Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive398

User ImatrollROAR

Resolved

 – blocked

User:ImatrollROAR created a provocative username and has proceeded to vandalize the userpage and talkpage of User:Utgard Loki‎. --Joe^Talk_Work 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:VegitaU

Hi. Regarding vandal edits here over the past few days: the above user has stepped forward here to own up. The IP addresses that he used - 136.160.138.51, 136.160.150.110 and 136.160.154.150, to name only the three which affected me, were given blocks for vandalism. I believe that the user himself requires an additional block for extreme disruption (I was not the only recipient of this stressful and unacceptable bahaviour, and I lost a lot of valuable editing time dealing with the user's idiocy).

If a block is not forthcoming, it will clearly set a precedent for any so-called reputable editor to carry out such experiments in the future. If there have been unpunished examples of this before (I have not checked), then conversely this is as a result of such lack of punitive measures. I have not taken this up with the user; I have no intention of having anything to do with such an immature mind. I would appreciate some action or at least a reply. If this is the incorrect place to take this, please point me in the direction. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with in a section above, titled University System of Maryland IP vandals. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Klejas

Can someone stop this Klejs character and also undo the moving-articles damage he has done? [1] Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now. I think he doesn't quite realise he isn't on the Polish WP. Maybe. Or something. Anyway, I undid his move and put the resulting redirect up for CSD; all his other edits have been reverted (including one self-revert), so no harm done. -- Zsero (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Barneca

I am concerned about the way User:Barneca treats new editors and first time vandals. I think he is often too heavy handed with his block botton and is often quite rude in his communications.

I just wrote this on his talkpage:

As a reformed vandal myself, I am concerned about your permanant blocking of User:Dem5844. The user made 2 vandalisms and then you harshly blocked him. I think you are often too harsh with blocks. I also think you should try and be a bit more patient with these people to see if they can be reformed first of all, otherwise me might be losing potential future editors. I think that User:DuncanHill makes a very very true and important point on his user page when he says "I used to enjoy editing Wikipedia. I don't any more. Until Wikipedia finds a way to deal with the arrogance and siege-mentality of some admins, it will remain an unpleasant place to be."

He wiped the comment off his talk page, and said that i wasn't welcome on his talk page :(. I dont think this admin knows how do debate things reasonably so i wanna complain about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.248.48 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor on a dynamic IP was offended by a 1 day block yesterday. Sorry I can't provide diffs now, as I am headed out the door for a few hours, but see the contribs for most of the IP's posting on my talk page today and yesterday for a taste. All the same ISP, all with the same ax to grind. I'm not interested in engaging them anymore. I've discussed this with one or two people yesterday; look thru my contribs from yesterday if you can't wait, otherwise if anyone here asks for them, I'll try to point to those conversations when I return. --barneca (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look through your contributions and the above IP's contributions and previous contributions with similar IP adresses and concluded that the IP above is trolling rather than making a serious criticism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually barneca all I want to do is strike up dialogue with you over this complaint and then put it behind be, but you are so stubborn you wont talk to me, therefore I will go on and on and on until you do want to talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.248.48 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, and to paraphrase Yogi Berra, if somebody doesn't want to talk to you, you can't stop him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected barneca's talk page for a bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You also unreasonably blocked me hence why i had to reboot my connection - i dont want to be a sockpuppet, but I strongly believe I have a right to defend myself here.

anyway what i wanted to say was this

Why won't anyone take my feedback seriously? Yes I have vandalised recently, i dont know i did it exactly, but i know deep down it was a rather pointless excercise which wasted my time and the time of those ediors who had to revert my vandalism, so for that i am sorry. However it is only once you have vandalised that you get to be on the receiving end of the admins punishments, and I feel, as a vandal who could have probably quite easilly been reformed there and then, that User:Barneca's interventions worsened the problem. Therefore I stand by my aforementioned complaint/constructive criticism, and i god damn wish that some admins around here would take on board this feedback, after all it's not everyday that you get a recently reformed vandal trying to offer some constructive feedback. 79.77.251.12 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that its currently standard procedure to indef block vandalism-only accounts? Mr.Z-man 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. And the most constructive feedback you can provide is productive editing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't a harsh punishment. Not editing Wikipedia isn't painful at all; my granny does it every day. Blocks aren't a punishment at all, they're just what we do to prevent vandalism. They don't have anything to do with the vandal personally, really; the block just stops the avenue by which vandalism happens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

About the Dem5844 block, I don't see that as particularly heavy-handed, just efficient. We're far too lenient at times with vandals anyway; if we identify someone as only here to be disruptive, I don't see any point in bending over backwards with good faith; WP:AGF isn't an order to divorce ourselves from reality. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this a little with Yamla yesterday: User talk:Yamla#Some feedback. Comments on my talk page about this are welcome. --barneca (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca

Resolved

 – Original blocks endorsed, socking IP blocked MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am motivated to compile this list having been rather rudely and harshly treated by User:Barneca, who when I tried to talk to him about it, just shunned me and refused to listen. Having looked at his past history I noticed he has been involved in countless controversial blocks, therefore I am compiling this list to raise awareness of mean admins who can sometimes be more detrimental to the WP community than vandals can.

I have found two examples to kick off:

• Dem5844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nevergonacatchme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• All I see are two examples of editors blocked for blatant vandalism; you'll have to put forward a more convincing case than that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dem5844 was a vandalism-only acccount. Two other admins declined requests for unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of User:Nevergonacatchme's edits seem to be vandalism to a high school's article, then the insertion of a misspelling into an unrelated article. Nothing to see there. Where's the rude, harsh meanness? You could find examples of me being way meaner than that, and I'm not even the one being criticized today. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:Barneca for more whining from the IP address. seicer | talk | contribs 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Both blocks endorsed. The first never made a good faith edit, the 2nd made some edits that might have been in good faith, but weren't constructive (perhaps they could have been educated rather than blocked, but the block is justifiable). --Tango (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would normally have tried education on the second one, but the username tipped the balance for me. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just became aware of this situation, and even though it is closed I'd like to make one minor point, as the whistle-blower on the second user. His/her last edit was not just a changing of spelling, but changing (maybe inadvertently) a link to a photograph. Blocking was what I expected to happen when I blew the whistle on him/her. --RenniePet (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse both blocks. Mind-boggingly obvious examples of vandalism-only accounts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also endorse both blocks. Also endorse Barneca "shunning and refusing to listen", as it is a completely logical step when dealing with a troll, according to the third part of RBI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Barneca may have been quick on the block button (truthfully I'm not confident enough to go into that sort of thing yet) and all of us are harsher than we should be sometime but, User: 79.77.251.12 should understand that vandalism is harmful without question and no excuse can be made for blatant vandalism. I'd suggest that the IP editor create a username and contribute constructively in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally the IP user should probably consider civility issues himself as I've just noticed his comments on User:Barneca talk page (which personally if it was me I'd consider vandalism and probably warn 79.77.251.12 as such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks that since he is trolling for replies at various forums (now at the Help Desk), that the IP address is a sock of one or both of the blocked users above. seicer | talk | contribs 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment here if I may. I spoke with Barneca about the blocking of the first user, as at first I felt it was a little quick. Barneca civily spoke with me and defended his? block. At that time, I still didn't completely agree with the block and saw that Dem5844 had previously requested an unblock, and was denied- with a stipulation. That stipulation is located on his talk page and at this time, I feel the block is justified because Dem5844 is refusing to comply with the terms set forth for him? to be unblocked. (BTW FWIW all he has to do is copy and paste an article and suggest changes to make it better). Barneca is doing a great job as an Admin and I feel this ANI is out of order. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c so not changing indentation)

I'm relatively new at this; anyone who wants to review my block log and provide feedback is welcome encouraged to do so.

Might as well ask this here as somewhere else: Considering the ease with which this IP changes, and considering his post at User talk:Barneca/Unprotected shows he doesn't plan to stop any time soon before asking me why I don't respond to a seemingly reasonable request, please review the history of their previous incarnations over the last couple of days what's better in cases like this: ignore (much easier to do now that my talk page is protected, but they're still disrupting ANI, Help desk, reference desk, other user talk pages, etc.), compile a list of IP addresses and ask someone who knows how to handle this kind of thing to figure out a range block (ISP might be too heavily used by others, I don't know), or start compiling information to report abuse to their ISP? FYI (incomplete list, not sure if it's worth it to continue compiling it):
User:79.69.175.62
User:79.69.206.164
User:79.69.199.112
User:79.77.219.111
User:79.77.248.48
User:79.77.251.12

Thanks for any comments. --barneca (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is simple Barneca and I told you it many times. As I said to you on your talk page:

"Why won't you discuss this with me? I know I am just an IP to you, but in reality I am a person, a person with some behavioural difficulties in the real world, albeit regarded by most of my teachers as very bright. Because of my behavioural difficulties, once I get something in my mind, I find it very hard to let it go, however I know if you just replied to me and said something along the lines of, hi, thanks for your feedback, I have read and considered what you have said, then i know I would be able to let it drop and get on with the stuff in the real world that i should be doing. If you blank this again I will be really hurt. 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

Of course every case is different but when an IP wants to dialogue and it will result in peace in the community then surely that's what you should do no?

OK, well im going to let this rest now. I think I'm going to create an account and start contributing to the project in my own way, after all i guess the best way to change things is for me to work my way up to admin and then I will be able to treat others how I myself would like to be treated. I'll be sure to be careful in my choice of username though, unlike poor old user:notgonnacatchme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Best of luck to you. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(←)This IP is most likely a sock that is disgrunted because Barneca blocked one of his accounts, we should probably dismiss it as frivoulous. There is also the fact that the user has vandalised and trolled [2] after his complaint, wich would clearly explain previous blocks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the IP has said he/she is going to let it rest now, it would be best if we did too. Also, that diff isn't vandalism and certainly isn't trolling... --Tango (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? how is it relevant to the reference desk? regardless this is obviously vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How helpful is this? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The ref desk is a place for asking question, he was asking a question. Those two diffs are rather less constructive. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we consider this resolved, blocks endorsed? Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this is resolved, and I should let this die, and I'm feeding trolls and everything, and maybe I'm even taunting, but I literally just can't pass up telling somebody about this. Based on their reaction, and based on their tell-tale "Iam" instead of "I am", I think I just blocked the "future admin" account this editor just created! [3]. Who needs Checkuser when you're as psychic as I evidently am? --barneca (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL - just listen to yourself barneca, I am the real IP from earlier, I have nothing to do with User:Dark3345. If you can prove a link, i'll give you $5,000 reward, if you cannot prove a link then I suggest you hone your admin skills a bit before jumping to false conculsions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is funny. There are definite similarities in the writing style and even the formatting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FisherQueen - I swear to almighty god, on international law, wikilaw whatever, that user has absolutely nothing to do with me. I guess this is a classic example of the boy who cried wolf - sort of, just i never denied the fact that i thought Barneca was a bad admin, so why would I deny it now. Anyway I figure there are three explanations:

1 - Tottally unrelated conincidence 2 - Another editor read my comments and set up a hoax 3 - Barneca himself may have staged the hoax to try and stitch me up - unlikely but maybe a slim possibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Definite similarities. Worth a checkuser? (Not sure there's much point - the IP range is too big to block, really.) --Tango (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says they are unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dark3345. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me while I go buy a hat so I can eat it. Apology here: [4] --barneca (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Barneca right to threaten me with ISP action?

Resolved

 – See also #I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca and #INDEPENDENT ADMINS HELP REQUIRED ON THIS ONE PLEASE on this page.

Just because I strongly disagree with the way he goes about his admin tasks. You can see the offending threat this page along with a list of my previous IP's. BTW i dont mean to be a sock, I cant help it that everytime i log on i get given a different IP. I wish really it wasnt the case. 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see such a threat. Could you quote it so I have something to search for? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is trolling. I think we need to revert block ignore until he stops. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the trolling observation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the person who is threatened with a complaint to the ISP is a currently blocked vandal who is avoiding the block by setting up sockpuppet accounts or editing anonymously, as seems to be the case here, the threat would be entirely appropriate. It is trivially easy to abide by WP:BLOCK. If you are blocked, refrain from editing. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, trolling is usually viewed as a deliberate attempt at causing drama and minor mayhem. I think the IP probably feels strongly about his/her position and views their behavior as legitimate. Let me just say this to the IP though, you've made your case - on Barneca's talk page and multiple times here at ANI. The issue has been marked as resolved, there is nothing more than can be done. Just let it go. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the IP is acting maliciously, nor are they deliberately creating sock puppet accounts. It's obviously a dynamic IP addy. Nevertheless, I suggest creating an account, letting this go permanently, and giving serious consideration to participating in the project constructively. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

independent admins help required on this one please

Resolved

 – See also #I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca and #Was Barneca right to threaten me with ISP action?, above.

Please take a look at the aforementioned link. Basically I am an outspoken critic of User:Barnecas admin style however I have now been falsely accused of being another vandal. I will go as far i need to in order to defend myself on this one. Hopefully somebody can prove that i have absolutely no link with this individual. I am really really upset by this incident - no joke - people may say things like that online but i am sweating and my hands are shaking right now, that's how wound up i am by this whole episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dark3345&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.215.172 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they will be willing to help. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Helpfully put, Wildthing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone stick a cork in this guy, please? HalfShadow (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to start deleting his edits rather than replying to them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted justice theresa, and it seems that is what i now have got. Please see the evidence below that shows that I am not related to the other user dark3345, separated by an ocean according to user:thatcher.

[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.250 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea that we should indefinitely block a user based on their first two edits is lunacy. Is there really widespread support for this? Never mind, go about your business. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat

What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted the IP, and I've blocked it. Personally I intend to ignore but others might want to report it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IP belongs to Yazd University of Iran. No calls to Iran for me. - auburnpilot talk 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would calling Iran help, anyway? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was only half serious, but I don't see a need for help anyway. Reporting it to a university, when an IP owned by a university makes a threat, can be helpful because they can frequently track it to who made the comment. I guess you could call the Saudi embassy if you really wish to contact somebody. They'd have a way of contacting his people. - auburnpilot talk 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, though, the difference in the response seen here between other types of IP threats (say a school-related threat or a threat to commit suicide) and this one (a specific threat against a living person). I too personally tend to ignore as Theresa does, as I'm sure the person concerned (the Secretary-General of the National Security Council of Saudi Arabia) has security people anyway. Oh, and I don't want to cause an international incident between Saudi Arabia and Iran, so I'm leaving this one alone and will ignore (with unspoken caveats) in future. Seriously, though, what does Wikipedia:Threats of violence say about stuff like this? Not a lot, as it turns out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Partly, if not wholly, because TOV is disputed at its basic level and work hasn't gone into providing guidance for various types of problems. WP:SUICIDE (which isn't just about suicide, but that is the shortcut I remember) might have more information. Avruch ^T 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken seriously, but without specific information as to a date, time or mechanism of threat then it's difficult to report. Furthermore, threats outside North America are difficult to appropriately report as they may not speak English. I would suggest revert, block, ignore. Bstone (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can just imagine trying to report this and having the Secret Service, or whatever, descend on you when someone gets the wrong end of the stick and thinks the person trying to report it is making the threats! :-/ Moral: report to people in your own country who speak your own language. And no, it hasn't been reported anywhere as far as I know, and I'm still talking in generalities. And this time I really will keep away from this thread and go make to doing boring DEFAULTSORTS. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sock and/or meatpuppet issue with WSEAS and related articles

These articles continue to be recreated by multiple user accounts despite being deleted each time as blatant advertising (G11). The images have also been re-uploaded. The related articles this time are WSEAS, Wseas, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and Nikos E. Mastorakis.

Please see prior discussions at WP:ANI#Ongoing_COI_issue_at_WSEAS and WP:COIN#WSEAS. Thanks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mokedi

Kind of a borderline vandal IMO. All his edits to date have been totally self-promotional including his image uploads. Just came back on to repost a NN bio about himself, one that was deleted back in March. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article's been deleted, but the images are still there. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image deleted under G11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Truly odd userpage

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted

Came across User:Adam's Body in Noah's Ark today. Apparent attempt to build a fairly odd article in userspace. No other contributions by user. Not sure where to take this one. Is AFD appropriate for a userpage?Kww (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If there really is a "joke" somewhere in there, I don't get it. Tan | 39 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily delete as

Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.

per Wikipedia:UP#NOT Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:Soap, no article edits at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone looks at the page history, I accidently added a speedy delete tag while browing the options. I rolled it back as fast as I could. Oops. Tan | 39 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It can't be speedied but I think a MfD would be ok (done). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What looks like the same article except for the last sentence is at a blacklisted site http://hubpages .com/hub/Adams-Body-in-Noahs-Ark -- space added in link so I could put it here!Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as copyvio of hubpages. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser, 3RR or admin attention; IP removing tags at Savant syndrome

Savant syndrome is not a recognized medical condition, but one author (Donald Treffert of the website Wisconsin Medical Society) has written a lot about it.

Several Utah Educational Network IPs have been removing {{onesource}} and {{unreferencedsect}} tags from Savant syndrome for days; 205.118.77.60 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.79 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.104 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.156 (talk · contribs), 205.118.76.186 (talk · contribs) and more. The IP almost always edits between 13 and 18 UTC, mid-day Utah. Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) has already left a stern warning at 205.118.77.60 (talk · contribs) to no avail.

Aetoss (talk · contribs), who edits Savant syndrome from Comcast between 22 and 2 UTC (Utah evening) has added several times his own Youtube video[6] on Kim Peek to Kim Peek (a "savant" according to Treffert), who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while the Utah Educational Network IP in Salt Lake City alternately removes the tags from Savant syndrome.

Two different issues, not sure if they are related or if a Checkuser is warranted, but individual attention is needed to the IP removing tags. There's also a new user Mansley 28 (talk · contribs) in the mix, who appeared about the same time as Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And, another one now, in spite of warnings and talk page requests, 205.118.76.193 (talk · contribs). [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now sprotected the page and will wait for someone of the 205.118 range to come out the woodwork. With regards to Aetoss, I would strongly recommend a checkuser request. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Paulinho28

Resolved

 – Administrator action is unneeded. Metros (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been monitoring User:Paulinho28's behavior since he signed my autograph page, added a barnstar to his talk page, which was credited to me, and then removed his autograph. When browsing the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling/Members, I noticed that he had added his name and then removed it immediately. I found this strange so I asked him why he did this[8]. He removed the notice immediately [9]. I found this a bit strange, so I asked him again.[10]. Once again, he removed the question [11], and I got a rather rude response from him, asking me to leave him alone[12], which was unsigned (as are most of his posts). So, I left him a quick notice reminding him to sign his posts[13]. He once again removed the notice[14] and what followed was a second rude respose, in which he lied saying I had bothered him 10 times[15]. So I gave him a soft warning[16]. This time he got even more angry, and said that I abuse other users[17]. I gave him another warning[18], and he responded asking when he did this [19], and then removed the notice [20]. Soon after, I gave him a final warning which he removed[21], which tells me he read it. Here is some other information I found on this user's past.

• Continues to blank talk pages without responding to concerns, leaving only positive comments.
• Has been blocked four times in the past four harassing users and making personal attacks: [22]
• Was suspected of sock puppetry, but removed notice from his talk page.
• Has removed speedy deletion tags.

Since he has been previously blocked for this behavior, it is not like he didn't know any better. I think he should be banned for this behavior. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what you're finding rude and attacks doesn't appear to be that way. Asking to be left alone by a guy who keeps restoring unwanted comments to your talk page isn't necessary rude on the part of the person receiving the posts. Can you display evidence of the user taking off speedy deletion tags? Metros (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Without actually reading any of the diffs, most of the time if someone is telling you to leave them alone, do so. Continuing to alert them of things, even if you are indeed doing it under good faith and you say it in the nicest of ways, only serves to exacerbate the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

After randomly sampling about 15 article edits made over the past 48 hours I found only helpful ones. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Previously, he also said he would stop personal attacks: [23] he also changed the template to make it looked like his unblock request had been granted: [24] - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Other interesting diffs, in many he has been warned. He has also abused the unblock template way too many times. Sorry if they're out of chronological order: [25] [26]

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] and of logging out to vandalize the blocking admin's page after the block was denied.[53]. You should also look at the edits he made with his sockpuppet IP. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a pretty serious personal attack against a user that warned him [54]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he had a very bad day on 6 February, over two months ago. Is there anything in the last week or so? I can't find anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, here are diffs from the speedy tag that he recently removed[55][56]- DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the diffs that he did with his IP address after logging out? I don't think they're in that set above. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously him ... the IP is also from Italy and he vandalized both of the people who warned/blocked him [57]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as was said by Gwen Gale, that all happened February 6/7. Is there any abuse recently? As for the renoval of speedy deletion tags, while a user should not take the tags off a page that s/he create, it's not as bad in this context because he took off an inappropriate tag (db-repost doesn't apply for articles that were only previously speedily deleted). Metros (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the uncivil comments today? He had been blocked for such behavior in the past and should have known better. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which are those? He asked you to stay away and you didn't stay away. His deneanor wasn't particularly rude and it was only as a result of your refusal to leave Paulinho28 alone. Metros (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When a user lies and says that I have bothered him ten times and that I have been abusing other users, I have to at least warn him. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what he meant is, you've edited his talk page nine times today. Might I suggest letting it go for now? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time he posted that I had only edited it twice. But saying that I abuse other users is offensive. Can an admin at least issue a warning for that? - DiligentTerrier (and friends)19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Both behaving as badly as each other, I can't see what administrator action is required here George The Dragon (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Diligent Terrier has behaved rather shamefully in harassing this user, and the user has responded poorly. The blatant attempt to dig up old stuff and blacken his name here was also not a good idea. For someone who is considering adminship in the future I would have expected a lot better. Nothing for admins to do here. Orderinchaos 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to request protection of blocked user's talk page?

Resolved

 – Semi-pp 72 hours --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

199.254.212.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 72 hours within the last hour. He or she has moved on to massive abuse of the ip's talk page. Apparently reporting the ip to WP:AIV again doesn't work, since the helperbot removes the entry due to the already existing block. Anyway, where would I report this and request that the ip be blocked from abusing his or her own talk page? (And, is it even appropriate for me to do so?) Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to report it here. The page has been protected. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would actually probably be a good idea to extend the user's block. The 72 hour block expires in about half an hour. Should a bit extra be tacked onto this since it's safe to think that the IP will abuse outside his talk page after the block expires? Metros (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually protected for 71 hours, to match the block. But I didn't realise it was about to expire. Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've renewed the block and the protection to a week. Not so much for the page abuse, more for the harassment of other editors. It's a college and I have left a warning that the next block will be longer and result in a report to the college authorities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Debo7 at Papoose (rapper)

User:Debo7, previously blocked for continually readding BLP violation has returned to continue readding the same material.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64](etc.) New final warning on 4 April. New instance of same BLP vio 9 April. Editor does not believe there is anything wrong with sourcing, believes interpretation is "common knowledge", believes editors removing material are vandals who need to "swallow (their) pride and let this go", etc. Material is sourced to an online stream of a song and the associated forum thread. Material claims song is a "diss track" against another rapper re handling of alleged shootings, an alleged fight with a third rapper and says the song contradicts the rapper's prior statements on both. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a warning about edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Slow-burn edit war on People's Mujahedin of Iran and related articles

I've been editing Wikipedia for a little over a year now. As long as I've been active on this site, there's been a war over the referenced article, as well as on NCRI, Massoud Rajavi, and Maryam Rajavi. Most of the activity involves trying to portray this Iranian group (generally considered a terrorist group in the US) and its founders in a more positive light.

Examples: [65] [66] [67] [68]

Edits (especially lately) are generally subtle, and tend to minimize negative information about the group and its founders. Sourced information is removed, and replaced by positive material of tangential value. Efforts have progressed from inserting material blatantly lifted off the subjects' web sites, to more subtle forms of POV-pushing. The primary users are the following WP:SPAs:

• AlborzTaha (talk · contribs)
• Tib72 (talk · contribs)

While these editors make fundamentally the same edits, I don't see evidence of coordination and I don't believe they are the same user. Feel free to run a checkuser though.

Both I and BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) have attempted to clean up this article and engage with the users. Efforts to establish communication and dialog on both the users' talk pages (here and here) as well as on the main article talk page have been unsuccessful.

Essentially this is an edit war that never approaches 3RR per day, but is nonetheless damaging to the articles. I'm looking for a strong admin warning, if not a topic ban. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only been making edits to the article since late February. I've been attempting to cleanup the article, and my edits have been reverted pretty consistently by AlborzTaha (talk · contribs) and Tib72 (talk · contribs) with little or no edit summary, and no comment or explanation on the the talk page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree this looks like a slowly plodding edit war what I see are some thinly sourced edits and maybe overly PoV edits. Has anyone thought about calling an WP:RFC first? Some kind of dispute resolution may be more helpful than asking for admin intervention here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the main problems we are dealing with the is that the other two users don't seem willing to communicate. I'd be happy to try an RFC, but given past history I don't see a lot of hope that this would help. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this here without first trying the dispute resolution process is a bit of a leap. They don't need to participate in an RfC. However, it could bring helpful input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, having never started and RFC before, should we start one for all four articles, or just the main one and go from there? Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd start with one but that's me. See WP:RFC for how. If you need help, let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to pitch in :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity of block on Henrik Ebeltoft

Dear all, I blocked Henrik Ebeltoft on the basis of this checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Henrik Ebeltoft - after discussing it with another admin. Since then there is divided opinion on its validity and Henrik Ebeltoft has requested to be unblocked. To be fair to him I have said I am happy to unblock if the consensus is the block is unwarranted. Thus here is a request for more admin input to review here please. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, discussion on talk page)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Casliber, I have added an opinion on your talk page. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really no evidence there at all. No vote stacking, no block evasion, no use of anon editing to edit war. An IP Henrik Uses -- a university IP -- was used by a vandal at some point, and the IP has been blocked. So what? Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Casliber decided to block 2-1/2 months after the CU was run. Thatcher 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given all he sock confirmed yesterday we were looking at accounts which behaved similarly. it looked like it had been left hanging with no follow-up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rape of the World confusion

The user User:Emdm2007 seems to have problem with the article Rape of the World. Obviously there seems to be confusion whether this is vandalism or not. Look here for example. All of his reverts are the same.

If this isn't vandalism, then why...

1) ... does he "unlink" the If I Was Your Vampire?

2) ... does he write mOBSCENE despite the rules say it must be written Mobscene? (I personally disagree with this rule but at least I obey it)

3) ... does he link Irresponsible Hate Anthem to Antichrist Superstar (the album page)?

4) ... does he remove Lunchbox from the set list despite that we both know he played it?

5) ... does he unlink Antichrist Superstar (the song) ?

6) ... does he remove Intro and If I Was Your Vampire from the another setlist? And again, unlink Coma White/Black?

I sent multiple warnings to his IP addresses, look at the article's recent edit history and the IPs' talk pages.

I also reported this on 3RR page. The article was semi-protected because it seemed the edits were only coming from anonymous IP addresses. But now he has registered an user name for doing the edits. The administratiors say this isn't "clear vandalism" so he won't be blocked. I really don't know how else to handle this except blocking the user but I guess that's up to you. I'm tired of fighting Rainrem (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there sources at all for these set lists? Perhaps the user saw/heard of shows where it wasn't this set list which is why he's taking out things like Lunchbox and If I Was Your Vampire and such. Metros (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure which ones are counted as trustworthy. For example, this set list is from a Finnish fan site. I was in that concert. Since we currently don't have any sources for the set lists, I'd rather have the correct listing than an incorrect one. An another option is to remove the set list, of course. But many people wouldn't like that Rainrem (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is this rule about mOBSCENE? I don't see anything on the talk page about this, but I see that it's the trademarked usage based on the article. Metros (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember there was talk about changing to changing any article/track/etc. title to "Something Like this", unless the first letter was lowercased and the second letter uppercased, like "iPod". I didn't actually see that rule on any official page because I didn't bother to look. but I think that's the reason why, for example, the track "EAT ME, DRINK ME" isn't all uppercase on the article either, even though it should. I don't really care so much about that part on his edits, I just thought I was following the rules. The more important question is removal of information without providing a reason or such. Rainrem (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here we go Wikipedia:NAMING#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise Rainrem (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatant spam, vandalism and attack account needs to be permablocked

DJS92 (talk · contribs) is not here to contribute constructively. Since registering, he has engaged in petty vandalism [69], [70], [71], has spammed articles by adding his non-notable self and non-notable friends to lists of people appearing in films [72], has spammed by adding links to his own youtube garbage [73], and made unacceptable personal attacks on others [74]. He is currently temporarily blocked for spamming [75], and is most likely guilty of sockpuppeting too (on the account he spammed). If you ask me, the one-month block should be extended to indefinite. This behavior is unacceptable. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not find many good edits in his contribution history. Most were vandalism/personal attacks along with having an advert for a userpage and vanity additions to mainspace articles. Increased to indefinite.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) someone beat me to it :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I was the the object of this user's "affection", I did my best not to make it personal by issuing an indef-block, but I'm glad to see that I wasn't overreacting with the blocks I had issued. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing history page of vandal still needs clean up

As requested in a now-archived incident report, "Persistent vandalism of Heath Ledger by apparent sock puppets?", the editing history of Heath Ledger has been cleaned up; however, the same deleted material still remains in the blocked vandal's (vandals') "User Contributions" editing comment of JasonCarteret, which also still needs administrative clean up; please see the earlier report and blocking of the related vandal user accounts. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable links??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bukkake&diff=204836791&oldid=204783365

I'm pretty sure these links are not acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the reason is spam, porn site, commercial site OR all of the above.

What is a suitable warning to give to the IP who posted this? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not really any template that works too well - I gave the IP a {{uw-spam2}} just now, but a typed message would have worked too. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

How do everyone suggest dealing with attempts to get other people blocked, including massive incivility? See this and onward on my talk page. There seems to be a mess of arguments between User:Squash Racket, User:Nmate, and User:Hobartimus on one side versus User:Tankred, User:MarkBA, and User:Svetovid on the other. Some also seem to be using the warning templates aggressively probably in a harassing fashion. Now, I've blocked Svetovid earlier for continuous arguing and incivility from Hedvig Malina. Otherwise, I've told everyone to use the warning templates and WP:AIV. Any suggestions beyond removing all the comments my talk page and telling everyone to deal with it themselves? Block people for harassing other users? I've had some edit disputes, I guess, with a few so could an outside admin look at this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if anything should be done about the user who started this nonsense saying that he's complaining about me "as suggested" and "Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here." Some meatpuppetry going on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no-one else has responded. As far as you are aware, are these editors only edit-warring on the Hedvig Malina article or is that part of a group of articles? I'm inclined to protect the article page for a day and give a stern conduct warning on the talkpage. Will there be many other editors caught by a article protection, from your experience? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring at Malina seems to have calmed down, so I don't protection would be that necessary. Another article was been Bratislava Castle which again has calmed down. This seems like part of a larger nationalist argument that I cannot piece together. I'm just wondering if it's worth doing anything beyond wiping my talk page clean and ignoring everyone. How many times is it appropriate for admin to tell others than I am not interested in being their cop before *I* can just block them for bothering the hell out of me? Just need an outside opinion as to how to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted anything on Ricky's talk page in the last couple of days and already apologized for the earlier comments there answering another editor's accusations (and suggested deleting the whole part or using a hide/show template).
Some users post reports there that belong on a noticeboard and if it goes unanswered, the administrator will probably think it's completely valid. If I cut and paste those reports to where these belong, I would edit others' comments which is not allowed.
Still I decided to pass on yesterday's new report there though I could have added a few things. Since Ricky asked me recently to use WP:AIV I stay away from his talk page.
What to do when another editor who received the same message reports others directly to Ricky instead of a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the edit war has calmed down, I concur that you should wipe (or archive, just in case) the material and replace it with a notice that you do not wish to involve yourself with the matter (with a suggestion of taking it to WP:AIV). Like everyone here, you are a volunteer and you decide how you are going to help the encyclopedia. If you do get the sharp end of a few comments, and you are unable to ignore them, post a level4 warning and take it to AIV if repeated. I hope editing becomes more fun for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You already got involved by your unexplained and seemingly biased comments and actions towards me, Ricky. You still haven't explained or apologized for that. Saying that you now don't want to be part of this seems a little strange now.--Svetovid (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned you about your uncivil comments ("Do have a look at the following articles: Fallacy, List of fallacies and specifically Ignoratio elenchi, Straw man, and Poisoning the well."), you went into a rant about nationalists again, and then I blocked you with an explanation. You had ample time during your block to request an unblock and if another editor thought it appropriate, he could unblock. I am not in the mood to rehash arguments you yourself used as a reason to complain to another user who posted it at WP:AN. You can't have it both ways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have further told you that comments like this ("watch out or you may be blocked for complaining without any explanation from Ricky") are not helpful and rehashing arguments at Hedvig again and again simply to get a fact tag slapped on a page that you obviously wanted deleted from the start is also not helpful. If anyone else has a suggestion, I'm open to it. I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him (check his last edits for reverting back in a number of articles using popups). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are just statements, not explanations.
I listed the fallacies and nobody challenged that yet so my comment stands and your reaction to it was inappropriate.
"I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." -> was this comment aimed at me? If so, I really would have to report this because you would have crossed the line of genuine confusion.
And to provide full information and avoid quote mining, here is the comment I made.
Moreover, why cannot I state my opinion on nationalism, especially when I was asked about it? How does that make my comment a rant?--Svetovid (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After being warned not to use "misleading statements" [76] by an administrator, to trying to get people blocked, Tankred first went "admin shopping" to user DDima, with the same misleading statement [77] , he was warned for citing a number of warnings (most of them given by user:MarkBA as harassment[78]) as "evidence". After he was rejected by user:DDima he went for AIV with the very same material now multiple times rejected [79] but now also falsely accused his victim of vandalism, but his complaint was promptly rejected, with one user charactherizing it as [80] "fraudulent report during a content dispute". Should he be allowed to shop the same material around to every forum and admin until he can mislead someone into a block? He was already warned and did it anyway and a quick look at his contributions shows other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand that Hobartimus shares Nmate's POV, I cannot understand why he is protecting an evidently disruptive user. If this edit[81] is not vandalism, how would you call it then? As to the warnings, Nmate has received a nice collection from four different users ([82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94]). Just look at all his personal attacks, for God's sake (see a list that excludes the most recent ones at [95]). Tankred (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical forum shopping yet again. Posting the same thing but not posting all the previous reaction to the material depriving it from all context for the 4th 5th time?. Among the reaction is admin warning about [96] making "misleading statements" user comment describing it as "fraudulent report"[97] and the fact that WP policy WP:HAR, found at [98] states "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them,... in their user space is a common form of harassment." Let's see how many warnings came from user:MarkBA who was already suspected [99] of harassment of this user weeks ago? I count no less than 9 warnings coming from MarkBA in Tankred's post above and what is more alarming that even some of the remaining warnings came after MarkBA directly requested another user to "watch out" [100] referring to user:Nmate, and the solicited warning arrived one hour later of that message [101]. A case of mass warnings given/organized by a single user almost word for word matching the section from WP:HAR down to the "restoring such comments" part. This by the book harassment is now presented as "evidence" to strengthen a weak multiple times rejected case. When shopping around like this all the previous responses and rejections are swept under the rug and this is why we need a definitive answer to the question in the title of this thread "How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?" Hobartimus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA - an editor with 7,500 edits, 1 featured article, 1 good article, numerous DYK articles, and 3 barnstars - retired because of Nmate's and your hostility. I fully understand his decision. It is hard to contribute to a project in which you are called names and your nation is being constantly ridiculed. But MarkBA was only on out of five editors that have warned or blocked Nmate. Thank you for diverting this discussion from Nmate's disruption to a retired editor, who cannot defend himself against your attacks. And this is also my last attempt to ask the community for help. Since no one is interested in dealing with Nmate's repeated personal attacks in edit summaries,[102] hate speech,[103] and disruptive editing,[104] I have no reason to waste more time in this discussion. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred is an edit warrer. He/she started deleting my edits, multiple times under false summaries[105]. Look at Tankred's edit history:[106] and block log:[107]. He/She's massively edit warring on at least 20 pages. And it would be "uncivil" calling him a disruptive editor or vandal or something even "worse" wich can be derivered from the likeness of his edits and behaviour and style and what you can see easily? Where are your eyes at?

Tankred is the disruptive and agressive POV-pushing user, who tries to hide this, by accusing everyone else as acting like him. No no no no, Tankred starts it and then tries to show himself as (in the role of) the victim as well as the saviour of wikipedia. However he uses the NPOV and other policies not for Wikipedia, but against Hungarian users, and Hungary and Hungarians in general.

Tankred is the agressor, however, the users he/she harasses unfortunately respont almost in the same way :( I am sure, that Wikipedia without Tankred would be a better place. I suspended my editing because of him, alone. This user is the "nationalist, POV pusher etc. vandal", hiding it by accusing everybody else of being that. TANKRED STARTED ALL THE EDIT WARS. This was my last comment on enwiki, do not try to respond or send e-mail, i wont answer. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, this feels familiar. Anyone have any suggestions beyond closing this as "this is not the complaints department" and go to dispute resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not consider an article ban? A group of editors who've been part of highly contentious editing on Hedvig Malina in the past would be banned from directly editing that article for a period of time. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction Arbcom ruled that: Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. For previous bans issued under this case see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look into those edits a bit more before issuing quick bans. One editor didn't like eight references and kept deleting them. Most of the edits there are simply restoring this stuff. Svetovid was blocked three times for disruptive behavior regarding that article so now punish everyone for this?

Anyway the edit warring there seems to have cooled down since Ricky's intervention and the article appears to be stable now. Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid after reading my comment wants to prove at all cost that the article is not stable, so he reinserted the formulation "Slovak from Slovakia", but please don't buy into his provocation. Squash Racket (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some examples of and evidence for the alleged POV-pushing. (You can list them on my talk page.)--Svetovid (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment at your talk page, I am not interested in continuing to repeat myself with you. I will leave it to someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a reply to Rembaoud.--Svetovid (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring on talk page

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do. Orderinchaos 08:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review of the matter at my talk page relating to a blocked user who has contacted me and expressed an intention to engage in a campaign of edit-warring and harassment against a person who is the subject of an article, using public kiosks and other hit-run means at User talk:Retarius#Freddy. Another user is insisting on deleting the material, including my attempt to defuse the situation. I have asked him to desist but he refuses and insists that he will determine what's allowed to be on the page. I won't characterise his behaviour beyond saying that I think an analysis of his talk page contents and relations with other editors will reveal a pattern. Retarius | Talk 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will vouch for the other editor. No admin intervention is needed. Perhaps the intervention of a friend instead.... Hesperian 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As will I. I'd also mention to Retarius that we really shouldn't be engaging with people who use threats and vandalism and block evasion to try and get BLP-violating content into articles. Admins and, if necessary, OTRS can deal with those matters appropriately. Orderinchaos 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjecinas deleting and bullying

He keeps deleting arguments I wrote in Talk Pages of Nikola Tesla and [Josif Pančić]], explaining that he "does not allow me to edit". Now he threatens me (see Talk Page in Nikola Tesla article) that he will have me blocked, and then delete all my contributions. I have never been banned from Wikipedia, nor accused of vandalism. Ever. This is my only account, and I am not always logged in, and the IP's I'm signed with then are from the same IP-pool used by 60% of Internet users from Serbia. If this user "Rjecina" harasses and bullies all newly registered or inactive users from Serbia, I suggest that his edits (i.e. brutal deletions) be checked. I feel tired and frustrated that a person can so brutally delete someone's effort and spared time. I stress that we are talking about contributions in the Talk Page. A false claim had been made in the main article, I edited it and wrote an explanation in the Talk Page, and then this "Rjecina" comes, reverts my edits and deletes the arguments I offered in the Talk Page, so that no one can read them any more. That is preposterous! Marechiel (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading this right up until I saw the word "Serbia"... This may be unfortunate, and this editor may have a valid complaint, but as soon as I see a whiff of nationalism in a section I find myself tuning out.

Marechiel, do you have any supporting diffs regarding your allegations. Even those admins made of sterner stuff than myself are going to need to find evidence for what you are saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Marechiel has in his own words used 3 accounts to edit article Nikola Tesla in only 25 hours [108] and his latter statement is saying that he is having other IP address which he use [109].

Marechiel (if this is right name) is in his own words clear example of user which is using multiple anonymus IP to edit articles ! He is saying that he is not puppet of banned user Velebit which has been banned because of multiple accounts but checkuser will show this. I do not understand why Marechiel is calling me to solve "conflict like man" [110]after my comment that I will ask checkuser report if he is not puppet of Velebit ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rjecina, your English reading comprehension seems to let you down here. Marechiel said no such thing. He was simply editing logged-out, and he stood up acknowledging the IPs were his afterwards, so that's by definition not sockpuppetry. Also, Marechiel is quite an old account (editing since April 2006), which makes it fairly unlikely he's himself a sock. On the other side, Marechiel, while there is no written rule you can't edit logged out, if you wish to contribute to longerm contentious articles I would strongly recommend you don't do that; always log in to avoid suspicions and make your editing more transparent. Rjecina, please stop treating Marechiel as a sock, there are at present no grounds for doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I am in a process of starting an article, [111] which is currently in my user space, where i am working on it. This proposed page was nominated for speedy deletion two times first by User:Marathi_mulgaa and then again by User:Reneeholle as soon as it was copied from french wikipedia for translation [112],[113], and both times it was rejected, then the page was nominated for MfD [114], which was closed with Keep, and User:Reneeholle along with Sethie were cautioned for WP:COI and collateral attack on the article by the closing admin.[115]. I though that after this closing i will be able to work in peace and complete the article [116], But Sethie and marathi_mulga are continuously vandalizing my user-space, even after I made them a request, [117] as not to destroy any attempt that i am making in writing the article, informing them, that once i am done with the article, i will file for RfC about wikipedia policies, concerning the article.

But they are continuously reverting whatever i am trying to do in my own user-space. [118],[119][120], [121],[122],[123],[124], [125],[126]. this list is endless.

Then a notice at BPL was also filed [127], where it was again rejected [128]. All this is in addition to calling me with various names, and associating me with various blogs and organization, [129].How can i write the article ? what is the next step i can take in preventing them from disrupting ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both Sethie and Marathi mulgaa for 12 hours for edit warring, and have explained the reasons why. I have informally warned Reneeholle, since I note that they have stopped reverting and have attempted discussion. I strongly suggest that any further discussion is politely and comprehensively responded to, for the improvement of the article. I would hope that Sethie and Marathi mulgaa will also be part of that discussion. If not then I suggest reporting any further edit warring to AIV.

I note that Cult free world (talk · contribs) has been a frequent subject on these boards recently, so I invite review of my actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides to every story as they say. User:Cult Free World fails to tell people that the reason his article was nominated for speedy deletion is because it is previously deleted content (four times previously deleted). It had just been speedily deleted from reposting here, and then was moved to talk space where it was again speedily deleted here. He then reposted in user space. When the speedy delete tag was removed, I posted an ANI report per administrator advice here. On that ANI report I was told to file an MFD (see third post in ANI report above). It was hotly contested and a cleaned up version of the page (not containing libelous material) was what was kept. Immediately upon the MFD close, User:Cult Free World reverted to the libelous version here. He received a block for personal attacks a few weeks ago here. Throughout this process, I have attempted to engage Cult Free World in discussion about sources and he has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks.

He also mis-represents the MFD. The closer noted in the "Discussion" section here that there was a "WP:COI collateral attack on the article" meaning that instead of focusing on content, the attack focused on COI of the user, i.e., the closer continued, "the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination." As noted above, by the time the closer reviewed the article the libelous/unsourced contentious material was gone, i.e., "a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing. Raise any such issues at WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI, or by contacting WP:OTRS." The whole paragraph must be interpreted in context so as not to mis-construe it.

Finally, User:Cult Free World has filed numerous complaints and most have been ignored, here or he has received comments on his behavior here.

I hope you can understand that to those of us active on the previously deleted content (for which this differs very little), that it seems like a real attempt to circumvent deletion review and manipulate the evidence (for instance, archiving the talk page related to the proposed article today; leaving a clean version for the MFD closer to review and then immediately reverting it). It is my understanding that editors should delete libelous, defamatory, and unsupported/unsubstantiated material in any space, because it puts Wikipedia at risk. And, there is a whole section in the User's current page where he quotes in length from a newspaper article ruled prima facie libelous and defamatory, with no corroborating evidence or secondary source evidence (this seems like a huge violation of Wiki policy, which is why I objected to it). I followed the MFD closer's advice above, where he says to post complaints on the BLP board. Throughout this whole process, I have followed admins' advice to the "t" and there is a lot of history associated with this user and these topics that may not be apparent when evidence is archived and selectively presented. Thank you, Renee (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding the blogs and evidence that this user is User:Rushmi/User:Shashwat pandey, I can email any interested admin firm evidence, but cannot publically post it because it "outs" the user, a violation of user policy. The user is not abusively using separate accounts, hence, I have not filed on the sockpuppet board.

Someone else has. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day edit warring over user page

User:Fredrick day is blocked. Known IP of his has edited User talk:129.174.91.115, revert warring with IP of User:Sarsaparilla (and myself). The page being edited is for IP that was used by Sarsaparilla for two days, being IP for George Mason University, used by Sarsaparilla extensively in a session beginning at 15:00, 8 April 2008 and ending at 01:31, 9 April 2008. This IP is unlikely to recur for Sarsaparilla and thus placing a sock puppet concern template on it is inappropriate. Please look at the edit history of the Talk page in question.[130] It tells quite a story. I'd suggest semiprotection of that Talk page, and attention to the sock activity for Sarsaparilla and Fredrick day. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, for IP information re Fredrick day. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both IP addresses for block evasion. Abd, I must strongly caution you against the edit warring you were involved in here. You reverted 3 times, even though you knew the other editors were evading blocks. Next time, please just report them earlier. Mangojuice^talk 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking single IPs for these editors is likely to be singularly ineffective, they come in with different IP regularly. Sarsaparilla uses a recognizable IP, for George Mason University, which I understand cannot be range blocked because the block is used by many students. Fredrick day most often uses a particular range starting with 87.112-87.115 or so, which is probably his home variable IP, he just reboots his modem. But he also picks up other IP from, probably, unsecured routers in his neighborhood, and he apparently uses open relays around the world. Yes, I reverted 3 times in 24 hours, which I'd not do with any registered editor nor with ordinary IP editors. I'm a little disappointed that Mangojuice did not take that edit out, nor did he semiprotect the article, so busy is he with criticizing my action. Unfortunate. Yes, I will report earlier. However, in toto, I reverted five times over three days, and Fredrick day reverted eleven times, Sarsaparilla six times. Fredrick day reverted five times in 24 hours. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't protect because the block should be sufficient. And I didn't remove the paragraph because it is accurate -- that is an IP address being used by Sarsaparilla. Yes, you behaved better than they did... but they are blocked and you aren't. Mangojuice^talk 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusing posting for banned user

At Wikipedia_talk:OptOut#This_proposal_is_much_too_weak Privatemusings (talk · contribs) has reinserted comments made by banned user Mr. Brandt. Mr. Brandt confirmed on WR after having been blocked here that they were indeed his comments. Privatemusings should already know better than to post for a banned user and to revert the removal of a banned users comments. Further, one of the principles in his arbcom was that users should not game the system, proxying of an unbanned user for a banned user would seem to be just that. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also add that Mr. Brandt's statement implicitly threatens that hivemind will be expanded unless his views are headed, which seems like a threat to me. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That is not gaming the system. Posting for a banned user is addressed here. Please assume good faith. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That policy says

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that has not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted.

Isn't it worse then if Privatemusing is acting on his own to say hivemind will be expanded unless Mr. Brandt's views are heeded? MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should use common sense here. I am not seeing the disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • That only takes into account content edits - no-one should be posting for banned users in discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The rule is quite clear about that (and the language about verifiability confirms Ryan's position.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I interpreted it as "Can be verified that so and so made it (DB)" and "has independent reasons for making them (pm had an independent thought/point". NonvocalScream (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely there are worse things to worry about that comments from someone who has been on the wrong side of the BLP situation and obviously can speak from experience. None of us have had our biographies up, I assume, so let's use a little commonsense here and, at the very least, turn a blind-eye. George The Dragon (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I do not see "proxying", I see someone reporting what was said elsewhere by another (banned) individual. Proxying is the act of making statements or decisions or actions on behalf of another party (proxy voting) whereas PM is copying what Brandt wrote elsewhere - including the request to have it copied - and placing it for discussion, without making any comment on the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(eep! - edit conflicts! - and thanks for the note, nonvoc...) - seriously folks, this is pretty straight forward. The post is relevant, unsuprising, uncontroversial, on topic, and I found (and find) it interesting, so was happy to take responsibility for reposting / reporting it... hope this is no big deal, and we can all move along....(would a third person re-write help? - happy to do that too...) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for a banned user is forbidden, with the one exception spelled out in the policy, is forbidden. I strongly suggest you not do it again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he was proxing. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not think much of the re-posting the comment from the banned user that I removed. I don't think it is worth taking any action over, I just don't think much of it. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anything to really warrant action in this case either. Perhaps you may remove the comment and rephrase it in your own words. That may help. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This over the top rules lawyering is making me ill. Majorly (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Removed again - banned editors aren't allowed in discussions here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a note at the page, and have discussed this a little with Ryan on IRC. My reading of the discussion at this page, my talk page, and the talk page in question, is that there is a consensus to allow me to report the post, and I would like to see it restored. I have no desire to upset anyone however, and will step back now I have made my view clear! Everyone's welcome for tea at my place if they'd like it.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's clear here that you shouldn't be reposting messages for banned users, which is exactly what you did here. Brandt aint allowed on here, especially in discussions related to WP. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Echo Majorly here. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about not feeding the raccoons. They may be acting in a kind manner now, but if you feed them they will eventually cause damage or hurt someone. Users who are banned are banned for a reason, sometimes for very good reasons. They are not welcome here, and they should not be made to feel that they are welcome. Just my 2 cents on the matter. I ask that you do not return the post for that reason, post a link to the diff if you must. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick break out of my night and limited time to post here. BLP has been a long contentious issue and DB has been a long contentious article subject here (Since early 2005 IIRC until last month). Like I have been told by many people before about just about every rule and policy here, they are not suicide pacts. The posting was highly relevant to the subject at hand and offers the perspective of someone who has been involved highly with the issue and eventually was banned for it. The views are relevant. People are smart enough around here to weigh them appropriately. Banned means banned. But damnit, use common sense! spryde | talk 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned means banned, not editing via proxying or anything else. Banned means no editing on wiki at all, including by proxy. 68.10.193.214 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing "banned" means is "the community isn't interested in anything you have to say. Go away." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is not clearly not so, we are interested in his comments as members of this community, Brandt is highly intelligent and experienced (not a ranting teenager) and by doing this we play into his hands. Given that he is someone whose only interest in wikipedia up till now has been removing his own article but having achieved that has made an interesting and constructive comment (albeit somewhat paranoid) I find it disturbing that his contributions shopuld have been removed. save that for the bad faith users. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<snip trolling>

The previous comment was that user's third edit. Their first edit occured about an hour ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (Note: This referred to the comment that's been snipped as "trolling", which was by User:Roderick Stiphington)

Yes, I snipped it, sorry, should have updated your comment. Having looked around for a bit, I'd guess User:Roderick Stiphington is a sockpuppet of User:The Defender of the Wiki. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it. Supportive trolling is still trolling. (Much more pleasant, but still.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent Opinion - experienced sleuths needed

Dear all, this checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove - showed up User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel to be socks. Willirennen has asked for an unblock here with a fairly detailed explanation of how this might have come about. My question is is this plausible and hence is an unblock warranted? All experienced wiki-sleuth sockhunters welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this user had a friend using nine sundry Wikipedia accounts on his own home computer without knowing about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Willirennen's unblock request was just granted here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have lots of trouble believing his houseguests (whom he says he cannot "pinpoint") studied his contribution history before opening accounts and editing similar articles from the computers in his home, all without telling him a word about it, as he claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would have been helpful to see this thread first, but I'm giving the editor the benefit of the doubt based upon my judgement. I'm monitoring his edits, and if there is anything out of line, I'll reblock. seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't examined all of Willirennen's and Knock-Off Nigel's contributions in detail (to say nothing of the other supposed socks), but the pattern on March 7 of this year looks suspicious to me: From 14:51 to 15:49 K-ON performs a string of edits, mostly tagging articles for speedy deletion and commenting in AfDs where he had been the nominator; then Willi performs a quick string of constructive edits from 15:53 to 16:10, whereupon K-ON suddenly pops up for one edit at 16:15 to respond to two comments at one of his AfDs, and Willi then continues editing from 16:23 to 21:14. Deor (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK..Deor, good sleuthing, that does look ominous. That makes three additional editors suspicious and one prepared to accept Willirennen's explanation....shall we wait for some more eyes? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

My unblock can always be reviewed; it's not static, and if there is enough consensus or agreement that the editor has been socking it and editing disruptively, then I have no issue with an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An indef block is not required. Asking the user to edit with one account only would be the better choice. If he denies the SPs again, and if he/she persist, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be ok, though I would say any further denial of these socks would be worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, in addition to User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel turning up as socks per the checkuser, the two accounts do have some history of participating on the same side in AfDs with all sorts of IP and single-purpose accounts. Two examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC. In the first case, consider this progression of edits from both accounts: [131], [132], and [133]. In the second case, Willirennen was on the same side as all of the following, which have also been blocked for a variety of reasons: User:Moosato Cowabata, User:Garth Bader, User:Lara Dalle, and User:AnteaterZot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been out and about today and I think a better explanation is needed per Deor's findings. I am having a hard time seeing it as anything other than sockpuppetry. I will ask him. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Per the above, I think a "one account only" warning is OK in this case, for now at least, because we don't need to flip-flop on this. In general, though, the "room mate" excuse is about as plausible as "the dog ate my homework". Guy (Help!) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Notifying people here, since this page is tangentially related to that discussion and shares a similarly appropriate userbase.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing? ;) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral on this. Imagine the notification is from me, if that'll make it easier on 'ya ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong but, I don't believe that just notifying people of a discussion constitutes canvassing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. Notifying people who're interested in the subject is fine. It's only notifying just those who'd support your angle that's unacceptable. WilyD 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor persists in readding copyright violation to 2008 Tibetan unrest article

Resolved

 – No admin action required Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Copyrighted text removed

Text is copied from USA Today article. John Nevard (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't post it here, that rather defeats the purpose.... anyway, we do allow blocked quotes, so as long as it's formatted properly to make it clear it's quoted text, and properly cited, it should be fine. However, someone could keep an eye out for 3RR stuff. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not quoted. It's a copyright violation. John Nevard (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, it looks like there is some effort to try and get it quoted - which is why I said that. cf. Bertrand Russell, which has several long blockquotes from works that are still under copyright. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a couple of sentences and you know how to use the edit button. Next time try paraphrasing if there's a copyright violation this minor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs)

i'm attempting to head off a potentially nasty revert war. if someone can please tell me how to handle this, it would be great. over the past week, All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs) has twice run though my contribs, reverting my edits. in a range of about three hours this, he has made more than sixty uncommented reverts, and changes counter to policy. after asking him to stop, he yet continues. fighting my initial urge to retaliate in-kind, i though it best to seek an alternate route. please help. --emerson7 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've only reverted some of emerson7's edits on pages that I have previously edited myself - I've not followed him to new terrain. I've not made any changes counter to style guidelines/policy pages - in fact, what I did revert were two things in every case: emerson7's occasional changing of "{{reflist|2}}" to "<references/>" in the reference section (something that does not seem to be supported by any policy, and contradicts a majority of articles that have a reference section), and emerson7's removal of the term "née" from articles, which I didn't see any reason for. We initiated some discussion today, which looks like it has fallen through (in response to my last post on his talk page, he simply repeated a warning on mine). He's made one off-hand comment ("the level and degree to which you require 'consistency' is...forgive me for saying this...consistent with the symptoms of a obsessive compulsive disorder") of the kind I usually wouldn't bother complaining about. And that's really about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that {{reflist}} is preferred, but two columns is silly for fewer than half a dozen refs. I'd also say that the two of you should seek a third opinion or some kind of dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The nexus of the "ref" dispute is probably more about "reflist" having a smaller resulting text size than "references/" (a lot of the reverting was to the simple "reflist", which doesn't create columns). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• So someone is trying to "fix" a css variable they don't like by reverting to an old and deprecated way of formatting reflists. Pointless. If they think that the font size in reflists is wrong, then they should propose changing it, not selectively reformat articles with an uglier markup. Sheesh. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

brandon lang

Could someone take a look at brandon lang, or Brandon Link which it redirects to, with an eye to seeing what is going on and whether it is an appropriate page for Wikipedia? It isn't real clear to me that this is an encyclopediac page, and I'd be inclined to request deletion, except that I seem to be involved with the page (I deleted an instance of pretty obvious vandalism by a recent contributor, which he claims isn't vandalism.)

He is now accusing me of deleting lots of other "useful" information from the article. I haven't done that, and in fact have only made one edit (a revert) to the article, but I see others editors are having considerable fun deciding just what belongs in the article and what doesn't. The editor I'm involved with is probably a newbie, so confusing me with "the establishment" may be a natural mistake. In any case under the circumstances I'd rather not be the person that nominates this for AfD.

I get the feeling there may be fewer editors here than would appear to exist at first glance, I think a lot of those redlink editors may be socks of each other. Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• My thought is that the article as it stands should be deleted. It is a biography of a living person that doesn't prove notability, contains no references or citations from reliable third party sources, and can't even agree on the subject's name (even the interview calls him Brandon Lang not Link and no citations seems to exist for the name change. As I haven't contributed at all I'll take to to AfD where parties can discuss the article on its merits (or lack thereof). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can an admin take a look at this Brandon Lang/Brandon Link/Brandon Lane/Mike Anthony/etc situation. It seems that User:Quadzilla99 redirected the Brandon Link page to Brandon Lang back on 2nd April 2007 at 0713. Then on 30th January 2008 at 0612 User:85.177.209.159 Redirected Brandon Lang to Brandon Link insisting that this was the persons real name and that Lang was made up for the movie. Neither the AskMen.com interview or the ESPN.com interview I can find make mention of a name other than Brandon Lang. I'm afraid that an actually valid article may have been lost in creating a hoax or something. Either way his most commonly known by name seems to be Lang and therefore even if they are all the same person and meet notability requirements the article would seem to belong at Brandon Lang. Thanks. Sorry wasn't logged in Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Pain

Hi. I am currently engaged in a bit of an edit war with an IP address at this article. This basically consists of them adding a copy and pasted "official bio" from [134], incorrectly capitalising some words and adding a parent category as a category to the article. I have now reverted these several times (over the course of a few days). I have attempted to explain my actions via the users talk page, and have now issued a 3RR warning as they seem to be ignoring my requests. In addition, looking back through the history of this editor, this edit summary suggests that there may also be a conflict of interest here....

[135]

I am unsure as to how to proceed with this, as they are ignoring my advice and just reverting my edits, despite clear explanations of why I am removing the content. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Per history, following is found: "(cur) (last) 2007-08-23T17:52:27 71.203.0.174 (Talk | block) (3,598 bytes) (Edited out inaccuracies., corrected spelling of members. Edited in shortened official bio, and additional ex-members. These changes were made by the band themselves.) (undo)", which indicates that the IP is probably owned by the band them self, and thus it's a COI/NPOV violation. _→AzaToth 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do we resolve this? I have also reported it here now. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UPN Vandal

Resolved

 – Deleted hoax articles, blocked socks

Normally this well known vandal (see [136]) just uses dynamic addresses and is easily reverted, but today he's started creating a bunch of socks, is being unusually persistent, and I'd appreciate some help dealing with it. He started this morning as Special:Contributions/172.135.11.117, creating his usual hoax entries on Kung Fu Panda, then disappeared for a while before editing Dr. Seuss's Horton Listen the Whos, a new page created 9 minutes earlier by brand new user Special:Contributions/RSA66666. The page is a blatant hoax, a mishmash of pieces of other pages tied together with UPN's usual writing style. RSA66666 went on to create a second hoax, Tenacious D in 3-D, and his pages are being defended and added to other pages by a new ip: Special:Contributions/220.233.240.154 (again, same writing style, hoaxing, obvious sock). Finally, yet another user has appeared: Special:Contributions/Friends66666, adding pages in support of 220.x's edits.

AIV has dealt with the original 172.x address. I'd go to WP:SSP again with the rest, but the way he's acting more will just pop out of the woodwork and take longer to clean up; it would help if this was nipped in the bud. Bazzargh (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And another Special:Contributions/RTA66666 Bazzargh (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles he created were copy and pastes from existing articles and are thus GFDL copyright violations and I will delete them as such. This is sufficient evidence to block RSA66666, RTA66666 and Friends66666 as abusive socks of the UPN vandal. --NrDg 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Insulting and etiquetting

Hi. There're few IP-addresses that posted several messages with insulting and etiquetting content.
Please see the contributions of 209.215.160.101 and 4.231.207.47, the ones from 26 and 27 February.
In these messages those users (or user, maybe he uses proxy) wrote things like these:
All dates as from 2008.
209.215.160.101.
He also etiquetted me on Italian Wikipedia, as well as other Croatian users.
- 21:52, 26 feb, [137]"tornatevene voi due (Kubura e Araldic) nella vostra nazionalistica Wikipedia croata!" (go back you two to your nationalist Croatian Wikipedia!)
- 22:06, 26 feb, [138] He posted this message:
"L'utente Kubura è un ultranazionalista croato che critica ogni aspetto dell'italianità in Istria e Dalmazia. Nella Wikipedia inglese ha fatto bandire un nostro Wikipediano di nome Giovanni Giove, usando ogni trucco ed irritazione possibile. Questo Kubura agisce insieme ad un gruppo di fanatici nazionalisti slavi (come lui): uno di loro nella wikipedia italiana è un certo utente:Aradic-it. Si notifica precauzione nel trattare questo fanatico ed il suo gruppo. Ci si augura che presto vengano banditi dalla Wikipedia italiana Kubura ed i suoi fanatici nazionalisti balcanici. Alberto"
Translation:
"Kubura is a Croatian ultranationalist that criticizes every aspect of Italianhood of Istria and Dalmatia. On English Wikipedia he made our Wikipedian of the name Giovanni Giove banned, using every possible trick and irritation. This Kubura agitates together with a group of Slav nationalist (like him): one of them on Italian Wikipedia is certain user Aradic-it. ...in dealing with this fanatic and his group. It 'd be greeted if Kubura and his group of Balkan nationalist 'd be banned from it.wiki as soon as possible."
Sorry for grammar errors, and errors in translation (it's easier to translate Italian into Croatian). I've done the additional text formatting (underlining and bolding).
Compare that message with this one, by user:Pannonicus, from , 16:12, 3 March 2008, [139]
"One final question to a possible administrator reading my last post on Dalmatia topics: why only GiovanniGiove has been banned? The harassment done by Zenanarh (and others like Kubura) to whoever disagrees with croatian nationalistic points of view is totally similar -or even worse- to what has done GiovanniGiove. Even user:Dewrad has experienced this harassment."
Very similar word and sentence pattern.
Now, to works of 209.215.160.101 in English. He posted them same evening (as in it.wiki) a little before. Articles affected are Talk:Dalmatian Italians‎, Talk:Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia‎, User talk:Zenanarh‎, User talk:Dewrad‎.
- 19:30, 26 February, [140] (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:31, 26 February, [141], (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:36, 26 February, [142] " agree with you, Dewrad. These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." There he insults several nationalities.
- 20:24, 26 February, [143], I agree with you, Dewrad, these Croats are insane. Just read above the silly explanations of Zenanarth....they are "exactly" (but "mirror reversed") like the fascist italian explanations about their Italian Zara, Istria and Dalmatia". He repeated, so we see it's not accidental. And even compares them with fascists."
Now compare with user Pannonicus's message ("totally similar" and "exactly"). Do we have a case for checkuser here?
4.231.207.47. Articles affected are Talk:Italian_cultural_and_historic_presence_in_Dalmatia, user talk:Dewrad, user talk:Zenanarh, Talk:Dalmatian Italians:
- 19:40, 27 February, [144] (support to editwarring)
- 19:43, 27 February, [145] let's do WIKILOVE...Mary(sarcastical term for call for edit war?, see comment in next message)
- 19:45, 27 February, [146] "These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." (edit comment: let's do WIKILOVE...Mary)
- 19:48, 27 February, [147] revert (edit comment:"Let's do WIKILOVE....Mary"
- 16:12, 3 March [148], appears user:Pannonicus with attack on Croatian users, and defending of banned user:Giovanni Giove.
Alltogether, calling whole nationalities as "insane" is not nice. Term "nationalist" has very negative meanings in Western sociology. Call for revert wars is not nice. Defending the trolls, or equalizing the banned users with users that argumented their claims on arbitration, is not nice. In fact, that's trolling. Starting some new "clashes" and "discussions", without reading (or with ignoring of) previous argumentation and arbitration, is just another trolling behaviour. Those attempts of starting have appeared on few places (see the messages of Panonnicus and 209.215.160.101. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the history of GiovanniGiove, see here, especially here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Let's do Wikilove IP is in fact User:Marygiove. Why she (I presume it's she) prefers to edit while not logged in we can only wonder. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either Giove is a really common name and all people with that name automatically know FloNight and JamesF... or obvious sock is obvious. Sysops! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock or meatpuppet - blocked indef either way. ([149]) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IP-switching anon making racist edits and comments at Talk:Germans

Resolved

 – IP address blocked for racist commentary. seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

here here and here, possibly the same anon IP is inserting and reinserting the same nonsense, along with some choice anti-semitic words. Can somebody deal with him? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic attacks at Murder

By User:198.36.23.110 See diff]LeadSongDog (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Please use AIV for reports of this nature in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:ATTACK isn't very direct on that guidance.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate when they do that to gay people. I'll fix the page.Jacob Green696 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

Resolved

 – Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a partial quotation. At wikiquette, the admin closing the case against Arcayne suggested dispute resolution. I reiterated that advice, I went on to describe the matter as a 'storm in a teacup'. You have consistently been directed to dispute resolution, this forum is unable to provide any of the remedies you seek (see above).

I have communicated with Arcayne and asked s/he to treat you with respect and civility and make a genuine attempt to settle your differences. Basically wikipedia is about trying to create quality content for an encyclopaedia, and NOT about managing the relationship between you. In the previous thread to this one, User:Stifle provides some good advice to two editors in a similar dispute, and that is if they can't get on, to avoid each other.

I closed this off as resolved because when I concentrated the previously unstructured debate on the outcomes you were seeking from this forum, they were identified as not being appropriate for this forum. It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette. I still feel that to pursue sanctions when the issues appear to have been dealt with is fruitless and disruptive. I would urge both of you to concentrate on the content of articles and to assume good faith on the part of the other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, the issue is now about communications and relationships and Kbthompson offers sage advice. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

"It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette."

Responding directly to the quoted matter above, the formal charges he brought against me were done without ANY evidence. This is unacceptable. He had no more basis to accuse me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". than I do of you.

What is the Wiki standard of evidence required to bring formal charges? Society always punishes those who make false accusations in official forums(Not a single citation was ever presented.). This is not a one-off, Arcayne has brought charges against numerous editors and multiple administrators[183] and on a near daily basis posts threats of formal charges and sanctions against various individual editors. What is the policy?

(Note: I did not initiate any action at Wikiquette - this is not a quid pro quo matter.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. You may not have read that policy in full as you appear to have followed advice from its top sections. DR applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. Since you have complaints about the behavior of Arcayne, your options are e.g.: talk page discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with Arcayne to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did miss the comments in WP:DR that addressed non-content issues. A final question then, Is there a Wiki standard for supporting formal charges and accusations with a citation or evidence?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the forum (examples: WP:RfC and WP:RfAr require such formal evidence). However, accusations that are not supported by diffs or other links to problematic edits are generally not taken seriously and editors who keep accusing others without merit don't have a good reputation. Other things that come to mind are a WP:guideline called Don't bite the newcomers and an essay called No angry mastodons. Also worth noting is the principle that admin tools and especially WP:BLOCKs are not to be used as punishment. If I find the time I'll post a couple of pointers on your talk page. My advice re Arcayne remains: let it go. Avb 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne II

Must a new section be opened if the harassment continues? Or does this get reopened? He is now going around to multiple editors to encourage discord and strife. Here is one example:

I thought I would point out that I have recently ported over the discussion page entries for the unusually large number of IP addresses used by the anon you just posted to. You might want to re-check the page to see if there are topics there already brought to the user's attention in previous incarnations. - Arcayne

As well, I thought I would point out that deleting disruptive (personal attacks, incivility, etc) cannot really be refactored out of article discussion, whereas redundant or random off-topic posts can under limited exceptions. I would suggest that you might want to avoid escalating matters with the anon user (trust me, he's got quite the little temper) and simply report the behavioral concerns to AN/I. They already know who he is. - Arcayne

The debate with the editor is found here:[184]I'll think you'll notice in it a civil and reasoned discussion on my part - to have Arcayne running around inciting fights and spreading malicous untruths does nothing to further reasoned discussion about an Encyclopedia entry.75.57.186.159 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After having his points soundly refuted by several other editors the anon posting here has been quite clearly trolling Talk:Fitna (film). It is entirely improper to copy and paste an edited segment of a conversation onto your own talk page and then claim here at ANI to link to a "debate with the editor." The actual full discussion can be found at the talk page on which we both posted. If anyone is unwilling to read the entire subsection the relevant parts start towards the bottom of the subsection, but well before the segment the anon posted on his talk page ... and they quite clearly involve several other editors as well. Also you will note that his talk page segment was edited. At the very least can someone tell him that copy pasting a discussion in an edited version to a seperate location is not OK if you are going to link to it at ANI as if it were the actual conversation between two editors. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The posts brought over by the anon user (why he continues to avoid actual inks escapes me, as he knows how to make them) illustrate:

1. me advising an editor that he might want to check a page I had updated with the anon's prior discussion record from his series of IPs; and
2. me advising PelleSmith that refactoring user discussion wasn't the way to go, but rather to explore solutions outside the article discussion (as such tend to disrupt the on-topic discussion with pissing contests). As someone who has seen the vehemence with which this anon user plays the Eternal Victim (the continuation of the above closed AN/I report should be a pretty good indicator that this feller don't know when to let go, or through the RfCU debate, or in the Fitna article discussion), I think I am rather qualified to represent the anon as having a temper. Refactoring the anon's actual posts in Talk:Fitna would have popped a blood vessel in the anon's head. I counseled against refactoring.

I get that the guy doesn't like me. But using the noticeboards to address that disline through bloated claims of personal wrongs is, at best tedious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Avb's advice to both parties is good, reasoned advice. Just stop it. Take ten, a chill pill, a deep breath or a coffee. Whatever works for you folks. Let's put it another way, it is as much a responsibility of the whichever party feels wronged to attempt to build bridges and find a way forward as it is the party of the second part - and as far as I'm concerned you can put either of you in whichever part of that sentence you fancy. If you continue with the same interests, you must find a way to get along without imposing your argument on the whole community. It needs to go to some appropriate forum of dispute resolution, or you need to sort it out between the two of you. The top of the page indicates that this is NOT a counselling service.

That said - and needing to take ten, two cups of mocha and a whole bottle of chill pills myself ... it seems to me that Arcaynes' input to that discussion is actually pretty minimal and that the anonIP is challenging a developing consensus by other users - and then claiming it is incited by Arcayne (that bod doesn't seem to be involved in this one, now 's/he is acting as puppet-master').

OK, that was going to tip the balance for me, and I was going to argue for semi-protection of the page - but someone has beat me to it - good call. My opinion is still that Arcayne and the anonIP need to settle their differences - but further that the anonIP needs to build bridges with the named users that they've accused of not being able to see through any of Arcayne's sneaky tricks and think for themselves. Kbthompson (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeting: "Metal up your ass :) "

Resolved

 – Not at all a good idea (don't try this at home), but not universally offensive as originally percieved. Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered two user pages, User:Jacob Green696 and User:Riverpeopleinvasion that have put scripts on their userpages that blink the greeting "Metal up your ass :)" at the bottom of every visitor's screen that visits their user pages. I've warned both of them about WP:Civil and removed the script from their userpages (User:Riverpeopleinvasion twice). Is there anyone here who thinks that's an acceptable greeting? Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I've removed the code from both pages. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be an issue. Far more offensive material is deemed to be not worthy of forced removal. If it wasn't blinking, would it have been a problem? --Onorem♠Dil 00:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you greet your mother or child that way? Is it a WP:Civil greeting? Or if you just warned someone and they replied with that, would you consider it Wp:Civil ?? Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely different discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't do any of that. I might agree that annoying little boxes with blinking text popping up on your screen could be considered offensive. As I understand it, it wasn't a personal attack on someone (or a group of people) so I don't really see the harm?--Apis O-tang (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not a straw man. It's not polite and it's very unpleasant, intimidating language. Anyway, blinking is banned, I got told off just for having a blinking sig once, so did Ryan Poselthwaite. And I don't think we can expect much from users who have "metal up your a*s" on their page, but we shall see..."special, random, Merkinsmum 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be removed if it was simply a link to our article on the subject? I agree that the blinking part is annoying, but it certainly doesn't seem like a big enough problem to be at AN/I at the moment. --Onorem♠Dil 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know this is something from a band (see Metal_Up_Your_Ass.) Maybe if they linked to that from their page people would realise it's not a personal insult/rudeness for the sake of it? special, random, Merkinsmum 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember the album with that name and do. But that's not the context it was used in. There's a song called I Wanna Fuck You and I don't think it would be appropriate to have that as a random phrase on my userpage either. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It also wasn't used as a greeting for my mother, or a reply to a warning, but that didn't prevent you from using those situations for your complaint... --Onorem♠Dil 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is directly answering the question above. I think the analogy for civilness of a greeting is valid. Sorry your standards are lower. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that the civility of "I wanna fuck you" and "Metal up your ass" are directly comparable. --Onorem♠Dil 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point was it's not OK to put a phrase randomly on your userpage just because there's a song or an album with that name. In the context of the album they're fine, but if that's all that was in a section of my user page, neither would be acceptable in my opinion. And adding a smiley afterwards? Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor concerned is into metal, he's changed the message to say "I live, breathe and love metal!" or something, so I think that album was what he meant, or something else about Metal music. Whereas I initially though he meant a gun up your a*s! special, random, Merkinsmum 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that these editors are still doing their GCSEs- they're 15 or 16.special, random, Merkinsmum 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously possible to conceive this as being offensive, but it's also clear this wasn't intended to be offensive. Should all content on user pages that might be conceived vulgar/offensive be removed? Then the user page realm would end up very barren. It's not like anyone has been intentionally hurt or harassed. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not intentionally maybe, but it says "Metal up your ass, so it appears to be addressing the person viewing it.special, random, Merkinsmum 08:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The users in question have now been notified of this discussion... --Onorem♠Dil 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok when i put the greeting there i did not intend for it to be offensive or a personal attack to anyone. I just put it there as a joke, it isn't actually meant to offend anyone and i don't see how it could. It doesn't refer to putting a gun up your ass and smiling it is about the type of music, metal. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incivil, impolite, and lacking in common decency. The users visiting those pages should not have that forced upon them. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the majority of users would see it as an insult, but more of a joke. Especially with the added smiley at the end makes it obvious that it is a joke and no harm is intended. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heyy we were both just messing around. If it's that big a deal just tell us and we'll do something about it. Besides you have no right to delete all three codes. Only one of them said Metal up your ass:).Jacob Green696 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you guys what,I'll change it to Metal up my ass

When did everyone become so sensitive on here? When we cater to these folks who get offended at every little thing that our 80-year-old grandmother might not like, we divert attention away from the project and into little silly discussions like this. Don't look at their damn talk page if you don't like it - it's not mainspace. Tan | 39 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL has so much sway because this is an open, collaborative project with many, many kinds of editors from all over the world. Collaboration, tolerance and kindness are the glues which keep Wikipedia together, along with WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. However, when editors become overly sensitive to perceived slights (and this one is passive, not an active slight), Wikipedia becomes an "I'll report you!" playing field. There is no other arena in my life where people are expected to behave perfectly - my job, my family, my friends, etc. When people are passionate about something, they're going to say things that are passionate. Yes, we should minimize this and not let it cause major conflict - but making a big deal (such as bringing it to ANI) about some random Metallica quote on someone's talk page is just WikiDrama. Tan | 39 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I tend to agree, a quiet discussion on the users' talk pages would have been a more helpful start. WP:ANI's not meant to be an outlet for tattle tales. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying comment: User:Toddst1 warned the editors their greetings were being taken as uncivil. They responded by wholly ignoring him, restoring the greetings and ignoring him again, so I think his bringing it up here was a reasonable and responsible thing to do. My comment about "tattle tales" was in passing response to Tan as a general notion along with my wishful thinking about ways to skirt wikidramas and had nothing to do with User:Toddst1. Gwen Gale (talk)00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What's more, if you hadn't brought this up here, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to turn off one of those blinkers :) (Even if it does get turned back on again later) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify only i ignored User:Toddst1 and put it back on my page...Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody hvae any objections to what I have done on my page. I changed the "Metal Up Your Ass" to "I <3 Metal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Green696 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno what others will say about the blinking, I'll leave that to them. Meanwhile, I <3 Beryllium. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well how do i stop the blinking then? Its seriously not a big deal. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to show you how, I stopped the blinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Now, is there any objections to me putting "metal up your ass :)" on my userpage? It doesn't blink so is there any other problems? Its a joke not a personal threat. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The worry is, some readers will stumble across your page and take it (very) wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I changed mine to different words....So now noone can complainJacob Green696 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'll think up a joke most folks can understand straight off ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I changed mine to I <3 Metal! :)Now nobody can complain.Jacob Green696 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can i put it back now? Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mukadderat 1RR probation violation

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

Resolved

- Edit reverted. This can be archived now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• 1RR probation violation on

Criticism of Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mukadderat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1RR probation notice at top of Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat - [185]
• User advised in his talk page about the 1RR probation: 22:09, 10 April 2008

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 23:01, 10 April 2008 (edit summary: "")
2. 03:34, 11 April 2008 (edit summary: "my edit restored")
3. 21:48, 11 April 2008 (edit summary: "my edit restores please state your objections in talk page")

User encouraged to self-revert,23:04, 10 April 2008 but has not done so.

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mukadderat#One revert per day and the bottom subthread of Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Versions suggested so far:. I have read and understand the notice and I have already expressed readiness to cooperate. At the same time I find the behavior of user:Jussi absolutely inadmissible in terms of hard-pressurizing and intimidating a person who just joined the discussion and does not even know which brick hit him. I suggest to ban josssi from this discuassion for expreseded disrespect to fellow editors. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the timestamp when I was "encouraged" (actually threatened)

Revision as of 23:24, 11 April 2008 (edit) (undo)

This is the timestamp of this complaint:

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

12 MINUTES lag time!!!! : Something is seriously wrong with impatience of user:jossi. He probably needs a wikibreak. Mukadderat (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The talk page has an obvious notice at the top of the page. As said, by me and others, self-revert and save yourself from getting dinged for ignoring the 1RR probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may obvious for you since you spend lots of time in this talk page. But it was not so obvious for me because the top of the talk page has a dozen of various tags in flashy colors I had no reason to read thoroughly. Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not familiar with rules of this particular time of probation, I am taking at least 1 hour to read and understand the corresponding policies, since I have reasons to suspect that user:jossi is far from being impartial in this topic and therefore I have to double check that his aggressive threats and demands are based on real policies rather on his opinon. Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to bring an attention of an uninvolved admin to a frivolous language of user:jossi ("dinged"). Mukadderat (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that both editors take a break from this topic and cool down. If, after a reasonable period, Mukadderat hasn't self-reverted then his account should be blocked for violating the special article probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please show me exact phrase which says that I am to be demanded to self-revert. The tag says that any sanctions can be only after a warning. I have already expressed my familiarity and agreement with the rule. But now you are joining jossi's baseless threats. Nowhere the tag says that I may be punished for past actions made in good faith. Mukadderat (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin, not involved) User:Mukadderat was warned by User:Will Beback at 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC) and responded at 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC). This was apparently 4 minutes before User:Jossi's warning: diff. Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with "ding"? I don't see anything wrong on jossi's part. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly good with "ding"? What exactly good with "shit"? Why would he want to replace the word "block" with "ding"? Was he trying to be friendly joking? Somehow I don't think so. I think he was demeaning and disrespectful. Mukadderat (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Mukadderat's 2nd revert was made before he'd been warned not to, a warning which is specifically required under the orginal terms of the probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary result of my investigation

• The article Criticism of Prem Rawat is not listed in the Wikipedia:General sanctions page.
• The tag about community sanction on top of Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat does not link to the corresponding discussion
• I've received the warning in my talk page and expressly agreed to comply with the alleged community restriction, both in my talk page and in the artcle talk page.
• Nowhere I see arule or sanction that I may be demanded to self-revert, since restoration of my edits (deleted without minimal explanation neither in talk page nor in edit summaries) was made in good faith.

Therefore I reconfirmed my opinion that the behaviour of user:jossi is frivolously intimidating and not based on any explicit rules or traditions. And my first emotion was to strongly oppose this unjustified arms-twisting.

Nevertheless, understanding now that the topic is a matter of heated controversy, I will remove my edit. On a side note, I was thoroughly surprized that the sentence in question was met with fierce opposition and revert meatpuppetry. This behavior is a disgrace for wikipedia. May Allah have mercy on these warriors. Mukadderat (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be watching edits of user:Jossi closely, and if this manner of his aggressive and disrespectful behavior will be a regular pattern, I will think about initiating community sanctions against him. Mukadderat (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions are already under discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. That would be the best place to add evidence of problematic editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

???? Why are you "investigating" the complaint about you?? You need to back off and let an administrator or at least an uninvolved party address this incident. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell shouldn't he? He seems to have done a competent job. Investigate his investigation if you're so inclined. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The guy's got a right to look into the complaint against him and present the results with the best possible interpretation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am investigating my rights, not jossi's complaint, which I see as utterly frivolous. So what? I cannot defend myself and wait until Jossi finds a buddy via IRS to promptly block me? Mukadderat (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, everyone is aware of the 1RR now, and if they violate it, block them. This drama is highly pointless. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, user:Cheeser1 made a good point. A little above I wrote that I am ready to remove my edit. But seeing that some of you see me nothing but a troublemaker, I have change my mind:

I demand an independent investigation and conclusion from an uninvolved admin whether the statement of probation of the article in question does provide an unconditional demand for self-revert of a new user who was acting in good faith by reinstating his apparently trivial edits deleted without any explanations." Mukadderat (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In good faith? Three reverts in less than 3 hours, which were reverted by three four different editors (two anons and two editors), does not look much like it. Good faith would have looked quite differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which three editors? It doesn't take an experienced admin to see that two of the reverts were made by IPs that had never edited WP before, and are almost certainly socks of involved editors purposefully evading the 1RR themselves.[186][187] Let's make sure that this probation is fairly enforced. If IPs keep making undiscussed reverts we may need to semi-protectthe pages in order to keep the probation enforceable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WillBeBack's claim that the IP reverts were " almost certainly socks of involved editors purposefully evading the 1RR themselves" is a very serious allegation and needs to be investigated.Momento (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, Will, there where four reverts: User:Jayen466 revert [188], User:Momento revert [189], User:32.173.109.102 revert [190], User:166.191.85.226 [191]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the IPs. I assume no one favors allowing unregistered editors to circumvent article probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, he has reverted his edit. seicer | talk | contribs 01:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NCdave violating his block

Resolved

 – NCdave was not evading his block; someone else's sock. MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See Fight the Clique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The sock name is a name violation, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 02:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NCdave wouldn't give a barnstar to himself. Please retract this uncivil comment, and read WP:NPA. Thanks. Fight the Clique (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the welcome template and all its helpful links about Wikipedia, this new user says he's "a very fast reader," I guess to prepare anyone who's watching for his experienced-looking edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, and a non-related editor would start their editing career by archiving NCdave's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...conveniently right after an unblock request is denied. Mangojuice^talk 03:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock indefinitely and I reset the nain account's block to 1 week. If anyone feels that 1 week should be extended because of this, go for it. Metros (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a checkuser on this? Evidently it's a sock, but otherwise my assumption wouldn't be that it's NCdave's. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is obviously somebody's sock, but whose sock? I don't think we can just jump to the conclusion that it is NCdave. KnightLago (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This one is asking for checkuser (in the unblock request) so I think there may be a bit of confidence the tool won't find a clear link. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Gwen Gale. When a user uses the "file the checkuser! I dare you!" attitude, there's generally a reason why which is that they know they've hidden their tracks well enough. Metros (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that's hardly conclusive, since it's also probably what someone would ask who is someone else. I'll ask for a CU if no one else does. Mackan79 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. I don't think we should just assume it is NCdave. KnightLago (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would an uninvolved sock archive another user's Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe they are friends. You could ask the opposite question, would NCdave be dumb enough to create an another account when there is so much attention on him and then archive his own page? We can't simply assume this is him. The block should be reset to its previous expiration unless there is some proof the new account is his. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, my thought as well. I put a request here, if that works. Mackan79 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting the expiration back would be fair. Meanwhile this could be a meatpuppet, open proxy login, whatever. Moreover the talk page archiving and barnstar, along with the username and interest in the same article and PoV, never mind the Wikipedia knowledge, all tend to make a coincidence so unlikely. I wouldn't say it's NCdave, but it's reasonable to say it's a sock and likely NCdave's, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave is probably put off, and I guess people do things that don't make sense, but I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. There are at least a couple of friends of his who have been making supportive comments, so all in all it seems to make much more sense that it's one of them. A block is fine, though. Mackan79 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with NCdave's editing and general behavior, but I have to say that creating a sock called "Fight the Clique" just doesn't sound like his style. I'd strongly suspect this is someone else who shares his POV and has also been blocked for some reason. I'd suggest blocking the Fight the Clique account, which I think has already been done, but I'd be very surprised if this account turned out to be NCdave. MastCell ^Talk 04:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppet (and checkuser showed a few more ripening socks in that range) but it's very unlikely that it belongs to NCDave. Raul654 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I reset his block to the previous expiration date. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MONGO and the WTC

Resolved

(Background at ANI two days ago.) Unfortunately, Tango's warning to MONGO has been rejected and ignored. MONGO obviously thinks he's in the right here. We may as well get ArbCom's rememedy tested sooner than later. I don't want to have defend every suggestion I make on the assumption that I am a POV-pushing conspiracy theorist. Nor should anyone else.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to arbitration enforcement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

per Spartaz, that is what it is there for, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about that controlled demolition garbage again, which belongs in the article dedicated to conspiracy theories concerning the WTC collapse, NOT the main article. Frivolous report, frivolous warning. MONGO is in the right here. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Resolved

User Marechiel has broken 3RR rule in article Nikola Tesla because of which article is protected (until solving puppets problem):

• first time:18:29, 9 April 2008 .User has confirmed that this is his address [192]
• second time:10:01, 10 April 2008
• 3rd time:10:31, 10 April 2008
• 4th time:10:47, 10 April 2008

He has not recieved warning about 3RR rule but this is old user which has started to edit under name Marechiel on 17 April 2006 !!!--Rjecina (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...says the user who broke his own revert parole repeatedly in the same revert-war, because he had unilaterally decided, based on no more than a guess, that the other guy was a banned sock? Rjecina, before you continue forum shopping to get your opponents blocked, please first respond to my comments on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to see that I have stoped all "edit warring" after SPA account Marechiel has started to edit with his name. Yes I know that I am rude with all nationalistic SPA accounts. Answer for Fut.Perf. is here

• 3RR board is that way. Before you make a report think through the fact that everyone who is edit warring can get blocked - especially if they are ignoring attempts to discuss the edits on the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Taos High School

Because of an edit war at Taos High School, I have fully protected the article for two days and requested the time be used to discuss potential improvements on the talk page. I'd appreciate others' reviewing this action. Aleta ^Sing 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you protected over this?? While this editor is not strictly a vandal (although he was also removing maintenance templates), I see little point full protecting over the actions of a single, disruptive SPA. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to encourage talk page dialogue which would have been impossible if I had banned him. Aleta ^Sing 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to to go to bed. If others think a different course of action best, I trust you will act accordingly. Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still here for the moment. It appears that we have a role account. Taostiger has admitted to being a group of people editing under one name. How do we handle this? As I understand it, role accounts are not allowed, correct? Aleta ^Sing 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Role accounts are not allowed. Unless only a single user agrees to edit with the account henceforth, it should be blocked (an admin may block this account without asking for such an agreement, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::In that case, should Taostiger be blocked now in regards to this comment and countless others where Taos says "we?" Also, the user keeps going on about how he/she/they will remove all of the information added to the article. We've tried to explain that it's not their decision, since information added to this site is now part of WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a 3RR block is in order at the very least, if not indef for being a role account. Comments? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we atleast get the crap that's there now out? Grsz11 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to let those who have worked hard on this article, that the consensus is to "get the crap that's there now out", how revealing. --Taostiger (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11 should not have said it was crap. I think he's referring to POV content and the unnecessary information mentioned on the talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a self-professed Role account, and a username violation, this user should be blocked indef. Grsz11 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a username violation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate and encourage the interest of individuals, couples, groups, etc. to contribute. All this energy towards an article about a HIGH SCHOOL!! --Taostiger (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All are encouraged to contribute...individually. But this is an encyclopedia...content in the first person is entirely inappropriate. We don't let an article about a company that says: "We offer the finest in the most high-tech toothbrushes," stay on here, and this should be no different. Grsz11 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A contribution is a contribution whether it's from 1 person alone or 100 people working together. The point being, whether it's an "I" or a "We", I thought WP was an opportunity to share and exchange of information, which is what was attempted but definately not appreciated. Once again, this is about a high school article...... OMG--Taostiger (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But we don't allow accounts that are under the control of multiple people, period that is not just our policy, but on many other wikimedia projects as well. The exchange of information is what wikipedia is for, but this is an encyclopedia, and must have some standards with regards to verifiability, point of view, sources, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The account is under my control. The information and data gathered for the article was from the group. We worked together entering the information under my supervision. I completely support standards regarding what you mentioned. But please be aware of the method of delivery these standards are introduced to the contributor. If they are done respectful the respect is naturally reciprocated. Simply deleting without offering assistance was our experience. Positive reinforcement and encouragement should be the norm, it works great at Taos High School. --Taostiger (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain (based on your description), but that may still pose a problem. For legal reasons relating to the GFDL (at least I believe that's the root of the policy), each account's contributions must come from one, and only one, person. Being the only person with the password may not be sufficient here. (Others, please correct me if I'm misinformed). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If in fact only one person is doing the actual editing, regardless of how many people read over his shoulder and suggest wording changes, then in my opinion it wouldn't be a role account. As long as the owner of the account takes personal responsibility for everything posted under that name it hardly matters what form of off-WP research is done to create that content (providing no copyvios, of course). Loren.wilton (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if only one person has asserted personal responsibility for all edits ever made (or to be made) using the account, it's not a role account. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, guys. Nice newbie biting. The fact that the project does not allow role accounts doesn't mean you need to go on a role account witchhunt. Collaboration is perfectly okay and a good thing, and is not forbidden by the GFDL. Now someone should have explained to this person (and their collaborators) how to write a Wikipedia article, without the panicked "block them and protect the page!" reaction.

The key point here is that blocking is a last resort. It shouldn't be seen as the default thing to do when you suspect a newbie is breaking a rule. Taostiger has a lot to learn about Wikipedia, but the blocking threats made in this thread were out of line. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI Rspeer, some of us tried to assist the editor (many, many times) with the article. Read the Talk:Taos High School page for starters. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't the notion of a role account that brought it here: To begin with there were 3rr and edit warring worries, along with an apparent lack of participation on the talk page and removal of maintenance templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the page protection as a way of encouraging discussion on the talk page. It seems to have worked. Regardless, several people in this discussion went on to say "the account is breaking a rule, block it now". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we don't block for edit warring? Grsz11 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, read User talk:Taostiger#Not Worth It to understand where we're coming from in relation to working with this user. Although the user has only been editing for a month, that doesn't mean he/she/they is some kind of retard that can't comprehend basic WP policies when pointed out (WP:CITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:ROLE etc.). Messages on user talk pages trying to get your point across has worked, we get what you're saying. But you're wrong in this case, and so is Greg Comlish (who referred to us as "tight asses", among other things, for some unknown reason). Just please drop it. I'll correct the mistakes in the article once the protection ends. Geez. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Amdo

I'm having difficulties with a tag team of User:Blnugyen and User:Khoikhoi on Amdo. The statement is sourced to two sources, one of which is an article carried by China's Xinhua News Agency, the other is an academic book.

• User:Khoikhoi removes a sourced statement from the article: [193], saying that "Xinhua is not a neutral source"
• I restore the statement, informing User:Khoikhoi that there are in fact two sources, one of which is not Xinhua: [194]
• User:Blnugyen removes it again, [195], this time saying 1) Xinhua is PRc mouthpiece, and 2) something about press freedom in China, the relevance of which to a history and geography article I fail to see.
• I restore the statement, this time inviting User:Blnugyen to discuss on the talk page: [196]; see Talk:Amdo
• User:Blnguyen reverts again, refusing to listen and refusing to discuss. [197]

This is beyond a content issue now, because I've pointed out three times that the basic premise for Khoikhoi-Blnguyen's removal of the statement is wrong, since there are two sources and not one, as Khoikhoi-Blnguyen assumes. Blnguyen continues to revert without discussion. This is not the first time I have run into Blnguyen, and I have no desire for this to escalate. Could someone please press Blnguyen to discuss on the talk page. Or just to read what he is editing before he edits.

Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that BLN is aware of the recommendation to discuss, he probably doesn't think its warranted in this case. This isn't yet an edit war.

If you believe your second source is reliable, take it to WP:RS/N for discussion. Generally translated sources are acceptable, but we frown on using exclusively translated/nationalistic sources for disputed points. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, because Blnguyen is a well-known POV warrior and tendentious editor, right? Oh, wait, no he isn't. More of a multiple FA writer, admin and CheckUser actually. So perhaps when one of the project's best and most trusted identifies a problem with a source (in a language that he, but not most of us, can read), the source is the problem and not Blnguyen? Guy (Help!) 11:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, you must be new... one of our checkusers and oversighters is an unrelenting Irish POV pusher. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Blnguyen has posted on the talk page after the posting of this report. He has said that no source published in China can ever be reliable. I doubt the veracity of that statement - but where should I take it?

Relata refero, I wish you would put aside prejudices and look at issues in substance before making comments like these. Blnguyen is an experienced and valuable contributor, but that does not mean he is not capable of... shall we say... extremely strong views in certain articles, such as those concerning Tibet.

Guy, you're commenting ad hominim. Inform yourself of the matter before commenting. Actually, Blnguyen is not Chinese, so I don't understand why you assume he can accurately assess the reliability of the source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that a Chinese news agency's pronouncements should be taken with less than a full pound of salt is, I venture to suggest, controversial. I know who Blnguyen is, and what kind of person; one of the fairest around. If you want to talk ad-hominem, how about that opening sentence, up above? A "tag-team" indeed? Or is it just that they agree the source is unreliable and you refuse to accept their judgment? In the end the onus is on you to justify inclusion of disputed text and "make the nasty men go away" does not count towards that end. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, you seem to be right in terms of Wikipedia policy, guidelines and practice and common sense. Binguyen hasn't even made it what I'd call a proper content issue dispute. His blanket assertion is remarkable. With the help of my ridiculously linguistically talented wife I read a paper on Algebraic K-theory in Chinese many years ago; I wonder where and how the party line crept in there. ;-) But this really isn't the place for this. I hope your realize words like vandalism and tagteam are out of place . The article talk page is overwhelmingly the proper place, and second, the RSN board.John Z (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Paul20070 - Requested deletion of userspace

I am the above user and am currently trying to assert my right to disappear. I would like my userspace deleted. However, I'm unable to follow the proper procedure because I salted my password. There's currently a debate going on as regards several sockpuppet accounts which I discovered being edited from my PC here so I'm not sure how this affects my wishes. Due to the circumstances, I have retired from actively editing, but forgot to request deletion of my userspace before I left. I have advised by Pedro that I should come here and make my request, where an admin with checkuser priveleges might be able to confirm my identity. I've also made similar requests to Alison and Jimbo Wales and plan to make a note in the checkuser debate. Thank you. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively fresh sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul20070 and has turned up extensive sockpuppetry. There may be others involved. If we take User: Paul20070's story on face value, I believe keeping the talk pages history available would be useful in helping discover the possibility of others. Sure admins would have access to the deleted revisions, but non-admins would not.

However, I have reason to doubt the user's story in that more than one of the socks, User: Egdirf and 86.147.218.231 had almost identical wikistalks that degraded into warnings with User:TomGreen as did User: Paul20070, which would strengthen the reasons to keep the history available. Note that the user has moved his talk page with history to User_talk:Paul20070/Archive1. He had asked for this to be speedily deleted and I declined for these grounds. I'm glad it's here for review. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm starting to feel like I'm being wikistalked a bit. Leaving that aside, however, I have listed all of the sockpuppets which I believe were created or edited from my computer. The sockpuppet edits were made by two (now former) friends who I'd allowed to use my ssytem. I have now fallen out with these people and managed to obtain the passwords of four of the accounts. I've been into these, requested userpage deletion and salted the passwords so they can't be used again from another terminal.

As for my dealings with User:TomGreen. These occurred in November/December 2007 when he started editing pages which were on my watchlist. Many of these seemed to be him adding facts which could not be substantiated (and I did check them out). I wasn't sure how to deal with it because he appeared to be an otherwise good editor (I guess he must have been fooling around), but tried to advise him not to make edits of this nature. This ended with him accusing me of harrassment, so I decided to back off, and have tried as much as possible to avoid clashing with him since then. Anything else involving TomGreen is not down to me, and when discovered the extent of what had been going on, I decided it was best all round if I retired. I would now just like to vanish from Wikipedia, so I can move on from this unfortunate episode. Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Right I've fixed this per WP:IAR. I've deleted both the user talk and user page. They can easily be recreated if any SSP issues come out, and I've left a note to that effect. I do believe this IP is this user, as I can't see why any IP would go to these lengths for deletion of something that doesn't affect the main body of the work. No more drama, job done, sadly we lose an editor but we also avoid any drama. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me. It is very much appreciated. I'll keep an eye on the checkuser debate, then head for the hills once that's concluded. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Grawp blocks

Just as a heads-up, I've just blocked two of the recent vandals to J. K. Rowling, today's FA, as sockpuppets of User:Grawp. Seeing as they both edited the same article in the same way within minutes of each other ([198] [199]) in classic Grawp-esque style, it looks pretty obvious. Because of Grawp's recent abuse of {{unblock}}, I also pre-emptively protected both user talk pages. On a somewhat unrelated note, J. K. Rowling is now also semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to check out the AfD of the J.K. Rowling article that was just created as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef. blocked Jhvbhjvjhvjhv (talk · contribs) for that, and closed the AfD. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp, but User:Primetime. Thatcher 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the page really need to be protected until the 12th? Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR, I suppose. This article was getting banged up real hard. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but at this point editing of the article has virtually stopped. Check the history. I think the benefit of having new and unregistered users edit is far more beneficial than having very few edit because of a few troublemakers. Troublemakers that we can deal with in the usual way. There is another section on this below where I made the same point. KnightLago (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of protection given in the section on that below and on my talk page. Should be lifted soon-ish, although I note the article is still being vandalized despite the semi. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I blocked Iamnefarious (talk · contribs) as another Grawp sock for this. Hut 8.5 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly racist editor at Talk:William Shockley

This edit makes me think the editor in question is pushing a racist POV. Closer examination of his contri butions seems to confirm it. Can a neutral admin take a look-see an see if any action s warranted? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor has an obvious interest in Eugenics, but that does not make him/her a racist. I have an interest in Autogyro's, but that does not make me a flyer (sadly...) User:Zero g is using talkpages and appears to be interested in keeping to consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC) nb. I am not unbiased - I am anti racist (among others) and I can't see a racist agenda.

Err, somebody asks What Wikipedia policy excludes racist POVs and sources? and you find the question alright? Last time I checked, racism as a POV had no place in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Stormfront and Ku Klux Klan, as examples, have both racist pov's and sources within the article, illustrating the racist agenda of the subject matter. Within the controversial subject of Eugenics, which is frequently based on notions of racial superiority - and class superiority, within the racial aspect - there is going to be examples of proponents pov, and the sources to back it up. There is zero tolerance of such pov and references outside of those articles which it specifically relates to - but there is no policy which specifically excludes it from the encyclopedia. If you believe there is, please point it out to me - in full, including exceptions and caveats.

Lastly, of course I find the question alright... It is always the answer (to any question) that needs reviewing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive IP

Someone please cool down this offensive anonymous 88.196.139.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 88.196.141.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All of his article edits are reverts and he constantly loses his temper by calling others "racists" and using phrases like "ethnic slur", "shame on you!", etc. Beatle Fab Four 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• More ethnic block shopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, "cool down" doesn't imply "block him immediately". P.S. If someone is getting very teazy, why not to think about resigning from adminship, for example. Politeness, politeness, and once again politeness. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs)... Yup, and you were simply reporting some questionable edit summaries relating to discussions that, in that context, are fairly well mannered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, Jimbo makes the internet not suck, and you... can finish the phrase yourself. Thank you. LOVE AND PEACE Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:75.57.186.159 misrepresented me on ANI

Normally I don't run to ANI when I have conflicts on entry talk pages, even if they are with someone who is persistently trolling the page. However, this particular user also decided to link to a supposed "debate" we were having, while discussing another editor in a thread here. The "debate" he linked to was a truncated and edited version of the actual conversation from Talk:Fitna (film), which he posted on his own talk page prior to linking to it here on ANI. The relevant section on ANI is here. I would like something to be done about this. I understand that my interpretation of his behavior as "trolling" may not be enforceable through policy, but I find it entirely improper for him to edit down a conversation and post it to his talk page and then represent it as if its the entire debate, thus entirely misrepresenting not just the conversation but the reason for which I accused him of trolling in the first place. Thanks for looking into this.PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with PelleSmith's assessment of the situation. I had advised him that if the anon user (who's acting through a fairly extensive series of anon edits, which triggered a since-concluded RfCU) could not be convinced privately to tone down his incivility to not address it in the article discussion, but to bring those concerns about the anons behavior here.

The anon, a clear single-purpose account, has been patrolling the Fitna and Fitna-related pages through a series of anon IPs, which tend to conceal usertalk discussions regarding civility and whatnot from the older tot he newer usertalk pages. Though I've had several negative interactions with him, the anon's negative interactions are not limited to just me in the article; he fights with everyone. He brings over large sections of previous posts and cross-posts to make a random point, bloating the article discussion. He ignores requests to stay on topic and remain civil.

In short, this isn't really a content dispute, but rather two users identifying another who is using Wikipedia as a battleground, and it is disruptive to the Fitna-related articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation at Balochistan Liberation Army

User:Karojaro has violated 3RR at Balochistan Liberation Army by reverting to his edits 7 times in 24 hours and is also adding original research. Even I consider his way of talking a bit harsh at my talk page. Can someone look at this matter? --SMS ^Talk 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Karojaro for 24 hours for 3RR violations. I didn't see anything overly harassing in the talk comments. User's talk page is also in my watch list to monitor his future activity. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with your block of Karojaro, I looked at Smsarmad's talk page and I must agree that his language is harsh and his edits inapporiate and without proof{verifiable} Kurtcool2 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think it appears harsh due to an inability to communicate effectively in English, that's all. That combined with obvious editorial frustration. I'm surprised that multiple sections were created on the talk page though, that's akin to spamming. The block was certainly warranted. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call it intential spamming when he used multiple headers. He's still somewhat new (only a couple hundred edits). Useight (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right Useight, it's probably not intentional - The multiple headings is most likely a consequence of being a novice user - it just appears aberrantly "spammalicious" on a talk page, especially when done in such a short period of time. That, of course, doesn't impact my feelings regarding the 3RR violation and block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But still if he was novice, he must had some tolerance to listen others. I was continuously telling him not to violate the policies of wiki, but he was saying not to teach him. --SMS ^Talk 06:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The H-word and Dana Ullman

There's been quite a bit of arguing over at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents recently, regarding User:DanaUllman (AKA Dana Ullman). Frustrations seem to be nearing the tipping point. Some admin comments would be helpful here, as nothing seems to be being done with respect to the comments already there. Relevant sections to this particular dispute include

• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#gross_WP:COI_on_pushing_of_another_shooted_down_study,
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies, and
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Shoemaker.27s_Holiday:_When_Content_Disputes_Lead_to_Attacking_the_Messenger.

A note to other involved editors: I'm deciding not to weigh in with any of my opinions here, as there were concerns about too much of that happening from involved editors in the Whig case. I can't stop anyone else from doing so, but it might be appreciated if we can keep this thread from becoming another battleground. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that one reason for the silence might be that people don't wish to plumb through the discussion without some summary first of what's going on. So, I'm going to go against my previous advice to explain how I see things. Basically, Dana has a chronic problem of misrepresenting sources in a direction that favors homeopathy. All the evidence is laid out in the above links. When these concerns are brought up with him, he starts quibbling. For instance, in the third section linked above, he pulled the discussion down into quibbling over the use of the word "retraction." It's gotten to the point where a lot of editors immediately distrust anything he says. He has a clear motivation to promote Homeopathy on Wikipedia, and yet he claims that he has no conflict of interest. (The difference between him and your average MD however is that the MD has no obvious financial benefit from promoting mainstream medicine on Wikipedia.) He's shown throughout his history here that he's practically unable to learn. I wasn't even able to teach him how to use diffs - in fact, he couldn't even tell the difference between a diff and a link to a section of a talk page. That's just one example of the difficulty in working with him. When it comes to sourcing, it's almost impossible to get him to interpret anything in any way except that which is positive for Homeopathy. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the "silence" is the lack of justification in bringing this subjective appraisal of another editor's serious academic efforts to this Noticeboard. Dana Ullman has sought to bring true scholarship to the homeopathy articles on Wikipedia - which are blantantly slanted in their language toward an anti-homeopathy bias, with deliberate attempts by a number of editors to exclude positive research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, pushing the same flawed studies over and over on different talk pages trying to get around other editor's objections that they are flawed and unsable for the article(s). That's not a serious academic effort, and in wikipedia that's called POV pushing --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did my bit here a long time ago. I don't regret that and, upon reflection, do not think that I should have consented to my original decision should have been overturned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be unlikely that you'll find an admin willing to take action on an AN/I request on this particular situation, for several reasons: a previous indefinite block was overturned, the mentoring situation is a bit unclear, and the pattern of disruptive behavior does not lend itself easily to quick, digestible presentation. If it has not already been tried, a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate setting to get more input. I don't think there's going to be a resolution here until a larger section of people weigh in. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring is finished since 1 March, like LaraLove says herself on Dana's talk page [200]. There is a message of her saying that the mentorship is still not finished, but it's from 25 February [201]

Also, notice this warning from Lara Dana, if there is another complaint about you editing article space without first reaching consensus, you'll be back on article probation. and this other one Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page(...) No pushing references of questionable reliability. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, it should be posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.. I think that Dana has broken the promises he made on unblock and should be put on probation or blocked again. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Infophile appropriately sought to get uninvolved admins to comment, but none have. He initially tried to maintain a certain objectivity (good for him), but when that didn't work, he chose to make outlandish claims that I am "practically unable to learn." He further asserted that I "quibbled" over one editor's use of the word "retraction." Yes, that is right. I asserted that the word "retraction" was never used by the researcher in question, and the editor who put this word into his mouth was inserting OR. Ironically, I asked that he retract his word "retraction," but all we got was stonewalling. And worse, the editors with whom I have had a content dispute came to his aid and simply attacked me for dwelling on this issue. Yes, I prefer to dwell on following wiki policy, in this case, OR is OR...and strangely enough, the many editors who have cited chapter and verse to me about wiki-policy began complaining that I was encouraging them to follow it.

I do not have the time that some editors seem to have to mount a more thorough defense, though clearly, the extra time that select editors have placed into attacking me and my contributions has not generated the support for punishment they wanted. It is no surprise that the editors who have been most critical of me are people with whom I have content disputes. Because I do a darn good job at maintaining civility, despite having many sock puppets going after me and my contribution, the editors who do not like the NPOV evidence I bring are now going after the messenger. One previous admin warned me about the many socks that surround me.[202] I am not saying that the editors in this dialogue are socks, though admins should note that I am generally good at maintaining civility and at giving and demanding good faith whenever possible. Yeah, I'm not perfect, and yeah, I sometimes have written a date incorrectly (we all have) or mis-written the name of a journal, but my present record of providing good RS has led to many improvements in many articles. I am a useful resource to wikipedia, and to me it is sad that some editors who disagree with the information that I bring here seek to punish me. Ironically, previous Wiki-editors have sought to create more neutral language in various homeopathy articles, though other editors have insisted upon providing RS evidence for all edits or additions. I have sought to provide RS by my referencing of research, and the vast majority of the time, I bring this to the Talk pages. We may not always agree, but let's try to get along. For the record, my former mentor, [LaraLove] had actually received "hate mail" about me, though here she expresses pleasure and surprise that she hadn't gotten any recently[203] And then, because she saw that I learned how to do wikipedia, she ended the mentoring with no stipulations [204]. Finally, for people who are new to me, I am a relatively new editor who only became active in late November, 2007. However, as a newbie, I made some mistakes and for which I was blocked. Since becoming unblocked, I have provided many contributions to this fine but frustrating endeavor. DanaUllman^Talk 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your misuse of edit summaries is getting worse and worse [205]. You claim to add a 2004 source by talk page, but the talk page is talking about how it's physically imposible that a 2002 TV program is testing a 2004 study. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(after throughly reading Dana's message) *ahem* Dana, had you followed WP:RS and WP:NPOV in the first place, or followed Jehochman's advice to take a holiday, or stopped pushing sources once they were found to be full of flaws, you wouldn't have put yourself into all these problems. It doesn't help that you keep avoiding the real issues and nit-picking at unrelated or barely related issues. You also look like you think that wikipedia is for making revolutionary science [206], which means that you never undestood the point of WP:OR on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, when trying to argue that you aren't incapable of learning, making the very mistake I used as an example is not a good tactic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A-ho, it looks like admins are once again paralysed by a CIVIL POV-pusher. Shot info (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention one who's milking WP:BITE for all it's worth. I think after your mentor is finished with you, that's a pretty good sign you don't qualify as a newbie anymore. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Dana was denied unblock by 3 different admins before being mentored by Lara, see User_talk:DanaUllman/Archive_1 --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What does LaraLove think about this? Dana was unblocked on condition of mentorship, as I understand it, and Infophile seems to be suggesting that the mentorship did no good. I have little interest into wading into this whole mess to do a thorough investigation of my own, but if the mentorship did do no good - and I'm not taking Infophile's word on that, which is why I'd like to hear from Lara - I say the indefinite block gets restored. I'll leave a note at her talk page asking for her thoughts, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Lara hasn't commented, but based on my own review of the evidence provided, I would favour a restoration of Dana's indef-block or an indefinite topic ban from homeopathy-related articles (which would likely work out to be the same thing, given the single purpose nature of the account). The reasons for it now seem every bit as valid now as they were in November. I'd restore the block or issue the topic ban myself, but I suspect that I'd be perceived as too involved, given a small bout of involvement I had with the homeopathy article on the pro-science side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the details of Dana's mentoring can be seen here, if anyone cares. Before I really comment, I'd like to point out a few things:

1. Dana making wiki-markup mistakes is irrelevant and pointless to even bring up.
2. Every editor with good intentions deserves a chance to edit Wikipedia. So I really don't care if three admins or 30 refused to overturn his block before I did, or who I pissed off in the process.
3. Dana's had to deal with a lot of bullshit in his time here. Most of which he's brought on his self, but abusive sockpuppets and hate mail (I assume it wasn't all sent just to me) are just a couple of the issues. And he has managed to stay pretty civil through all of it.
4. Speaking of sockpuppets, I seriously, seriously doubt Dana has any.

Now, as far as his recent edits. I haven't seen them. He says he's made constructive, lasting improvements to various articles. If this is the case, a ban would be a detriment to the project. If administrative action is indeed necessary, an RFC/U with more than three diffs would be the best course of action. When I ended my mentorship of Dana, it was with no expressed conditions. At that point, if he didn't have a grasp on acceptable behavior, that was his problem. On his own. Good luck. That's exactly what I said and exactly what I meant. If his edits warrant a block or, less likely in my opinion, a ban, then that should be determined through the proper channels. Not some weak ANI thread. Lara❤Love 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a RFC/U would be ok. The probation report page has tons of diffs dated after the mentorship end, and the diffs before that date can be used to show that the same behaviour continues. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lara's points:

1. The reason I brought this up was to demonstrate both the difficulty in working with Dana and how he never seems to learn anything while here. Simply being unfamiliar is one thing. Not even being able to notice the difference between a what a diff links to and a link to a section is quite different, especially when a lot of the concerns with Dana deal with his reading comprehension when it comes to studies.
2. Here's the thing: It's debatable whether Dana has good intentions here. It seems clear to many that his intentions here are only to make Homeopathy look good - that is, to promote his own profession. What edits has he made to any other area of Wikipedia to improve it? How is not a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest?
3. I'll let User:Filll handle this one. He seems to like ranting about this stuff.
4. I tend to agree here. With someone like Dana, it seems more likely that those who are suspected of being sockpuppets are simply fans of his. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, this is the extent of my participation in the matter. I don't want to read rants from Filll, or anyone else for that matter. I've made my recommendation, that's all I've got. Lara❤Love 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana is a good and serious editor. Every good faith person sees it. In this forum every time there is a dispute, different editors try to block someone they disagree with. This is not kind and/or civil. Focus on the article, please.--Area69 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not like ranting about these situations particularly. I find them tiresome and repetitive. And with all due respect, I question some of the objectivity of any admin who would back an appeal for sanctions against someone for the allegedly unCIVIL action of calling someone a "homeopathy promoter". That really is a bit over the top, if you will pardon my boldness. It is difficult to retain much credibility after that, it would seem to me.

Nevertheless, I do see a problem with Dana which I hope can be resolved, although it has proved impossible so far, even after many months of attempts. Dana is clearly a world expert in this WP:FRINGE area. However, he misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and its mission. In particular, he has a massive problem with NPOV, and believes that Wikipedia is a forum for him to evangelize for his WP:FRINGE position without any interference from the mainstream or contrary evidence or criticism. And that is the root cause of all the problems. Until this is resolved, one way or another, there will continue to be trouble.--Filll (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so now bringing up an issue with an editor on ANI is uncivil? You might want to be careful about confirming the problem with frivolous civil complaints.

Anyways, is anything going to come here, or would it be best to go start an RFC on Dana? I personally have my doubts it will work, as I'm sure every pro-fringe editor will show up there, and Dana will just focus on those to confirm his position, ignoring the input of every neutral editor who might show up... But you never know. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

sock case

See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DanaUllman. A checkuser should be used to confirm it --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) It got closed 5 minutes after opening it, the closing admin says that it lacks evidence for checkuser --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)