Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen

This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.

Blnguyen has now blocked Frater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)

Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU was completed on February 4th by Jpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"

Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.

Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users, MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked |Jpgordon, WMC, and Yamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, he asked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did so stating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".

User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block and asked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyen responded "Ah, he was originally blocked after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.

Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "

What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite. User:Fred Bauder ran the Checkuser and "Checkuser shows no connection. User:Fred Bauder 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.

To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Review request on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block was reviewed by User:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."

This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed. Seraphim 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your post above contains a lot of false information. I asked Dmcdevit to do a RFCU, and he said that they were the same guys (early January) - and when I looked again Dmcdevit had recused from the case, so I asked UC to reconfirm the date for me. He noted the connection at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop that both JA and FX were related. Thus, they were blocked, with the on-wiki certification of a CU being run. The claims by Seraphim that I invented the sock data are false. Thus, my reblock of FX for block evasion was not a second punishment for an innocent user, since the CU already showed that he and JA were related. I did not state that I was justifying the initial block due to my instincts alone. After a few IPs from open proxies and TOR hosting machines started swamping an AfD in the general topics of these editors, I asked Dmcdevit to do another careful dissection of the data of 999. The results are here ->User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive40#User:A_Ramachandran.27s_block, after I have IP addresses left lying about by the aforementioned editors, it yielded a match. It also showed extensive use of anonymous proxies, TOR etc, by the parties. In February after another spate of socks turned up, I talked to another arbitrator and checkuser and he checkusered the accounts, and they revealed widespread use of proxies and tors from right across the world in one day. From the discussion, it was agreed that the chances that multiple honest new users all popping up on the same obscure topic with TOR and proxies was very unlikely. Added to that the fact that they had the same religious ideology with strong knowledge of wikipolitics, arbitration cases, and instantaneous use of popups tools makes things very obvious. Given that I had already noted at the Starwood evidence that HD, Ek and 999 had interweaved edits despite being in the same timezone, that the latter two were created or became active 3 hours after the first was blocked, etc, they were blocked. I went back and checked FX's record as well, and it shows perfect overlapping as well with the other four. This is in addition to the use of subversive technology. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So where are the checkuser results for the indef block posted? The only checkuser results that are up on wikipedia now after his first block, all show no relation. Basically what your saying is, even though the public checkusers showed no relation, somehow you decided that since people have the same religious ideology and knowledge of wikipedia they are obvious socks? Even though for example, the Frater Xyzzy account has NEVER edited the Starwood pages that the people he was blocked as a sock of obsessively edited it? The lack of transparancy in this case is kinda scary. I don't want to be blocked sometime in the future because someone else in my city starts editing pages that I edit and some admin comes around and decides to indef block me even though the RFCU shows we aren't editing from the same IP. The checkusers on the site clear Xyzzy every time. You might have found another sock group, that's great, however the Xyzzy account NEVER edited Starwood. Never ever ever. There was no reason to block him as a sock of those other users. The fact that nobody from the starwood case is pushing for him to stay blocked, instead his case is being pushed by people who edit the freemasonry related pages that he was active on. The lack of transparancy in this case is simply a complete failure of the wikipedia system. Don't block someone saying you blocked them because of a RFCU if a RFCU doesn't exist. And don't just deny block reviews stating that you trust the previous admin. That seems to just be common sence. Seraphim 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The results weren't posted publicly, they were discussed by arbitrators. The results showed that the editors used the same techniques of technological obfuscation. I have been advised that the percentage of honest editors who use these techniques are very low. Then the second user also has the same editing interests as the other on many obscure pages, has the same POV, and seems to have instantaneous knowledge of wikilaw. The user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote. If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly. The RFCU does exist, although only the checkusers can see it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically to sum up. People went through the official channels to get socks checked, the results of the official sock checks were that the users were unrelated. Then some arbitrators discussed the situation and decided to block the users anyway, and run a new checkuser because apparently the people that ran the 2 checkusers before, the official ones, apparently don't understand how to interperate checkuser results? I cannot understand how 2 admins with checkuser find no connection, but then somehow on a secret checkuser all of asudden there was an obvious connection. Also you don't seem to be understanding my other point. "user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote" Xyzzy NEVER EVER EVER edited the Starwood page. He has ZERO edits on the starwood page. If he was a sock puppet and the guy was making socks to evade blocks then he would have been editing the page on his sock! "If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly." What is Editing Cleanly? How does someone edit cleanly? I wasn't aware there was such a thing. Plus I am not the only one disturbed by the idea that RFCUs that only checkusers can see exist. The idea of people running checkusers without a proper RFCU filing kinda defeats the whole idea of checkuser. Seraphim 05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually RFCU was started as an outlet for people to put a request in conveniently. It never stopped arbitrators or checkusers from just doing it themselves if necessary. As for what the report is, there is no magic machine which prints the result or conclusion from the data, so there is no difference between what an arbitrator says on a Wikipedia report and what they say via email, unless they tell different stories.As regards to the CU, it depends on how closely one is looking of course. As I pointed out above, I found instances where IP addresses were left lying around after the initial check, and with the extra evidence, Dmcdevit certified that the users were indeed the same. As for the second point, if a user is subverting the system by violating WP:NOP, then there will be no connection at all just by numbers, unless someone verifies to see if the numbers are from illegitimate editing means. And FX did edit the same articles as 999, who is currently blocked. The fact that he does not edit all of them, eg Starwood, still does not mean it is not him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going through WP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest of beans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say. Teke ^(talk) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a normal CAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Wikipedia. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.

And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random832 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well a CU is essentially private even if the results are posted, since only the executing CU operator sees the data. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.

In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.

A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.

There appears to be a lot of doubt about this incidence of puppetry.

ALR 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random832 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzy has never edited the starwood pages, nor is he involved in the mediation/arbitration. Seraphim 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a note to Blnguyen's talk page pointing him to this. He should respond before it gets archived. Seraphim 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen hasn't edited since the 8th, this shouldn't be archived untill he has a chance to respond. Seraphim 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to second the concerns of Seraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks of Ekajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First 999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks that disagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when he responded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Wikipedia admin practice, but at the very least I think WP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation of why. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2 which documents the use of two confirmed and confessed sockpuppet accounts that voted oppositely on one occasion. Only the most incompetent (or short-term usage sockpuppets used for temporary swamping) sockpuppeteers do things obviously - like use the sock for voting and reverting only. As for the rest, see above. A CU was done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And SSP case was opened in this instance, here, but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JA here, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection. Seraphim 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editors for the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns in this case. The evidence and rationale behind the indef block is way too thin, or there is a serious lack of transparency. Either way, more process is required to substantiate an indef block. I'm also disturbed by the actions of Ryulong in reviewing the block with such apparent superficiality. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, couldn't agree more. Seraphim 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you can read above now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta

This is a content issue. Take it to the talk page of the article or WP:DR. Nothing belongs here.--Doc^g 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone took the archive off. I don't know who. But I would like to comment that this is more than of a content issue. Review the case if you are interested. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely had it with Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In his latest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.

In this edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.

You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness over the deceptive banner on his userpage. It took only four editors and three months to get him to stop. --Ideogram 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want us to do? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but "absolutely had it" is a little ... strong, perhaps :P? Yuser31415 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a revert-warrior. 3RR is an electric fence, not a quota. Limit him to 2RR. --Ideogram 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Electric fence may be the wrong analogy. Try minefield. :) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer machine gun crossfire, actually. Yuser31415 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now edit-warring on multiple pages. Just look at his contribs. --Ideogram 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Michelle Marsh (model)#English vs. British for an example of his debating "style". --Ideogram 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no (substantive) interest in Michelle Marsh, but his persistent, unrepetent, and endless edit warring on that article has come up on my radar. Since I've reverted him, there, it's not appropriate for me to intervene administratively. But someone uninvolved should definitely take a look. Nandesuka 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user can be assumed good faith anymore. He denies any sort of communication, and insists that his opinion is the only correct one. User have been edit-warring rather inappropriately for half an year. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AQu01rius. This user's disruptive editing and edit-warring has gone too far. I think it is time to file a RFC. LionheartX 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness] over the deceptive banner on his userpage". Yes, I recall the brouhaha and the bullying. If four editors care so much about a harmless joke on somebody else's userpage that they spend three months of "edit-warring and stubbornness" to "get him to stop", it suggests to me that they need something more constructive to do. And LionheartX, who has just been blocked indefinitely, is hardly a neutral voice here. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that I am not referring to the joke banner, which I have never cared nor posted about. What I referred to is how this user constantly uses extreme Pro-Taiwanese tone in various articles and claims all editors (mostly fellow Taiwanese) who tried to adjust his edits "POV pushing". This user never displayed a sense of understanding on the WP:NPOV policy, and the consistent edit-warring over the Taiwa-China subject matter is becoming very distruptive. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I undertand that, and it's to your credit that you weren't one of the Four Musqueteurs. But please note that I was replying to Ideogram, not you. That's why I quoted Ideogram. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you really think the banner incident was that important to my case? How can I get you to focus on the important issue here without (my) making a personal attack? --Ideogram 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta is at this very moment engaged in revert-warring on Culture of Taiwan and ignoring the comments we have made on the talk page explaining our edits. It is impossible to get him to discuss and cease revert-warring. --Ideogram 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He has broadened his POV-pushing campaign to People's Republic of China. Just look at his contributions, they are almost all revert-warring and never stand for long. --Ideogram 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please block him instead of allowing him to burn up 3RR every freaking time? --Ideogram 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just blocked Certified.Gangsta for 24 hours for violation of 3RR on the article Culture of Taiwan. Reverts: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Please note that this was done prior to Ideogram's request above. Viridae^Talk 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen, since you are friendly with Certified.Gangsta, can you please try to convince him not to continue this unproductive behavior? --Ideogram 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that they're supposed to follow the spirit of the policy, and not the letter... but still, 4 reverts in 28 hours? That hardly seems like a 'revert war'. Especially since there's still a note on his talk page about how someone wasn't blocked in spite of literally violating 3RR, gangsta getting blocked when he didn't violate the letter seems a bit heavy-handed. It certainly appears to present an inconsistent application of policies. "If you violate the policy, you may go entirely unpunished. But, even if you don't technically violate it, you still may get punished. Just because." Bladestorm 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. I hadn't realized. The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say?
Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked.
Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram.
Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Bladestorm 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Any previous block (or lack there-of) had no bearing on this one. 3rr is not a right and 28 hours is four hours past the normal 3RR deadline, however I that agressive editing style is very disruptive and hence he earnt the block. If an uninvolved admin wishes to review this and remove or shorten the block (24hours) then feel free. Application of policy is entirely up the the administrators discretion, as paticularly noted on WP:3RR. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, I am not sure if you have reviewed the original case. User:Certified.Gangsta have a long history of advocating pro-Taiwanese point of view, which violates the WP:NPOV policy. His reverts are mostly reverts against the consensus version of the article, that is agreed by most sides to be politically neutral. User:Ideogram merely performed reverts that changed back the version with questionable point of view to the consensus version. This should be within the scope of WP:3RR#Exceptions. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, you really did more to prove my point than you may realize. The action was taken for who he is, rather than what he did. Being pro-taiwan, and occasionally lacking neutrality doesn't provide license to nudge the rules around. And no, that is absolutely not covered by the exceptions, and intentionally so. Content disputes, even when stubborn, misguided, etc, are not allowable exceptions for 3RR. I wish I could remember where I saw an admin explaining that very point.

I still stand by my initial protest: rules should be applied as consistently as possible. When two people clearly have issues with eachother, admins should endeavour to not take sides. What's more, if editor A reports editor B for a verifiable violation of 3RR, and then editor B reports editor A for a violation of the spirit but not letter of 3RR, it's grossly inappropriate to punish B, but not A. Bladestorm 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever been warned that if you use your third revert again you will be blocked? I have. Gangsta consistently reverts up to his third revert on multiple articles, every freeking time. I strongly suggest you review his entire edit history and then see what you think. It's not about the letter of the law here. --Ideogram 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Bladestorm) Whether the admin's decision on blocking User:Certified.Gangsta for 24 hour due to violation of WP:3RR without acknowledging User:Ideogram's possible violation of the rule was inappropriate or not? Um, First, I don't think User:Ideogram have reverted more than three times today, correct me if I am wrong. Second, this is not really an dispute between two editors, but between a editor with disruptive history and a whole community. However, you are right on that we should not take the user as who he is. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of reference: [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Four edits within just under 22 hours. And, in this case, even if other people have issues with gangsta, this is still very much a matter of a dispute between two editors.

First gangsta reports Ideogram's actual violation. Then Ideogram reports gangsta's violation in spirit. That doesn't sound like a dispute between two editors to you? (Since I don't remember which page I said this on, I'll say it again: I'm not saying Ideogram should've been blocked either. I'm only saying that there should be consistency with how rules are applied.) Bladestorm 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those 4 reverts you showed were the ones reported by C.G as there is a self revert a couple of edits after the last one. Yes, 3RR was broken, but it was self reverted. Consistency between admins is very hard to achieve. I personally try to apply consistency among all my actions, and in an attempt to be fair to the parties involved, I have above asked that any admin who feels the block was unjustified to unblock or reduce it as they see fit. However without hard and fast rules (which 3RR is not) you cannot be totally consistent between different admins as we all approach the situation differently. Viridae^Talk 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, see Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Chinese Americans .3D Americans of Chinese descent for an example of User:Certified Gangsta persisting in so-called discussion where he repeats the same mis-guided personal opinion over and over again no matter what other editors put forth as evidence or argument. I would submit that this is an example of non-good-faith discussion, which is merely a delay tactic by which he justifies continued edit warring on the article page. --Sumple (Talk) 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's a content issue. And maybe a civility issue. But those are beside the point. I have no specific allegiance towards gangsta. To be frank, my only interest is in both fairness, as well as the appearance of fairness. When A reports B, and then B reports A, if A is the only one to literally break the rules, then B shouldn't be the only one punished. Simply put, it doesn't inspire confidence. Bladestorm 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) did you look at Gangsta's edit history or not? There is absolutely no point in talking to you if you aren't capable of looking at the whole picture. --Ideogram 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in talking to you if you aren't capable of addressing my actual concerns. I'll say it again. I don't give a flying crap if he was generally uncivil, beligerant, or even radioactive. If the admin position is to have any credibility whatsoever, then it needs to be presented as a fair and unbiased position. Using an evaluation of an editor themself, rather than the specific action you're addressing, is a step in the wrong direction. When two editors are in an edit war together, and only one of them actually directly violates 3RR, then punishing the other is inappropriate. And it annihilates credibility.

I don't care what you think of gangsta. You don't need to convince me that he isn't a saint, because I couldn't give a flying crap if he was a deranged giraffe pretending to be a human editor. Frankly, at least half the articles on my watchlist are topics that I have relatively little interest in, but where my only concern is that they are approached fairly and neutrally. Two editors involved in the same dispute, with similar 'crimes' should be treated similarly. If one editor has a lesser 'crime' (or none at all), then he certainly shouldn't be treated worse, regardless of who he is. Bladestorm 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(I stopped reading at your first flying crap.) I don't give a flying crap about your concerns. You only care about the letter of the law which is the perfect definition of wikilawyering. If you can convince an admin of the validity of your concerns, more power to you. So far you don't seem to be having much success. --Ideogram 06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, don't mess with my comments. Not only does it make it harder to follow what people are saying (signed or not, if it's inline then it becomes harder to read), but it's also terribly rude.

Next, announcing that you didn't even bother reading a point, but still felt the need to reply to it is the height of "disruption". I'm now going to request that you refrain from commenting at all. If you're going to admit that you don't feel like reading before replying, then there's no question that you aren't even trying to accomplish anything.

Next, I'm not wikilawyering. Nor am I only concerned with the "letter of the law". There's a difference between wikilawyering and asking for consistency and fairness. If you don't know the bloody difference, then you shouldn't be announcing that fact to everybody else. Incidentally, I think that's ignoring the whole AGF thing; attributing false motives to everything I do? Remind me again, who was the disruptive one in that dispute?

If anyone wants to actually discuss the issues, then I'm game. But if you once again announce that you don't feel like reading before replying, or that you don't care about people's concerns (but will still belittle them), then I'll expect an admin to immediately blank such comments. Bladestorm 06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(stopped reading at "disruption") You don't seem to understand how things work around here, what requests you can credibly make, and what admins are likely to do. You seem to think that it's ok for you to remove other people's comments based solely on your judgment that they constitute personal attacks, and you don't care that it makes it harder to follow what people are saying. I think you have a lot to learn before you will be effective at convincing others here at Wikipedia. --Ideogram 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, well, I hope you can see by reading the link I supplied that it's not simply a matter of (1) a content dispute, or (2) two editors warring with each other. A user's behaviour in what starts as a content disupte, beyond a certain point, becomes an issue of disruptive editing. Secondly, its not just Ideogram who has had, and continues to have, problems. --Sumple (Talk) 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate Dispute between Bladestorm and Ideogram

Well, this has officially entered a new chapter.
Previously, I had been proceeding on the assumption that gangsta was exaggerating, at least a little bit. However, Ideogram has now just started stalking me as well.
Take a look at this edit here. In a long, drawn-out problem with whether or not to include references to richard gere cramming small rodents up his butt, there was a problem with someone choosing not to address the actual issues at all, but rather accuse editors who care about the policy for bios of living persons as being "rabid Richard Gere fans" whoa re "unable to cope" that "feel the need to suppress them at every opportunity." Since this wasn't directly about the article, and was an accusation of bad faith, and was a direct personal attack, I removed it.
Maybe the right choice, maybe the wrong choice. But that's not the issue here. Here's the issue.
In addition to proclaiming that he wouldn't read my arguments (but would still belittle them), Ideogram actually traced back my contributions to try to find something to report. And, sure enough, take a look here. Notice that, when he was unable to address my arguments directly, he instead tried to find another method of getting to me.
Not only is this rude, and disruptive, but it also throws out any possible arguments that gangsta is a strictly disruptive editor, while Ideogram acts in good faith. Normally, I don't comment on contributers. Only content. However, I don't know how else to interpret this. Bladestorm 06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that. --Ideogram 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in my side of the story, it is here. --Ideogram 07:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I'm giving you a room of your own to avoid distraction from the Certified Gangsta problem. --Sumple (Talk) 08:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think our dispute is over. --Ideogram 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go from here

Okay, I don't think anyone seriously believes that this one block is going to make Gangsta change his ways. If people are willing, the next step is to file an RFC against Gangsta to show that the community disapproves of his actions. If that doesn't work, the next step would be ArbCom. I am not eager to take it that far, but I really don't know how to convince him he needs to change. If anyone can propose any other solutions I would like to hear them. --Ideogram 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True name privacy outing

(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.) Milo 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, taking another look, outed user seems okay with it.[9] I shall request clarification.Proabivouac 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed like it removed. Xanthius 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deleted, restored without 4 revisions with personal information, request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody re-added it.. Xanthius 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Err- nevermind

User page scrubbed, WP:RFO sent. Scrubbing THIS page will be a nightmare. Let's hope that since there is no last name for the aforementioned individual here, you'll be safer. -- Avi 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user-page?

Can user-pages be used for attacks on Wikipedia, Jimbo, Arbcom and former editors? Please see this --Mardavich 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, in this case, yes. The user is upset and wants to let off some steam. We should let him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to violate restrictions listed in WP:UP, so I think it's fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh no the sky is falling.</sarcasm> ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Little to the rescue! --AAA! ^(AAAA) 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this user has taken to attacking the user linked, and has made numerous other attacks against other editors of the 300 (film) article here, here, and here. From his talk and user page, he has been up to all sorts of nonsense, trying very hard to distract or remove editors who disagree with his POV (pro-Persian) and OR edits in the article. We have been trying to hold off on filing an AN/I complaint until the 300 (film) article was finished, but this f"ine gentleman" has seen fit to see our ignoring him as a further insult and simply renewed his efforts. Clearly, he needs some time away. User:Bignole, User:Erikster (trying to enjoy his Wiki-SpringBreak), User:Bignole (as the other people he has been harrassing) could offer heaps more information about the guy, being more well-spoken than I.Arcayne 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony. I post about my recent frustrations with WP, and that in itself becomes a wedge for a tendentious editor to attack me, leading to MORE frustrations with WP. I would like to thank all the other editors who responded here for supporting my right to put a simple, honest explanation up there while I figured things out, instead of just disappearing, which would've left others with no idea when/if I'd be helping them out ever again. I'll be editign some parts of it, but I'm still considering dropping this project entirely. That this is now being exploited by an editor who's already mentioned in a number of pro-iranian/pro-persian incidents around wikipedia is a problem. I'm not the only one he's seeking out to hassle, and 300 (film) isn't the only article he's caused trouble on. ThuranX 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JB196 back again

Today he's editing as SPmilkshakeGuru8, and is doing his usual trick of self promotion on Rob Zicari, Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling. A quick check of the recent history of those pages shows nothing except him spamming and being reverted then pages being protected, then as soon as the protection wears off it's back to square one with whatever new account or proxy IP he's using. He has a long term abuse report, so can anyone please semi-protect these pages for a reasonable amount of time? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and added his sites to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to undo the blacklisting, as the OWW site is used in many articles legitimately. One part of it is already blacklisted, but it would cause too much collateral damage to blacklist all of it. He's basically a long term problem who uses open proxies frequently, right now he's now back with his second IP since his user name block. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could blacklist the Barber path, though. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is blacklisted on meta. A week ago he was adding the link in this diff, now he's having to link to the front page as the columns/jonathanbarber path is blacklisted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many other pages use OWW as a source? beginning to wonder if it's benefits are outweighed by JB's tendency to use it as a spam target. Since he's using a combination of IP addresses and accounts... any chance that he's found new proxies to abuse? SirFozzie 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a broader debate there, namely whether a wrestling fansite is a credible, reliable source for an encyclopedia in the first place. Simply having a domain name and being reasonably well known doesn't change the fact it's not really any different to a geocities or tripod site in terms of reliability. He's been using open proxies for a while now, but I post them all for checking on the open proxies Wikiproject for checking and blocking. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, we might want to look at the fact that OWW may just not qualify as a valid WP:EL. If we're agreed that it doesn't, then we may want to fully blacklist it. SirFozzie 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has been bold. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Aksi great

I am reporting Aksi great for his abuse of power as an administrator. It all started on a Vote in regards to the Category:Tamil_Americans here. I had noticed that both user accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were used in this voting process. These two users have been confirmed by another administrator by the name of Dmcdevit that they were both the same user here. I then posted a comment on the vote page about these two users here that these two user accounts were used to vote here. After posting that, I received a warning to get blocked by Aksi great here. Furthermore, Aksi great has went to the extent to accuse me of having three sockpuppets here, here, and here without any userchecks for proof against me.

Background

Sarvagnya has been a trouble maker for some time now pushing his POV on wikipedia. I have reported him on numerous accounts of misbehavior, vandalism, trolling, and confirmed sockpuppeting here in which nothing has been resolved. That report also talked about the sockpuppet issue of Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti. Sadly, these user accounts have another administrator Blnguyen who backs them up biasedly. When I reported them, instead of Blnguyen dealing with the issue like a responsible administrator, he started picking on me about images I have posted on my page in which I have respectfully replied him and took care of the issue. In the end, nothing was resolved, and Blnguyen did not do a thing about my report. I have placed a report on Blnguyen in the past for his abuse this favoritism towards certain users here. And, once again, nothing happened.

Comment interfere -- The second RFCU also done by Dmcdevit cleared them of being in the same physical location. Dmcdevit then unblocked them himself. Stop refusing to see what has already been presented to you over and over. As for the images, I had already resolved them the day before Sarvagnya and you started arguing on ANI about the already-resolved imaged, and I only told you guys to stop beating a dead horse....as is happening again now. And readers, please do note Sarvagnya's block log and who the admin was that blocked him....It was me. - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Other interfere - and note who filed the original RFCU. It was me.Bakaman 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This problem goes even further when I was having problems with ARYAN818 in which I have reported his incivil and intollerant behavior towards other ethnic groups here. After this user was blocked here. After that, I have received a rather odd message from Bakasuprman here about how the Hindu editors on Wikipedia were upset that ARYAN818 was blocked.

Conclusion

It seems that there are a group of editors with the backing of a couple of administrators who are working together in regards to POV pushing using Wikipedia as their propoganda tool. I am being ganged up on by these particular editors for opposing their POV. This is really uncalled for and un-democratic with all this bias and bullying going on by certain administrators. I respectfully request for this matter to be looked into and my name be taken off those sockpuppet templates posted by Aksi great. Thank you. Wiki Raja 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see what the problem is. At the very least, Aksi great should file a request for checkuser if he suspects sockpuppetry, but I can't really see where anyone did anything wrong. ARYAN818 was given plenty of time to find a new username, and regardless of how it's used in one part of the world, it would still be a valid username block due to its other uses. --Coredesat 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to ARYAN818, he has also been engaged in a lot of incivility and trolling towards other users. Not to mention intollerance of other people's ethnic and religious backgrounds. As far as his name is concerned, that wasn't the issue with me unlike the others. Sorry to put all this in for you to read, but there are a group of biased editors backed by similar administrators who are just basically ganging up on me since ARYAN818 was blocked. Also, all of this is due to me disagreeing with their POV and voicing it. But, apart from all that commotion, Aksi great should not jump the gun and just slap my name on a sockpuppet template without proper confirmation. Don't you think that is a little irrational on his part as an administrator? Wiki Raja 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I spoke to soon. This group has eyes everywhere. Take a look at this post titled Ani report by Wikiraja. Wiki Raja 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to examine this at the moment, but the instructions for this page very clearly instruct you to notify someone on their talk page if you post about them on AN/I. Rama notifying Aksi that you started a thread on him/her is just cleaning up after your mistake. Don't imagine conspiracies that aren't there, please. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet case(here) filed by Wiki Raja (talk · contribs), has just now been closed with the conclusion "All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja". - KNM ^Talk 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant conclusion having done no usercheck on me and only basing this on suspicion. Wiki Raja 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this. What? I don't understand... What? I said I don't understand... What? There is nothing wrong... What? I said there is nothing wrong... What? There is nothing wrong in informing Aksi great that there is a discussion/complaint about him on ANI. There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy... What? There is no conspiracy against Wiki Raja or any other user on Wikipedia. Nobody is trying to gang up on anybody. What? Let's just build... What? Let's just build... What? I said let's just build an encyclopedia please. Rama's arrow 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Maybe you need to relax. Harassing me with a bunch of Whats would not solve anything. Come back and reply when you are ok. Wiki Raja 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

cant..er.. 'can't' Sarvagnya 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing now? Stalking me? Wiki Raja 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This was a simple mistake already taken care of here. So stop stalking me. Wiki Raja

Then again you know a couple things about stalking yourself. [10][11], on account of a troll's dirty work.Bakaman 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Patience and Modesty: User:Rama's Arrow response need modesty, being an Admin should know how to be patience, I appreciate his huge contribution to wikipedia and personally admire how much he is dedicated and how much knowledge this guy has but his respone to User:Wiki Raja is totally unacceptable from such as great admin and contributor. “To know oneself is to study oneself in action with another person.”John Paul 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Aksi - I don't know what all this fuss is all about. Dravidian Warrior and Tamilguy07 were not blocked by me. They were blocked by Nichalp. The only editor I blocked was Jhnnyrj. I put up a suspected sock template. Nowhere does it say that the sockpuppetry has been confirmed. It is within my powers to suspect some account for sockpuppetry and block them. I have not filed a RFCU as the vote was not over yet. As per the rules of RFCU a request must only be filed after the vote is over. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when does this vote end? Wiki Raja 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err it's not a vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they would CU it anyway, since the closing admin would just ignore the SPA commentary, whether it is a sock or a meatpuppet in a different location. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This allegation of abuse is baseless. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same people reverting back each other's changes

Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same people, and Nikodemos has been reverting back to Ruad's versions in articles. Compare their dates of their edit histories. Both are absent and present on the same days. Ruadh: [12] Nikodemos: [13] Proof:

Nikodemos was gone from December 30 through January 12. There were no edits from Ruadh during that time.

Nikodemos and Ruadh take an extended leave, not making any edits from January 19 through February 19. Both arrive back on the same day, which is February 20. Both names make edits on February 20 and February 21.

Nikodemos and Ruadh don't make any edits from February 22 through Februrary 25. They both arrive back on February 26 and start making edits.

Nikodemos takes a break, not making any edits after March 5. Ruadh also stops making edits after March 5 as well and has not made any since. Nikodemos arrives back on March 12 to revert back to Ruadh's version of the article Economics of fascism here: [14] . I revert it back with the commont "you really think I'm that stupid Ruadh?" [15] In aother article Anti-capitalism he uses the Nikodemos name to revert back to a Ruadh version there as well [16] pretending that he's a third party coming in to stop some kind fighting. Nikodemos/Ruadh realizes he's been found out and leaves a message on user talk page accusing ME of being a double user of someone else.

This IP 66.6.107.236 has also been making edits to the Anti-capitalism article, which I think is Nikodemos/Ruadh as well. [17] . Billy Ego 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know exactly which policy I am accused of having violated. Although I have indeed reverted back to two versions written by User:Ruadh, that was 7 days after that user had stopped editing the two articles in question. I have reverted to Ruadh's edits, but he has never reverted back to mine, thus there can be no question of two accounts working in tandem. I also never pretended to come in to mediate anything, since User:Ruadh is obviously absent. I claim to have no one's support other than my own. I have repeatedly attempted constructive discussion with Billy Ego on my own, which he has refused. -- Nikodemos 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets to revert back to versions of your other sockpuppets is showing that you support that changes of your sockpuppets. It's creating the illusion of agreement with you. The only reason your Ruadh sockpuppet has not made an edit since you got back from your 7 day break is because I caught you. Billy Ego 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry says "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." You're obviously violating that policy because you have been creating an illusion of broader support than exists by reverting back to the versions of your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what I would or would not have done. I have explicitly stated that I do not claim to have any support other than my own; how exactly was I trying to create an illusion that goes against my own words? Sporadic editing by two users a week apart is hardly an attempt to show broad support for a position. -- Nikodemos 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough of your games. You don't have to say explicitly in words that you support another user's version. Simply by reverting to that version you are showing support for the version. You are creating an illusion that someone else supports that version of the article besides you. It was an ongoing act of deception by you. 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing? Unless I am very much mistaken, I reverted to User:Ruadh's version, but he never reverted back to me. -- Nikodemos 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter which sockpuppet reverts to which? You were reverting to your Ruadh sockpuppet's version, which was creating the illusion that more than one person supported that version. You were also using your "69.6.107.236" sockuppet making versions the same day as your Ruadh sockpuppet on February 20. Billy Ego 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Following a prompt by User:TexasAndroid, I realize that the above argument was unnecessary and disruptive. I wish to apologize for getting lost in the heat of the moment. I will now cease editing this page until a third party comes in to comment. -- Nikodemos 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if this is two accounts used by the same person, the timing on the edits is far enough apart that there's no violation of WP:SOCK policy here. There's clearly no WP:3RR and I don't see any sign of attempting to claim an overwhelming consensus of alledged sock accounts or anything.

Merely using two accounts is not a violation; you have to do something with them that would be prohibited if it was one account. Even if this is a sock, they are't doing any such.

Billy, your behavior here appears to be a case of WP:OWN. Please cease and desist. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Paul Hartal

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul Hartal has repeatedly accused me and other editors of libelling him, his alma mater (Columbia Pacific University) and other alumni (see Rochelle Holt, among others).[18] [19] [20] He has been asked several times to stop referring to editors' actions as libel. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]In response to an AFD discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rochelle_Holt he has begun crossposting a rant accusing myself and others of libel to his talk page,[26] as well as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.[27] I would very much appreciate it if an admin could look into this situation - Mr. Hartal does not seem to understand that accusing editors of libel constitutes a legal threat, despite numerous admonishments. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only two admins involved, myself and Will Beback have are also too involved (that is, have also received legal threats) to make a block. If someone who is uninvolved would look at this, it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a job for either an RfC or a community ban fro all articles related to CWU. The overt legal threats were a while back, and these days he is only foaming at the mouth, not actually threatening people, I think. It is very hard to assume good faith of someone whose major activity on Wikipedia is whitewashing a diploma mill and attacking those who resist him in doing so, but let's play it by the book. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, the threat on the BLP noticeboard was yesterday. JoshuaZ 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal threats were made as recently as yesterday on the BLP noticeboard. I have blocked the user indefinitely for legal threats. Any other admins feel free to post you agreements or disagreements with the block below.--Jersey Devil 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. This user has dealt with other editors by making threats and attacks while using Wikipedia as a soapbox. He's been warned several times but does not seem to listen to other editors. -Will Beback · † · 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chirchona

User:Chirchona is constantly disrupting the flow of the Disney Channel articles. He creates massive amounts of episode articles with little to no info. He constantly messes up coding to tables in lists of episodes and uploads massive amounts of poor quality screen shots which are most often left with out copyright info, and some even being orphaned and not needed. Me and another user have made many attempts to contact this user but he will not respond. He is a suspected sock puppet of User:TSLcrazier who was blocked for editing in much the same manner. It would be helpful if an admin could step in. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chirchona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User was previously blocked on February 19 for editing in the manner noted by User:Malevious (massively uploading images without needed information). If the action continues, another block should be warranted. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kscottbailey

I do not appreciate his comments on the talk page of my now-closed RFA, nor his repeated reversions of users who are kindly removing the thread. Please do something about it. Cheers. – Chacor 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I'd appreciate it if someone who opposed the RfA would step in here if it continues to be an issue... I don't really believe in kicking people like this when they are down. This has little to do with my support of the RfA, and I'd rather not appear to be too biased. Grandmasterka 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He has restored it with a third revert and is defending his reverts by saying that those who're removing the thread are ganging up to avoid 3RR. – Chacor 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has since been protected due to the edit war, but Kscottbailey has been continuing to assume bad faith when dealing with editors who were involved in either the war itself or stopping it. He posted this rather incivil comment on my user talk page after I reverted his last edit and was considering protecting the page. He left a similar bad faith comment on Viridae's talk page here (Viridae ultimately protected the page). --Coredesat 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And now he's wikilawyering over the definition of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --Coredesat 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure Viridae acted with the best of intentions, reverting then protecting a favoured version was always going to result in protests. Anyway, reasoning with Kscottbailey seems to have calmed the situation down, but I wouldn't count on a support from him in any future RfA, Chacor. Rockpocket 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets and apathy

I find it upsetting that absolutely nobody responds to messages I leave here on the board [28]. I'm trying to draw attention to a certain situation. I believe I have been acting correctly and with restraint in the face of clear misconduct, but if I can't rely on the support of other administrators, I end up feeling like an idiot. Why even bother. Here's the situation, one last time, as clearly as possible. After this, if no one chooses to respond, I throw in the towel:

• Tracking the edits of a user I suspected to be the sockpuppet of a banned user, I read two newly created articles regarding subjects I found to be just barely notable, and heavily laced with advertisement-like hype.
• Rather than deleting the articles under CSD-A5, I nominated them on AfD, for the benefit of the doubt. (I really and truly don't feel that either of them are notable topics for the English-language Wikipedia, and find it significant that neither of them have articles on the Hebrew-language Wikipedia. But that's just my opinion.)
• The banned user I had originally suspected of starting the article published a long anti-wiki rant off-wiki, publicly ridiculing me personally and Wikipedia in general[29].
• Both AfDs were visited by several brand new users, who with as few as three edits to wikipedia all "discovered" the AfD and came to vote "keep" (namely user:Israelgeeks, user:Kinnernetgal, user:Jerusalemgold, user:Dervish8, and the suspected puppet I was originally tracking, user:Mhltv).
• I added a note asking above-mentioned banned user to please stop using sockpuppets, and was accused of being "toxic" [30]. The reponse did not surprise me and the style was familiar, I blocked this user as a sockpuppet.
• The new user votes and chorus of criticism continue, unchecked. Voters protest my labelling of new users, claiming these are "ad hominem" attacks: [31]; and in one case, simultaneously denying that new users are sockpuppets, and demanding the unblocking of the suspected sockpuppeteer: [32]
• Just for the record, the banned user I suspect of being a sockpuppeteer was blocked indefinitely after making legal threats, and veiled threats of what he "could" do to my children if he weren't such a nice person. He has never retracted any of these threats, and indeed to this day repeats the legal threat off-wiki. Every deletion vote that has somehow been connected with him has attracted "brand new users" (See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach).

I honestly don't care if the Kinnernet article stays or goes, the notability is borderline, but that's no skin off my nose. I care that Wikipedia processes are being corrupted, but only to a point - I can just shut off my computer and it goes away. I care more than that when I feel I'm being ganged-up on with little or no support. That's all folks, thank you and goodbye.--woggly 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From my initial survey of what you've described, I agree that Mhltv (talk · contribs) is likely to be a puppet of banned user Israelbeach. It is a shame that the results come back as inconclusive from RFCU. In the meantime, as a non-admin, I've removed a handful of instances where israelnewsagency.com was being used as a source. It seems I was going back over JZG's own work in that area (which was reverted by an anon IP). I have dealt with another banned user once who was persistent and incorrigible. Don't let it get you down. While WP:DENY is a good idea, sometimes it burns you out faster than it eventually gets to them. Those times, I step back and realize that sometimes junk can exist in a Wikipedia article for weeks before it's noticed. If they get away with a day or two of vandalism/PoV before you come back and clean it up, it won't be the end of Wikipedia (and it may even garner more attention by others since you weren't there to wipe up the mess immediately). Good luck. ju66l3r 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely. I think I'll take a wikibreak, but it would be nice if someone kept an eye open afterMhltv (talk · contribs), who is testing the limits of what he can get away with. --woggly 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Ban Evasion

I believe this user: User talk:72.88.165.163 is clearly the same person as this user: User talk:72.88.162.57 who simply started using a slightly different IP address in order to evade a block appropriately placed by Crum375. In fact this Anon-IP user should probably be permanently blocked from Wikipedia as the edits are very biased, without discussing why-- and lots of edit warring. If you are not sure that it is the same person, the contribution histories [[33]] vs. [[34]] should serve as very strong circumstantial evidence. --ProtectWomen 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user is back as now a different IP [35] and has made a personal attack against myself for exposing him. How do I move forward with a request to have the 72.88.xxx.xxx IP range blocked for a longer time period or perhaps banned? --ProtectWomen 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted urgent

Over the past few months, significant problems have developed on a series of articles concerning disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Several editors, many from that region, have become involved in edit wars and feuding. Dmcdevit, who had been keeping an eye on these articles, ultimately filed an arbitration case, which was accepted and is pending. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and its evidence and workshop pages.

ArbCom has enacted a temporary injunction putting all participants in the case on 1RR parole pending resolution of the case. Dmcdevit had been using this as a basis for trying to restore some order on these articles, and Thatcher131 had also been keeping an eye on things. However, right now both of them are on wikibreaks.

I am receiving talkpage notes pretty much daily from parties claiming that someone else has violated the injuction or otherwise misbehaved. There have also been personal attacks and misuses of personal information. See my talk for some of the flavor. As the only arbitration clerk active right now, I have my hands full keeping an eye on the case pages themselves, plus would prefer to be able to respond neutrally to the parties' procedural questions rather than be in an enforcement mode at this time.

If an uninvolved administrator would kindly roll up his or her sleeves and help out with this situation, I will be very grateful and so will the good-faith editors of these articles. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The solution is locking all those articles and forget about the 1RR. It will do more good than harm, editors who are not involved are already scarred away contributing anyway. Fad (ix) 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried directing them to WP:AE (or WP:AN3 for the revert situations), with a specific note that there's an ArbCom 1RR injuction in place, much like the one that happened? I'd just tell them you're the clerk for the case, and therefore won't get involved in any disputes anyway. (I'll have a look though, guess this is what I signed up for right?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. AE is a good idea but is usually pretty backlogged (especially with Thatcher131 away, who's done a lot of the work there), and I'd rather have a little more continuity in the situation that AN/3RR can provide. Thanks! (P.S.: Your editor review is over now, update your sig!) Newyorkbrad 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might make the whole mess a lot easier on enforcement, if the arbitrators could be talked into passing it, is that any content revert made by any party must contain "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary. A lot of those articles are getting edited a hundred times a minute, and the revert edit summaries look a whole lot like the normal mudslinging in any of them. (P.S. That was my editor review, not the RFA, which is still open, but RFA tends to be editor review to the tenth power anyway.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good God, now there's an edit war going on the arbitration page itself! Does the 1RR apply to that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does. We were told that 1RR applies to Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles, and I did not know that it applies to our arbcom case as well. Recently a person got blocked for trying to add a party to the arbcom case, while others were trying to remove it. I think it would be really helpful if the admins explained the procedure for adding new parties rather than blocking. I filed a formal motion for adding new parties after I was explained the procedure. Could you please look again into User:Atabek's block? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I share the frustration with editing of the Armenia-Azerbaijan pages, where it seems like harsh treatment awaits Azerbaijani editors, such as myself and user Atabek, yet the Armenian users such as user:Artaxiad [36] and user:Aivazovsky constantly get away easily -- they either don't get blocked at all, or get blocked and immediately unblocked, or even tipped off by administrators to revert themselves in order to make them appear as if they didn't break the 1RR injunction.[37] [38] [39]

Now for some reason Atabek is blocked, despite editing an ArbCom page, not an Armenia-Azerbaijan pages. This is fundamentally unfair and should not go on like this. --AdilBaguirov 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already complained about double standards of admin Dmcdevit who blocked me once and just warned user:Aivazovsky. It seems there is a trend among admins to support Armenians editors vs. Azeris.--Dacy69 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your perception, it is just sad you think that way. Dmcdevit took a wikibreak reevaluating what he though of the community. Everything on Wikipedia doesn't revolve around the Armenian-Azeri issue as suprising as it might sound to you. If you really think that experienced administrators (in his case experience in arbitration) will bother checking what user is an Armenian and who is an Azeri before making a judgement on him/her then I am speachless. Fad (ix) 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins know what they do, I apologize for my mistakes, because I'm not 100% knowledgeable on the rules here, so I apologize and I do not want to get blocked so I try my best not to repeat my mistakes, when you guys get blocked, you report other users behavior while not talking about yours or even apologizing Adil you probably know what I'm saying when you called fadix a "fag" last time [40]. Also assuming good faith is a great step to approach, regards. Artaxiad 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to post a complaint to the 3RR noticeboard with a link to the parole and links to the two reverts within 24 hours that constitute a violation. Alternatively you can post to arbitration enforcement. I will watch there although I am on a semi-break. I certainly can't watch all the pages related to this dispute to find violations (well, I could but I won't). As for bias toward one side or the other, that's a laugh. As if I could tell the difference. Just don't edit war, please. Thatcher131 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bignole, User:Arcayne, User:Mardavich et. al.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[I consolidated these two separate sections, as they seem to be the same issue and should probably be dealt with and archived together. See also this related report] - David Oberst 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment report by User:Bignole

Myself, and User:Erikster, User:ThuranX, User:Arcayne have been experiencing some harrassment from a fellow user:User:Mardavich. He cites Wikipedia rules in an effort to force us out of the 300 page. Initially he left "warnings" on users Erikster, ThuranX and Arcayne's page about violating the 3RR, which they didn't. In truth, these editors were cleaning up the article, and were removing original research that had no citation, or rewording for NPOV. Offended by their changes, he "warned" them. Later, as Arcayne was cleaning up the page, Mardavich reported him for 3RR violation. He cites the diffs and claims that Arcayne has been acting as if he "owns" the article. Arcayne was initially blocked, but when I asked the Admin responsible to go back and look at the diffs more carefully, and compare with the previous versions (which Mardavich did not supply) he did and then unblocked Arcayne, as it was clear that it wasn't real 3RR violation. Since my defence of Arcayne, Mardavich decided to basically wait for me to actually edit 300 (since I had regulated myself to the talk page the entire time), and he picked out the only 4 edits I had that actually removed information and reported me to 3RR committee. I have yet to see the outcome of this, but I responded on there to look carefully at the diffs, because Mardavich again did not supply an "original version" for comparison. All the diffs are completely different, 1 is removing 2 images that have nothing to do with the film itself, they were pics of real life statues that couldn't be used for comparison; another was removing duplicate information; another was removing more duplicate information. My point is that Mardavich is harrassing myself and the others to the point that he's trying to have use blocked so we can't "oppose" his views on the 300 page. I forgot to mention that the 300 page has become highly controversial because of all the reviews about it's possible "racism", and Mardavich is one of the many editors pushing to include every bit of information that calls the film and it's makers racists, withouth any NPOV. Can anything be done about this, or do I and my fellow editors have to worry about never cleaning up any article wikipedia for fear that Mardavich is going to pick out 4 edits and report us for 3RR, or something else?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated, but your signature is awfully long. And doesn't look like it'll wrap correctly at the end of a line. -- Nick ^t 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, politely reminding users who are in danger of violating WP:3RR is not harassment, it's an essential part of the process. Rules and safeguards like WP:3RR are there for a reason, to prevent edit-waring and ownership of articles by a few editors, which is what's been happening at the article in question. --Mardavich 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please note that User:Bignole has been spamming the talk pages of his friends, inviting them to come here and support him. [41] [42] The individuals in question have been WP:owning the 300 article, in an organized fashion, and they've made no secret of their goal to WP:OWN the article in question by tag-teaming as evidenced by the following statements: "We should be watching each other's backs, like making other editors aware when we need to tag out and let someone else jump in". [43] or "if you are running out of reverts or move into target territory, it might be helpful for us to watch each other's backs. Either way" [44] --Mardavich 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But, throwing around these "warnings" to make editors leave an article so that you can push your POV is not part of the policy. You have been deliberately manipulating the rules of Wikipedia to try and get your way, as was seen when you tried to have Arcayne blocked, but failed.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DR and change that signature please. -- Nick ^t 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you reconsider your decision in this matter. I am one of the users Bignole referred to as being essentially wiki-stalked by this POV-pushing user. Dissent in Wikipedia is normal, but Mardavich is not one of those users who relents after losing an argument. He has disrupted the 3RR noticeboard on two [45] [46] separate occasions with baseless, empty accusations. Simultaneously, he has worked to tie up admin resources in filing this baseless claim. Even a cursory edit of Mardavich's own user and Discussion Page indicate his strong identification with any causes surrounding Persia and specifically Iran. I would be kind and suggest that his bahvior is a simply hyper-sensitivity to issues that concern Persians, but his actual demeanor is in practice very proactive in removing those editors he sees as interfering with his view of Wikipedia. That three editors (two of them highly respected memebers of this community - I am not including myself as I am still learning the ropes) have had to essentially spend their time away from contributing positively to Wikipedia to fend off these empty yet time-consuming complaints is just wrong.

After a heated conversation on admin User:Bakharev's Talk Page, seen here, wherein you can note from the history[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [] how Mardavich repeatedly modified his argument to reposition and escalate his charges against myself and the other users named above, we contemplated whether or not to file an AN/I complaint. At the time, we decided against it, as we were more concerned with fixing the issues of the 300 (film) article. As well, admin Bakharov asked us to stop focusing on each other and instead focus on the article. Clearly, Mardavich was unsatisfied with admin Bakharov's attempt to de-escalate the issue, and then went on a Wiki-bender, filing 3RR reports and AN/I reports to beat the band.

User Mardavich is a pariah on the Wiki community. His edits are POV-motivated, he refuses to work with anyone or tolerate edits of any viewpoint that differs from his own, and attempts to remove those editors who - following good Wikipedia policy - choose to oppose POV and unsourced edits. Lastly, and most importantly, I am personally troubled by his wiki-stalking tendencies. This is not healthy editor behavior.Arcayne 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Mardavich's "update", one man's spam is another man's email. As we the accused in the complaint, I find it extremely appropriate that Bignole brought this complaint to our attention. Mardavich perhaps thought he might be able to sneak this complaint by, as he didn't bother to notify the other people listed in the complaint - again, an example of Bad Faith and wiki-working the system. The fact that he is even able to offer an "update" clearly shows he is watching everyone's traffic instead of, y'know, contributing to articles. This person needs to leave Wikipedia for a nice long time. Arcayne 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please note all the personal attacks in the above postings by User:Arcayne, calling me a "pariah" etc, the user has also called me "a creep", "unethical", "devious", "POV pusher" on several occasions, all in total disregard of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. --Mardavich 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinions of User:Mardavich have not been discussed in an open article Discussion page and only in other user talk pages as well as in official forums (although not in Mardavich's talk page). I think the guy is a pariah and an unethical, devious creep. His behavior utterly contradict Good Faith, Civility and No Personal Attacks. He is a wiki-stalker who only seems aware of these descriptors because he is following user edits and making comments where they appear. Kind of the definition of a wiki-stalker.Arcayne 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it is worth noting that while Mardavich has been trying up the time of the editors who have been wroking on the 300 article, he has since helpted contribute to the article ending up like this overnight. He's using this noticeboard and the 3RR noticeboard to distract folk. My opinion of Mardavich has not changed.Arcayne 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack report by User:Mardavich

"Life is too short to be wasting it dealing with lowdown dirty dogs such as yourself" [53]

User:Arcayne has been making personal attacks against me for days now, even after he was warned to stop by an admin, calling me all sorts of names like a "pariah and an unethical, devious creep" and now a "lowdown dirty dog" . Am I suppose to just take this verbal abuse? What happened to WP:NPA and WP:Civil? --Mardavich 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks pretty severe to me; I think a preventative block could be justified here. This kind of disruption isn't OK. I would like to see the warning he was given; could you provide a diff? Heimstern Läufer 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He was warned to be polite here --Mardavich 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, hang on for a second Heim. This is more complex than Mardavich is making it seem. I ran across this from looking at Alex's talk page last night and read through a lot of things, and it appeared to me that Mardavich has been harassing several editors on one particular article because he wants a particular viewpoint in the article. I read through one 3RR report that Mardavich filed that was laughable in how far from 3RR it actually was. He has been putting "warnings" and saying "I will have you banned" on several users talk pages. Arcayne asked Mardavich to stop leaving messages on his talk page; Mardavich refused. That doesn't excuse Arcayne's incivility, but it isn't as cut and dry as it appears. I'm still trying to sort everything out here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; part of why I asked for a diff was so I could get some context. But since you seem to know more on the subject than I, I'll let you follow up on this one. Heimstern Läufer 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm at work so I don't have the time to fully go into this. If you or someone else does have the time and can fully get the context, then go right ahead and do whatever is warranted. I just wanted to make sure that no one made a hasty move and did fully look into it before blocking. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bbatsell, harassment is a serious accusation you're making. Since when politely reminding users[54] to respect and follow WP:3RR is considered harassment? I only posted on Arcayne's talk page [55] because he made a sweeping blind revert [56] removing hours of my work on the article, he can't tell me not to contact him when he's clearly disrupting my work. --Mardavich 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think circumstance should justify personal attacks, however it should be taken into account when deciding the remedy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just discovered this new allegation by Mardavich (not putting the name of the person being accused appears to be a repetitive tactic of his, evidenced here in an attack on User:ThuranX). I will admit to not being civil to Mardavich (although only in my and other user talk pages or in response to his endless tirade of complaints and accusations - never in an article or a Discussion Page, and not even on his own Talk page); the user tried to get me blocked for good faith edits and has tried to do the same with at least three other editors, filing spurious 3RR and AN/I complaints (again, this one and this one, He has also filed at least two 3RR reports, here and here. This complaint's success probably rewarded him enough to think of it as a valid method of removing editors from the 300 (film) article, as CovenantD has since left the article in disgust. The uncivility referred to occurred between users on their own talk pages, all of whom had reason to not particularly like or appreciate Mardavich's special brand of working the system to block editors who disagreed with his edits in 300. I consider this user to be a wiki-stalker - how else would he happen to know the content of any of my conversations on other users' pages? Add to that the fact that I asked him no less than three times to never contact me, and I feel that my opinion of him is dead on, although it might not have been politic to come out and say it. Lastly, the mass revert he is referring to was to correct the massive vandalism and POV-pushing that had occurred overnight, as evidenced by this version. The actual revert was done by User:GamblinMonkey here, and mine took place moments later. After that, i went back through all of the intervening edits and re-added every edit that was not outright vandalism or POV-pushing (citing in the edit summaries the origination contributor), including some edits by Mardavich himself. The current article reflects those changes by myself and many others who contribute positively to the article. Arcayne 16:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

MetsBot issue

The MetsBot has improperly fixed a double redirect. This page has an incorrect title that I am not able to change. Also, I'm not sure if there was more info on the page that was removed, but it was the more commonly used page. Please refer to the page's discussion area for extended info. Thank you. Tweeks Coffee 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How can it improperly fix a double redirect? The page was moved to another title and then moved again, so this page was a redirect to a redirect. i.e. a double redirect. As the page was created as a redirect from the original move it had nothing on it other than the original redirect. See the history here --pgk 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It did it improperly because it kept a factually incorrect title, deleting the correct one. Richard and Mrs. Tweek would be the most appropriate title. Tweeks Coffee 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lysdexia / 69.238.129.55

Continuing from here (archive). - Banned User:Lysdexia is active again from 69.238.129.55 (talk · contribs). Even if there are some useful edits, we don't have to put up with this: [57] ("illiterate freak"), denies/removes warnings [58] ("accurate, not vandalism") [59]. Is there any 'thruthe hating ignorant admin scum' around here familiar enough with the case to decide about a long-term block of the IP? Femto 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months, and undid a few of the more egregious edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly offensive comments at the Humanities Ref Desk

Can I draw admins' attention to the following diff ([60]) and subsequent edits to that section, as well as at the user's talk page. --Dweller 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the return of the Reference Desk troll who enjoys baiting RD editors over Jewish matters. Corvus cornix 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: [61]. I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Assistance needs on AI6 articles

Could we get as many people as possible watchlist the American Idol 6 pages? Specifically, Antonella Barba and Sanjaya Malakar. All of the finalists articles are being hit but especially those 2. I'd rather not protect the articles if possible. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn

I would like to report the inappropriate behavior of User:Dahn. There was a complaint about him yesterday here and User:Khoikhoi banned the editor who initiated it and then dismissed the complaint. I am troubled because it was precisely User:Khoikhoi who assisted User:Dahn in reverting in order not to break the 3RR. The attitude of User:Dahn towards other editors is becoming intolerable. Could some Admins (not User:Khoikhoi please) look into this issue. Thanks. Icar 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn admits watching my page here. I do not follow his changes, while he immediately reverts all my changes (except when he fears the 3RR). I would like to ask an Admin (not User:Khoikhoi please) to check also whether User:HIZKIAH was rightfully banned or not.Icar 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest" claims in several football articles.

I'd like some advice or a ruling on this situation. The main conversation relating to it is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Other conversations are on my talk page and on various talk pages of the articles concerned. They are Johan Cruijff, Pele, Diego Maradona, Puskas and a few others. Previously the articles have stated variously that the player is "the greatest", "one of the greatest", "widely regarded the greatest" or similar. I believe this contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Those policies are specifically mention situations like this. Several editors have reverted my changes to reinsert the claims and an edit war has ensued. I fully realise I have broken 3RR. However as I believe I am following policy I've ignored the rule. Other editors have as well and one is using several (suspected) socks. Namely User:Marlon.sahetapy, who I believe is also User:Le Professeur70, User:PanteraNegro, User:Brasileiro1969 and User:Dr.Sauerkraut. This user has breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I feel. See my talk page and User talk:Marlon.sahetapy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statements should be removed if they aren't attributed to verifiable sources, but after a quick glance...

You edit warred to keep the statement in the George Best article. Then, when that didn't work, you edit warred to remove it from other articles. Then, after 10 days of edit warring, you come here with a complaint about other editors? --Onorem 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Everyone is the greatest! ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree w/ Onorem. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was inserting it in the George Best article for consistancy with the other articles it was included in. I didn't actually think it should be there in the first place. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my primary intention isn't to complain about other editors, it is to ascertain whether any of these claims should be used at all. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts about the phrase. Unless it is a direct quote, "one of the greatest" phrases should not be placed in articles. If a reliable secondary source has stated, "...is widely considered one of the greatest players of all time," then the article can state that they are "widely considered one of the greatest players of all time," attributing the statement to the source. Looking at the Diego Maradona article, I'd say that the statement should read that he was voted as the best player of the century by fans on the FIFA website, not that he is "regarded by many as the greatest footballer of all time." --Onorem 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the Maradona article, this is my last version. It states "In 2000 FIFA conducted an internet poll on the Player of the Century, with Maradona receiving 53.6% of the votes.[1] In 2006 Eric Cantona stated that Maradona was a superior player than Pelé.[2]" rather than simply saying "one of the greatest". Acheivements should be listed, rather than claims. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is crazy. Anyone who's seen me play down at the leisure centre on a Friday night must surely realise that the claims of any of these players to be "the greatest" are at best spurious nonsensical fantasies. Badgerpatrol 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems on National Council of La Raza

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned by what is going on here.

I have been checking the sources offered by the anonymous contributors, and it does seem to paint a pretty grim picture of what the NCLR actually is. Instead of honestly debating this, however, multiple administrators have both reverted and locked the page, user:Evrik stated that trying to get it locked was a "legitimate" method of trying to force someone to register (I was under the impression that registration on Wikipedia is not compulsory in any fashion), and the other side offers no citations of their own but attacks the messenger and sources without anything to back up their own attacks. This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to operate. I am going to paste this concern to WP:ANI in a moment.

My primary concern is that administrators are locking the page, one administrator reverted the page before locking (which is a no-no and borderline abusive), and yet none who do this seem to be offering any response to the anonymous sources other than dismissive attacks upon the person of the anonymous contributors.

My secondary concern is user:Evrik's statement [62], "Excuse me, but asking for semi-protection is a way to make whoever is forcing these changes to register so it can be discussed."(emphasis mine)

I was unaware that it is ever required that we "force someone to register" in order to have a discussion, that seems very counterintuitive as talk pages are available to every contributor, registered or not.

I would appreciate some guidance on this matter; it seems Wikipedia is not a place for apologetic propaganda, and the existing article on NCLR (after spending some time investigating them and reading the sources provided, as well as hunting down my own sources) indicates that NCLR may be a duplicitous organization with a real position somewhere between what the current page is and what the anonymous contributors were offering. One Elephant went out to play... 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NEED HELP After my leaving a friendly note to Bastique on his talk page informing him of my revert, he reverted back, AND instituted full protection on the page.

Additionally, he left me a threat on my talk page.

This is behavior beyond what anyone could consider reasonable, I request intervention, please. I was not trying to cause problems, but Bastique definitely has an attitude issue. One Elephant went out to play... 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved in the content dispute. I reverted to the previous protected version and then protected it. Please take your issues to the article talk page. Please do not use Wikipedia forward your agenda. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastique, I have no agenda, as you can clearly see from my history on the topic.

What I have a problem with is that you have now TWICE abused your powers to "win" at that page, locking it down to your preferred version in violation of the Wikipedia:Protection_policy. You then left me a threatening note telling me "Do not revert me again". You are passing the bounds of civility and I definitely have a problem with that: you appear to have an attitude problem and I do not feel safe editing at Wikipedia with you now obviously targeting me. I have filed a request for help as I cannot seem to figure out how to make the Request for Comment that you mentioned, but that too seems like a nasty abuse on your part, since I would have to get someone else to sign off on it and you appear to be working very hard to keep anyone else from being involved, especially since you completely locked down that page now.

I will note that, beyond twice reverting because I saw a problem with how people were doing things on that page, I have made no insertions with respect to content, and I have specifically stated each time that I am not doing that to endorse which version of the page I prefer. My issue is with how Wikipedia's processes are being abused, and certain editors are behaving in a less-than-fair manner. One Elephant went out to play... 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you quit trying to game the system. You've been reverted by none other than Danny Wool, an employee of the Foundation, once already. I reverted the page to the version protected by Kat Walsh, a board member. You can scream abuse and bloody murder all you want, but when all is said and done, you're doing nothing more than gaming the system into push some personal agenda on the page in question. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to "game" anything, and I resent your continued threats and incivility. I don't know who "Danny Wool" is, nor do I know who "Kat Walsh" is, and I don't really care: edits should stand on their own merits, not based on who made them.

YOU, meanwhile, have twice reverted and then used your own tools to lock to your preferred version. That's a problem and a violation of the Protection Policy, and based on your continued incivil and rude comments, I am tempted to go straight to filing formal arbitration over this. I have done nothing to deserve your rude and incivil treatment, I was offering some friendly criticism because I thought that it would help, and I have not done anything or even been involved in any conflicts to this day. I have no "personal agenda" on the page, whatsoever, beyond wanting to see Wikipedia made into a better encyclopedia: you appear to be on the opposite side.

You have been rude, incivil, have misused your administrator powers. You have, in short, acted the jerk. I am asking you politely right now to stop doing it, or I will have no choice but to file a formal complaint with the one body that might do something about it. I refuse to operate under conditions where someone like you is just looking for an excuse to abuse people. One Elephant went out to play... 15:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that arbitration. – Steel 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel359 removed my request to re-check for page unprotection from the Page Protection request page. That is highly inappropriate behavior. One Elephant went out to play... 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a glance at the edit history of the page. It's blazingly obvious to me that there's something out of kilter and that there is a need for protection of the page (reverting Danny??? not a good idea) until the differences can be sorted out by talking through them on the talk page. I see absoultely no sign of Bastique being involved in the content of the page, and to suggest otherwise may cause others to doubt your veracity. Also, I'm not sure there's a lot of merit in generally casting aspersions on Bastique the way you have been doing, One Elephant went out to play..., and I'd strongly advise you to reconsider your approach. What I see here is somewhat disruptive. AN/I threads are supposed to be succinct. Support page protection, support cautioning OEwotp on behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, again, who is this "Danny" and why does what he does matter more than anything another editor does? I do not see the point to this. Edits should stand on their own merits, not on who made them.

Second of all, the protection policy and policies on administrators specifically state that administrator powers should not be used to "win" a content dispute. If Bastique was going to revert, that's fine, but he should not also have protected it when there was no vandalism of the page, he should have let some other truly non-aligned administrator do the protecting. That is why I reverted it and why I left him a friendly note explaining why.

Where I start to see a real problem is that not only did Bastique threaten me twice - here and on my user page - he was very rude, and turned around and reverted it again, following by locking down the page completely so that nobody can edit it. This is not the action of a reasonable administrator, this is the action of someone who is using his own administrator powers to win a content dispute in violation of wikipedia policies. I am trying to remain calm and civil but it is very hard when I am faced with an administrator who refuses to be civil and thinks he has some right to insult, threaten, and berate users. One Elephant went out to play... 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I have not been very rude. I told you to get over yourself when you accused me of threatening. That's not "very rude." That was a reasonable response to your accusation of my threatening you.
2. I have not threatened you. I haven't threatened you once and I haven't threatened you twice. You are lying.

Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Danny is a bad idea because Danny works for the WMF and often tries to discreetly deal with issues that have been brought directly to the foundation's attention. Sometimes by large, angry lawyers. He's usually right about stuff, so when I see him reverted, it's a sign that the other person is usually wrong. Not always, but that's the way to bet. Reverting Mindspillage is also a bad idea, because she's on the board of the WMF (second highest vote getter from the community in the recent board election) and often tries to discreetly deal with issues brought to the foundations attention. Sometimes by large, angry lawyers. That they both got involved in this article, to restore it to a particular place, is a sign that you're almost certainly seriously confused about something. I don't know what, no time to dig in, but it's the way to bet. Also, I've never seen Bastique lock content he was involved in a dispute in. Ever. I reviewed the edits and he's not, in my view, involved. I've not ever seen him berate users. He certainly didn't in this case, he gently warned you and then when you persisted in being unpleasant, warned you again. The charge that he's abusing powers is baseless. My advice to you: make your case for your changes on the talk page and drop this thread before you get yourself in deeper, because there's nothing that you really have anything to complain about. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastique's alleged attacks and violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

Bastique continues to attack me, violating WP:CIVIL and NPA.

He threatens me: I consider "Do not revert me again", from an administrator, to be a threat that should I revert him, he will do things with his administrator powers. This is incivil on his part. He insults me: I consider "get over yourself" to be an insult, and I'm sure most would agree that the phrase is insulting. He calls me a liar.] This despite the fact that he clearly threatened me before, as well as in his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "game the system" as well as continually insisting I am "pushing an agenda", which is not the case.

I consider this as well as what he posted above to be one more threat on his part. This is beyond any bounds of reason for an administrator.

I formally request help to deal with Bastique, an administrator who seems to have reacted badly to what was intended as friendly advice on keeping his behavior within the bounds of wikipedia policy. So far, he has violated the Protection Policy with his admin tools, and violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in his continued attacks against me. One Elephant went out to play... 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not once been friendly, so don't tell people you have. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I started out attempting to be very friendly. I was certain to leave in my note a request that you regard my note as helpful criticism. I did not start out attacking you, nor do I wish to be viewed as attacking you now, but you NEED to calm down and you need to stop doing what you are doing. One Elephant went out to play... 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be summarily rejected as spurious ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am getting sick to God of this user pointing the finger at me. Getting this kind of accusation from somebody who apparently doesn't know me is infuriating to say the least. I'm going to assume good faith and say that he's seriously misguided about my intentions, but it's clear that there's no dialogue to be engaged with him. Someone suggested to him to open a REQUEST FOR COMMENT, but he still doesn't seem to get it. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastique, from the moment I left you a helpful criticism, instead of following up on it, you have violated WP:CIVIL, you violated WP:NPA by calling me a liar (the Text Example of a Personal Attack from the policy page!) and you have continually left threatening comments to me only to claim that you are not threatening me later. This is duplicitous and not conduct becoming an administrator. Lar, I have tried to contact you to discuss it, but you have not responded, if you are on AIM or YIM, I will speak with you directly. I get the feeling you have not even bothered to read the case. I am not being spurious, I have been trying to get some help, because BAstique's threats and personal attacks are completely out of hand. His editing of my comments a bit ago was even more out of line. One Elephant went out to play... 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You started the Personal Attacks by accusing me of threatening you. I have not once threatened you. You are lying by saying I have. (-Bastique)

I provided the links above. Either apologize, or don't, but you WERE threatening me. One Elephant went out to play... 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saying, "I consider this a threat," doesn't make it so. (-Bastique)

You need to read WP:NPA again then. One Elephant went out to play... 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, I don't believe you do consider it a threat. (-Bastique)

Too bad. I do. One Elephant went out to play... 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore you are violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I suggest you stop. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop threatening me, stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA constantly at me, and stop your abusive behavior. you trying to twist things around like this, openly calling me a liar and violating WP:NPA and then turning right around and claiming that I violated these, is completely ridiculous. You seem to be enjoying attacking me, and that's why I've filed this as well as sending an email to the mailing list about your abusive behavior.One Elephant went out to play... 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is open, as is my email. I've seen enough to think that you're not completely clear on things. I've changed the heading of this section to make it clear that these are allegations. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here. "Don't revert me" isn't a threat. Nor do I see any implication that Bastique would user admin powers in "retaliation", which is ludicrous. In fact the only incivility I see here is coming from One Elephant went out to play..., by accusing Bastique of "duplicitous" behavior, threats and other such things. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, judging from One elephant's comments above the arbitrary section break, i.e. not knowing who Danny is, implies that One elephant is unfamiliar with wikipedia's policies, at least on some level. Therefore, it seems a bit ridiculous for someone who doesn't fully understand wikipedia policy to accuse a well respected administrator of violating these policies.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Swat, yeah, I'm new here. I got a rude introduction to the policies when some idiot decided my name violated the username policy (though how a name referencing song lyrics violates policy, I have no idea) and I had to get THAT fixed. Thankfully, more of the admins here are like Mike Rosoft than are like this Bastique character, at least it seemed so back then. So I studied the policies. Nowhere in the policies did it say "AND IF YOU SEE DANNY DO SOMETHING, STAY AWAY" or "NOBODY CAN EVER CONTRADICT AN ADMIN." Trying to say that now is ridiculous, that's not how the policies say this is supposed to work.One Elephant went out to play... 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, actually it does, see WP:OFFICE. "Danny Wool is a steward, elected administrator on the English Wikipedia, and a longtime Wikipedian. He is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation Grants Committee and is one of three paid Foundation employees. Danny deals with some of the communication from dissatisfied organisations and people, and does his best to protect the interests of the Foundation in conjunction with Brad Patrick, legal counsel to the Foundation" "Please note that this is official policy, and reverting a WP:OFFICE may be grounds for blocking. I do not recommend that admins block for this, I'm just saying... don't revert a WP:OFFICE edit unless and until you've asked and know what you are doing. There may at times be legal reasons for this." As for your second part, nobody ever said you can't disagree with an administrator. But what you're doing goes beyond disagreeing and is borderline INCIVIL.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Swat, that is fine: I had not seen the WP:OFFICE page before, I might have missed it, there are so MANY pages. Regardless, it was not noted as a WP:OFFICE action, so how would I have known? Also, what I have done is reported when an administrator threatened me, and did something I thought and still do think violates the Page Protection Policy because administrators are not supposed to use their powers to "win" content disputes. It is not a violation of WP:CIVIL to report something like this, but Bastique has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at me since, and yet the admins here are not doing anything about it, so I can only assume that I was right to fear when threatened by Bastique, because you won't enforce your own policies against his attacks. One Elephant went out to play... 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone who administered a username block "some idiot" is not helpful. We need collegialism here, not invective. As to why the name was blocked, review WP:USERNAME I've also reindented some of your remarks (especially those interspersed with those of other folk) to make it clearer who said what and in what order. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lar, when the block was reviewed, there was NOTHING in the WP:USERNAME policy to show why it had been blocked. The reviewing administrator agreed with me that the username block was unjustifiable. One Elephant went out to play... 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Elephant, I don't know the details of this dispute, but Bastique is a highly respected editor and admin, so it's worth making an extra effort to get along with him. Your edits to the article in question did seem extreme, and you were being reverted by very experienced Wikipedians. My advice to you is to let this go, because it's a misunderstanding that's spiralling out of control at this point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit [63] would be regarded as vandalism on most articles. This isn't a place you go to to try and enforce your view into articles. I am closing this discussion as it has already needlessly taken up to much space on AN/I and there are more pressing matters that need to be taken care of. If the reporting user returns to continue wikilawyering you will be blocked for disruption. Case resolved.--Jersey Devil 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I have been threatened once more. I am not "wikilawyering", it isn't even my original edit, I undid it because I saw what appeared to be a violation of policy.

But whatever, you have shown you admins don't care about policy or following the rules, I have been abused and false statements made about me, and you're just attacking me even more. Fine. Whatever. If this is how wikipedia is, I don't want to contribute any more. One Elephant went out to play... 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether Elephant is the banned user Enviroknot (talk · contribs). Elephant was reverting at National Council of La Raza to restore edits made by 129.7.35.202 (talk · contribs), which resolves to the University of Houston, Texas. An earlier IP used by Enviroknot was 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs), in the same range. Their interests seem similar (anti-Islam is a big interest) and the voice pretty well identical.

Other Enviroknot accounts were KaintheScion (talk · contribs), ElKabong (talk · contribs), Queeran (talk · contribs), and some others here, in case anyone wants to compare them to Elephant. I'm minded to block indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is IT. Now people are making lies and accusations like this at me, after being asked politely not to?

You win. I AM LEAVING. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT WORTH CONTRIBUTING TO IF THIS IS WHAT YOU ADMINS DO ALL DAY. One Elephant went out to play... 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive behavior by User:SlimVirgin

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to briefly provide the context for my request, since the matter is complicated, and User:SlimVirgin is bound to attempt to put her own spin on it. There are two editors, User:Dking and User:Cberlet, who in my view have been consistently editing against policy by attempting to dominate the content of a number of articles in violation of WP:OWN, by excessive self-citing in violation of COI, and a pattern of personal attacks. There are also WP:BLP issues involved, since these two are published authors who specialize in "attack articles" on living persons. This is presently before the ArbCom and I am not asking for intervention on this particular problem.

However, SlimVirgin has been acting as a partisan on behalf of these two, bullying and threatening anyone who disputes their edits. I won't list the entire history of these incidents, only the most recent. On March 11 I posted four questions on the talk page of "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche," asking SlimVirgin to explain her positions. I found her answers to be evasive, particularly when she accused me of "promoting LaRouche," and I asked for clarification here. She refused to respond, and archived the page to hide the discussion (diff). I restored the page, asking her to please edit in a collegial manner (diff.) Her response was to threaten to ban me (diff,) saying that I was "causing disruption." I would like to ask that some administrators intervene. She should be reminded of WP:CIVIL, and admonished not to routinely ban people who disagree with her, as it appears to me that she does, by simply branding them as "troublemakers." --Tsunami Butler 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any of those actions in any of the links you provide. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami Butler seems to be a follower of Lyndon LaRouche and is exhausting people's patience with his/her constant attempts either to talk LaRouche up or to play down criticism of him; incessant reverting; long pointless questions on talk; wikilawyering; baiting; and attempts to tie people up with mediation. Dennis King has written a biography of LaRouche that is used as a reference book by all interested researchers and journalists, and Chip Berlet is a professional researcher in the area of political cults, conspiracism, and LaRouche in particular. They are therefore experts, which is why Tsunami, and the LaRouche movement in general, is so hostile toward them. I won't respond to the other points in detail, except to note that when I "archived the page to hide the discussion," I was in fact archiving threads that were two years old; the discussion Tsunami is referring to is still there.

Any block will be discussed in advance with the ArbCom, which is what we usually do with LaRouche-related issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this case the reporting user has in fact been engaging in disruption. No policy violations, so this discussion is going to be resolved. I will say this to SV however regarding this final warning. Comments such as "and I've had enough" and "stop wasting people's time" make warnings sound needlessly hostile. For future purposes please just give the strait facts about warnings without needless commentary. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I must confess that I find it difficult to believe that SlimVirgin simply had the urge to archive the talk page at the point where I was attempting, with no cooperation from her, to ascertain her reasons for some of her actions. She deleted material that was sourced to Public Information Research, but was vague about her rationale. I asked her three times to explain: the first time diff, question #2 she evaded the question. The second time diff, question #4 she pretended that she thought I was speaking of a different organization. The third time diff, question #4 she didn't respond at all, but simply blanked the page and archived it. These are legitimate questions, related to disputes about the suitability of sources under WP:BLP, and I don't see how SlimVirgin's responses, or non-responses, can be seen as anything other than evasion. Her charges of wikilawyering and baiting are a red herring, as is the inevitable Poisoning the well ("Tsunami Butler seems to be a follower of Lyndon LaRouche,") and her deadpan dismissal of any issues concerning the excessive self-citing of Dking and Cberlet is a bluff. --Tsunami Butler 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving material from September 2006 [64] is hardly the same as blanking the page. No current discussions were removed. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But, of course, the questions were evaded. --Tsunami Butler 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, you say of another editor's comments: "This is baloney, and self-serving baloney as well."[65] Then after that editor archives old, dormant discussions you revert the archiving with accusatory edit summary: "(Is this what you call collegial editing?)" [66] That appears to me to be antagonistic behavior. -Will Beback · † · 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami was responding to the accusation by SlimVirgin that she was "promoting LaRouche," clearly setting up the pretext for a ban. An editor who leaves such an accusation unchallenged, does so at his peril. --NathanDW 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a history of editors (or perhaps just one editor with many accounts) promoting LaRouche. We've even seen accounts that claim to have no special interest in that cause turn out to be single purpose accounts devoted to it. In this instance the charge that Tsunami Butler is an account dedicated to promoting LaRouche is borne out by the evidence. -Will Beback · † · 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Musical Linguist 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However, as per Jersey Devil, SV comments to Tsunami were needlessly hostile which is also an issue here. MetsFan76 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets

Hi, jpgordon suggested I ask an admin to review this, a couple of confirmed sockpuppets. As a non-admin I can't block, obviously. Thanks. - Denny 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Err all indef-blocked, although a RFCU wasn't necessary. All of the three accounts were vandalism only, so it wouldn't matter whether they are the same guy or not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AGF Problem User:Okedem

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

---

No WP:AGF violation by user:Okedem in light of contrary evidence brought by User:Bbatsell. Further issues between parties should be taken to dispute resolution. -- Avi 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Okedem is repeatedly reverting my edits to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, I added a factual accuracy dispute tag and he reverted, saying I was a "troll making personal attacks". Please see User talk:Okedem#Apartheid, and THIS DIFF. ---MiddleEastern 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong there. I looked at your userpage and you seem to have a large axe to grind. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you've got issues on the page, the talk page is the first step. One Elephant went out to play... 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the AGF - look at his edit here: [67]. Good faith? okedem 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No sir, the problem is the removal of a tag, it is simply a more specific tag drawing attention to the faults of the article. --MiddleEastern 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have issues, that's what the talk page is for. You do not deserve the protection of the AGF policy, as you have proven you're not acting in good faith, but to promote your agenda, however way possible. okedem 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also comment that he used his edits "adding a tag" to also remove sources and change the lead to his liking: [68]. okedem 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't I did an accidental revert to previous version, I did't mean to change the text, all users are covered with AGF, yes that's right.... even Palestinians --MiddleEastern 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have proven you are not acting in good faith. okedem 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, administrators. I request outside opinion. I did not come here to argue with this man. --MiddleEastern 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (emphasis in the original) There is evidence to the contrary, as provided by One Elephant and okedem. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave no insult, I ONLY ADDED A TAG! I have not vandalised or something. --MiddleEastern 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... THIS is pretty clear. Sorry. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Requesting attention on dynamic IPs, possible sockpuppetry

I'm not sure exactly how to handle this, but I'm seeing a pattern of disruptive, if not always malicious, edits from a range of IP addresses that I gather are from the same editor:

• 88.108.79.79, 88.108.14.150, 88.108.127.195, 88.108.11.164, 88.108.4.196, 88.108.42.29, 88.108.51.211, 88.108.114.10, 88.108.116.43, 88.108.70.203, and I'm sure there are more.

The following are typical edits from these IP addresses:

• Groping: [69][70][71][72]
• Spaghetti strap: [73][74]
• Rape: [75][76][77]
• Women-only passenger car: [78]

The edits are similar, all suggesting that men are victims of sex crimes by women, and inserting gender qualifiers into articles like spaghetti strap, hoodies and phat pants are part of men's fashion.

I also believe SteelAvenger and /Gothgirlangel1981 operate from these IP addresses. SteelAvenger's very first edit was to intervene in an edit war involving one of the IP accounts, and the edits mostly restore whatever IP edits that were reverted.

Similarly, Gothgirlangel1981 makes the same types of gender-related edits: [79] vs [80], [81], [82] and has created Men-only passenger car, a hoax article. Ytny (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And based on this edit, I believe User:True:Raver may be a sockpuppet of the above users. Ytny (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

inapropriate name

Resolved

 – already blcoked--VectorPotential^Talk 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:G W BUSH IS A TERRORIST It dishonors the U.S president —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloddyfriday (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC). Sorry forgot to sign Bloddyfriday 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dishonoring a president" seems to be missing from WP:U, but "Harassing or defamatory usernames" seems to cover the situation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked, in the future please report obvious usernamevios / vandals to WP:AIV--VectorPotential^Talk 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry. Bloddyfriday 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob, just a request for the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, in order to dishonor a person, that said person has to have honor in the first place. (joke) Hbdragon88 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

IP Block Request

Resolved

Someone with the IP 72.159.168.35 has been vandalizing the Edward,_the_Black_Prince entry – and I see from their [User Contributions] page that this is a recurring problem.

Brunellus 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}ed for a week, but this should really be brought up on WP:AIV; you'll get faster results that way. -- Avi 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolzano talk page

IMHO User:Taalo's way of communication is a problem. After protection of the page Bolzano we have been discussing the issue (Talk:Bolzano#Order of Names), but Taalo is continuously breaking most simple rules of politeness. I have been trying to react by deleting offensive contributions, instead of reacting offensively and disruptively myself. Taalo has now reverted even these edits, starting a kind of edit war even on a talk page. I would just like to have a productive discussion, but I cannot continue this way. Please look at Taalo's last contributions on that page. We have been occupied by useless warring, please help stop it. -- PhJ 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what you get from someone who went to the University of Michigan... (semi-)kidding aside though, diffs would be helpful here.--Isotope23 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastich. :P This user is blanking edits on talk pages after already a warning from an Admin. See comment by Wknight94 here [83]. Also, see posting here on his talk page: [84]. This User PhJ has also been crying wolf (vandalism) previous to this: [85]. I.e., anything he dislikes he goes crying to the noticeboards (which IMHO is abuse in itself). See his past claim of vandalism that was dismissed [86]. Bottom line, it is not up to this user to decide saying hey ladin dude is a personal attack (which it definitely was not). There is some irony, because actually with all the blanking PhJ does, he is asking himself for some time off..hah. Anyway, Go blue. :P Taalo 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

These three diffs should be enough: [87], [88], [89] -- PhJ 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)

• enough for what? look, maybe be concerned with your own communication and politeness. It isn't so black-and-white like you try to make it, that you are the good guy and I'm the bad guy. Could it be even slightly possible that since you are not a native English speaker, that you may take things like "hey ladin dude" as offensive, when they are actually friendly? Could it be a bit possible that you are instigating edit wars by doing things which are against wikipedia policies? Taalo 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are circumstances where anything but addressing one by proper name (or user name, respectively) can be felt as an offense. Obviously Emes didn't like it ("This was a personal attack"). I woudln't like to be called even friend by you either, and you should know that. So, I think, it is now up to you to remove these edits, I won't anymore. -- PhJ 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are obviously a ton of problems relating to this issue, and because of that both of you (and everyone else involved) needs to be extra careful to not to do anything which could be interpreted as a personal attack, even if it was not meant to be one, and to follow all of the appropriate policies and guidelines. Blanking talk pages or selectively filtering them is not acceptable under any circumstances barring extreme and obvious cases. —METS501 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking back at my message to Emes last Fall, I feel quite bad I stated things in such a way (that he should seek a mental professional). At the time I was just amazed how much anger he was displaying (beyond his threat to leave en.wikipedia). But, I'm being censored because I say "By (sic) God"? Are there rules against blasphemy, as PhJ puts it? o_O Regardless, the selective filtering he is doing is completely out of line and really makes this feel like some sort of war. Doing something like this [90] is like a wiki-censorship service? :-) Taalo 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:62.47.153.208 and copyvio ext. links?

I don't think this is an active problem at the moment but I wanted input and a heads-up. 62.47.153.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) put external links to videos available through "rockmyspace.info" into articles such as Lee Harvey Oswald[91], Nostradamus[92], and Fundamentalist Christianity[93]. The first two seem to be links to copyvio sources, the third seems completely inappropriate for the subject. I've corrected the problems but I'm keeping an eye on the IP. At least one of the edits the IP did today appears constructive [94]. Am I overreacting to post here? --Pig^man_dialogue 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you aren't wrong to post here. That user is spamming. None of those videos are hosted at rockmyspace.info. They are google videos and Youtube videos. rockmyspace.info has just embedded them and this user is linking to those embedded pages to advertise rockmyspace. It is spam. IrishGuy ^talk 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks! Now that you point to it, it seems obvious. I was confused by the .info (I really should know better than to trust such designations) and the one seemingly good edit. I'm not dumb but I sometimes act like it. Pig^man_dialogue 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The ones you can trust are .gov, .mil, .edu, and .int. Everything else is fair game for spammers. --Carnildo 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, 62.47.153.81 has been at it too. IrishGuy ^talk 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And 62.47.143.235. IrishGuy ^talk 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats from a user

After editing minor detail into the Adolf Hitler article it was immediately reverted by 'Golbez' [95]. After discussion of the detail on our respective talkpages [96] [97] and arriving at a conclusion [98] I reinserted the detail and left word on Talk:Adolf Hitler for the benefit of other editors explaining why the detail should be discussed before removal. [99] 'Golbez' then responded to my note with a fascinating take on building an encyclopedia [100] and 1 edit later blanked the entire note and his response from the Talk page citing "rm trolling" [101]. As a result of the blanking I left a vandalism warning on his talkpage [102] and reinstated the note for the benefit of other users. 'Golbez' then edited my talkpage claiming that the vandalism warning constituted a "threat" against him and he threatened a block. [103] This is not a content dispute, im being menaced by 'Golbez' who must not understand that threats are frowned upon. Can an admin ask 'Golbez' to stop threatening other editors? Thanks. Dee Mac Con Uladh 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I endorse Golbez’s actions. You should really read Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Vandalism in detail. —xyzzy_n 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking over your contribs and snipes at Golbez, it's more than a little difficult to take this complaint seriously. You insulted someone, they got upset, and this surprises you? It'd be a lot more productive if the two of you just looked for a source, and removed the content if such a source couldn't be found. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How in the world could golbez's actions here possibly be supported? I'll admit that I don't approve of substituting "common knowledge" for actual sources. However, it wasn't trolling. That was an outright false assertion. (Granted, it was somewhat uncivil, and not entirely helpful, but it was not trolling.) As such, he had no business blanking it from the talk page. That is vandalism. Removing material from an article's talk page simply because you don't like it is vandalism. If he disapproved, he could've simply said why right on the talk page as well.

As much as I disapprove of using templates (I find them too impersonal, and I prefer using my own words for things whenever possible), placing the vandalism template on his talk page was entirely acceptable.

Threatening a user for addressing vandalism is not in any way acceptable. A freaking admin should know that by now. There's already more and more growing distrust of wikipedia admins; concerns of them abusing their powers. When 'normal' editors have concerns about an admin's actions, threatening to block them is hardly an appropriate response. That's childish at best, but really just downright abusive. And unbecoming of a position of respect.Bladestorm 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to make sure something's really clear here: Even if removing the notice from the talk page was valid, mislabelling it as "trolling" was not. And, far more importantly, even if you think it's obvious that such an action (deleting content, and mislabelling the reason) isn't vandalism, it's still true that he should've explained why it wasn't vandalism. Simply threatening to vindictively block can't possibly be considered appropriate. Bladestorm 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Both users were more confrontational than I can see was necessary, I'll agree with that much. I may not have a complete picture. In Golbez's case, getting somebody with a redlinked talk into an offended and defensive posture right off the bat may not be the best move, and in Dee Mac Con Uladh's case, we do need to educate new users quickly that trolling isn't the right way to win an argument. I do believe both of them meant well, but didn't handle the situation as well as they might have. That's my current take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not a threat. It was a natural consequence of his actions. He had not made a single civil comment to me, and I called him out on it. When I did so, he threatened me with blocking, and I simply showed him the futile hilarity of his statement. As for removing his note from the talk page? Ok, I'll claim fault for that, though I'm positive it did not exist to educate, but to troll me. But I do apologize for removing it, and did not revert him when he put it back. --Golbez 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's entirely true, and worth noting. You didn't revert when he put it back. And that's probably the saving grace.

However, there's somewhat of a domino effect there. You admit that you shouldn't have removed that section from the talk page. (It's incredibly mature to admit that-don't think that's lost on me) That means it was appropriate to address the action somehow. He(/she) chose to treat it as vandalism.

It isn't fair to simply say, "he threatened me with blocking". More accurately, he used a standard vandalism warning. If you disapprove of that, then you should probably fix the template. Otherwise, what are 'normal' editors supposed to do in the very few occasions when admins vandalize? Absolutely nothing? I don't think that's fair.

Incidentally, saying that "It was not a threat", and following it by, "It was a natural consequence of his actions", specifically in response to the vandalism warning is, indeed, verifying that it was a threat. Bladestorm 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing the issues. He made what I saw to be an unsuitable edit; I removed it. He responded with an incivil message to me. I responded educating him in a vaguely sarcastic fashion on how to make quality edits and how to be civil. He responded with further incivility, and included it in an edit summary as well. When he also included it in his talk page post (accusing me of incivility of all things) that was when I removed it as trolling, which it was. He could have made a statement about the article without that. The initial threat of a block was due to his incivility and prior to him reverting me in either circumstance. This has nothing to do with the content dispute. --Golbez 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Zeller needs attention

Resolved

 – AfD closed no consensus

This AfD needs closing (or relisting) for two weeks now. I can't do it, as I'm the nominator. Sandstein 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

closed no consensus -- Avi 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I've received a report on IRC about someone vandalizing the globe image in the top-left corner of all pages. I don't think that this is possible, seeing as the image is locally stored on the server and hard-coded into MediaWiki's configs, but I figured I would put something here in case anyone sees it. It could just be a bored developer messing around, but who knows. Shadow1 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that it's possible to overlay images in that position (see User:Misza13 for a prime example). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism by R9tgokunks

[104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] and many others. He is constantly renaming czech cities to their german equivalents. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

uncivil and unacademic comment

hi, particularly, one user User:Azerbaijani who is envolved in a dispute on Mammed Amin Rasulzade article, is adding a phrase "broken man" to the text[119] and [120] and etc, where every of us try to prevent edit warring and introduce new sources, this user deletes all new sources and inserts that phrase/ it is surely a personal attack, but not on users but on the now dead man about whom the article entry is about. so can wikipedia include such POV opinions, and non academic phrases? I and not only me tried to delete that pov, or discuss it, but that user certainly does not accepts any arguements and instead we are accused of edit warring. Elsanaturk 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Broken man" comes directly from Thomas Goltz, one of the most credible sources on the 20th century Caucasus. If you even bothered to participate constructively on the talk page, or read edit summaries, you would have known this, instead of blindly reverting. You continuously violate wikipedia's policy that third party sources and reliable sources be used. You keep trying to add information for an Azerbaijani nationalist website, which is unacceptable. Also, you continuously attempt to tarnish other users name by falsifying information, and in your process of edit warring you have broken the 1rr restriction that was put upon you.Azerbaijani 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you are deleting paragraphs. Second, if Goltz said it, why don't you use that as a quote? 'Goltz described Rasulzade as a being a broken man at the time of his death in 1955" then source it. The two word phrase could've appeared anywhere in Goltz' work. source it, then use it. Further, I looked through talk and couldn't find where you explained why you were removing multiple paragraphs and inserting an unsourced quote. Can you provide diffs? ThuranX 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Essjay controversy & User:QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been heavily editing/commenting on the Essjay controversy talk page, and it's becoming a bit disruptive, as pointed out to him by multiple people. could some admins take a look into this? it's been everything from practically waging war on the article (which he spilled over into other articles) over whether Wales or Sanger is founder of WP, to formatting, to sourcing, to... well, everything. We have tried to work with him and even offered compromise but it seems to be going nowhere, and appears to be the last lingering drama on this entire otherwise stablized/correctly sourced/written/now NPOV mess. I would appreciate it if some admins could have a word with him, as it's disruptive to the other editors there. thank you. - Denny 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment might be what is inciting him... - Denny 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad advice can do a lot of damage. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. He's made his userpage into a version of the article, presumably the one he keeps trying to force on everyone else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even more interesting, he just blanked it... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He was warned earlier about a 3rr vio. Gwen Gale 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've participated (very minimally) in the talk page, so I'm recusing myself, but I must agree with Denny about this user. To be honest, the whole endeavor has smelled fishy to me. Risker (talk · contribs) and several others (such as Denny) have done an admirable job at attempting to appease all of QG's numerous whimsical problems with the article, but it's been incredibly burdensome so far. I can't call it outright disruption, though. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So far, seven editors have made or endorsed statements about QuackGuru which use the term disruption. Gwen Gale 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that User:HighInBC has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't find anything specific in WP:USER to press the issue of the copy of the article on User:QuackGuru's userpage, though I did leave him a message about how to create a sandbox. Risker 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and RobJ1981 (talk · contribs)

I'm getting really sick of these two users' constant arguing in a content dispute; see their talk pages, contribs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Party 8. It's not solving anything, just causing more stress. –Llama man^talk_contribs 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of it too. I try to ignore Henchman when I can, but it doesn't fix things. He still attacks me, and nothing is done about it. I started a RFC about him: that hasn't helped much either. RobJ1981 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem user?

I'm not sure what can be done of if action is even merited, but I want to bring attention to a certain user who seems to be just charging ahead without actually knowing what they're doing. The user in question is User:Lt. Col. Cole (talk/contribs). I noticed some pretty bad grammar in one of this users contributions so I corrected it then did a little poking to see if this was a one time thing or it was consistent. When I looked over this users contribs I found that there is a history of uploading images without proper tag (several of which have been deleted), and a few cases where he/she is just duplicating content which is eventually redirected by another user (I did one). See these...

• 50 Cal. MG
• Russia In World War Two
• GW Pat.90

This user is fairly new but much has been posted to his/her talk page. Not listening I guess, or just doesn't know how. What to do? Anything? (Admittedly, I might not even be in the right place posting this concern here, but I think I am.) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed to revert page move

Resolved

The article Sex has been moved without concensus to Biological sexes. Further edits at the (now redirect) Sex mean that an admin is needed to revert this move. Could someone look into it please? WjBscribe 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone please repair Mother Jones

Resolved

Someone just vandalized Mother Jones, about four consecutive edits. Busy, no time to repair right now. Thanks! Richard Myers 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody reverted it. Ryanjunk 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:69.132.199.100 is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of User:69.132.198.252, the disruptor of the Shelby Young page. You'll see he "calls me out" in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Young&diff=prev&oldid=114878446

Pretty obvious. No checkuser necessary.

Cheers Ispy1981 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How in the world can one be a sock puppet of the other, when a sock puppet, by definition, is "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name"? In this case, there isn't even one username, let alone two? What's more, there's no evidence provided of any attempts to avoid a ban or other disciplinary action, nor an attempt to increase the perceived support for any particular campaign. In short, there is no sockpuppet there.

By the way, even if they're the same person, there's not even any reason to assume that they're trying to appear under a different IP address. They're both simply coming from Road Runner accounts. It's my understanding that Road Runner assigns dynamic IP addresses, no? Bladestorm 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I need someone to revert vandalism and strongly warn a vandal

A vandal who has retaliated against me using numerous addresses at the University of Cincinnati is vandalizing again from 71.79.51.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which I think of as his home computer). Since he has, over the past 5 weeks, vandalized my userpage through various IP about 25 times and vandalized a page that I started 8 times, I don’t want to do anything to draw his focus towards me. All I’m asking is that someone looks at his recent edits, make sure all have been reverted and put a warning on his talk page. He has vandalized 4 times in the past day but only received a single level 1 warning. Thanks, Cynrin 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been blocked for a week. Appears to be a static, unshared IP -- if you have any more problems, let me know, and it'll be taken care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'll let you know if he continues to harrass me. Cynrin 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Trouble in Little China

There are very siuspicious edis going on to Chinese - and specifically Hong Kong - articles involving one relatively new user and one brand new user, with the usernames Privacy (talk · contribs) and Secrecy (talk · contribs). One will edit the page one way (usually involving the term "Mainland China"), then the other will come along and edit it back. Call me suspicious, and apologies to both if I'm wrong, but it looks like user:Instantnood and user: Huaiwei using socks to get around their bans on editing specific pages. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This could also go here. By the way, User:Privacy is an editor of two years, not exactly "relatively new." — MichaelLinnear 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not investigated, but I have experience with Instantnood and Huaiwei and this does not seem like their MO. --Ideogram 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the page differences so we can investigate on the suspected issue? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps adding irrelevant information to article

194.60.106.5 (talk · contribs) keeps editing the articles Viet Kieu and Culture of Vietnam by adding irrelevant information ([121][122][123][124][125][126]). Attempts to communicate with user only resulted in hostile comments ([127][128]). Please prevent this user from editing these articles. DHN 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are on my watchlist now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And a warning about personal commentary and OR as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to leave wikipedia

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

but can't before someone checks this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_McStub Carptrash 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No policy violation, just removal of spam photobucket picture links. Case resolved.--Jersey Devil 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. When the user is deleting these links, the other text inside the link is also being deleted. like this one, or worse, this one. Looks like an unapproved automated task malfunctioning. Gimmetrow 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like a second opinion in this matter. Carptrash 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought the complaint was solely regarding the type of links he was removing. It looks like the account was preforming a malfunctioning automated task. I will block it indefinitely.--Jersey Devil 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now could you point me to the policy that all photobucket/imageshack links are forbidden? In some cases they might be fair use, such as the old image removed in this edit. I don't know if it is, but where would this be hashed out? Gimmetrow 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother restoring harassing edits made by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and growing incivility

Justanother (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) has restored an edit made by a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)‎; the banned is suspected to be that of User:The Real Barbara Schwarz. I have removed the edit by the sockpuppet citing WP:HARASS as the edit contained personal information about anonymous editors to Wikipedia. Additionally User:Justanother has made several uncivil personal attacks during this AfD process, which community consensus seems to cite as disruption of the deletion process. I request admin intervention in these matters. Thank you. Orsini 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Citations:

• Justanather's restoration of the harassing edit [129]
• Justanother's growing incivility and personal attacks [130] [131]
• The harassing edit by the sockpuppet I removed [132]

Orsini 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also placed a notice to please ban the sockpuppet quickly, at WP:AIV. Some more information there. Thank you. Smee 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also more information and comments from Admin Bishonen on this user's disruptive behaviour, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Smee 04:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Blocked indef and abusive info removed

• The sockpuppet involved was blocked indefinitely, and the offending edit was removed (that User:Justanother had restored) ...
  • DIFF. I wonder if it is inherently vandalism in and of itself to restore such abusive material? Smee 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

legal danger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan%27s_Law Assertions including identifiable individuals causing death with no citation of a source, and surely the legal proceedings involved have not been completed? Midgley 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Any negative assertion towards a living person can and should be removed right away. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Source it now or torch it. Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The offending material was removed by Ptkfgs. I have deleted the 3 versions that contained it. A good idea to watchlist it, I think. It was created by Ombudsman, who is on probation for tendentious editing on medically-related articles, according to a note on his talk page. Tyrenius 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

... and is currently editing tendentiously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism. MastCell 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There was some more material I missed the first time around. You may wish to delete all but the most recent revision as well. —ptk✰fgs 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO sent re: deleted revisions. -- Avi 05:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Miriam Rivera

Would someone mind stepping in over here? I am trying to remove a lot of unsourced information and apparent copyvio images (see history for my recommended text edits), and I am running into a very belligerent IP editor. I am going to take a day or so off, so I'm hoping someone would take a look and get the text to follow WP:RS. Thanks. Jokestress 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Talk:Miriam Rivera. I'll keep an eye on this one and WP:RPA if necessary. The anon user's comments are inappropriate. Rhobite 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User subpage accusing famous musicians of rape and pedophilia

Resolved

 – Page deleted. Viridae^Talk 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across a very strange subpage, here; User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Deranged belonging to User:Zouavman Le Zouave. Its a faux "band" page, but attacks numerous real life people via linking musician names.

I'm not sure what needs doing about it, but I thought it wise to bring this to the attention of admins who are probably better positioned to deal with it. Thanks. - Deathrocker 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, it reads more like a personal webpage and less like a page detailing Wikipedia contributions. --DavidShankBone 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Apparently the page was deleted. I edited your post to remove the Libel information from this page too (although some may want to oversight this and that page just in case). -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the subpage was dealt with pretty quickly, good job. - Deathrocker 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this editor

Resolved

User:James McStub is new to editing and all the edits made are based on WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Here is what is concerning. [133] All edits are exact. Ones I looked at are not spam or bad links. --Masterpedia 05:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links but because all the ones I saw were photobucket ones I can't see that they fall under WP:SPAM at all. Indeed some of them are provided as references... Viridae^Talk 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are people using Photobucket images as sources in the first place? Take this revert of one of User:James McStub's edits, are people not aware that providing the magazine name and publication date are provided there is no need for the information to be available online? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor is also being discussed a couple of . . .... sections, postings, whatevers up. Carptrash 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This was actually resolved a few posts up. User:James McStub was blocked by User:Jersey Devil for performing a malfunctioning automated task. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by 66.93.144.171

Resolved

 – Will wait and see if problematic edits stop.

66.93.144.171 has publicly accused me of cyberstalking several times over the last few days. Cyberstalking is a serious ethical and criminal matter, and I can assure everyone I do not do it. This user first made this accusation in response to a single comment I made about one of his/her edits (in fact, my first post ever directed towards this person). That initial accusation is here (note the part where I am called a "known cyberstalker"): [[134]]

This user then accused me of cyberstalking here: [[135]] . Note that despite the policy that users should be notified if someone has made an accusation against them, I was not notified about the post about me in the incident archive --- I only found out about this accusation because another user emailed me.

In response to this accusation I voiced my concerns that this user seems to have a history of violating WP:CIVIL here: [[136]]. Note at the bottom of this post 66.93.144.171 again accuses me of cyberstalking.

Finally, I just found out today that 66.93.144.171 has shifted to making accusations of cyberstalking on Jreferee's talk page, again without notifying me of the accusation. That accusation is here: [[137]]

To summarize, 66.93.144.171 is making unfounded and serious accusations against me, and appears to be deliberately hiding these accusations from me to deny me the chance to set the record straight. This appears to be a concerted effort to sully my name in revenge for disagreement over a single edit, and I believe it violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, at least.

Can anyone help me stop this behavior? SkipSmith 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, Skip, you have a history of rampant sockpuppet use, and I know personally that you stalked myself and user:TheActuary here from the Actuarial Outpost, and shall we begin to discuss your (and your friends)little website started when y'all were banned from the Outpost? It doesn't feel so good, does it? . Regardless, I'll look into this anon's comments for you. -- Avi 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Hey Avi, long time no talk --- thanks for checking this out for me. Now, on to the sparring: the best way to settle your sockpuppetry and stalking accusations would have been to do a CheckUser, which would have revealed that I didn't do anything wrong. For some reason this was never done, and I've still got these accusations hanging over my head because nobody could be bothered to investigate a sock puppet case correctly. As far as the non-wiki stuff you brought up, I was banned from the Outpost because I protested the treatment of Abducens (who by the way, was ultimately reinstated, but refused to return). I never had anything to do with the protest site --- again, a CheckUser several months ago would have cleared that up. On second thought, maybe it's good that nobody did a CheckUser on me --- I wouldn't want to get a fax at work ... SkipSmith 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the edits brought, I agree that your initial comment telling him not to hyperventilate was not the worst edit, and should have been laughed off. However, you do play into his hands by commenting under every one of his edits. There are, at best, a minor lacking of good faith on all sides here. I would suggest you let sleeping dogs lie, and ignore this issue. Likely it will die down. If it does not, there is always dispute resolution, but a little time may be all that is needed. If it escalates, bring it back here. -- Avi 06:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could leave a message on my talk page, as the anon did to Jref. There isn't anything wrong with that per se -- Avi 06:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Yeah, I was debating whether to kid around with my edit on that page because I didn't want to offend anyone, but I had no idea it would set someone off like that. I remember how upset you were when you misunderstood me and thought I was accusing you of harassment [[138]], so you can imagine how I felt when this person unfairly accused me of cyberstalking. However, it appears that nobody is taking this person's accusations seriously, and as long as he/she doesn't make a habit of libel, I'm willing to forgive and forget. SkipSmith 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the best, but feel free to drop me a line if you need. -- Avi 06:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. SkipSmith 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/Stalking/Sockpuppet/Harrassment Complaint

Original complaint: User 71.139.27.85, Griot, "stalking" articles by contributor since content dispute with Ralph Nader. Deleting sourced material. See User history and article history for details. Please assist. Thank you. 76.166.123.129 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a disinterested user, I see nothing wring with 72.139.27.85's recent editing history, although did only look at a few edits from the recent week. Are there any instances in particular of stalking articles that you could provide? Kntrabssi 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report, in addition to stalking/WP:HARASS, User Griot and 71.139.27.85 (confirmed by Otheus to be one and the same user, see 76.166.123.129 User talk) and now Mikesmash, continue to WP:HARASS, evidenced by user's repeated vandalism and reverts to vandalism on mine and others' Talk pages. Also, see evidence of WP:HARASS by User Griot/71.139.27.85 on articles which I have contributed to. User also deletes valuable, sourced material, that does not correspond to his POV (see Ralph Nader article history. His behavior is very disruptive and very harmful. Please assist. Thank you. 76.166.123.129 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 76.166.123.129 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab and His_excellency

They've been evading their bans again using their IP range. See User:72.88.162.57 and the associated links. I think we might as well community ban them, since they clearly are just going to do whatever they like to promote their agenda. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A phrase containing the words "door" and "don't let" comes to mind immediately. - Merzbow 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of control DRV alert

There's a serious problem over at the Zorpia DRV. I've already semi-protected that entire log page due to overwhelming SPA activity, and now some established users (namely Angrykeyboarder (talk · contribs)) are getting in on the action. Angrykeyboarder is attempting to turn the DRV into a soapbox against the current notability guidelines for websites, and pretty much using up every excuse detailed in WP:ATA in an incivil manner. This DRV is probably going to have to be restarted, but I can't do it myself if it's done at all. --Coredesat 08:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)