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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

An Imposter

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Tango 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! -- No Guru 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure? I'm not seeing anything in the block log. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, neither do I... Wikipedia went down for a few minutes just after I did it. I thought my block had gone through, it would appear I was wrong. Sorry. It appears the imposter has created a new account too: User:NooGura. I'm about to go to bed, so if someone else could look into this and take appropriate action, it would be great, thanks! --Tango 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked NooGura but when I try to block User:NoGura it tells me they're already blocked - even though there's nothing in the block log... Waggers 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked & reblocked this user (indefinitely) so there is now a record. However, Tango will you post a note on NoGura's page explaining why he is blocked? It's only fair to let this person know he's blocked, & if he requests an unblocking it will help any Admin in reviewing the case. -- llywrch 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I put the standard "indefinitely blocked as an imposter" template on his user page, but it was removed (probably because the block log said he wasn't blocked) - I'll put it back. --Tango 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, edit warring again

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

• 2007-07-03T07:53:25
• 2007-07-03T09:30:05
• 2007-07-03T09:52:47 (a .5 revert)
• 2007-07-03T09:54:13
• 2007-07-03T09:57:50.

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi ^Talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi ^Talk 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman unblocked

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock of Bakaman. Yes, Anwar's edits do violate WP's policies and guidelines but blocking him is not really an option here. Blocking users in this manner is a no-no and does more harm than good. Terence 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. Nick unblocked Bakasuprman, but apparently didn't unblock User:Anwar saadat. This reeks of special treatment, especially given Nick and Baka's involvement in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. And who exactly is the "we" that Nick refers to? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" is for the community. I will endorse an unblock of Anwar saadat if done by any other administrator. As for your misguided comments, it was I who highlighted the inappropriate block of Anwar saadat on the Evidence page. Please cease with this conspiratorial and partisan rhetoric. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that User:Moreschi is not a member of the community? As for Anwar, two different administrators have already denied his unblock requests, so I won't override them. I don't like to undo other administrators' actions. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin's judgment was clouded and if he would have cared to take a look at those pages where the alleged warring took place, these are effectively 0.66 RR blocks. We need dispute resolution for this and not blocks to escalate the situation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

O.66RR across six articles? Yep, that's disruption, and last I checked we block for that. And no, my judgment is not clouded: my reasoning abilities are perfectly intact, and I'm virtually uninvolved when it comes to these users. Moreschi ^Talk 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Clouded"? I think you should have initiated a discussion here before concluding that. Since Anwar had three unblock requests declined before FaysaalF unblocked him, I see a pretty robust consensus for Moreschi's block of Anwar. As for dispute resolution, from what I've seen, neither Anwar or Baka has shown great inclination to engage in discussion, mediation, or anything similar during their sporadic edit-war (except, as I noted, Baka made some talk page posts yesterday). For what it's worth, it looks to me as if Anwar is stalking and trolling Baka, but Baka's response is, for the most part, simply to revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus. Now is reverting (and making my best attempt to discuss) anything comparable to stalking? No it isnt.Bakaman 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, anyone? "Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake". That and the earlier "edit-warring duo" post have me confused as to where Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) ends and Akhilleus (talk · contribs) begins.Bakaman 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As civil as ever. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a banned anti-Buddhist troll and I took offense at your mis-characterization of evidence and your opprobrious facilitation of admin abuse. I find that is covered in policy, under WP:CIVIL. Your remarks are little more than "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Bakasuprman per Nearly Headless Nick.Dineshkannambadi 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was hasty and badly judged. I support the unblock. Sarvagnya 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. Do either of you have reasons? Do you wish to expand on this? Hornplease 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You masquerading as an [opinion] is absurd.Bakaman 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat unblocked

I've just unblocked User:Anwar saadat to cool this down. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts: It seems my unblock requests would not have been declined three times by admins if the diffs I provided were read through. I was not revert warring with Baka here (as Baka blanked entire section without discussion or even a note in the edit summary and here (as Baka removed the formatting for the filmography table without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here and here (as Baka inserted link to FU image, no FU rationale provided and introduced POV with links to a partisan blog) and here and here (as Baka reverted a tag to a FU image and blanked a whole section along with supporting links to the Guardian without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here (as Baka inserted a subscriber-only link). I hope the matter is clear now.Anwar 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing co-admins blocks

I am not a fan of undoing blocks. It just makes things worse as shown above. Both users have been edit warring since a long time and honestly the block of Moreschi was appropriate. My unblock of saadat tries to bring the balance back. I hope both users refrain from using the revert button excessively. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of blocks. They just make things worse as shown above. Was this really a situation so extreme that the blocks were necessary? Are the blocking admins aware of the psychological effects of blocks? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

Threads about both editors has been common here. It is not the first time Anwar and Baka's conflicts are brought here. There would be rather psychological effects of the blocks on admins i believe as shown above (i.e. Nick and Akhilleus). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things are brought up on ANI, not all of them are legitimate. It is our job as administrators to decide what is good for the project and what is not. Instead of seeking quick solutions like blocking users pronto, we must encourage them to seek dispute resolution; or perhaps take the prerogative ourselves and initiate one for them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These guys have been at it for over a month (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar). Despite plenty of warnings, and two sets of blocks (both undone rather quickly), they've shown no serious inclination to engage in dispute resolution. How do you suggest solving the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that this behaviour is endemic for these editors, as witnessed by the sheer number of unpleasant RfArbs in which they have been involved, I'd say ending a fairly lenient 24-hour block is strange, to say the least. That it is Sir Nicholas who's done it should alarm anyone who's read the Request for Arbitration in which he and Bakasuprman were involved. This is quite ridiculously unsubtle, really. Hornplease 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your motivations, as presented on arbcom and another argument are clear.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think admins must recuse themselves from taking any admin actions, in cases where allegations of Conflict of interest may occur. And also, requesting the blocking admin to reconsider the block is much better than taking any controversial admin action to undo a block. My $0.02. --Ragib 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ragib, and note that this principle from the ongoing Hkelkar 2 arbitration states more or less the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Answar is a vandalising Hindu articles for no reason. Seeing as he is a muslim, makes his actions extremely predujice.--D-Boy 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While no one disagrees with that, it seems .66 Reverts and attempts at talk page discussion are equal misdeeds.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We just trolled ourselves

First, I would like to reject the suggestion that my judgment was clouded. It was not. I'm not the one with a vendetta here. I'm not the one trying to push a POV. I'm neutral. Couldn't care less about Indian politics, or Wikipolitics.

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated this rule and the clause in this one, which states the disruptive edit-warriors should be blocked even if they have not violated 3RR. Fighting like across so many articles clearly falls under that clause. Both users violated the rules: they were being disruptive, and we block for disruption, don't we? The unblock was a joke. Politics are clearly being played here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, no Indian Wikipolitics for you. Thought I should remind you of the invectives you used for Bakasuprman and another gentleman over IRC a few days ago. You are obviously, an uninvolved party. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the specifics (and I incline to Moreschi's view of them), what happened to discussing a block with the blocking admin before undoing it? Am I missing something? Was the first notice that Moreschi's block had been overturned really a notice on AN/I stating, "We do not appreciate your administrative action; it has been undone"? MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that is the case. This brings on the question of conflict of interest, given that there is an ongoing arbitration case that specifically barred any admin actions among the parties. In the end, such admin actions just bring the adminship into disrepute. --Ragib 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still perplexed by that "we". Apparently Sir Nick believes he can unilaterally determine the will of the community, whereas Moreschi's judgement is "clouded". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too perplexed by the "we". Ragib and Akhilleus were a couple the original supporters of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) during the notorious meatpuppetry fiasco. What brings adminship into disrepute is willingly making hypocritical statements and equating stalking with legitimate knee-jerk reactions.Bakaman 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And so was Moreschi...oh, wait, he wasn't. And guess what, he's the blocking admin. Not me, not Rama's Arrow (who left, so why are we bringing him up, exactly?). And you know, if you're foolish enough to take the bait when you're being trolled, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. As for "hypocritical statements", I would expect that if you agree with the principle that administrators shouldn't block users on the opposite side of a dispute, you would also agree that administrators should not unblock users on their own side of a dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was never in any sort of edit dispute with Rama's Arrow. I had a spat with him maybe a week or two before the April 22 incident. I attempted to discuss after the second reverts. Anwar has a long history of this, as we can see in Rama's first RFA where he was censured by a number of users for attacks on religious beliefs. This isn't about one size fits all remedies. I have demonstrated on the talk pages how my edits were within policy. Anwar's inability to do that is not my problem. Facilitation of stalking and religious hatred are also not becoming of admins.Bakaman 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you're being trolled. Anwar's been trolling you for over a month. There have been numerous ANI posts about this, and it's played a role in the arbitration case. And you still haven't figured out a way to respond except pursue your "revert first" policy, even though you've already been warned, several times, that this is not a good idea. Anwar's behavior is worse than yours, but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted above, you made some posts to talk pages of some of these articles, after this note from User:Andrew c. You gracefully replied here, where you said, in part: 'I do not feel a need to discuss with a troll...That being said I "discussed" my edits now.' One might conclude that your efforts to discuss (sorry, "discuss") were in less than good faith; in fact, you explicitly said they weren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I should add that your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition consisted of "The link works." ([1]) Another one of your posts ended "I can remove this bs at whim." This was probably not the most constructive way to approach the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi referred to me as a bastard over IRC, I take strong offense at that, and his misuse of admin powers. He is obviously more than clouded. On the other argument, you still cannot refute that my edits were clearly sanctioned by policy. My use of BS is meaningless. Might I remind you Jimbo has said "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Referring to things as BS may not be nice, but there is nothing wrong with being blunt about things.Bakaman 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So ArbCom appears about to pass a decision, in Hkelkar 2, specifically barring actions such as Sir Nick's unblock of Bakasuprman as inappropriate uses of administrative powers. Perhaps this unblock was technically "legal", in the sense that the ArbCom case is not officially closed, but it still doesn't pass the smell test. Unless I'm missing something here? MastCell ^Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note Bishonen, morven and Flonight's comment on the talk page of Proposed decisions here – [2]. Some of those proposed principles are self-contradictory, and the Arbitrators are still reviewing them. They were originally meant for somebody else. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The principle in question is uncontroversial. Or do you disagree with the idea that "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in"? Note that the sentence starts "As always," implying that this is something that doesn't even need to be said. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nick has absolutely no experience with Anwar. The real issue is moreschi's cluouded judgment and his inability to differentiate differences in conduct.Bakaman 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Sir Nick's behaviour in the light of ArbCom rulings and precedent that is being discussed. Concerns with Moreschi's block are properly aired above. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, redux

I happen not to be a banned troll, so I'll restart this discussion.

Both SqueakBox and DPeterson continue to redirect the articles Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. A quick glance at this talk page shows that a vote on the proposal was failing 3-6 before it was closed and declared "no consensus." The "being bold" defense clearly does not hold water when the idea has already been discussed extensively, with the majority of users disapproving. The merge is a dead issue; the proposal clearly failed. Please take appropriate action.

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What action would you have an admin take? Corvus cornix 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate for the situation. Since they keep reverting the pages to redirect even after a long discussion resulted in no consensus on the idea, I would consider their changes to be vandalism. But I'll let an admin decide what action is necessary. Mike D78 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently begun watching the relevant pages. There are clear problems here, with just as clear solutions. The main Pedophilia article has become bloated with activism information, most of it pro-, that simply duplicates information from the Pro-pedophilia activism page and completely takes over the article. What needs to happen is both Pro-pedophilia activism and Anti-pedophilia activism need to be moved/redirected to Pedophilia activism, and the duplicated material deleted/merged from the main article.

I've submitted a move request at Requested moves, but if revert warring and edit warring is happening, the relevant pages may need protecting and those engaging in the behaviour may need blocking. Exploding Boy 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning people - Mike D78 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sockpuppet of the pedophilia-obsessed Kirbytime (talk · contribs), as was Flamgirlant (talk · contribs), who was the originator of the above thread. - Merzbow 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The time has clearly come to be bold. Exploding Boy 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is how we got here and Mike is much more likely a sock of Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) an out and out pedophile activist, SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Get an admin to run a usercheck on me if you suspect I'm a sock; otherwise, quit accusing me of this nonsense in every discussion I post in.

Being bold is most certainly not how we got here. Constantly blanking and redirecting an article without consensus is not bold; it's defiant and disruptive.

Mike D78 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty pointless as you you would just start again. Being bold is exactly how we got here, whether you like it or not. Please, after a few days here you dont have the experience to lecture users who have been here years and your "it's defiant and disruptive" is a personal attack. Please desist. I anyway suspect you are just using policy to try to justify your pro pedophile beliefs, for which we have WP:IAR, SqueakBox 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But Exploding Boy is not anybody's sock, and rightfully sees that something's not right. Editing warring just isn't the way to solve disputes. Pro-pedophile activism has now been locked, and the material is duplicated on both pages. Exploding Boy has proposed a merger between pro- and anti-, again, and I'm getting dizzy with deja vu. There has to be a better way than this. ETA: looks like he's got things into some kind of form to carry on the conversation without reduplications everywhere. -Jmh123 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of "Kirbytime" or any other user; in fact, a look at my contributions will show that I've been editing since before his last account was blocked. I don't appreciate you making these unfounded accusations against me, and furthermore, simply the fact that a banned user originally brought up this issue does not mean that the issue is not relevant. Mike D78 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who locked that article; it wasn't me. I've proposed that the Pro-pedophile activism article be renamed Pedophilia activism, and that all activism related to the subject be included in that article, unless there's a good reason for separate articles (ie: there is a lot of information, too much for one article covering both sides, which is unlikely based on the current state of all related articles, and the fact that the anti-pedophilia activism information currently available comprises about 2 paragraphs). Exploding Boy 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Expecting pro- and anti- paedophilia activists to cooperate on a single article is "a bit" optimistic. Dan Beale 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They will by necessity be separate sections, so ne'er the twain shall meet. Exploding Boy 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Mike D78 is probably another sock of Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again Matt, stop making these unsubstantiated accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.

Mike D78 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the Pro-pedophile activism article is safe for the moment from edit warring, its counterpart is not as lucky. Could the article on Anti-pedophile activism also be protected, at least until the ongoing discussion reaches some kind of consensus? Assistance of an admin would be really appreciated. What is happening is that information is getting deleted from the free-standing article on the topic and a redirect is getting placed on the page to the general Pedophilia article, yet the latter contains no information on the Anti-pedophile movement. The only reference to any kind of pedophile activism is within the section entitled "Pedophilia-related activism" that has a link to "Pedophilia activism," which redirects to the Pro-pedophile activism article. As can be seen, not only is a pointless redirect/link loop created, but information relating to the subject of Anti-pedophile activism is getting completely deleted from Wikipedia. Please help! Homologeo 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Safe? SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. All three are now protected but the protections expire on the same day, so admins should keep an eye on the situation for obvious reasons. Exploding Boy 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

We are all making inputs in Wikipedia with good faith and clean intentions. I have made similar edits in the past in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family etc., and my edits were reverted without giving proper reasons. When I cited references they were branded fake. When I gave page numbers they were termed 'unreliable'. When I reproduced large chunks of material on talk pages they were ignored. When I tried to protest collusion of certain group of persons I was threatened with blocking. When I complained to some administrators they expressed their helplessness, busy schedules and inability to understand the topic. So, who will come to the rescue of well-meaning people? Please see the talk pages of the earlier mentioned articles. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case too.Kumarrao 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience sake, the Talk pages in question are Talk:Telugu language, Talk:Telugu script, Talk:Brahmic family and many more

• Please see Sarvagnya's Contributions and those of similar users, and decide for yourself. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw Sarvagnya's Contributions. What is there to decide? What do you mean by "similar users"?

Unless you provide the supporting diffs, i'm afraid, it is not going to help the case. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong in giving the link of a user's contributions. Nothing confidential about it. I'm sorry I can't elaborate any further for obvious reasons. Most of the concerned will understand. Don't try to bait. --Altruism^{To talk} 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Elaborate. You are here to get us to do something, not the other way around. If you're going to be so lofty with your request, we're going to toss it aside. —Kurykh 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Somebody plz. tell me where my previous (immediately) complaint is?

I have just been unblocked after a 24 hr. block, thanks to User:Blnguyen. I didn't mean, not to elaborate on the main issue (the diffs) here. I am requesting for checking if there is indeed Sock-puppetry involving,

My complaint

• Sarvagnya (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nrupatunga (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gnanapiti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• KNM (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dineshkannambadi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letters: E, C and D

Also, plz. see my formal complaint, in the page for sock puppetry reports against User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fernandobouregard is Jimbo?

Resolved

So is this user actually Jimbo Wales (I doubt it) or is it blatant impersonation? His user page is a copy of Jimbo's user page, his talk page is an out of date copy of the Jimbo Wales article talk page.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was some really quick action by Deskana. Case closed.--Atlan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not resolved after all, as Deskana's blanking of the page was reverted by User:Orangemike.[3] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, looks like we're re-set now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help

I am being wikistalked and they are being incivil to me. This is against wiki policy [[4]]. I made a very neutral comment on the talk page of Senator Barack Obama here [[5]]. User:Tvoz, who POV pushes at the Barack Obama article (as he as edited 239 in this article, far more than any other article he has edited), began wikistalking me.

I created a very obscure article about the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Immediately, Tvoz begins contentious editing there. That article is so obscure that this is not a chance event. Later, I edited about the very, very obscure Johann Schobert, who is NOT the famous composer Schubert. Guess what, Tvoz follows me there and causes trouble.

Tvoz is all violating AGF by calling me a sock because of my 2nd very neutral Barack Obama talk page edit. [[6]]

For wikistalking, incivility (calling people socks just cuz you don't agree and want to push POV, and not AGF, Tvoz should be blocked for 24 hours. Help! Feddhicks 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks is an obvious sock puppet of Dereks1x. · jersyko talk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that an uninvolved admin would indef block this latest sock of a community banned user. Please also see recent abusive edits [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] to my Talk page by an unknown-to-me IP address, whose timing seems curious, considering the above. A 31-hour block is in effect for the IP address, which seems rather light to me, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz accuses User:Plumbing of being a Feddhicks sock and therefore a Dereks1x sock. This is wrong. Plumbing is a sock of cat POV pusher DreamGuy [[12]]. According to Tvoz's logic, DreamGuy=Dereks1x, which is a false accusation. Given that Tvoz's 2nd most favorite article to edit is Cat Stevens, I suspect that Tvoz=DreamGuy=Plumbing (as all 3 edit controversial stuff about cats or cat stevens).

For more information, see my AN/I report about Plumbing and DreamGuy below. Mikkke2 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This speaks for itself, I think. Tvoz |talk 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't, then Mikkke2's total of 10 edits to Wikipedia do. · jersyko talk 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I have been in previous conflicts with DreamGuy and/or his alternate accounts). However, I see no link between DreamGuy (talk · contribs), Plumbing (talk · contribs), and Tvoz (talk · contribs). Their writing styles and edit summary usage are completely different. The Plumbing account definitely has very few edits and may be a sockpuppet, but I see no evidence that it's a sock of DreamGuy's - it just seems to be an account that is popping through multiple RfCs and doing what is requested, offering comments. --Elonka 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this situation before, but I indef blocked Mikkke2 as a single purpose account with the sole intent to harass another user by making accusations against him or her on multiple talk pages. A clear case of Wikistalking and no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, so... 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about DreamGuy - seems to have been dragged in here to deflect attention from the original point, which is that I believe Feddhicks, Plumbing, Mikkke2 and likely others are more socks of banned user Dereks1x, likely using proxies. Feddhicks is engaged in disruptive editing at Barack Obama and making false accusations here. Tvoz |talk 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

The editor Orangemarlin:

• sent me frivolous warnings about alleged vandalism [13] [14],
• repeatedly insulted and slandered me
  • "… Mr. panty and penis obsessed …" [15]
  • "… Mr. Panty obsessed …" [16]
  • "I found it amusing that he's obsessed with panties and penises." [17]
  • "… audacious ****wit …" [18]
• was extremely aggressive and provocative
• tried to remove an active unfavorable discussion from his talk page and then called me a vandal when I reverted it
• falsely accused me of being a vandal, even though it was explained to him by a neutral third party that it's wrong

The case can best be seen by the discussion in my talk page. The only policy I've broken is WP:EQ, which itself was after being provoked, but he's flagrantly violated WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS. What had caused all this was simply following the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE, and trusting the WP:BOLD guideline, since there was a calling need for a big talk page to be archived, and WP:BITE, since I'm new to editing. All this was stated clearly and several times in the pertinent talk page. The same actions, but done by a different editor, have not caused anyone to call him a vandal.

Having been treated so unjustly has caused me pain, and I believe I've been in the right the entire time, so I'm calling for any disciplinary action against User:Orangemarlin, just so he would maybe understand that he was wrong. –Fatalis 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortly after Fatalis filed this report, User:Sasquatch left a warning on User talk:Orangemarlin threatening a block if the harassment continues. Since then OM has made 3 edits, none of which have directly made the situation worse AFAICS. I am familiar with OM (I've done an editor review on him), and he tends to have an aggressive personality, but here he took it too far. It's hard for me to interpret Fatalis's attempt at archiving as anything other than an honest mistake (I'm not just assuming good faith, I really believe that's the case). It certainly does not warrant name-calling relating to body parts. OM's record is such that it's hard to justify a block if he stops cold - but that's a big "if" at this point. Shalom ^Hello 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to make the peace here. I'm ignoring his follow up commentary. There is a larger story here, and typical of these ANI's they do not look beyond surface complaints. But I'm done with this issue, and ready to move on. Orangemarlin 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the "name-calling" Orangemarlin did ("Mr. panty and penis obsessed …") was in response to Fatalis calling OM a dick and telling him not to get his panties in a wad. Clearly, there was incivility from both sides, and it is strange that one user (in this case, User:ConfuciusOrnis) was blocked, while Fatalis never even received a proper civility warning. It's also strange that the discussion would be about blocking Orangemarlin without even a mention here of Fatalis' incivility. Weird. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The idiom "panties in a bunch/knot/wad" is not something that you'd use in a polite society, but it came after a completely gratuitous vandalism warning, and its meaning fit there perfectly. Calling him a dick was after he'd insulted me more (namely, calling me "Mr. Panty obsessed" and a vandal again), and was meant as an invitation to stop being one, because he was both wrong and seriously uncivil. I don't think you can find any instance of him assuming good faith there, or even listening to other editors, or showing any repentance. His attempt to "make peace" came right after an another spurious accusation of vandalism and tag-teaming me with his friend, and I did not decline it anyway. –Fatalis 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Firsfron, this is a very odd situation. Perhaps it is indeed typical of a certain haste and superficiality of our "ANI culture", as Orangemarlin proposes above. Oddest of all is Sasquatch's uncalled-for block threat here. Fatalis seems determined to prolong the conflict until everybody apologizes to him (for ... uh, not sure). See this thread, with Orangemarlin's offer to move on and Fatalis insistence on "justice." Or see Fatalis' call for "repentance" just above here, with the hilarious and petulant misstatement "I did not decline [his attempt to make peace] anyway". Fatalis needs especially to stop reverting Orangemarlin's changes to his own talkpage, which he is free to make. See for instance this revert and this, note especially the edit summaries. Stop trying to police his talkpage right now, please, Fatalis. Incidentally, isn't it time you stopped sheltering under WP:BITE? You've been editing here since April 2005.[19] Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

The account is old, but I've edited very little until now, and his attempt to make peace came after I said I'll go to ANI, and sounded more like "I'll let you go", when it was he who had kept escalating it, and who had started it in the first place. I agree that the reverts you pointed out were false, but I can't stop doing it "right now", because I'm not doing it now at all, and it's still not what you'd call vandalism, because the discussions were active, and more comments were made after I restored them.

I think it's telling of your own bias that you don't see anything that I could want an apology for, or that Orangemarlin could be warned for. I agree that the hostilities were not one-sided, but I did not initiate them, and I asked him to stop them very early. At one point he said that my apologies were worthless, because I kept on vandalizing the article's talk page, which was still as wrong as the first accusation of vandalism. He also had assumed without asking anything, or caring to look at my edit history, that I'm a "POV warrior" from the beginning. In the end, if someone very unjustly attacks me, and I don't behave as a saint, it doesn't mean that I've waved away any rights to complain. –Fatalis 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Or to attack me for "bias"? I see. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, that must be one of his rights too.

Fatalis, if you cannot present the whole story, just drop it. You seem to forget that there were Draconian changes you made that were the catalyst for all of this. Was OM angry, yes but I think it was a "righteous anger" -- he responded to your actions (which were indefensible by the way). Apparently, neither you nor Banno can see that archiving still-activediscussion threads is wrong (especially given that your denfence of the archiving was that you don't have broadband and the page was loading too slowly). •Jim62sch• 10:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I say that that I don't have broadband? It is you who is seriously misrepresenting the case, and it is Orangemarlin's "righteous anger" that can not be supported by any policy, and my editing that did not violate anything. The mistake I made was using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE that caused the history be archived too. I have recognized that it was wrong several times. About your active threads, both after I had archived the page, and after Banno restored the history from the archive, it was clearly suggested that the active threads should be copied back. What was copied back instead was almost the entire archive, making the page still much too heavy. You have not shown to understand the situation, both by claiming that having a > 200 KiB talk page is not wrong, and by accusing Banno of losing content, which is false. –Fatalis 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on reality. I never said here that anything was lost, I said that active threads were archived -- there is a large difference. Do not read what you want into I write. And yes, you are still missing the damned point: size is not an excuse to archive active threads. I do not know how to make this point any clearer. Also, common procedure for archiving is not to archive things less than a month old (more-or-less).

And I accused Banno of precisely what I just explained, and of acting in a manner that exceeded his authority. None of this is rocket science. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because you were dismissing any fault on Orangemarlin's side by saying that there's nothing to apologize to me for, you were calling the warning to Orangemarlin undeserved (and used the loaded term "threat"), giving too much weight to misconduct on my side after the stress had been risen significantly, and accusing me of dishonestly by pretending to be a newbie (which my edit history can prove to be false), and implying that your analysis is supposed to be not hasty or superficial. I was just standing my ground against injustice, and still am. –Fatalis 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Fatalis, that's not my "bias", those are merely my interpretations of events. Bias implies that I have some hidden or personal reason for interpreting the actions as I do. What would that be? Please specify these suspicions of bias. Have you and I ever interacted before? Would I have any reason to want to ambush you? Do you think I'm passionately in love with Orangemarlin? (I'm not, I'm passionately in love with El C.) Anything like that? Or what is this bias of mine? Please don't attack the integrity of users merely because they don't agree with you. I noticed that when somebody did agree with you, you described them above as a "neutral third party".[20] That's what I am here. A neutral third party. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

You are right, that was not the right word choice. What I really meant that you were mistaken in your analysis and conclusions. English isn't my first language, and I'm still under stress. –Fatalis 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's another accusation of dishonesty: you called OM an "audacious fuckwit", not the other way around. See here •Jim62sch• 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's false, it was clearly directed at the trolling Octoplus (I think everybody agreed that he was), Orangmarlin does not appear even near that comment, and I recognize it was very uncivil, and have refrained from using such phrases since. It was Orangemarlin who called me that later, because you had copied it in my talk page. –Fatalis 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we trust you after you have to lied to us? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have I lied about? Besides, it's verifiable. See for yourself. –Fatalis 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Lies or not, civil or not, the editor who filed this ridiculous incident report, has been incredibly disruptive to any possible progress on talk:creation science. His actions amount effectively to tearing up the talk page of a contentious article without bothering to seek consensus. Further, any assumption of good faith that may have been his due, has been undermined by his self-righteous and unrepentant attitude. ornis 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have done nothing but create mess yourself, and then spread FUD about an administrator who actually restored the history, and second, this is irrelevant to the complaint, and false, because my mistake was simply using the wrong procedure from WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis, your mistake was in archiving quite a few active discussions, and responding with "don't get your panties in a wad"-type incivility when people understandably were upset at the resulting mess. And then calling for disciplinary action here against Orangemarlin for being "treated so unjustly" and "caus[ing you] pain". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfair summary. After I archived the big talk page (280 KiB; the mistake was in moving the page history with it), Orangemarlin attacked me [21] and issued a false warning about "vandalism". I repeated what I had said in the summary, and suggested that the active discussions should be moved back in. [22] I then told him to not get so agitated, that I was just following the WP:ARCHIVE guideline. Perhaps it was impolite (it could also be taken as humorous), but he met it with pointless insults, and showed that he does not understand the situation, and kept calling me a vandal. I was reasonably upset, and told him to stop being a dick. I was met with more pointless vitriol. Two other editors told him that he was wrong about tagging me as a vandal, and he just dismissed them, and also called me a "POV warrior", showing that he had just made that assumption, without bothering to see my edit history. After that he has not yet acknowledged that I'm not a vandal, and is still making aggressive comments. Also, all this muddle is because after the history was restored by User:Banno, a certain editor moved back in not just the active discussions, as was the idea, but almost the entire archive, ranging from 380 KiB to about 200, with many threads long dead. –Fatalis 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm having trouble understanding this, but why didn't you follow the WP:ARCHIVE guideline?... dave souza, talk 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've reached the end of my English skills. I did follow it, but just the wrong part. –Fatalis 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you skipped the bit at the start that says "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page....The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure." and went straight to "Move procedure" but ignored point 4: "Copy discussions that are still active back to the original talk page." and the paragraph after that about moving the page history "makes it difficult to search for past edits"? Your writing is very clear and your language skills are to be complimented, but perhaps it would be best to be offering apologies for your misunderstanding rather than demanding apologies from other editors. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC) add cut and paste bit .. dave souza, talk 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I have never denied that it was a mistake, but if you disregard that I moved the history, everything else was more or less correct. I moved the page to the archive, added the archive tag, moved the top part back to the old page, added the history info-box, and then commented that the active discussions should be moved back. The immediate vandalism warning was undeserved, and OM's insults much less. I've outlined the order of events above, and you can see that Orangemarlin overreacted and did not try to AFG or be civil at any point. Now he's saying that it's "totally unfair". [23]

Anyway, to people reading this, I apologize for what an enormous waste of time it has accidentally turned out to be for everyone involved because of my newbie editing, but I'm not going to take the blame for things I didn't do, or apologize for not letting someone step all over me, or agree to the FUD Orangemarlin's gang is now spreading. –Fatalis 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FUD? What is that? What gang? Why the hell can't you just admit that you were wrong? And hiding behind this newbie and English isn't my first language crap has got to stop. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you keeping any track of the false things you've said since the beginning? You can research the meaning of "FUD" by yourself. Who is the gang is obvious, seeing how you cover each other. Also, I had never archived a page before, and made very little edits before the end of June, and you can clearly see that I'm giving point-by-point answers to all comments, so your accusation is, once again, false, because I don't hide behind anything. Moreover, let me point out that I've never denied that I made a mistake, I've admitted it even in the comment you're responding to, and also apologized for how this turned out, although it wasn't my intention or sole fault. –Fatalis 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your apology is appreciated, the qualifications which make it seem grudging are less welcome, and getting into an argument about FUD is the last thing we need. All parties need to learn that "a soft answer turneth away wrath". .... dave souza, talk 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Well, it's certainly unfortunate that all this kerfuffle has arisen when a newbie with only eight months of solid editing experience tries to be helpful, and completely misreads the clear instructions at WP:ARCHIVE on a particularly sensitive talk page, then when Fatalis raises the issue here in, it must be said, a remarkably well constructed complaint, editors acting in good faith get a block in the rush to calm the situation down. I'd hope we can all learn from this, and do our best to undo all the collateral damage. . .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned that such a minor screw-up has lead to such a mess and all kinds of attacks and unwillingness to move on. I personally wrote over and over asking for fatalis to just let this drop and move on. So he made a mistake, so what. Just apologize, admit you made a mistake and forget it. Somehow he just wanted to continue to throw insults around and get more and more defensive.--Filll 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fill, I've admitted it many times, including at the very beginning, and it was Orangemarlin who said that my apologies can't be accepted, because I reverted an edit by ornis where he added 380 KiB to the page, and I think an another edit that again restored the entire archive. Now he's using an alleged vandalizing of his talk page as an excuse. I'm not a vandal, and I won't pander to people falsely accusing me and insulting me. Also, please recall what you were telling me before you started demanding to "let it drop". You were chastising me, repeatedly stating that you're "suspicious" about my motives, and not following either the spirit of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, and I had asked you to stop. It was actually after I said that I've had enough, and I'd complain formally, that you had this change of heart. –Fatalis 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you still don't get it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Just because I have not compiled a full-blown writeup, detailing blow-by-blow the events leading up to this, and castigating assorted parties for what still seem like highly suspicious actions, do not think I am asleep or naive. Don't push it, ok? We all know what the record looks like and some parties certainly should not want it dissected and analyzed critically. Just a word to the wise.--Filll 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please, go ahead. Instead of making more vacuous claims, prove that my actions are "highly suspicious". –Fatalis 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected

Both parties should cut down on the incivility or else both of them will be blocked. That sound fair enough? This is already getting out of hand as it is. If you guys can't learn to play together you can play somewhere else. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit strong don't you think? What both parties are we talking about here? Fatalis and ... who? Me? OM? Bish? (Oh, go ahead, block her, that should be interesting). Ornis? Firstfon? The world? As an admin, your job is to try to disarm a situation (like Dave did above), not to issue threats. Your closing comment was uncalled for and very unprofessional. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean me, I've pretty much stayed out of this by not communicating directly with Fatalis. If you're threatening me, then I'm wondering about your level of civility, especially your tone. Orangemarlin 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that if you've indeed withdrawn, you escape from that "or" statement and are safe from this particular warning. --Masamage ♫ 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please tell me that means this foolishness is over with, and we can get back to editing the article now. ornis 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Postscript

Based on the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor and a thorough review of contributions, I have blocked Octoplus (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of the community-banned user Raspor (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Octoplus' comments on this thread have been moved to his talk page, so it may not be clear why I'm bothering to note the above. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV warriors who delete large portions of text

What remedies are available for blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text which does not meet their own POV? I have seen a small group of editors go around and delete huge portions of referenced text that they personally don't agree with. They cite policy for these deletions, but their policy reasons dont stand up to any scrutinty. It simply is a way to delete large portions of referenced text. What remedies are available, other than RfC and Arbcom? I have no problem accepting other peoples view points but destructive uncompromising deletions of large portions of text are terrible. One editor in particular, has been an editor for over a year and a half, and never actually adds anything to wikipedia, his only purpose is to actively get articles he doesnt like AfD'ed.

Any suggestions? 216.60.70.152 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that you be less vague ? this is a board for people to bring specific incidents to the attention of administrators - what specific problem do you have? --Fredrick day 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not name usernames or name particular pages right now. I am just wondering if there is anyway to stop this behavior. Would another policy page be a better place to ask? 216.60.70.152 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is -- you revert it, and refer them to the talk page. --Haemo 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion Haemo. Wow, if it could be that easy. :) I am talking about deletions that go on for months, even years. A third party moderator didnt work. RfC? Can a person have a RfC for several users at one time? Does wikipedia have any policy on this to stop this abuse? 216.60.70.152 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you have some serious content disputes then, not simple POV warring. There's a difference between removing text, and having a content dispute, though the line can be blurred. To answer your question, yes you can have an RFC for a set of users -- just remember to notify them all, and provide evidence. --Haemo 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a content dispute. Most articles or referenced sections that paint the United States in a bad light are removed. Thank you for your response. 216.60.70.152 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is about State terrorism. It was filled with all sorts of original research which had all sorts of links to sources that didn't actually discuss State terrorism. It has been cleaned out several times, and it will remain clean. If the IP editor wants to put stuff back in, he needs to find sources that actually refer to State terrorism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The cleaning has only just commenced. This article is one of the worst POV violations I have come across. Not to mention the other policy violations including WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, it needs a lot more work to come close to being neutral.--MONGO 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO your personal bias is well known and legendary. I would have no problem if these editors actually contributed text to the articles, but they don't. 69.153.81.182 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this posting, you have a total of 12 edits including the 2 to this noticeboard. Do you really think you should have a problem with other editors contributions, additions or deletions? As for MONGO's personal bias, it is very legendary. He is biased towards reliable sources and Wikipedia policy as well as bringing article to FA status. As someone with only 5000 edits and a relative newbie to MONGO, I defer to his wisdom when he thinks deleting material will make it a better article on it's way to FA status. If these State Terrorism articles wish to be Featured Articles, listening to MONGO is the smart way to go as I think he is in the top 3 FA article contributors. --Tbeatty 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sue W. Kelly

Resolved

This is very strange. Zy4477380 (talk · contribs) and Super6066 (talk · contribs) are obvious SPAs, reverting the article to a promo piece style, which have been their only edits. I reverted. Recently, Lewis2007 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article, removing relevant information such as the fact that Kelly was chair of the page committee. He's done this three times and his only edits have been to add a POV-pushing link to several articles of congressional Democrats. Are these the same person using sockpuppets? Is there any known banned user who edits in this style? hbdragon88 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is insufficient data to link Lewis to either of the two previous accounts, who both edited in January. Keep in mind that Mrs. Kelly is a prominent politician. However, Lewis2007's pattern of adding spamlinks is problematic. He hasn't done that in two weeks, so I think you can wait and see. Shalom ^Hello 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG just indef-blocked him. Thanks Guy. hbdragon88 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay32183

Jay32183 (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked twice for incivility toward users who disagreed with him on the interpretation of policy [24]. Now he is arguing with Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination) and, while he's avoided the colourful language of the earlier incidents, his attitude has been highly combative ("It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong"). He's threatened Tyrenius with a block for continuing to advance an opinion that he believes is against policy and insists is in bad faith. I've tried to ask him to stop, but to no avail. Perhaps someone uninvolved in the debate would have better luck. —Celithemis 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the debate, unfamiliar with Jay32183, I found his attitude to be sharply uncivil - especially to Tyrenius, I agree with the all of the above. Modernist 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking threat.[25] Failure to AGF.[26] A word of advice from someone uninvolved might help to steer him in the right direction. Tyrenius 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit to assuming good faith. Jay32183 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Asha

and the other suspects / people being questioned. It seems premature to categorise them as British Islamist terrorists. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that they are nationals of countries other than the UK, and (AFAIAW) not charged yet, then, yes, it does seem premature. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I've reverted on Asha. Will look at doing some of the others if I'm not beaten to it. David Underdown 12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All removed, I've generally removed category:British muslims and similar as well as none are British nationals, I left it on one as he was born in the UK, although largely brought up in Iraq. David Underdown 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAW ???? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As Far As I Am aWare. Whoops... ;~) LessHeard vanU 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and defamation of me by user HattoriNanzo

I would like to complain for the nasty behaviour of user HattoriHanzo, who runs defamation campaign of me publishing false accusations. He accuses me that I have complained to the noticeboard that he has inserted citations, which I never done. Moreover, HattoriHanzo behaves uncivil and continues to do so systematically. He thinks that I have conspired with some guy named Evula. His false accusations:

• 1. diff 1,
  2. diff 2,
  3. diff 3.

His personal attack to me, stating my writings are "truly idiotic".

I have brought personal attacks to the board, but HattroiHanzo doesn't stop his uncivilties. Vlad fedorov 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You conspired with EVula (talk · contribs)? This seems highly unlikely. I am concerned that Hanzo removes huge chunks of referenced text, however. I believe you both should take a cup of tea and discuss your grievances thoroughly. Mother Russia will not collapse in the meantime. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NOte: I linked EVula's username, for readers' quick reference. —Crazytales [[(!!!)]] 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE. Now Biophys also joined HattroiNanzo in his disruptive editing by removing large chunks of text he claims to be poorly sourced, but these sources coming not only from Arutunyan, but also general Troshev and Guardian newspaper. Vlad fedorov 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IP address 220.225.140.74

- Ip address has blanked article in the mainspace for no reason. Want to report this as vandalism. Article: South Central Railway I reverted article to the last unblanked version. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You may do so at WP:AIV. Unfortunately, yhis particular edit was 3 days ago, so it's a bit late to report. Also, please note that users should usually only be reported after having received a final warning. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue on Western Caucasus and Vladimir Putin quotes

I constantly get reverted (see history) by some user with such explanations: the article was initiated and written entirely by me, thank you, and now (s)he is trolling me on my talk, (and again: [27]) and several articles I have recently touched ([28], [29]). Is it normal in Wikipedia? Colchicum 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was in response to your "rv. consult sources." I don't need to consult sources, because I'm not a stray ignoramus you take me for. I instantly started a discussion on talk, but you failed to respond. Your forum shopping on this page is a bad token as well. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is how I failed to respond, right? Colchicum 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the former Soviet Union-related topics can end up being rather controversial. However, looking at the diff, I'm not sure what benefits there are to introducing Russian text into an English article are unless it is an important term (like on Russia itself). While the comments are definitely WP:OWN ("unsolicited", "my", etc.) and a tad uncivil, perhaps dispute resolution might be best. Try seeking that first, then come back here if it fails. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing really controversial in nature reserves. It is not only about Russian text (which consisted of official name of the reserve in Russian and two Russian-language references where no comprehensive English-language substitutes are available). Some English text was also reverted (info about the yew and box grove, location of the site etc). Colchicum 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider Colchium's repeated attempts to remove my plea to stop revert-warring over the trivial issue with the edit summary "WP:TROLL" grossly incivil[30] [31]. I also resent his attempts to cast himself as a newbie who has never interacted with me in the past. Calling me above "she/he" is particularly pathetic. I'm sure he knows my name after so many discussions he's been involved with me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You, sir/madam, are a hypocrite: [32], [33], [34]. Digwuren 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know you personally and have no idea of whether you are male or female. Yes, I have interacted with you, but I am surprised that you consider yourself so memorable. As to the edit summary, I merely followed your habit: [35], [36], [37], [38].Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact. Your failure to distinguish a troll from Ghirla (and malicious trolling from a good-natured advice) is a gauge of your involvement with Wikipedia. I still expect your apologies for the rude outburst quoted above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd person? Wow. Commentarii de bello Gallico. Just wow. Colchicum 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing it. Put up or shut up, as the gentlemen say. Digwuren 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [39]. There you can easily see how much of the text is in English.Colchicum 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [40]. There you can see that the debacle started with your attempt to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being moved to Wikiquote. There is no need to take offense that your pet page has been transwikied; it's a normal practice in such cases. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The debacle couldn't start there. You didn't touch Vladimir Putin quotes before I came across Western Caucasus.Colchicum 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh, conspiracy theories. Ok, I have received an answer to my question here. It is normal in Wikipedia. Colchicum 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow your lead in petty bickering. On the other hand, I request the community opinion on Colchicum's heroic attempts to prevent Vladimir Putin quotes from being transwikied to Wikiquote. The talk page is particularly informative. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith here. Often editors will make comments which come across as extremely rude when first addressing users they aren't familiar with. That last edit summary is totally uncalled-for, but the rest of those comments appear benign to me. So yeah, you shouldn't simply be getting reverted, but the correct thing to do is to ask for an explanation rather than getting straight into an edit war about it. Chris Cunningham 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's enough to scroll up to see the warning that "as a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting" or "Before posting a grievance on a user, it is advised that you take it up with them before you bring it to this message board". I'm afraid Colchicum decided to waive requirements in this particular case not so much for lack of courtesy (although this is also an issue), as for making haste to use the page for forum shopping against his opponent in a content dispute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it seems telling that Ghirlandajo prefers not to address the issues raised on Talk:Western_Caucasus, where I tried to resolve the content dispute.Colchicum 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not try to resolve anything. You made three sterile reverts and went to this page, where I have spent an hour replying to your pointless accusations. I don't have four hands to indulge you both on this page and elsewhere across Wikipedia. So far you have not made a single attempt to modify your original edit. I don't see your point in polluting this page with such petty grievances. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I only made two reverts of unreasonable deletion of text. Frankly, I don't consider my original edit (here is it) bad enough to require a prompt revision. Colchicum 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding content to Wikipedia is a petty grievance. Ok. I see. Colchicum 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you aspire to continue discussion with me, you should bring apologies for your personal attacks quote above. Until then I will not stoop to engaging you on this page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said earlier, I'd prefer never to communicate with you, but you disagreed. Colchicum 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Man, you have serious issues with civility and wikiowning. Face it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Its not normal on Wikipedia, it is just normal modus operandi for Ghirla. All opposition are trolls, national extremists etc. and all their edits and comments are vandalism, incivility or POV. And somehow I do not see that changing.(Yes, I know Ive just set myself up again to be called something "nice"... Life is fun and truth is rude.)--Alexia Death 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Alexia in this fully. Ghirla's views in this are extremely two-faced, he likes to accuse others of nationalism and cabalism - and then made this edit little while ago. Ghirla sees nothing wrong with abusive edit summaries, threats, personal attacks, accusations, inserting false or very badly sourced information to articles - as long as he is doing all that. Those, who do not agree with him, are, of course trolls, and, since he owns Wikipedia (note: sarcasm alert), they need to be banned. DLX 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sad to say that Ghirlandajo is slowly but surely reverting to his old habits. Here is a recent example, where he threatens to start editing articles in a certain area as a form of single person self-generated backlash (as silly as this sounds, I cannot describe it any other way). Balcer 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second, and stalking a user with whom he disagrees on other pages (ex. [41], [42]) is not a nice behavior - particulary as Xx236's edits to the Fire of Moscow (article Balcer's diffs brings) where nothing but helpful and civil ([43], [44]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, your appearance is the best illustration of the "nationalists of all countries, unite!" motto. I hope that Piotrus and Lysy will be here in a minute... Have fun, --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the definition of nationalism is "devotion to one's nation and its interests over those of all other nations", achieving unity between nationalists from different nations would run into inherent difficulties, don't you think? In light of this, please reconsider your theory that all your opponents form a cabal of nationalists. Balcer 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't impute anything of the sort to me. I'm glad you were able to perceive the irony behind the motto, but today you will frequently find some improbable alliances of Armenians and Indians, Poles and Estonians in Wikipedia - all for the common good, apparently. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This list of enemies, real or perceived, actually reminds me of the good old Soviet anecdote about the five enemies of Soviet agriculture (namely spring, summer, autumn, winter and Western imperialism). This naive yet hearted story seems to have some parallels in our day. E.J. 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“Digwuren and Ukrained are qualified trolls. Nobody can dispute the fact,” “Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists” (Ghirlandajo) - the more I read stuff connected with users with such vocabulary (cf. [45], [46]), the more inconvenient I feel here. The more I learn of certain displeasing personalities here, the more I doubt in the future of Wikipedia. The "dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" (Larry Sanger) seems to be an irreversible development. E.J. 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to assume a philosophical posture here. Nobody would have doubted that all your Tartu company will join in and second each other in a thread where my name was mentioned. This has been performed by you a dozen times since you simultaneously registered your accounts back in May. So what's the purpose of these latest antics? Do you think that Alexia Death seconding Digwuren who is seconded by Martingk and Staberinde, then endorsed by DLX and Three Lowi, and add Erik Jesse to that ilk, with the "Teutonic Balt" Big Haz who is always ready to chime in, is such a priceless show that you need to repeat it on a weekly basis? Seriously, I challenge anyone to disprove my opinion that Digwuren is a nationalist-motivated troll, but please not here. The page is too long without these pointless rants. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this clear display of everything that I was saying. I rest my case. BTW, I stumbled on this thread quite incidentally.--Alexia Death 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TO Ghirlandajo: The page evidently wasn't too long to swallow the recent paranoiac commentaries of the type already experienced on the RFC page, which has vanished in the meantime. (I mean this rant about ‘Tartu kids in the classroom’). I am obliged to affirm once more: I am not acquainted with any of these users you mentioned. This thesis was misapprehension, which has already resulted in disinformation. E.J. 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As did every other Estonian editor currently active in Wikipedia, apparently. It is remarkable how promptly you "stumble on" anti-Ghirla rants one after another, again and again. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats remarkable about seeing a thread on a VERY prominent page that I personally watch? Colchicums post came up top and I clicked the link to see what was he reporting. Simple interest. These accusations are getting VERY old. Oh, and no-one removed your comment... I checked the history.--Alexia Death 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ghirla here. Note that the users he mentioned above, have a month-long history of ganging up on other prolific users whose edits they do not agree with. Petri Krohn is a prime example, and he definitely is not a Russian nationalist. With one exception (User:3 Löwi), all these accounts have been created very recently. Within hours of their appearance on Wikipedia they were AfD'ing articles and holding discussions in which hardly household English words like WP:UNDUE and WP:COI were daily occurrences. The check users did not prove or disprove that all these are different users, it only established that because of the way Tartu University servers are set up (and we cannot exclude the possibility that one of them is behind that - have a look at User:Digwuren's conributions to the check user debate), it is virtually impossible to establish who is a sockpuppet of whom. Surprise, surprise, the only non-Tartu exception was found to have at least a meatpuppet. ([47]) Since they prefer attacking editors who are also prolific in other areas of Wikipedia, and with their RfC's and threats of RfC's are diverting those users from those other articles as well, therefore holding up the further development of Wikipedia, I would venture to say that most of their existence on Wikipedia hitherto has been disruptive. To User:Colchicum: "with friends like that, who needs enemies?" --Pan Gerwazy 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to support Pan Gerwazy and Ghirla here. Any dispute involving one of editors named Korps! Estonia by Petri, even if absolutely unrelated to content about Estonia, immediately attracts other members of the group. It looks to me as if they have some kind of informal agreement to support one another (since allegations of sock- and meatpuppeting have not been proved, I wouldn't behave like they often do and throw unfounded accusations around). In ideal world I would assume that any of them popping up in content dispute outside of their usual pattern of interest should be counted as strike (as in "three strikes and you are out"), but this world is not ideal. RJ CG 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindented)Somehow you forgot to mention that I (as DLX) have been on WP since Feb 2005 - and that most of us actually aren't in Tartu University. And no meatpuppetry has been shown, because, well, there hasn't been any - do come up with a proof or apologize now. As for "ganging up on other prolific users whose edits they do not agree with"... Gee, I guess having many edits means you don't have to follow rules and can insert false information to articles, like Ghirla has been known to do ([48], [49]). Talk about edicountitis... Sander Säde 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[50]--Pan Gerwazy 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Sander Säde 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no... CheckUser shows what IP addresses you've edited from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

_{Edit conflict}No, I mean - even the initiator of that checkuser admitted that he was wrong, [51], as did Petri Krohn ([52]). Sander Säde 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And that with large dynamic IP address pool for the same service customers tells you in some cases without time frame just that two people share an ISP. Not a crime in itself... This kind of likelys happen when people pass the jugement without understanding of the underlying infrastructure. --Alexia Death 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai uses admin power in content disputes against User:Tones benefit

It seems that User:Mikkalai is using his admin powers in content disputes he is involved in. Take a look at the contrib list of User:Tones benefit here, and also at his block log. You will see that Mikka blocked him once for 3RR, but then, after several days, he blocked him a second time in the middle of a content dispute he was involved in. He claimed that the block was for edit warring. Still, I took a look at the concerned edits and they are not exceptional on wikipedia (not the kind of edit that requires blocking without 3RR). It seems to me that Mikka pushes his national (Russian) POV using admin rights. Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The user had already violated 3RR two times (report). That was before any contact of his with Mikkalai afaik. Alæxis_¿question? 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he was blocked for it by Mikka. But the second time (on July 3rd) the guy did not infringe on 3RR. He did nothing special. Dpotop 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mikka classified the user page of User:Tones benefit as suspected sock of User:Bonaparte. The proof he presented] is the edit list. However, I can't find where sockpuppetry is... I mean, I can't prove the guy is not Bonaparte, but there's no proof he is Bonaparte. And, given the notoriety of User:Bonaparte, even suspecting someone of this is a serious offence. Aren't there some rules against arbitrary tagging? Especially by admins... Dpotop 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya mean? It has been found that the user is probably Bonnie (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bonaparte#Tones_benefit_and_Bonaparte). The template says exactly the same thing - that he's a suspected sock. Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Bonny all right. I recall he has started some page about [[Moldova and the European Union], and now I see Tones benefit editing it. There's really much in common. Dpotop's complaint has no merit. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? The result of the checkuser was "Possible", which basically means nothing. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte was banned from WP for having run a sock farm, with great skill and care I should say. His only mistake proved his ruin. Given his background, I would not expect him to have trouble in cheating the checkusers. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Then accuse all the new editors you don't like of being Bonaparte socks. Of course, throwing doubt on everybody makes random application of the rules possible. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have to notice that the "Russian brotherhood" is manifesting itself again, just like during this previous case right here on WP:ANI. Dpotop 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and allegations of cabalism are not welcome. You should specify who you consider to be ethnically "Russian" among the people mentioned in this thread. I don't know any. Furthermore, your attempts to denounce your opponent Mikkalai without bothering to inform him on his talk page are basically incivil. Bonaparte, Digwuren and other extremists will rule Wikipedia only if they follow my old advice - "Nationalists of all countries, unite!" - which they do, by and by. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the incident I cited above, you are in no position of lecturing me about nationalism being bad. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't try to change the subject. What we are talking about here is Mikka using admin powers in a content dispute, which is forbidden. Just like 3RR and sockpuppeteering. Dpotop 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonny or not, that guy has no place here. He is a vandal. He should be banned for being a vandal. We tried to reason with him, but to no avail. I'm with Mikka on this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute or not, as a banned user, Bonaparte and any of his sockpuppet are not only blockable on sight: they have to be blocked. This whole discussion is pointless and a waste of time. If you want to attack Mikalai, you'll need a better excuse than this. Circeus 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed the whole point: There is no proof whatsoever that Tones benefit is a sock of Bonaparte (as of July 5th 2007). Dpotop 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also no proof that you are Bonny's sock, and so?.. Man, your persistent attempts to revive this pointless thread seem to reveal some sort of militant agenda. We all know that you don't like Mikkalai, but this page is not going to help it. Please move the crusade elsewhere. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am blocking nobody. Your buddy Mikka is, in order to push his POV. So, who's the militant here? Dpotop 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-involved admin who hasn't followed the Bonaparte saga, I can say that in general, a "possible" sockpuppet check essentially means that the checkuser can't be 100% sure, but it's a pretty good bet. If Tones benefit also had a similar editing pattern (I can't affirm this, but other users attest to this), then it's pretty much a certainty. Due to the way IP addresses work, as well as the existence of various proxy services, much of the time checkusers alone cannot prove that two users are the same. Ral315 » 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I thought checkuser is checking IP adresses and says "Confirm" if there's a match, and "Not confirmed" if not. What is this "Possible"? Dpotop 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As a victim of a mistaken checkuser match, I object to such an assessment, and exhort everybody to take checkuser "possible" with a reasonably-sized grain of salt. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Digwuren 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel-based IP-hopping vandal

Hi. There's a problem with an anonymous editor who is vandalising the same set of articles (e.g. Nelly Furtado discography, Justin Timberlake discography), as well as others, from a variety of IPs that originate from Israel. Each time I block one IP the editor returns from another - so far I've blocked 217.132.153.45 (talk · contribs), 85.250.19.86 (talk · contribs), 217.132.224.111 (talk · contribs), 89.138.36.25 (talk · contribs) and 89.138.135.165 (talk · contribs) for a month each, but I'm hesitant to block for longer than that to avoid collateral damage, and it's not really solving the problem because the editor either has a dynamic IP or is editing from different computers. Is there a way of dealing with situations such as this - should the network service provider be contacted, for example? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to just semi-protect the articles? ShadowHalo 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the editor has vandalised some articles just once — e.g. Geri Halliwell — so if the main set of articles being vandalised was protected, the vandal would probably just move onto others... and it's mostly really sneaky vandalism that RC patrollers probably wouldn't notice. I've just had to block another — 217.132.1.97 (talk · contribs) — so perhaps an abuse report should be filed. Extraordinary Machine 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex mond and Armenia-related articles

The indefinitely blocked Alex mond (talk · contribs) has been creating new accounts to edit Armenian hypothesis against consensus (e.g. [53], [54], [55], [56]). He's also canvassed other users to perform controversial edits ([57], [58]). Alex mond only showed up a few months ago, but I'm wondering if there's a longer history here that I don't know about, perhaps a previously banned user or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a brief chat with Dmcdevit on this: he mentioned that Alex mond's edits are apparently the spitting image of User:Ararat arev, who is banned. Checkuser was inconclusive, but apparently Arev was the very devil to checkuser cleanly, and the edit pattern is very similar. Moreschi ^Talk 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first raised the issue on this noticeboard, I was accused of inability to distinguish a good-faith editor from a troll. If the community reacted to my early report of trolling as sternly as it was expected to, I believe we would not have come to this level of disruption. The same applies to Digwuren, Bonaparte, and other trolls mentioned above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have a brand new noticeboard to deal with exactly the type of crap Mond was pushing! Isn't that nice? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug

Yug is continuing to POV push on Stroke order, which came up here at ANI in the past at some point (which is how I found it), but I'm not sure how to find old topics here. He is refactoring discussions and changing the context of people's comments (as here) and went back into an old thread to insert a link to an archive here. Yug has his view of what the article should be (which specifically uses OR and adds how-tos, which are both clearly prohibited by policy) and after stepping out of the discussion because it wasn't going his way, he's now trying to refactor the talk to be more sympathetic to his position, despite two uninvolved editors' comments about an appropriate place for his work on Wikibooks. MSJapan 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, part three

SqueakBox and DPeterson are at it again, constantly blanking the Anti-pedophile activism article and redirecting it to the pedophilia article, even though a discussion on this idea resulted in no consensus for this action. As mentioned above, they previously engaged in this kind of edit-warring concerning the pro-pedophile activism article, but now, since all info related to activism has been removed for the pedophilia article, these reverts make even less sense. As Homologeo mentioned above, their actions are essentially completely removing info related to anti-pedophile activism from Wikipedia. Would an admin please step in and protect the Anti-pedophile activism article, and perhaps consider action against SqueakBox and DPeterson, as this is the second revert war they have started based on their redirects without consensus? Mike D78 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus not to move and why have you reposted given no admin action was needed was the decisioon before and nothing has changed. The material is at pedophile which is locked and you keep duplicating it. You edit war and then accuse others of edit warring, and being bold (which is what my initial action was) is not reason to receive admin action, SqueakBox 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I don't know how many times I can explain this to you, but you need consensus BEFORE blanking and redirecting an article. My reverts were simply restoring the previous version of the article before your disruptive edits, which eliminated information.

Clearly if you keep doing this, admin action is needed to protect this article, just as it was needed to protect the other articles. Mike D78 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you have the experience to lecture me on how wikipedia works, admins arent here to support your pro pedophile activism, and once all the socks and SPAs were removed the consensus was not to keep these pedophile promoting articles as they were, SqueakBox 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have used and edited Wikipedia a few times before registering under this name, Squeak, and besides, it requires little experience to realize that, when a discussion on a redirect reaches no consensus, you don't unilaterally go and redirect that article on your own. There were plenty of established users who rejected the redirect.

As long as you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with your disruptive edits as promoting "pro pedophile activism," we are going to make little progress. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. These articles are not the place for some crusade against others, but are the place for objective documentation of information.

Mike D78 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Many people diosagree with me and I dont accuse them of being pro pedophile activists but these articles are plagued with pro pedophile socks (the users having been banned) and you fit the profile, SqueakBox 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, Homologeo, and Exploding Boy disagreed with your reverting without consensus, as well, and Jmh123 actually voted for the merge. The difference is, they realize that blanking and redirecting without consensus is not the way to go and is clearly agaisnt protocol. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the ends justify the means and that any disruptive edit necessary is permissible in order to achieve your goals.

An admin already checked to see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and as I told you, I was not. Further accusations that I am a sockpuppet can only be percieved as continued personal attacks against me.

Mike D78 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They got the wrong guy, you are no kirby sock you are a VoB sock and as such deserve no sympathy whatsoever, SqueakBox 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply not true; get an admin to run another checkuser if you don't believe me. I am sorry you seem to have such a problem with this Voice of Britain fellow, but I'm not him. Mike D78 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is the third report in a week? —Kurykh 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to ask Squeak why this is the second edit war he has insisted on starting in a week? Mike D78 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am asking you. If I wanted to ask him I would have done so. —Kurykh 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. It has been reported three times because the first time, no admin did anything about it, and the last two times were in reference to separate disruptive edit wars at seperate articles, although related to the same users. Mike D78 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its all one dispute, SqueakBox 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you apparently didn't get the message last time, after an admin had to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts without consensus. You have no grounds to blank and redirect a page without agreement, bottom line. Mike D78 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, content dispute. Go back to the talk page and hammer it out, guys. —Kurykh 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by BBOzzy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BBOzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalizing Criticism of Mormonism with blatantly anti-Mormon edits. BBOzzy2 is now adding POV tags to Mormonism related articles.[59][60][61] shotwell 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Grandmasterka 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Furry fandom

Resolved

Somebody please protect Furry fandom? Apparently the trolls participants at ebaumsworld have discovered it and are hitting it with multiple anon vandalisms per minute. Already requested at WP:RFPP, but this needs to get protected fast. Corvus cornix 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fursuit

Resolved

They're now hitting Fursuit. Corvus cornix 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• And now they're not. What's up next? WilyD 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm amused that 3 of us semi'd it at once. — Scientizzle 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I was almost in on that party myself, but I stopped to check the other article first and you guys got it while I was gone. X) --Masamage ♫ 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request review of speedy delete

I have just speedied Serb cutter as an attack article. As the attack was aimed at a nationality and a rather infamous former paramilitary group instead a person, I request review of the action. (The references cited in the article did not support any of the allegations in the article.) -- Donald Albury 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not have speedied this article. Since at least one of the references (one was a dead link for me) at least supports the existence of something referred to as a "serb cutter". I would have gutted it to be just a description of the object with a reference supporting the description, and removed the sensationalist language about slaughtering Serbs and so on. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) I dunno, it doesn't look like a straightforward attack page. I mean, there could be purposes other than just disparagement I guess. The only credible source seems to be the transcripts of testimony, but it does (at a glance) seem to verify the article. I probably wouldn't have speedy deleted it, personally. That doesn't mean it didn't need to go... if anyone really disagrees with the deletion it should go to WP:DRV I guess. --W.marsh 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All that the transcripts verify is that weapons with the name Srbosjek ("Serb cutter") on them were found in searches in the 1990s, which has nothing to do with all the claims about what happened during WW II. There is nothing in any of the supposed references about the Ustase, or about the German company Solingen, or about killing competitions in the Jasenovac concentration camp, one of which was supposedly won by Ante Pavelić. Again, the only thing supported by the references is that testimony was offered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that weapons inscribed with Srbosjek were found in searches in the 1990s, and that is not enough to base even a stub on. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, this is a complex argument that is well beyond the intended scope of CSD, which was never intended to extend to an analysis of the referencing quality. I'm just saying that this didn't meet CSD policy. However you seem to know what you're talking about and at a glance your argument seem sounds, so I'll assume for now that you got the right result and avoided a potentially messy AFD. I'm not challenging the deletion... hopefully the distinction is clear. --W.marsh 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with W.marsh...not really a G10, but the result is beneficial so it's all good. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Resolved

 – Page protected; could try WP:RFPP next time.

Past 100 edits to the article has almost been a constant and relentless revert war. Please interfere. -- Cat ^chi? 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected by User:Tariqabjotu.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quack! Quack!

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ldingley. We have a ban-evading sockpuppet on the loose, and I'd rather speed up the response time by mentioning it here. Shalom ^Hello 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NokhchiBorz was already blocked on June 22nd for this reason. Shell ^babelfish 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gardenersville

Gardenersville (talk · contribs) is flirting on the edge of racist comments, although I would say has not quite crossed over the line yet. However, when he/she didn't get their way on the Aryan race article, they decided to create a POV fork at Aryan People, which I redirected to Aryan race when I first saw it, not being aware of the edit history. Only when I discovered that he/she had already deleted one warning about edit warring from their Talk page, did I discover what's going on. I've issued a 3RR warning. Could anyone else chime in? Corvus cornix 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have decided to try to work things out since I mentioned 3RR. Corvus cornix 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. User:Ed Fitzgerald has been relocating clean-up templates in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article.[62][63][64] Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page [65], 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page [66], and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations.[67] Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Wikipedia guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating here. María (críticame) 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page here, and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on my user page. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --Haemo 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page before they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --Haemo 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the opinion of an editor, and are not in any way definitive, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.

A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Wikipedia, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.

By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without any discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the taboo against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only moving them.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As you have moved {{unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the rule than the exception on Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Wikipedia projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Wikipedia.

I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —Kurykh 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Kurykh. I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; this isn't a play and we aren't stage hands. Everyone who reads Wikipedia is a potential editor, and therefore the templates are relevant to everyone. The reason why they are placed at the top of the page, as is said by the style guidelines, is visibility. María (críticame) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; What an absolutely extraordinary statement! I'm totally flabbergasted. What do imagine is the point of Wikipedia, to be a fun place to play around in? It exists to create a reference work to be used, and the people who use it are the "audience". Call them what you will -- user base, clientele, whatever, it is for they and them only that the project exists, and considerations about ease of use and functionality should be second only to considerations of factuality of content.

Obviously, this aspect of Wikipedia has been given short shrift for much too long, if an editor can make a statement like that in all sincerity. Everyone's all tied up in policy disputes, which serve (badly) to regulate editor behavior, to the exclusion of consideration of the needs of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You stated that "users of the encyclopedia [are] supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists." This is a misstatement: the encyclopedia exists for everyone. If any reader is a potential editor, than templates are useful for them, as well. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, very nice attempt to tie in my professional background! Bravo, points for research! But, unfortunately, stage hands don't cater to the audience, they do what other people (director, designers, stage manager) tell them to, so that rather messes up your metaphor. Besides, as a rather famous thespian once said "All the world's a stage." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, as you have shown you are capable of doing in the past. Not that it means much to delve into the personal, the stage hand comment was a metaphor I pulled not from your life, but my own (speaking as an ex-theatre major). I was not aware of your profession, nor do I think it pertinent to the discussion. Let's remain on topic. María (críticame) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a category error to treat the class of Wikipedia editors as being equivalent to the class of Wikipedia users. It's certainly (and obviously) true that all Wikipedia editors began as users, so that Editors is a subset of Users, but in actuality they have totally different relationships to Wikipedia, and should not be treated as equivalent. (I'll also say that many editors become so involved in internal Wikipedia matters they really cease to be, in any meaningful sense, users of the encyclopedia. Their concerns are no longer the concerns of the casual user, and it's this disfunction that I'm suggesting needs to be addressed.) It's my contention, which I think is obvious from even the most cursory examination of internal pages such as this one, or from a close look at Wikipedia policy, that ease of use and other user-function matters are not given their proper due, and need to be made more important.

Also, let me play the Wikipolicy card and cite WP:BB and WP:IAR as justifying my actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which work until and unless one meets with resistance, which you have - quite strong resistance. Please re-read the pages to which you have linked. IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Strong resistance"? I see here three people arguing against what I'm doing, and two people agreeing with it. I'd hardly categorize that as "strong resistance". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Wikipedia needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. alteripse 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. alteripse 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In many cases I strongly support the approach taken by Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) – I've seen a very good expert editor infuriated and driven from the project by the row over a "TONE" tag placed at the top of an article as a quick and easy way of someone expressing the opinion that the writing was too interesting, without having to bother with explaining themselves on the talk page. There are occasions where, for example, an "Unreferenced" tag is important at the start, but I've seen that tag added to articles that clearly do have references – again, the tagger couldn't be bothered with checking the article or explaining themselves. Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. Oh, and we've probably all come across tag vandalism..... dave souza, talk 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this makes three of us. Anyone else out there? We could start our own cabal. alteripse 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as conversant with Wikipedia's internal processes as others are, so I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of bringing this particular complaint here? A cursory look at the instructions on the page makes it appear to not be the correct venue for this, but, as I said, I'm not knowledgeable in this rather esoteric area. What is the administrative action that the editor who filed the complaint wishes to bring about? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Final Fantasy

Resolved

 – Being dealt with elsewhere. --Masamage ♫ 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an incident at the talk page for WP:FF. This issue is on the photos. A Man In Black and Kariteh started tagging images Renmiri uploaded in a blatant effort to silence dissent by going after someone's contributions, according to Renmiri herself.

There is a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Renmiri has uploaded, in her most recent entry, a photo named Image:Amib.jpg as a result of the two editors tagging the images. This is just a reminder. Greg Jones II 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with administrative action? It sounds like it's already being resolved somewhere else. --Hemlock Martinis 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A Man In Black is an administrator and I find his conduct on the incident appalling to say the least. I am hoping this request for mediation will make him pause and reflect on his role and his responsibilities as admin, and make him cease using this kind of methods. Renmiri 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this issue is being resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Mediation Cabel. If this is the case, I apologize for my comment above. Greg Jones II 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...It's speculated that I hate you for nt being able to read...Urrgh. Who wrote this?) ...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and months, with this editor having been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In his defense, at least one of those "it's speculated" was due to consistent reintroduction of speculation and fanfiction for which a comment had been made and placed directly next to where the edit was made, and a few others were do to consistent vandalism that had both been commented against and was clearly "assinine" in spirit. While WP:CIV should obviously be followed, is apostrophe to be punished for getting annoyed at users who continue to graffiti and vandalize articles, whose edits consist of nothing that can be construed as anything but pure vandalism?KrytenKoro 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User name and account that requires immediate deletion -- please see my last contribution

Resolved

 – Carson 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. KP Botany 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, threats, etc.

I hope I'm posting about this in the right place, please let me know if not.

I'm not really a fan of Internet drama in general, but this user's conduct toward me is making me more and more uneasy. He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet with no real evidence (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), and has also accused me of being a pedophile. Recently, he has belittled me, called me a "wanker", a "pervert", a troll, a dick, and seemed to threaten legal action against me.

The guy seems to feel that I am out to get him, but I honestly have nothing against him and have tried to remain as civil as possible when talking with him and defending myself. Juding by his many contributions to Wikipedia, he seems to be a good editor who is simply letting his temper get the best of him regarding a certain topic. In addition to attacking me, he has also blanked and redirected pages without proper consensus, as has been reported on this Incident board.

Again, I have nothing personal against him, and I will only be around Wikipedia sporadically during the next few days, anyway. This report on this incident board may anger him further, but I don't know what else to do. His conduct regarding me is clearly against the rules and is starting to really trouble me, in addition to proving disruptive in general. Could someone please try to calm him down?

Thank you. -Mike D78 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any comments regarding this? Mike D78 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's something going on there with the sockpuppet accusations that is not being mentioned here. That said, SqueakBox is clearly out of line in repeatedly calling Mike D78 a wanker and threatening to call the police, whatever the hell that's supposed to do. I'm not going to touch this but someone more familiar with the history here should take a serious look at this.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (User:Ferdinandhartzenberg) of blocked User:JBAK

Blocked User:JBAK had created another sockpuppet after his last, User:Treurnicht, was blocked. The new account User:Ferdinandhartzenberg is named a right wing former political leader, Ferdinand Hartzenberg, (itself a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy) who was the successor of Andries Treurnicht after which his preceding sockpuppet was named. The user has been blocked several times for vandalism/racist comments. List of previous sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JBAK. Deon Steyn 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block Review

I blocked Sosomk for a month for a for a 3RR violation on Georgia (country). The user has an extensive history of disruption on that article and was blocked by Dmcdevit for two weeks for disruption there as recently as May. Given the circumstances I felt that the block length should be escalated. I'd appreciate additional comments and further review in case this was wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, looking at his block log. Quite clearly an unrepentant disruptive revert-warrior. Hopefully this block will serve as a warning that we do not tolerate such behaviour. Moreschi ^Talk 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor

Could someone have a look into the developments re Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bernard J. Taylor? Suspected combination of COI, spamming and sockpuppetry.

One user, Siebahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - website manager for Bernard J. Taylor - was involved in linkspamming for BJT's site, personal attacks and block evasion.

This user stopped editing, but now a new one Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared with exactly the same topic interest, and is producing further promotional articles - e.g. Nosferatu The Vampire (musical), Pride and Prejudice (musical), Much Ado (musical). Gordonofcartoon 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DIDman out of control on today's AfD log

Newly registered user DIDman (talk · contribs) has decided to AfD Chris_Costner-Sizemore and is now spamming the AfD with !votes. Could someone with the block hammer please block this guy. This is very disruptive (not to mention quite disturbing...). MartinDK 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Not altogether happy about the state of the article, but that was just weird trolling. Moreschi ^Talk 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UpDown

We wish to report UpDown for following us around Wikipedia.

Following is aggressive, intimidatory and highly distressing to those being followed. It is a form of cyber-stalking.

He has confessed to it.

What happened is that my husband is Tovojolo. We have separate accounts. As far as we know, Wikipedia has no rules against husbands and wives having separate accounts.

UpDown reported us at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tovojolo, if you read the page carefully, you will see that we vigourously deny the charge and you will also see that UpDown has confessed to following us.

We hope Wikipedia will take full action against him.

Caprisa 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Tovojolo 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the sockpuppet thing is a seperate matter, so I won't comment on it here. Secondly, I have not "stalked" Caprisa/Tovojolo (same person) merely looked at their edits, to remove the inaccuries and anti MofS they often insert (ie removing "United States" from infobox (to suggest that say California is a country) while adding "United Kingdom" when England/Scotland is quite enough; they also always copy and paste from IMDb, a major breach of copyright as well as being an unreliable source). I also had to look closely at their edits, when I started to relise that they were sockpuppets. In addition, I would ask admins to look at the fact they have always taken things personally, insulting me etc, when I have never felt the need to do this. --UpDown 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not unusual for users with similar edit histories to be suspected of being sockpuppets if they both participate in anything resembling a vote, so don't take it too personally. Of course there is no rule against husbands and wives having separate accounts if htey are acting as seaparate users. However, if your husband or wife only edits to support you, then they are treated in the same way a sockpuppet would be. We can't tell the difference, and it may as well be the same thing. JPD (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot III

User:MiszaBot III did a very strange change to User:Betacommandbot talk page. Took out newer messages and left a couple of old ones.--Busy Stubber 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The one it missed had a non-standard timestamp, so the bot couldn't figure out when it was changed. So it's not that strange when you know how archivebots operate. --ais523 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus seems to be attacking the German people. Does this not go against official policy? Kingjeff 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs to demonstrate this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his user page. The link I provided goes right to the thing I'm talking about. Kingjeff 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:142.176.46.3

I'd like to ask for some assistance, so the IP I contribute from doesn't at some point become indef blocked or any such thing. User:142.176.46.3 is a shared IP, belonging to a medium-sized office building. A good number of the employees are college-age males, who like nothing more than to make immature, vandalism edits. I know for a fact that when the current 1 week block expires, nothing will change, and they will just go back to vandalizing Wikipedia. I'd prefer that the IP doesn't get blocked, myself, as I am trying my hardest to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I was told by Bishonen that I should take this to here, in hopes that someone who was better about IP addresses could look into the IP, and perhaps find it feasible to give a longer block. Would that be at all possible? Dan 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Sosomk (talk · contribs)

User:Sosomk was discriminated and blocked illegally, after he was provoked to enter in a edit war. I want to draw the attention on this, because I was also last days the victim of a tricky system. How does it work? This article, Georgia(country), is the battleground between Georgian and Russian editors. The Russian editors try to impose their point of view, and all the time revert to their version. If you revert them, you get blocked by the Russian admin who's very active there only to block people and revert but never to discuss on talk page. The russian editors are: User:Alaexis and User:Mikkalai (who is also admin). This is a true conflict of interests since he's involved and he blocks the others. By continuing to intimidate the others, and block your opponents this will go nowhere. We need your attention on the paper and your help. Please unblock Sosomk, because he's the innocent victim of this tricky tactic of them.--Tones benefit 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• One remark: Russian may have their soldiers and troups in reality in Georgia, but this is Wikipedia, and their influence in the article should reflect this situation. (one advice: Russian editors must not behave like occupying forces on the wikipedia paper Georgia(country)), like they do in real life with their soldiers in Georgia.

To save anyone doing the maths again, Sosomk made the following reverts to Georgia (country)

08.50 5/7

09.30 5/7

10.28 5/7

08.08 6/7

08.45 6/7

I make that 5 reverts within 24 hours. Sosomk compounded the offence by calling another editor a vandal in his edit summary during the revert war and failed to attempt to resolve the problem on the talk page during the revert war (his last edit to the talk page was 08.08 on 2/7). So much for tricky tactics... I changed the title of the section to be more Neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would see it globaly, not the last 2 days you would see I'm right.--Tones benefit 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Globally he has had how many blocks for disruption and 3RR? Whatever the provocation he needs to learn to edit within the rules here and that includes not disrupting articles with multiple revert wars. What will it take for him to learn this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Tones benefit is a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user:Bonaparte who is using his favorite tactics of vocal siding with editors in politically hot areas he has no any knowledge and assisting them in their revert wars to gain friends in wikipedia in his fight against "abusive Russian editors" `'Miikka 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Equerer a sockpuppet, making reverts at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship

Equerer, registered today, seems to have an in-depth knoweledge of Wikipedia as evidenced by his talk page reply to me. The account is clearly a sock, and has also violated 3RR at the above page. Hence, should I be at AIV, Suspected sock puppets, 3RR violations, or here? I have my suspicions on who they may be a sock of, but I won't cast stones without evidence. Nonetheless this looks very much a disruptive WP:POINT. Pedro |  Chat  15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest check user first perhaps, then with that evidence to suspected sock puppets. Wildthing61476 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which I was tempted with, but the very first line at Checkuser is (to paraphrase)- obvious sockpuppets - block. And this is obvious puppetry. Unless we consider that we wish to possibly look at a preventative block of the puppet master too. ?

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You're all edit warring for one, without any attempt to get consensus. Equerer is clearly a sock of someone, but that doesn't change the fact that adding in "Bureaucrats need 9 out of 10 approvals to be promoted" without any sort of explanation to where that consensus is found is ridiculous.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know 90% is the magic number. My point is that it's not on the article's talk page...in fact the only single edit there was from 2006 by Picaroon. Neither of you were using the talk page. You need to show the new editor WHERE the consensus is that 90% is promotion, not edit war him into the ground. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In my defense SwatJester, I was just suggesting a remedy for the situation. Wildthing61476 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you use the talk page, then? Instead of pageprotecting us into the ground ;) Anyway, I think 'new editor' is probably not the best word here. Haukur 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I agree with Haukur and Pedro, almost all new users don't discover RFA so fast, and especially RFB, looks like a single-purpose account created to stur up trouble and a checkuser is in place. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester - why not actually bother to look at the logs before your gross and sweeping generalisation. I only came across this on RC Patrol. Your you should all be ashamed of yourselves comment is offensive. Please strike it. I care not one jot for the argument at this time. I care that a sock is being used on a contentious edit, hence my report. Pedro |  Chat  19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: vexatious litigation

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[68] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[69] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[70] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[71] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would...

...It be acceptable for users to go through CAT:UWT and replace all of the Image:Stop hand.png with Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg as even Template:Bv has been changed, the only ones I can see at first glance which havent been updated or Template:Test5, would people agree that its time for all of us to "take a step forward" and update these? ALl the best. Qst 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This would probably be a good thing to bring up at WikiProject user warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

More User:Danny Daniel sockpuppets to block: User:PiePogg

Resolved

Blocked

User:PiePogg fits the pattern of previous Danny Daniel sockpuppets. The username is in CamelCase. The account created several hoaxes. Two of them were hoaxes that were originally created by other Danny Daniel sockpuppets, which are indef blocked(Monk (Cartoon Network series) and Space Ham). See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for more info. Pants^(T) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles deleted, sock smashed. SirFozzie 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving user page & user talk page to another name that doesn't have an account.

Resolved

 – Page moved back. Will ^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs) has moved her user page and her user talk page to User:A. Shakespeare which doesn't have an account assigned to it diff. The problem I have is that the usual user page links in the navigation column (such as user contributions) don't show up on the new page. I couldn't find a guideline/policy on this, so since I'm not sure if I'm dead wrong in thinking this isn't okay, I haven't yet informed the user of this post.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't someone tell her why it was moved back? I would myself, but like I said, I have no idea where under policy/guidelines this falls. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Spamming, POV-pushing and edit warring

Resolved

Freedomjustice1919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spammed several articles with a link to white power websites, has repeatedly tried to turn at least one article (Creativity Movement) into a soap box, and has broken the 3RR rule.Spylab 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The history of Creativity Movement shows five recent reverts by this user. 3RR threshold is 4 reverts, ergo he should be blocked. Also note that he vandalized Wikipedia talk:Consensus immediately after this report was posted (diff). Shalom ^Hello 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked (mostly for civility). If problems persist, ask again. Cheers, WilyD 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkcurrent continuing bad behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked for 61 hours.

I reported Darkcurrent's earlier behavior a few days back and left a relatively polite message on his talk page: [72]. Basically, he edits pages and leaves insulting edit summaries making liberal use of slurs, swear words, and all-caps. Several days after I left my previous message, Darkcurrent thought it would be fun to leave the following message on my talk page: [73]. If you don't care to look, because it's mostly nonsense anyway, he calls me a "grammar nazi" (sic), a "gay fuck", and invites me to "suck (his) balls". This is subsequent to insulting . . . well, either me or User:Breed3011, it's hard to tell. on his talk page with similar language. This guy is a repeat offender, and if it were up to me, he'd be gone. He contributes little of value, has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, not just against me but against, you know, everybody. I would appreciate it if an admin could take some action. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Just as I clicked on the "block" button, I got an error message noting that User:WilyD had already blocked Darkcurrent for 61 hours. Sounds about right, though I had selected "1 week", so I guess he got off easier. As the prior blocks have had little effect on his behavior, I'm not optimistic, but perhaps he'll turn things around. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned to him something like "Shape up or face increasingly long blocks" - I'm always hopeful editors can reform ... but I won't hold my breath. Any more problems, just report him again. Cheers, WilyD 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For a supposed "tenured professor of theology", this editor doesn't show a lot of edumacationistic poise...and seems a touch overzealous regarding the ethnicities of Richmond Secondary School students. Seriously, though, this editor should get a permanent block if, after this one wears off, any further incivility occurs. The contributions list is a series of profanity, personal attacks & rabid POV-pushing. — Scientizzle 20:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

various Sufism related articles

Ahmed Rida Khan, Naqshbandi, Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi, and Hisham Kabbani have been repeatedly hit by an IP-hopping POV vandal with the curious edit summary of "docg". A previous report of mine dated 21 June 2007 attracted little interest but some speculation as to what "docg" meant. Unfortunately Sufism is very little understood in the west and I have no idea how to begin cleaning up and properly sourcing these articles (nor would I like to spend my time educating myself on Sufism when I prefer to spend my time on image licensing issues). Any suggestions? -N 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just add these articles to your watch list and revert on sight. You may also consider just reporting a new IP to WP:AIV every time... Other than that, a range block would be rather massive and we tend only to use them for massive bot attacks and the such. Sorry, not much else I can think of here. Sasquatch t|c 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock puppet of repeatedly-banned individual

Resolved

User:66.130.22.16 is an obvious sock puppet of a POV-pushing, confirmed sock puppet-using, personal attack-making, repeatedly-banned (I think permanently) neo-Nazi from Montreal, User:Laderov. Spylab 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Would've been quicker if you used AIV. And please, no need to insult the vandals. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd behavior from Sarah Goldberg

Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some strange additions to his/her userpage. This edit appears to violate this guideline about sharing accounts. I have a feeling it isn't true based on the fact that the rest of the userpage goes on to refer to the past history of that account. But I thought someone might want to take a look. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)