, it should be in their hands by now. Whitstable (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the best option. But I think it's up to Bugs to make that decision seeing as he was the one threatened. Although, as the community, we could have an obligation to contact the authorities anyway. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what appropriate action I would need to take, other than reporting it here (which we kinda already did). If you mean going to the actual police... well, that could open the door to that character finding out where I live, and I don't need that. As he appears to be in San Antonio, maybe I could sic the Texas Rangers on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an incident with death threats before on here; Jimbo himself recommended contacting the authorities about it. If you're worried about him finding about where you live, I don't think the Police are allowed to reveal personal details about you and visa versa. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll take this offline with Wknight94, once I'm back at my home PC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a user

Not sure if this is the right place to put this - but I'll give it a shot: By chance I have come across a user who is persistently using images with copy violation. The bots are spotting it. They are putting warnings on his talk page. He then blanks the talk page and starts over again. By the look of it, this has been going on for some months. I get the impression that various users have also mentioned this to him. But, again, he blanks the talk page and then carries on. I'm not sure what to do. Suggestions/Admin intervention most welcome! Marcus22 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence so it is possible to investigate further. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, Marcus22 is referring to User:Max24 Whitstable (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, yes. I didnt really want to name the user. But if you look at his talk page history, it looks like this has been going on on a major scale for at least all of 2007. There are other issues as well, but I think this is probably the most important for Wikipedia as a whole. Marcus22 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually my only sin is to blank my own discussion page instead of archive it properly. That's all. User Marcus22 is angry at me because of All by Myself article and that's why he came with this copy violation thing. Actually, the latest bots warnings were about the All by Myself article (because he removed the infobox with the covers). Anyway, I wish you all happy New year! Max24 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I dont think anyone is angry at you. Fact is you have repeatedly used - on countless articles - copyright images. When notified of this by the Bots, you have deleted the warnings and, by the looks of it, reinstated those copyright images. That could drop a whole lot of trouble on Wikipedia. So why do it? Other users have also warned you about doing this - and other things - and yet you have pressed ahead. Please refrain. Marcus22 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gralou (talk · contribs) and uncivilness

Resolved

 – User blocked

This section in a nutshell: User:Gralou is making personal attacks and attempting to command me to do their bidding.

This user showed up at Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes earlier today with a brief message in response to a (now-defeated) merge proposal: "I have a good idea! Delete this article! It sucks!"diff So I politely pointed them to AfD. diff I then told them that "This article sucks" is not a valid reason for deletion. diff Then they told me that the article sucked because it didn't have the UK premiere dates for the episodes. diff So I told them to go ahead and add them and that while I didn't have a problem with it, other editors might. diff They then vandalised my userpage. diff I promptly gave them a level 4im warning (too harsh?) because I consider userpage vandalism to be the worst form of personal attack. diff They then told me that it was unfair. diff I then told them that if they didn't want to get blocked, then they shouldn't vandalise. diff (Here you may notice that I am getting agitated. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with people like Gralou.) Now, back to the talkpage. They posted a (probably agitated by the warning) message about how everything is US-centric and how he commands me to add the dates (despite the fact that I clearly don't live in the UK) because I act like the boss of the article. diff (In reality, I think I'm one of the only people with the article watchlisted and I end up replying to talk page questions). I really don't know what to do at this point. I'm almost afraid to respond for fear of worse userpage vandalism or a personal attack. Thanks in advance to whomever responds. NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user was indefinitely blocked for pretty much the same thing with the same arguments on the same article. I'm buggered if I can remember their name though. Seems to me this could be a "sockpuppet-type scenario". --WebHamster 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Im A Shark? The ironic thing is that they tried to order me around there too. Blocked 72 hours for uncivilness. NF24^{(radio me!)} 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked: Clearly here to troll. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page used for personal attacks

Hi, blocked user 71.99.81.194 (talk · contribs) uses his talk page for personal attacks as a retaliation for block [101], [102], [103], [104]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last and protected the talk page for the duration of the block. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User not observing WP:NPOV and WP:OR after posts on user talk page, article talk pages and edit summaries

Editor Henq is repeatedly inserting original research into the following articles: House of Windsor, Saxe-Altenburg and Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen. When I remove the original research (which sometimes has lots of weasel words and personal hypothesizing) he reverts without going to the talk page where I posted and now isn't even using edit summaries other than "rv". Now, personally, I know a lot about the subject matter in the articles, but I won't even put what I know without sourcing it properly. I don't have any history with the editor, but given that he and I edit in the same types of articles it seems, I would like to have this dealt with so editing can continue peacefully. Here are some diffs of the original research: [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111] and [112].

For a background as to why all of this is not only original research, but incorrect, see Ernestine duchies. These territories were always shuffled when a line became extinct so there were always multiple, equal heirs, not single heirs as Henq contends. That too, however, would be original research and the heirs should not be identified because they cannot be determined. Particularly for the House of Windsor article, Henq is hypothesizing some things and stating them as fact (for instance, the status of brides). I still maintain that he needs sources for these allegations which are best left out lest they be proven as false or unanswerable.

I will be happy to answer any questions if clarification is needed. Henq should be formally notified of the policies and that he should abide by them and he should remove his edits until he can source them with reliable sources. Charles 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this discussion: [113]. Sadly, I am finding that Henq does not have a particularly civil attitude about this, which may explain his constant reverts. Charles 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Email Spam

It seems User:rskellner is using article history lists as mailing lists in order to advertise. Here's an email I received:

→From: Rskellner@suddenlink.net

"I noticed one of your edits on the Wikipedia article about Hitler, and I thought you would be interested in this YouTube video by a young woman in Israel. The video was inspired by a Wikipedia article about Friedrich Kellner, a German justice inspector who campaigned against Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. During the war, Friedrich (who was my grandfather) wrote a secret diary to record Nazi crimes. Here is the YouTube web link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kJLE9zvo44

Next year, the Kellner diary will be on exhibit at the Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Library, and in November it will be at the United Nations to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. A Canadian documentary about the diary will be shown at the United Nations during the exhibit of the diary.

I apologize if I am intruding in any way with this email, but after reading your Wikipedia post I thought you might want to see this video.

In any case, let me wish you a Happy New Year. Scott Kellner (Dr. Robert Scott Kellner, College Station, Texas - my Wikipedia name is rskellner)"

While I sympathize with the intent, I don't want to see Wikipedia's email contact system and article histories being used this way. Please take whatever precautions you deem necessary to insure that this doesn't continue. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:16, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone doing anything about this? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Are you the only one that received the e-mail that you know of? And what would you like done? Avruchtalk 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent block of 67.71.142.187

The address 67.71.142.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been permanently blocked, apparently due to being used by a banned user who had engaged in serious harassment (over a year ago). However (according to Eleland (talk · contribs), who has been affected by the block), it seems to be a dynamically assigned IP and as such does little to stop the banned user. At the moment I have solved the issue by changing it to a softblock. (Perhaps the block should be removed altogether; did the banned user attempt to return to Wikipedia recently?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask, as I've seen this term before, what's a softblock? Is there a hardblock? I'm just curious. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, nevermind. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To be completely clear, I changed the block parameters to only stop editing by unregistered users and registration of accounts; existing accounts may edit through the address. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG misuse of page protection

JzG consecutive edits to Condensed matter nuclear science:

• [114]
• [115]

represent a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

I have notified him on his user talk page and asked him to remedy this: [116]. Since then, he has responded to others on his talk page: [117], but has not responded to my notice, nor taken any action with regard to it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with his two edits to that page, he's fixing a mistake and formating a source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, JzG's reasoning seems accurate. I see no abuse here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nature of the edits, I'd like to note that User:JzG did not fully protect the page; User:Doc glasgow did. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Avruchtalk 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, has anyone actually read the diffs, or are we all going off FeloniousMonk's statement? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked - I don't see a problem with restoring a redirect on a POV fork and protecting it. The below information is transferred from a different thread above (As yet unresponded to) and is a little more complicated (and deals with a different page). Avruchtalk 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to protected page Cold fusion

The Evil Spartan [118] and I [119] [120] both asked JzG to self-revert his edit to protected page Cold fusion. His response was that it was a minor edit that no one could object to. [121] [122] [123]

However, it was in part due to JzG reverting other contributors' edits that led Doc Glasgow to protect the page. It seems unfair for one party to an edit conflict, being allowed to continue making edits, however "minor".

Action requested: Please suggest to JzG that he self-revert, or simply roll back his edits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)