Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268

Regarding the article X-Ray Stinger, a single user User:Xraystinger edits (talk) has been editing it and has removed a Speedy Delete tag from the page (twice). The user has a clear Conflict of Interest and has twice removed a COI tag as well. The article should be speedily deleted because it does not properly assert notability (there is no notability, though it currently makes a weak attempt). The user has been welcomed, but appears to not have read the important guidelines. Hu 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem which I need to hand off to another editor or group of editors. If you're an enthusiastic RC patroller who isn't afraid to get her or his hands dirty with IP users, then this is a job for you.

Since this spring, I've been trying my best to watchdog the

, the debate is about who is or is not actually considered a swingman. Often there will be a section detailing "the best" players at each position; these are essentially lists of that editor's favorite players.

I don't have to explain the futility of all this: one man's notable current point guard is another man's chump. It's all opinion, none of these editors ever comes up with a source to back up a claim.

A fairly frequent offender was a user working under the accounts User:Tmacrockets0115 and User:Kobetmacyao, although those accounts have been abandoned since I asked them to start communicating before making contentious edits. All of the POV edits have been coming from IPs since then, it seems. For more background, check out this old AN/I post.

I'm not around enough to babysit these articles anymore. What the articles REALLY need is an intrepid editor to go and find real citations and reasons to list players as being the best ever; the NBA 100 Greatest list published by the league itself a few years ago would be a great start. I might even get around to it myself later if I find the time, but if other editors won't watchdog the articles it won't be worth it.

So please, add these articles to your watchlists and try to keep them as

05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently,

) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by

peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs

))

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

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the

17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in

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

20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against

Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi ^Talk

07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman unblocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a

"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman

15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Anwar saadat unblocked

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

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

Undoing co-admins blocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We just trolled ourselves

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

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated

20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely

being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman

01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As someone who has seldom, if ever, edited 'Hindutva'-related articles, even I have been aware of Anwar's disruptive antics. Several admins are aware of this and none has the spine to do anything about it. If Bakaman(inspite of not being an admin) has taken it upon himself to fight it, he should be appreciated and supported. Not hounded and harrassed. Somebody here spoke about honouring not just the letter but also the spirit of the rules. If everyone could actually practise that, there wouldnt have been a need for Baka to take it upon himself in the first place! Also, considering that Baka did discuss his reverts on the talk page, blocking him by claiming that he was 'revert warring' is trying to pull a fast one.
• Also "six articles" is not such a whole lot for someone like Baka who's been here a long time, written dozens of articles, edited dozens more and whose watchlist justifiably should run into many hundreds. Nick is totally justified in undoing the block which actually was nothing short of harrassment. The question one should ask here is whether Moreschi and Akhilleus would have blocked an admin for 0.6R? Where were you guys when Rama was stomping up and down the Arbcom badmouthing everyone in sight or when he was revert warring with Paki editors? Where are you guys when several admins in all corners of wikipedia revert war on articles they edit? Where are you guys when an editor almost gets away with a 5RR?! Sarvagnya 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last and final time: Anwar's bad behaviour is no justification for Bakasuprman to follow suit. Indeed, it is not even the cause, since he edit wars continually. I discount all your other comments given this basic, flawed, premise. Hornplease 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just be friends?--D-Boy 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

;Admin actions between parties barred 4) As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.

The issue is in arbitration and Nearly Headless Nick has been accused of supporting the meatpuppoting of hkelkar.Until the case is over he should not have overruled the actions of another admin with reference to all those involved in the case and let the issue be decided by those not connected with the caseand clearly he should stayed from Baka issue and should have intervened raising questions about his conduct.There was an issue about an admin giving private information about a user and that user using it to harass another user whether knowingly or unknowingly is debatable will be giving this evidence and an email in a day or 2. Adyarboy 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here we go again! Any admin who wants to get involved in this might want to check out this [5] first; apparently this guy's last ploy didn't work, so he is now going to start this attack on me. p.s. I would like to see proof of the 'reactions' the red typeface could cause. I guess this guy must be a physician, as well as a journalist.Duke53 | ^Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• p.p.s. this is a picture of his user page; maybe he should be concerned about 'reactions' because of it.

  

• Somebody should tell the person in charge of the Administrators' noticeboard page that they are using some 'dangerous, reaction causing' type on this page:

Duke53 | ^Talk 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96, it looks rather petty to be complaining about a user's text colors on their userpage. Being so petty makes it more likely that other complaints from you will be ignored. Don't take disagreement with another user to this level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Morven. This is pettiness at it's most extreme, and such Nanny-state watchdogging is absurd. If a user is going to have a 'reaction' to font colors, he's not going to learn it from DUke53's talk page on wikipedia. He'll find it out on his homepage, which will undoubtedly have lots more colors in the pictures and icons. And such a person probably shouldn't be near the computer screen anyways, as the refresh rate/epilepsy link, whether true or not, has a place in pop culture already. ThuranX 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does this process go now? It doesn't seem to be on any admin's radar as being ALL THAT IMPORTANT. Having this hang over my head has become fairly wearisome (sleepless nights, no appetite, etc.) and I would like to know how it is going to be resolved. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User Abecedare is reverting cited article with improper explanation.

Check his explanations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=143046523&oldid=143046439

Check his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&action=history

06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in May for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. His account was unblocked by admin Vassyana, assuming good faith, and under stringent conditions agreed to by the user, which are listed here
However the user has resumed his disruptive editing, most recently on the

he saw in an journal article on Google books - a journal article for which he does not even know the title and author(s)!
He has been explained in detail (with reference to gold-standard sources) why his source and edits are incorrect (see Talk:Vedas#5 Vedas not 4 Vedas) but he does not seem to understand either the article content or the wikipedia policies. He has already reverted the article twice in the past hour [6], [7] and violated the conditions of his probation. It would help if an admin can look into his actions and take appropriate action. Thanks. Abecedare 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the earlier ANI thread on the user. Abecedare 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another instance a couple of days back in which

verifiability policies, and his 1-revert/day unblock condition [8], [9] Abecedare

07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've realised that I was probably edit warring and had immeadiately stopped the same. I did refer to a cited text the very next day and changed the text to keep that more appropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishwabrahmin&diff=142644388&oldid=142637275 I did not continue with edits and stopped that immeadiately. I only edited the text the next day with all the required citations.

BalanceRestored

08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor is surprisingly ignoring the facts those I am presenting http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1 and is ignoring the presence of the citations in this book. Also is challenging the book that is clearly visible.

BalanceRestored

08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It clearly appears that the editor is not trying to move the discussion in a healthy mood. Instead of trying to find the facts about the book is taking the discussion with negetive sense.

BalanceRestored

08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure wikipedia is a place where editors guide newbies and not ignore the edits the way it is being done. I understand

BalanceRestored

08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly let know the details about ignoring the book that was clearly visible?

BalanceRestored

09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Covell/Diaz Pertini school raid... incident

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if a couple other users could help me out with a problem user Indynessuno (talk · contribs), who is insisting (he initially made a legal threat, against which I have given him a single (final) warning in my reply) that I help him post an article relating to events regarding the 27th G8 summit. He claims to be (and I assume that it is a valid claim) Mark Covell, a journalist who was, according to the article, put into a coma because of police brutality in the attack. His comments initially primarily concerned my deletion of Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid which I deleted under CSD G8 after deleting Diaz Pertini School Raid itself because of an expired prod, and additionally (having noted this in the deletion log) CSD A3 (which may have been borderline or A1). Administrators viewing these deleted pages will note that Covell (or rather, although he doesn't seem to be the same person at all, User:HResearcher) posted his essay on the talk page, rather than the article. I'll ask HResearcher about his post for Covell later.

The primary problem with this is that the user appears to want to completely disregard

. He's being a little difficult, so I'd appreciate it if some other users take a look at the thread on my talk page and perhaps make helpful comments.

I'd also like to note that some recent vandalism to my userspace has been made by 2 anon users, whose IPs both trace to the United Kingdom or even (one) London, where Covell claims to be located:

81.86.107.17 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism (not warned, page is a sandbox.)

82.2.224.210 (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism diff of self revert (?!?) (not warned, self revert within 60 seconds)

Again, if you have some time, I'd appreciate more eyes on the incident, not least because I think that he won't appreciate my next reply - I have to clarify what I said and explain that his position really isn't supported by policy. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of his posts contain one legal threat or another - he's now threatening legal action if his account is not deleted and we do not produce an article at his behest. --Fredrick day 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleti (talk · contribs)

Despite of being warned multiple times (his response, blanking), user has continued in uploading same copyrighted images multiple times and later puts them on to

08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy has a lot of energy. He original edit was pretty bad though, so the real Nate was probably correct to revert. I've extended semi-protection for an additional 2 weeks this time. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

is a better place for this, but the Sockpuppet page for that user redirects to a checkuser page, which isn't what I'm looking for.

Simple block will do, possibly sprotecting the page as there's not much of a reason for anons to edit it. --Sigma 7 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird edit/Possible sock...

Check out Snapped_tooth's contributions, and his very first edit.... I don't know who, but I think this could be a sock of someone attempting to evade a block. Davnel03 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhapses, but there simply isn't any evidence that this sock is being used to evade policy. ---

WRE

) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not, I'll keep an eye on it though. Davnel03 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. ---

WRE

) 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out... [12] Davnel03 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err... it all had sources, he removes the ref-tag-name and then removes everything associated with it. THEN he claims he didn't know it was sourced. Weird. Yeah, keep an eye on this guy. ---

WRE

) 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

After a discussion with

Burntsauce, who hasn't edited since 30th June. I've filed a request for checkuser. Davnel03

18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artemisse and edit history of Great Pyramid of Giza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IPSOS (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All the puppets were blocked hours ago.. what else do you want? ---

WRE

) 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Could someone take a look at the following quotes by

an article. Such behaviour is unacceptable, and I suggest appropriate sanctions against him, including removal of his admin privileges.

Here are the diffs:

[13] [14]

In the first one, I wrote that I do not edit much any more, and Francis' response was:

"Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. "

Not only it's a personal attack, it's directed to prevent an editor from editting in general.

In the second one, I voiced my concerns over his neutrality, and his response was:

"And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you."

I am not sure calling editors absurd is acceptable for an editor, let alone of an adminstrator.

Furthermore,

His comment on the talk page was "drop it, it isn't going in": [16]

Clearly, using a language of intimidation to exclude sourced information from an article is unacceptable. I don't think this user should be allowed to edit on this particular article.

Please note that this user has previously relinquished his administrative privileges due to violating 3RR. --TigranTheGreat 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an administrator, thus no administrator abuse is possible. — Moe ε 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It doesn't excuse him from using personal attacks and intimidation, or from *owning* an article. He acts abusively as an editor.--TigranTheGreat 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just judging from your own account I tend to agree. Perhapses a

WRE

) 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that one needs a more in-depth study of this issue than a few differences provided above. Anyway, TigranTheGreat, what administrative action do you expect will be taken? If you want Francis Tyers blocked, then it's unlikely to happen based only on your diffs. Beit Or 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of any of the three accusations in when reviewing the talkpage. I do see a great deal of POV pushing, from contributors editing in accordance with the views of one side or the other. I note that Francis Tyers participates in a great many of the discussions, and it appears that he is attempting to keep as much a NPOV (un)bias as possible in the article. His perceived summary removal of edits which might appear to go against that standard is not WP:OWN.

In a contentious subject involving nationalistic perceptions over recent conflicts I think the best option is to continue good faith discussions on the article talkpage, and not attempt to influence the editing of an article by cherry picking from the comments of persons with different views in an attempt to have them blocked or otherwise sanctioned. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If block is unlikely, simple warning would be more than appropriate. Are you saying that the his behavior is acceptable? So, editors can call each other absurd? And tell others "you shouldn't edit, since you can't judge what's bad or good"? Because if no action is taken, that's what will be regarded as acceptable.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that, and "absurd" isn't as bad as your making it out to be.. A block is out of the question for this situation, a polite message telling him that he could be nicer isn't too far fetched, so why not tell him yourself if you feel this way? — Moe ε 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the "...good or bad" comment, I feel that it is a completely legitimate comment. You have a distinct POV toward the article, which is fine for when it comes to locating and referencing content but not as helpful in determining what constitutes a balanced article. I believe that Francis Tyler is noting that a reduction in your contributions would be a potential de-escalation of the POV pushing endemic in the article, a position confirmed by the comment that another editors contributions (supporting an opposing interpretation) is often as "absurd" (that is, extremely biased toward a particular viewpoint). Steven Tylers comments are in keeping with an editor who has expended some considerable effort in attempting to maintain an article which is both as well balanced as possible and also include the contrary viewpoints of the protagonists (regarding the event, not the editors). If Steven Tylers comments are a little terse now it may because he has already provided his rational (in perfectly civil terms) several times before. Be that as it may, I will request that he considers his future interactions with you in regard with this matter. LessHeard vanU 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow I'm honoured. I welcome people to look at the historical exchanges on the talk page and in the archive. Both of that article, of

. My comments should be taken in the context of a long-time mediation between Armenian and Azerbaijani users. I'm not going to comment on Tigran's views on the massacre as he has explained them to me in private, but needless to say, the Armenians would like to downplay the massacre as much as possible, and the Azerbaijanis would like to upplay it as much as possible.

And finally, in response to the section title, "using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers". I can't abuse administrative powers because I voluntarily de-sysopped after violating the 3RR. I have not used any personal attacks against Tigran or any other user on that talk page. If I have intimidated Tigran by my force of personality or superior display of talent, or have induced fear in him, then I apologise.

At most I am guilty of being a little uncivil, and for that I also apologise, but keeping this article neutral is quite some work, and it can get frustrating going over the same points over-and-over-and-over. -

·

11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is the edit that Tigran would like included. -

·

11:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Tigran does not complain, when further up the page I use the same language dealing with the opposite side, "The quotes will not be included. - Francis Tyers · 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)" from

12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the last point is well made; the complainer only refers to the tone when addressed, and not in relation to the other parties. LessHeard vanU 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a quick message and say that BJBOT deleted dozens of my images - scans of DVD covers and movie posters that were tagged correctly and used correctly under fair use act. I don't have the time to go and restore all of them, but it's pretty frustrating that I followed the rules and did hours worth of work only to have a crazy bot remove them. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so I missed all the messages about deletions. Just to be clear, all these images were correctly tagged and appeared to be OK under the usage guidelines.

15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot did not delete them; it tagged them as being orphaned fair use images and notified you as such. This means that your images were not being used in articles and were deleted several days later by an administrator. The bot did nothing wrong here. Metros 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples we can take a look at? ---

WRE

) 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the huge number of warnings on

User talk:Steve Eifert. Corvus cornix

19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

JackPee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fits the pattern of the sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. The username is in CamelCase, just like the last seven sockpuppets. The user created some hoaxes, including Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, Ninja No Evil (a Naruto hoax, some of the sockpuppets I've reported here have created hoaxes that are very similar to that) and List of songs in My Gym Partner's A Monkey, which are both related to pages edited by this vandal. Pants^(T) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:172.164.196.50 added a contradict tag to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, claiming that it is an "upcoming show." Pants^(T) 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes Deleted and sock smacked. SirFozzie 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

After deleting an article that User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt posted—which was a clear attack article—and ultimately after said user threatened continued vandalism via a message on my talk page ([17]), I blocked the user indefinitely. The user then responded with an unblock request with a clear legal threat ([18]). Besides upholding the block, what else needs done with this? —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upheld. Further action: block, revert, ignore, repeat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keen followers of this channel might remember that this user was recently blocked because he was unable to understand that his actions were disruptive - in particular his series of POV red army crimes articles (all deleted). He was unblocked and has now been reblocked for disruption - one of his original claims that his userpage was hacked and he's busy building a bigger and bigger userbox that lists which users were involved in the hacking - see here. This guy just doesn't get it - wikipedia or how to be part of a community. Anyone want to lock down his talkpage to stop his soapboxing and accusations of hacking against good faith editors. --Fredrick day 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. People, please, I know him from Lithuanian Wikipedia. Stop waisting your time with him. It's absolutely hopeless matter. Renata 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be a SPA. I'll give them a final warning, and blocks will follow if they persist.-gadfium 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, I submitted an MfD after getting no response to a warning over userpage content, on the premise that at the time it was full of material not related to WP, from an editor with 13 article edits out of 467 at the time. The user then cleaned out all the material, at which time I withdrew the MfD. Gundor has since replied with this diff in a old discussion on my talk page, and then added what ended up being this diff at the bottom. The user clearly misunderstands how Wikipedia "takes care of things", and I'd like the user to be warned for uncivil behavior for the first diff, and also that he be educated that users issuing notices and using procedures is precisely how things are taken care of on WP. MSJapan 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a suspicious mind but there seem to be single purpose accounts hitting Narcissism and Psychopathy over the past 3 or 4 days, with determined "similar but different" POV-pushing...

It could be just coincidence and good faith newbie enthusiam, at the start of the holidays, and so far I have treated it as such, but I would rather someone else was keeping an eye on it too please? --Zeraeph 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A team of anons and SPA-ish accounts keep reverting Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a version with uncited attacks on Mr Taheri. (Note this edit's summary: "RV, well there are about 12 people who are dedicated to blocking your attempted whitewash of the Taheri entry. Either compromise or have fun reverting forever".) The article is now semi-protected. See

for more details.

One of the SPA-ish accounts, Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs), has now reverted to the bad version at least 3 times after getting a {{uw-biog4}} warning from me. Could an admin investigate and take appropriate action, please? Thanks, CWC 01:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit-warring there, and it's a little out of hand. I'm not really sure which edit I agree with, but some of the

information warred over is not cited sufficiently. I suggest you guys work it out on the talk page to find a compromise version which is properly cited. --Haemo

02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the contributions of this user please. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[19]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Will an administrator please attempt to talk with Mr wiggl3s (talk · contribs)? The editor has, since he or she created his or her account in September 2006, posted copyrighted material on many occasions to his or her user page without evidence of the permission of the copyright holder. I approached the editor in early April,[20] perhaps too aggressively, again later that month, [21] and again two days ago.[22] The editor has neither responded to me nor has posted anything in any talk namespace.

I fear that after my approach in April and after having removed two copyvios,[23] [24] Mr wiggl3s will not respond to me, but he or she is continuing to post copyvios (even today), and something needs to be done. Will an administrator familiar with copyrights please attempt to contact the editor? Thank you, Iamunknown 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As he'd posted yet more copyrighted material on his user page, I've removed the material and protected the page. Hopefully that'll get his attention enough to discuss the issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully Mr wiggl3s responds. --Iamunknown 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please intervene at the images Image:Godmotherback.jpg Image:Godmotherfront.jpg and the article

02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other editors you're editwarring with are correct, you know.

Carson

02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no fair use rationale for those images. You must have a fair use rationale to include them. See

Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale.--Chaser - T

02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a fair use rationale on the front cover; now it just needs to be reduced in resolution. I don't believe the back-cover will qualify, even with a fair use rationale, so I left it alone. - auburnpilot talk 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no possible justification for including the back cover, in light of

WP:NFCC #3 "minimal use". Additionally, your efforts to slap four fair-use portraits into Griselda Blanco is quite clearly against policy too - one image might be okay, and a strong case could be made for zero non-free images since she's still alive and thus the image is replaceable. More users should watchlist both of these pages to help enforce our fair-use policies. (ESkog)^(Talk

) 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PianoKeys has now re-inserted the back cover image into the article. Corvus cornix 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no non-free use for a backcover, unless the backcover is notable, or explicitly discusses (perhaps a unique artistic back cover that we have cited art critics discussing). This particular back cover isn't even mentioned in the article, and I'm sure we don't have a source that discusses the visual appearance of the back cover, so I believe this image could just be deleted. As for the other images, there is no excuse to have 4 non-free images of a possibly living person. Since the person was deported and whereabouts unknown, I could understand possibly 1 (or maybe a mugshot/booking photo), but not 4. So, I basically agree with all that has already been said above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would somebody please intervene at this article, you can check the articles edit history to see the extent of the problem. I added images with appropriate license +tags of Griselda Blanco to the article and one or two editors keep reverting them. Would you please intervene to avoid and edit war. I will abide by others input, perhaps you could comment on the articles talk page. thank you. PianoKeys 10:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog is correct. There's no reason we should have an overabundance of non-free images in that article, especially since they're all being used for decorative purposes. Please read our

fair use replaceable" argument could be made. — Rebelguys2 ^talk

10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images are allowed to be used. read the rationale at each one. PianoKeys 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

She's still alive. Besides which, you have provided zero fair use rationale for the use of any of those images. Corvus cornix 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

PianoKeys, please read the 10 points at

WP:IDP#Fair use rationale, and make sure your images have an individually catered fair use rationale. Using the template there could help. I think that in this particular case, this individual is notable due to her criminal record, that one mugshot photo could be used because we can't go out and personally book her again and take another photograph (i.e. a mugshot is not only irreplaceable, but closely associated with her notability). But stretching it to 4 non-free images for an article of that size (and the images are basically being used for decorative purposes anyway), is too much in my opinion.-Andrew c ^[talk]

14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

K P Botany

Another note to the administrators please, regarding the simply awful behavior of KP Botany towards a few who were new to Wikipedia and really needed someone to be encouraging and helpful. He has insinuated on this page, that we are responsible for other good administrators departing Wikipedia, due to their extremely difficult experiences with us. However fact is, we would surmise that it might be more likely due to his contamination. Please know that Absolutely no instances of what I've seen so often on this site, such as Trolling, Stalking, use of Vulgarity, Personal attacks, etc., etc, or any kind of bad behavior by myself or associates, have occurred on the Daniel Rodriguez talk pages or anywhere else, where we have been a party. We simply have higher life standards than that. It should be noted also, that we asked for help on a few other administrations talk pages, when we learned that we had much to learn and were not knowledgeable in what was required to get this article to Wikpedia standards. That is the ONLY reason Jeff kindly accepted the challenge of helping educate and information us. He was Always polite and understanding, and together with the valuable and important information I provided, was able to bring this article up to a very high standard. Botany's claims are absolutely inaccurate, and border on Libel. He is NOT a positive force, despite some of his good additions to Wikipedia. His contributions on our page, for the most part, were patronizing, and unthoughtful comments to attempts to do what was being asked. I highly request that all his activity towards newcomers be Very carefully monitored in the future. Thank you again. (retired) 66.216.231.232 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of WP:AN/I VK35 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you referring to yourself in the plural? Are there multiple users using this account? Corvus cornix 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. See User talk:Leah01, the blocked sockpuppeteer, & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Operadog. Apparently an entire "family" used the same computer to create several accounts that were all single-purposedly adding essentially promotional content to a couple of articles. This became an issue when they vote-stacked on an AfD.

KP Botany (talk · contribs), an admittedly abrasive editor, was involved in all this and is the target of this IP who seems to be seeking some sort of redress against KP's manner in the matter. — Scientizzle 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Good grief. I had hoped that my earlier post was to be my last. However please allow me to make one more thing perfectly clear, and Please check it out for yourself. Previous commens (and others on various Talk pages) and particularly the mention of "promotional information".. is at the best, very misleading. The truth is that I am among those who Began/created several articles..No one else!! such as Chelsea Opera, Maryann Mootos, Broadway Magic, and the more well known Daniel Rodriguez pages, with help from a few who knew a bit more than I, but clearly not enough. We did ask for help when we were not even told why everthing we had put on the pages, were being either removed or filled with a bunch of symbols that none of us, understood and felt was someone just being mean or playing some kind of game. I don't think anyone even discovered "talk pages, and other places where, IF we had more time, would have done so and eventually figured things out..however the treatment we were given, was far less than helpful. The reason I was deserted by my helpers and left to do and keep these articles moving in the right direction. This past year has been the most stressful thing I have ever encountered in my life. So please know that you are not being given the true picture of events and why things happened as they did. Any "promotional" information that was being addded, was done, as it was felt that was what was being asked for to make it more "journalistic" and more up to Wikipedia demands. Jeff and a few others were the only ones to realize, that perhaps we had jumped into the deep water before even knowing how to tread. Absolutely true. So please get your facts right, check the talk pages, and stop making these inaccurage claims. Please, just take this and read it and allow me to continue in my retirement.. As far as wanting any "redress" against Botany, (Someone else's words and opinions - not my own!)all I want is to hopefully help others from this kind of awful experiene on Wikipedia. It should Never have happened. I love Wikipedia and will always use this as a basis for my work and do recommend it to others, but as far as becoming part of the "team".. NO WAY! Never again! Please take this and make a the first step in a more positive experience for all. We will all be the better for it..Best of luck! 66.216.231.232 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) It is Really Most frustrating to see so much use of a few admin. to put words into posts that indicate I have said it or done it..most are false and irresponsibly misleading.. one big reason also that this has been such a Terribly Negative experience. I think the Aministrations should be examples of the best we can be, not the worst.. and please stop putting words in my mouth, that I never uttered!!!!! Really don't like that!!66.216.231.232 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will allow me a bit more space here please. First to say that when I began all these articles, it was a choice I had to make, of either jumping in and just doing it, or wait to navigate through the vast numbers of pages, to try and understand how things should be done on Wikipedia. But I felt my previous professional experience in managing several internet sites, might have given me enough basic understanding, to be able to create something good here or at least get it started. Like most, I have a very demanding life, a full time job, a part time job and other committments, such as travel, etc. I simply did not have the luxury to give the necessary time, that clearly is required for a novice. Perhaps if there was just one Single page, that would be clearly - something I had been perhaps even Reguired to be read, before even pemitted to make a contribution, some of this might have been avoided. Not sure, but I do know that there is Way too much information for the average person to be able to read and absorb, to be able to come here and be a positive contributor, without risking what I did. and the treatment received.. So again, please take my comments as a hope to turn this regrettable experience for myself and others, into something positive for the future. (hopefully retired again..no more comebacks..lol) 66.216.231.232 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. Eep has absolutely no respect for the encyclopedia or those who work on it, as his
  desat
  07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I also endorse the block. Eep is the most unpleasant editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I feel this AfD and its talk page are perfect examples of Eep's behavior and his refusal to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He has been given more than enough chances to change his constant incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I would fully support a permanent ban. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I previously indef blocked Eep a couple weeks ago for the same reason: constant disruption and massive unilateral refactoring of disambiguation pages against consensus, blatant incivility, and repeated personal attacks despite a multitude of warnings and prior blocks, as the RFC Coredesat linked to demonstrates. He appealed the indef block and it was reduced to 24 hours. He has toned down his incivility somewhat since (though he continues to use words like "duh" in edit summaries), but his disruption and disrespect for the community continues. As there is no indication that Eep is willing to work in a civil manner with the community despite plenty of chances to improve his behavior, and this is a community project, it seems an indefinite block is the proper solution. Ƙ
  ɱρᶓ
  ȶ 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Can't say I'm surprised. I put a short block on Eep in the past and his behavior has not exactly improved since, more like the opposite. >Radiant< 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should clean out his userspace; it's being used as a storage for deleted articles. >Radiant< 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sadly endorse this action. Sometimes, despite good intentions, there's a user who just doesn't seem to get what we're all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I,ve create or corrupted Template:POTD_protected/2007-07-15 trying to view a projected image from Picture of The Day archive. Could somebody please either delete or re-instate page for me? Sorry for being so incapable. --Eddie | Talk 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

done. Agathoclea 09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way:

• User was blocked for threatening litigation on someone else.
• User also made a bunch of sockpuppets. vandalized pages and repeatedly violated
  WP:CIVIL
  .
• User was recently unblocked because the litigation issue is cleared up - but the damage and insults done by the user were not rectified and it is a hot button issue for those affected.
• and keep in mind, the sysop admin who unblocked said user is being questioned for this unblocking.

Can the user be re-blocked for previous abuses that are separate from the reason for the block?

Before you ask, who are we talking about? I want the basic question answered first.

But for the sake of clarity, I am discussing this: Unblocking of Davnel.

Thank you, Guroadrunner 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest talking with the unblocking admin first, the unblock decision may have involved information that's missing from the above summary. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone delete some attack image versions of Image:Runescape weapons specialattacks darklight-weaken.gif please? Sorry about all my reverts to it by the way, something lagged for a minute and it wouldn't bring back the good version. Cheers, CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they can. Cheers, WilyD 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:John has archived my complaint about User:Akradecki, claiming that it is a mere content dispute over fetus in fetu. A content dispute is involved; however, my complaint here (AN/I) concerns inappropriate behavior by Akradecki. Akradecki has:

1. threatened me with blocking (examples here and here)
2. slandered me by grossly misrepresenting my contributions to fetus in fetu as nothing but deletions and characterizing them as "tantamount to vandalism" (here)
3. repeatedly made ad hominem remarks to me and about me (several examples here and here)

I might disregard such incivil behavior in a newbie, but User:Akradecki is an Admin. I also don't think much of User:John for covering for User:Akradecki (compare this with this and this).

--Una Smith 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see anything here needing administrative action. I would far rather focus on improving the article, wouldn't you? --John 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Following this incident report and

06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Molag Bal in my opinion. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Daniel 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This checkuser proved wrong yesterday, so I don't see why this is still a subject of debate. I've removed the tag from his userpage. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is completely inappropriate behaviour from Daniel and Riana. Those blocks were way out of line. I'm very, very disappointed with this whole situation. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to completely agree that the block should not have been made. The checkuser made it very clear that the vandalising IP was Molag Bal and that Qst was completely unrelated. Rushing to block an established editor on the basis of dubious evidence is very disappointing and, as is now clear, was only ever going to inflame the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is the second time Qst/The Sunshine Man has been found adopting a Molag Bal sockpuppet (previously happened with Retionio Virginian. There's no checkuser evidence, but there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to show a bothersome connection between the two users, and considering Qst's behaviour yesterday following his aborted RfA, which likely culminated in vandalism on Moreschi's talk page, a block was completely in order. Nick 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Smells like meatpuppetry to me. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick, a block for 32 days? I agree he was trolling but long term established users do not get a month and a day block for that... 24 hours would have sufficed to let him calm down. There may be an unfortunate connection... have you not considered Molag Bal actively finds Qst? Majorly (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate connection extends to shared editing interests, pointing more to meatpuppetry or unprovable sockpuppetry rather than a simple passing acquaintance. Nick 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's true to say that they generally hang around each other (in the sense that Qst has adopted a number of Molag socks). However, it seems pretty unclear to me as to whether this is Molag hanging around Qst and asking to be adopted by him on each incarnation or whether they do know each other. Either way though, I don't see much evidence of meatpuppetry from their wider edits. Take this RfA for instance, a page I found them both contributing to. Qst supports strongly whereas Molag's sock opposes. Now that doesn't prove anything of course, but this isn't a case of Molag agreeing with everything that Qst ever does. Also, the two got into a big argument with each other after Qst's recent RfA. Will (aka Wimt) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, the IP was not commented upon in the checkuser. My point is that continuing to accuse him of being a Molag Bal sockpuppet in spite of its results is unreasonable. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my point too. I believe that Qst and Molag may know each other, but it seems very unlikely on present evidence they are the same person. And a big of

assuming good faith doesn't hurt, considering there was no imminent need to block Qst. Also, in relation to that IP, although the checkuser may not have specifically stated it on that page, it is an IP from a range that Molag uses (not one that Qst uses). Will (aka Wimt

) 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an update on this issue from the various administrators involved. It appears that Qst has been indefinitely blocked now and at his request. I would appreciate clarification as to the basis upon which he is believed to be a Molag Bal sock. Checkuser does not support such a conclusion. What edits by Qst are sufficiently similar to those by Molag Bal? It seems that Molag Bal has at various times shown a liking for this user thriough sock accounts - does that necessarily mean they are the same person? Are users automatically tainted by association where they form a friendly relationship with the sock of a banned user (even though they may do so unknowingly?) I recognise that I may be being naive here and that I had a fondness for Qst - but I think a fuller explanation from those involved in blocking this account is called for. WjBscribe 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here goes. My original block was preventative rather than punitive. I see a lot of funny business occurring around this account - this series of accounts, as the case may be - I see reams of very damning evidence at the SSP, and I see continued bad faith gestures from the Qst account - not that I blamed him at the beginning, but after repeated appeals to calm down, he did not do so, but responded to continued baiting. OK, so I blocked based on all that. The 'one month' figure was arbitrary. I might just as well have blocked for 48 hours or indefinitely. It was an attempt to get the people involved to focus their attention on the issue at hand. All I wanted was a thorough explanation from the Qst account, since none of his previous explanations have been completely satisfactory.

• Any admin may undo my block, although that seems to be a moot point now, seeing as Qst has chosen to leave. If he is innocent, this is most unfortunate, and I will feel great regret about that. Despite some of his faults Qst was not a bad contributor, or an actively disruptive one, until matters came to a head over the past few days. If, however, he is not - and I personally think that there is considerable evidence that shows that he is not entirely so - then I believe we've stopped ourselves from being trolled. In my heart, I believe that is what is happening. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but... in defence of Riana and Daniel, Qst's edit summaries and contributions over the past few days have included a number of heated comments and personal attacks, and it is curious that both Daniel's and Riana's talk pages have been the subject of someone adding huge amounts of headlines proclaiming "QST IS INNOCENT". I would include diffs, but for some reason the large resulting pages (more than 100 KB added) make my browser freeze. The relevant diffs are in the page histories, anyway. The IPs involved, User:81.132.214.215 and User:86.148.189.170 have already been blocked. The 81.132.214.215 anon claims to be Molag Bal and not Qst, but only a checkuser would be able to establish that conclusively, and only within certain limits. The vandalism creates the appearance of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, regardless of whether or not it is actually the case. Getting back to my point, I tend to think that Qst's recent behaviour was sufficiently disruptive to merit a cool-down block. Perhaps something more like 24 hrs to a few days rather than an entire month might have been more appropriate. To be fair to Qst, Moreschi's comments on Qst's failed RfA did sound rather harsh to me, but harsh comments are not an excuse to escalate the situation. It's too bad how this all turned out, because all of this could have been avoided if one or the other party chose instead to just disengage when tempers started to rise. --Kyoko 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As the editor who originally placed the suspected sock template, I felt that there were similarities in behavior and too many coincidences that lead me to do so. --MichaelLinnear 07:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I need to explain myself a little more. When I said that a 24 hour to a few days block might have been more appropriate, I was considering solely the various personal attacks (comments, edit summaries) by User:Qst. Further blocks on Qst's account may have been justified by the actions of the various anons (User:81.153.223.189, User:81.132.214.215, User:86.148.189.170) pending findings of sockpuppetry. Could these all be separate people? Yes, they could, but the timing (all coming out now) and choice of their edits (all targeting Moreschi, Riana, or Daniel) does raise questions. --Kyoko 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst == very obvious Molag Bal meatpuppet. Not a sockpuppet, meatpuppet. Blatant tag-team. No great loss. Get over it, people. You don't adopt multiple socks of the same banned user by coincidence. Yes, I was harsh on that RfA. Mostly because I was terrified (not something that happens very often). Moreschi ^Talk 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, they don't appear to be precisely the same guy but it's very clear that they have a tag-team going on. Riana's block was wholly justified. Ƙ
  ɱρᶓ
  ȶ 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I still disagree with the idea that this is some kind of open and shut case. It's true, you don't adopt socks of the same banned user by coincidence. But as I've said above, knowing Molag, it is my belief that he asked to be adopted by Qst on each incarnation. After all, we know beyond doubt that Molag actively follows Qst around because he sees him as a friend. This does not automatically mean Qst is at fault. And I still don't understand what you all think we have gained from blocking Qst. To those that think it will somehow make Molag go away, I rather believe you are mistaken. As for IP evidence, every IP that has been quoted in this thread so far is part of the dynamic pool that Molag uses. Numerous checkusers, both on and off wiki, have confirmed that Qst edits from an entirely different ISP in a different location. As far as meatpuppetry goes, of course I can't prove that Qst didn't ask Molag to vandalise. However, we know Molag in the past has been "protective" of Qst (albeit in the worst way possible) of his own accord. Whatever has happened here, it is far more complicated than a "blatant tag team". Will (aka Wimt) 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Wimt. There's no "blatant meatpuppetry". It's Molag simply being an idiot and following Qst around. It saddens me there are people, who obviously know little about Molag Bal, that cannot accept this and are treating Qst so badly because of this... suspicion. Please get over it, Qst != Molag Bal. Majorly (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on. Haven't we been here before with another Molag Bal sock? RfA goes sour, user goes batshit insane? Then we find out a link to Molag Bal? I belive Kelly Martin filled my role on that occasion. There are too many patterns and too many coincidences here to be ignored. If Molag Bal does not == Qst, then they simply have to be meatpuppets. Regardless, Qst badly screwed us around here, and the connection to Molag Bal is far too strong to be ignored. We are supposed to use our common sense, damnit. Under these circumstances, accusations that blocking this nest of iniquity was wrong are inappropriate. It's not as if we blocked Giano, or Ghirla, or Piotrus, or Antandrus, or Dev, or someone like that - and given what I've seen of Molag Bal/Qst, I've no doubt they'll be back. Moreschi ^Talk 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I can guarantee you I'm using common sense. It just so happens, however, that knowing as much as I do about Molag, I don't agree with your conclusions. Of course Molag will be back regardless of what happens here, I've already said that. But will Qst? I hope he will but that's much less certain. As for your "it's not as if we blocked...", well so what? Qst was still a hard working editor on this project, even if he didn't write lots of articles like Giano etc. Will (aka Wimt) 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Common sense? Blocking a good faith editor because you are suspicious? That's a really good way to go isn't it? Also the fact that you don't like Qst doesn't help things hereMajorly (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually bothered to look into how Qst was chosen as an adoptee by the socks? Without that info the adoptions may be no more than unlucky coincidence, especially in light over very negative checuser results that (apparently) place them in entirely different locations. Viridae^Talk 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the main problem involving the person behind the Qst account is that he is followed around by Molag Bal, then frankly I think we've done him a service by allowing him a fresh start, away from any associations with past accounts - because he won't want to associate himself with an account that was once indefblocked. I'm not trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation in any way possible. And I object to the implication that if I've driven away a good contributor, I won't regret it a hundred times more than anyone else will. I trust that I have managed to prove over the months I've put in here that I tend to stick up for the little guy.
• Having said that, the block was preventative. The block was based on evidence I saw at the time, right in front of me. I frankly can't understand why this was such a bad thing to do. If other administrators are privy to other information, I would strongly encourage them to put that forth when they can, because all this talk of 'people who don't know Molag's style' and 'this situation is more complicated than it looks' is starting to grind my gears. I thought we were about being transparent. Please help to uncomplicate the situation. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Riana, I know you made the block in good faith, believe me. I also can see why Qst could be blocked as a cool down. I do however, think it was very unfortunate that Qst was branded as a Molag sock because, as I have reiterated, checkuser evidence is pretty clear about this not being the case. Now I'm sorry if all the talk of it being complicated is grinding, but unfortunately it isn't a simple situation. I am attempting to be as transparent as possible though. Now I think Viridae makes a good point above. What I am saying is that Molag follows Qst around, but they do not conspire with each other. I believe this is supported by the evidence of how Qst became an adopter of Molag's latest sock. Molag approached Qst and posed the question of whether Qst would adopt him on Qst's talk page, and Qst agreed to do so. Will (aka Wimt) 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I return to to the first part of my comment. If Molag is trolling the person behind the Qst account, Qst now has the golden opportunity to make a fresh start away from associations with either Molag or his previous accounts. I think he made a mistake when he returned as The Sunshine Man by making it so public that he used to be Tellyaddict. This time, should he choose to return, he need only inform people he trusts, like the two Wills and Majorly. If Qst is innocent - and I hope he is - then I hope he has not been too discouraged by this experience to not return. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am disappointed by Moreschi's comments both at the RfA and immediately above, where it's like it's OK to harass and indefinitely ban anyone who isn't some sort of higher being (and on the flimsiest of evidence too). The coincidences of adoption, and meatpuppetry by the unconnected IP address don't cut it for me. The SSP case is unconvincing, and checkuser even shows evidence to the contrary. There is but one shred of hard evidence offered - Qst reverting back to the anon's edit [25]. Note that the IP made this edit at 18:10:38 [26], while Qst made an edit 12 seconds earlier at 18:10:26 [27], on an apparently unrelated IP address (according to CU). Whether Qst remains blocked of his own volition or not, he should not be prevented from returning, if he chooses to do so. The accusations remain unproven as far as I'm concerned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser could be done on the other anon accounts involved, User:81.132.214.215, User:86.148.189.170, so as to determine any link with Qst or Molag Bal. I have to confess my ignorance about using WP:RFCU, though I do think it would help demonstrate if Qst were behind the vandalism to Daniel's page and Riana's talk page.

I still think that a short block of Qst was appropriate as a cool-down, preventative measure. A month-long block for sockpuppetry? I understand why it would be done in the face of so many coincidences, but I also see that the evidence is less conclusive than Qst's known contributions. If Qst is entirely innocent of sock/meatpuppetry here, and someone else (Molag Bal?) has been speaking on his behalf, then that form of "advocacy" is probably the worst kind of help that he could have received. Wherever Qst is, innocent or not, I still wish him well. --Kyoko 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyoko, those two IPs you mentioned are part of the dynamic pool of IPs that Molag is known to use (this has been confirmed by checkusers off wiki and it can also be seen by whoising them that they are from the same ISP). Qst was also checkusered and found to use a different ISP altogether. Thus that vandalism was undoubtedly Molag rather than Qst. Will (aka Wimt) 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If Molag Bal was behind the various anonymous vandalism, then he should surely understand by now that his efforts only hurt Qst's case rather than helped it. With this in mind, I hope that Qst isn't permanently soured on Wikipedia and that he will consider returning. --Kyoko 14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately in his attempts to defend Qst, in this instance Molag has made everything a whole lot worse. I'm hoping Qst will change his mind and decide to return too. Will (aka Wimt) 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I still have concerns, because the pattern of vandalism gives the appearance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I think Riana's block was based upon the same impression, especially in the absence of checkuser info. Given the information she likely had at the time, I can see why she would block Qst for sockpuppetry, and I don't think she should be judged too harshly. I think the discussion here has raised reasonable doubt about Qst's involvement. Lots of odd coincidences, but nothing conclusive. It seems as if Molag and Qst may know each other, but as for actual meatpuppetry, I'm just not certain. I hope that Qst is innocent. --Kyoko 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the comment above By Moreschi are outrageous, I have no connection with Molag Bal, I dont know him in real life and I didn't ask him to vandalise or post them abusive unblock requests, maybe you people should learn from thism accusing established and long term editors of sockpuppetry is not good, there are only two people on this who I consider to be decent they are Wimt and Majorly, when it came to the crunch, all the rest just went along with the flow and abonded me, what kind of community is this? Qst (Userspace) 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it from the discussions that have taken place here, there is evidence that Qst used an IP account to vandalise the talkpage of an editor he was in a dispute with - some block for that may well have been appropriate (though a month seems excessive - especially given neither side of the argument was covering themselves in glory). Opposition to his RfA was made in an unnecessarily unfriendly matter and the subsequent discussions were also carried out with an unnacceptable lack of civility and respect on both sides. RfA is a stressful process and those taking part - especially when it seems they will likely not succeed in their request - should be treated with some kindness. Qst overreacted to the hostility he was receiving but I have yet to be statisfied of any strong connection to Molag Bal. Being upset after a failed RfA is not enough to write someone off as a Molag Bal sock. Having been (unknowingly - lets assume good faith) friends with a sock of Molag Bal does not establish more than misfortune. No checkuser evidence links him to Molag Bal. Any editor may unwittingly become friendly with the sock of a banned user or find that a banned user pays them unwanted (albeit positive attention). To allow the character of someone in that position to be tarnished by association gives far too much power to banned users.

I think we should acknowledge here that Qst has not been established to be a sockpuppet and that he remains (until it is otherwise proved) a separate editor to be judged by his own contributions. WjBscribe 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite right. As I've said before, the IP that vandalised the talk page was undoubtedly from the ISP used by Molag Bal and not that used by Qst. The evidence for that is rock solid. The only question here is whether Qst asked Molag to vandalise but I strongly do not believe that occurred and see no evidence to the contrary. The vandalism of Moreschi's page was fairly typical of that of Molag who, half an hour later, then admitted that User:Francisco Tevez was a sock of his, presumable after seeing the checkuser report had just been filed and realising the game was up. Will (aka Wimt) 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think 81.153.223.189 was identified as a Molag Bal sock (see User talk:Mackensen#Qst checkuser). The identity of that user remains a mystery. WjBscribe 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it wasn't identified in that checkuser. However, checkusers off wiki have confirmed that this is on the ISP used by Molag. They have also confirmed that Qst edits on a completely different ISP. Will (aka Wimt) 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Action taken

After consultation with fellow administrators, the offer we have presented to Qst is as follows.

• Qst and all his associated accounts will be blocked or reblocked indefinitely. Their user and talk pages will be salted.
• Qst will have an account of his own choosing created for him through the normal channels.
• Qst will be permitted to edit with his new account without any let or hindrance. The only restriction is that he does not, on-wiki or privately, link between his old accounts and his new account.

The above is a thorough attempt to prevent Qst's new account from becoming involved with another Molag Bal sockpuppet. If this offer is accepted, I'm sure all administrators would appreciate if any concerns are raised in private. We would especially appreciate it if editors don't go and try to find Qst's new account, the editor responsible is not banned and there should be no tagging of any suspected accounts as being Sockpuppets of Qst or Tellyaddict. Nick 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Great idea. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problems with that. Daniel 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with sockpuppetry by multiple users across projects over the past few months (if it were not obvious from my requests across projects for checkuser), however, there is one user in question that I am unsure about dealing with right now.

In one of the checkusers, a specific account's name came up in the search that was divulged to me in a private correspondence. Within the past couple of weeks, an account with that same name was established here at the English Wikipedia. The user has not done anything wrong with this or the other account at the other project, but I am well aware that the user is in question a good hand sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer.

What should be done in this situation?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the puppeteer blocked or banned? If so, the sock is de facto abusive ("Circumventing policy", from

WP:SOCK) and should be blocked, assuming you are confident that it is indeed a sock and not a naming coincidence. That's what I'd do, anyway. MastCell ^Talk

22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The puppeteer is indeed blocked. And I am confident that the user is a sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd block the account as a block-evading (ergo policy-circumventing) sock. I'd be interested to hear what others would do, though. MastCell ^Talk 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of assuming good faith, could the suspect be asked about the conincidence? and maybe asked to change name if it turns out to be someone else? --Rocksanddirt 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would assume good faith, but the evidence is not circumstantial and this is the user that was harassing me through the e-mail service. A checkuser at meta showed that an account name (that I will not reveal yet) was the same individual as several blatant sockpuppet accounts at Meta, the Commons, and here at the English Wikipedia (and very likely at the English Wikiversity, where some other accounts showed up). I know of the IPs that were used due to e-mail headers and checkuserblocked IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he's resumed acting like JarAxleArtemis...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, sounds like the right decisions were made. --Rocksanddirt 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to know if I should do anything concerning the account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had originally reported this at

Already completely obvious, the case becomes still more impossible to deny in light of Grandia01's frequent use of "u" and "ur" for "you" and "your", as seen in these edit summaries [38] [39][40][41]. Grandia01 has been warned to avoid personal attacks on many occasions (several of these may be found on his talk page.)Proabivouac 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the foul-mouthed IP is obviously him. He needs to meet the cluestick. - Merzbow 07:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What motivated this? I can't find any prior conflict between the two of you.--Chaser - T 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the evidence is pretty strong that the IP is acting like Grandia01, but it doesn't indicate that Grandia01 is the person behind the IP (it could be someone else); as Grandia's edits are invariably before the IPs. I'm going to leave this up for other sysops to comment on.--Chaser - T 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The first Grandia01 edits come before the IP's because he's only had this IP for a few weeks. I haven't checked the histories to see what his IP was before this, though as most of the edits from the references IP appear to result from forgetting to sign in, I imagine it could be discovered. The underlying cause of conflict is Grandia01's slow edit-warring to push low-quality material onto Muhammad, and his frustration that it's invariably reverted:

• Gospel of Barnabas:[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]
• Michael H. Hart:[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]
• "Selected quotations" (note the bizarre nature of the third):[70][71][72]

These edits have been reverted by at least ten different editors, including Merzbow and myself. During this time, he has made hardly any attempt to gain consensus on talk, where it's pretty unlikely that such consensus could ever be gained. He's expressed frustration at the fact that his edits get removed, for example, regarding the Hart material and "selected quotations" respectively:[73], [74]. I haven't the time nor the inclination to review all of Grandia01's contributions, but several others I've seen range from unencyclopedic to tendentious to outright bizarre, e.g. (as referenced above): [75].

Why this juvenile attack came at this time, I have no idea. However, the alternative explanation, that another editor has cleverly stalked him for several weeks to seem like his IP in order to post the attack and provoke this complaint - i.e. a false flag operation - is just not reasonable, and I have no idea who would be moved to do that. Grandia01 isn't active or convincing enough that anyone should be inclined to put too much energy into stopping him, but is only a perennial annoyance; indeed I already feel that I've put far too much time into this thread.Proabivouac 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Unless you want some admin help with something he's doing specifically with his account, I'm inclined to drop it.--Chaser - T 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So he can post obscene attacks at will, so long as they're done anonymously or with a sock? You asked me to illustrate the existence of a previous conflict and I gave you over thirty diffs. Why did you ask, if you were only going to walk away anyhow? It is ridiculous that editors who post this kind of stuff, along with the absurd edits shown above, are welcome to contribute here, while serious editors like Giano are harassed and blocked at every turn.Proabivouac 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is strange. Arrow740 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a single personal attack by an IP is enough to even merit a checkuser, though you're welcome to file a request for one. I got involved with this when I expected it was an isolated personal attack, but there's not enough evidence to prove that Grandia01 was behind that attack, so I blocked only the IP. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into the details of the long-term problems you have with this editor, which is what this personal attack report is rapidly turning into. I suggest you file an

07:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, it only "turn[ed] into" that because you asked for evidence of a preexisting dispute, and for diffs per my talk page.

"there's not enough evidence to prove that Grandia01 was behind that attack" - how astonishingly gobsmackingly whack-me-with-a-mackerel clueless. Did you actually examine the evidence?

Grandia01 himself has not even denied it, and in fact has now virtually admitted it.[76]Proabivouac 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Chaser has now filed a checkuser request for Proabivouac. Arrow740 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive use of Checkuser if I ever saw one. Shame. - Merzbow 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

There is a

. I understand his POV, the article describes a very marginal, fringe theory about how Buddhism influenced Christianity in its formative years. The flakiness of the theories notwithstanding, I believe the theories should be presented if sourced.

User:A.J.A. on the other hand believes that the whole article is a load of garbage and wants to stubify the article against consensus. In fact, he has done so several times already despite being reverted and despite the fact that the consensus on the Talk Page is against deletion or stubbification of the article. (Or, to be more precise, there is no consensus to delete or stubbify the article.)

I have warned A.J.A. on the article's Talk Page, on his Talk Page and via edit summaries. He deleted my warning on his Talk Page with an edit summary that indicated that he thought I had no right to make the warning. About once a week or so, he comes back and re-stubbifies the article against consensus.

I think this sort of repeated insistence on pushing his POV is bordering on blockable behavior. I'm not requesting that he be blocked at this time. What I would appreciate is someone reviewing the edit history and [[Talk: Christianity and Buddhism|Talk Page]] of the article and then warning him if that seems appropriate.

--Richard 06:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwent and looked, as an editor, and without 'judging' which article is better, I can say that the stubbed version by User:A.J.A. lacks a lead paragraph and central premise of any sort. It reads as a series of unconnected, sometimes completely incomprehensible statements. I say incomprehensible because pronouns are used which refer to proper nouns which aren't in the article. I left a note about that on the talk page, but the larger issues still need Admin attentions.ThuranX 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have requested User:A.J.A. not to remove content, by stubifying, without consensus. I have also suggested that their concerns are that of a content dispute, and that they should explore the various avenues (but particularly the article talkpage), in addressing that. Hopefully this will resolve matters. LessHeard vanU 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr is misusing the concept of POV pushing, the "POV" in this case being a POV about how an article should read; by definition every edit advances a POV about how the article in question should read, which in most cases is necessarily in conflicty with at least one other user, since the previous editors could have written the article differently, but didn't. As for my POV about the substantive claims of the article, I do regard them with (well justified) contempt as ignorant nonsense of the kind which any project professing to write a dictionary should remove on sight. What is relevant for "POV pushing", however, is that fact that my version does not polemicize for my own view, while the long version does advocate Richard's (as I will shortly demonstrate).

This is only part of a consistent pattern of bad faith on his part. In his Talk page comments, and now here, he distances himself from the viewpoint advocated by the long version But when he edits the article itself (every time I touch the article he makes a series of edits; otherwise he ignores it) he invariably adds to the bias. An example:

the great king Ashoka ascended the throne, and after his conversation to Buddhism, he sent missionaries around the world to preach the word of the Lord Buddha.

In that vein, note the careful ambiguity of how he ended the first paragraph of his complaint: "I believe the theories should be presented if sourced". He's presenting them as fact, but using words here that others will take to mean that he thinks it should merely say, "So-and-so believes..." Of course, we would still need to avoid undue weight (something else he pays lip service to, then craps on whenever he edits the article).

For some time I've been considering a line-by-line demonstration of how poorly-sourced and inaccurate the article is, but I don't have much free time these days and am convinced that there is no chance whatsoever that my opponents here will consent to anything that looks like a decent article, especially with the involvement of Giovanni33 and ThuranX. A.J.A. 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There may well be valid concerns regarding the neutrality and use of language in this article. There are several ways in which you could address this, and bring in other editors to comment. I recommend you investigate these avenues. I would suggest that removing the majority of the material, including referenced passages, in the article and returning it to stub status is not an appropriate response. It should be noted that if you were to provide references contradicting those points you are uncomfortable with then it doesn't mean that they should be removed, rather that both viewpoints should be included. This is a matter to be discussed on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing load of complete OR crap. It doesn't even present it as a fringe academic opinion: it presents it as fact. The Evil Spartan 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's AFD the article again. How about that? WhisperToMe 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because a nuclear strike is always the appropriate answer to a content dispute. Take it to the article talk page. -- nae'blis 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A neutral admin was asked to look into whether reverting the article back to a stub, as a method of removing possible bias and point of view, was an appropriate act. I felt I was neutral enough to have a look, and decided it was not appropriate as there was no consensus to stubify the article. I clearly extended no opinion on the content, nor the reference or the style, since that is a matter of content dispute, and only suggested that these matters could be addressed elsewhere. If other editors feel the article needs (a lot of) work on the text, then please get writing. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned by the recent behaviour of Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · logs), an administrator since November 2005 (see log). Among some of the worrying things he has done recently are:

• Repeatedly deleting his user talk page (see log).
  • Page restored once again with summary: "crybabies need their binkies. myam mnyam mnyum yum".
• Deleting images per CSD I7 without the required 48-hour notification. After one user commented that "ignoring the arbitrary 48h is one thing, but it would help to inform" uploaders so they don't make similar mistakes in the future (see diff), Jeffrey responded with the following edit summary: "I'm an executioner, not a teacher." (see diff).
• Numerous editors, some or all of them administrators, have expressed concern about his actions and requested that he reconsider his approach, but he has always blanked their comments with edit summaries such as "views noted" (see also the deleted history here).
• In deleting his user talk page, he has used strange edit summaries such as "Bow before me, for I am your King", "Because I am the once and future king", "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to fetch me the Times and a spot of Tea", and "wakka wakka" (see log)
• On May 30, 2007, he deleted his userpage with the edit summary: "Fuck you, Veridae" (see here)
• In this edit, he removes himself from the list of admins, noting in the edit summary: "... I wish not to be pestered by anyone looking for help I will not give".

I'd prefer to avoid the bureaucracy of an RfC, so I'm noting the problem here as an "open informal complaint" in the hope that something else can be done. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear that your "open formal complaint" will be ignored by him. --Hemlock Martinis 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• AN/I is not a complaint board. Nevertheless, a quick ten minute review of his talk page shows that what you're saying has merit. An RfC would be the best way to resolve these issues. --Hemlock Martinis 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But the header of AN/I does say, "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." --Iamunknown 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear that I am an idiot. My apologies. --Hemlock Martinis 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you are not an idiot. It is a common mistake.  :) --Iamunknown 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior for an administrator. Any admin is free to take a break from editing or from adminning, but to continue performing administrator actions while refusing to discuss them with editors (except in occasional sarcastic edit summaries) is highly inappropriate, as is preemptively announcing that one will not read or respond to an ANI thread about one's behavior. I hope that someone can successfully intercede with Mr. Gustafson soon because otherwise this is heading toward an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've only been noticing this a little bit over the past few hours, but his attitude is definitely unbecoming of an administrator, or even a reasonable editor. If he doesn't want to do it anymore, he's perfectly welcome to leave. --L^augh! 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the strange thing here: from his logs, he does seem to want to do it (delete unsourced images, block the occasional vandal, etc.); he just doesn't want to interact with users on-wiki. Unfortunately, that's a bad combination. Newyorkbrad 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think his behaviour is appropriate for an administrator. --Deskana (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. His behavior isn't appropriate for anybody. Period. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did not realize that he was actually contributing. Definitely agreed, you can not edit if you refuse to discuss your edits. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He has pretty much stopped editing, except for his talk page (see Special:Contributions/Jeffrey O. Gustafson). However, since June 23 (when he first deleted his talk page), he has made nearly 400 administrative actions (mostly image deletions). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At no point have I refused any meaningful or legitimate questioning of my actions (and I have reversed several upon request). The main recent conversation where I brushed off the repeated badgerings of an editor over his uploads was from a petulant troll who has recently been revealed to have used deceptive copyleft tagging, copyright violations, and even OTRS forging. Another editor, an admin, wanted to draw me out into a time wasting philosophical debate on the finer points of wiki-policy, a debate I wouldn't waste time with any other day, and requests I thus ignored. If someone has asked a question of me, I have answered in my reversion edit summary. This is no different than blanking-archiving, the turn around is just quicker. I had been deleting my talk page for my own whacked out reasons, but it is restored for good. This is not refusal to interact, but just not interacting in the method others choose. One would imagine there are more pressing issues to address than the eccentric practices of a disenfranchised admin, but such trivial bickering is a staple of this fetid cesspool, and does not surprise me in the least. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, any admin who's tired of Wikipedia (the pros as well as the cons) should leave, not do whatever the hell he wants --L^augh! 05:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey, the admin who you claim attempted to engage you in a philosophical debate raised a concern about how your actions may be perceived, to which you replied "apologies, but at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I just don't care" (diff) and "I don't feel like answering that. Thus, my not answering it previously. Kindly leave me alone." (diff). If you "wish to be left alone", you should not be carrying out admin actions.

You write that your actions are no different from "blanking-archiving", yet you in numerous instances blanked without responding or giving someone the opportunity to respond to your post (especially once you started deleting your talk page after every few edits). Though you may see it as nothing more than "eccentric", more than a few editors have stated that it is or comes across as rude and hostile.

Lastly, your comment does not address the incivility in your edit and deletion summaries, your image deletions, and the "executioner" comment. I hope that you will not continue to dismiss the concerns raised here and your talk page; my goal is not to get you desysopped and certainly not to get you to leave. By the way, to what does the "fetid cesspool" comment refer: ANI or Wikipedia? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern here. Many administrators are getting sick of having to have the same stupid conversations over and over again, having to be eternally ready to justify their actions in the face of ignorant or self-serving accusations and/or arguments by trolls, vandals, and people who cannot, it would seem, comprehend basic stuff like fair use policy. Hands up if you're sick to death of having every single block you ever apply appealed, no matter how obviously meritorious the block, simply because the blocked user can't pass up the opportunity to declare you an abusive admin who doesn't understand policy yadda yadda yadda, thereby wasting that little bit more of the community's time. It wears you down after a while; you know it's true. Yes I agree that all administrators have an obligation to justify their actions when asked to do so, but part of the problem here is that this obligation is constantly being abused. Hesperian 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably true; so far, I just regard that sort of thing as part of the humor and the psychological insight that comes with Wikipedia, if whoever I blocked is clearly in the wrong.

masterka

06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) True, but that's what wikibreaks are for. I also want to note that there are hundreds of admins who face the same situation but do not do what Jeffrey has done. There are many solutions to the kind of exasperation you describe: take a break, get involved in less controversial actions (or actions that do not require as much interaction with trolls and vandals), cut back on admin actions and focus more on editing articles for a while, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't worry about it too much. I set up an FAQ for deletion questions (here), and it actually has seemed to significantly reduce the number of "Why did you delete my advertisement????" questions. As to blocks, if they request a review and I know damn well I was right, I just chuckle imagining the steam coming out of their ears once they see "Decline, no, really, we mean it, you can't revert sixteen times." But if it is wearing you down, probably the best thing to do would be to just request a voluntary desysop, and then have a crat re-sysop you once you're in a better frame of mind and have blown off some stress. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the "petulant troll" Jeffrey referred to above, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. First of all, his accusations of me committing "deceptive copyleft tagging, copyright violations, and even OTRS forging" are ridiculous (the worst I'm guilty of is misinformation), and for what it is worth I'll do my best to clear my name. But, this isn't about me, it's about Jeffrey, so let's stay on topic.

So, to add to the list of Jeffrey's questionable antics which Black Falcon began this discussion with:

• Jeffrey has been temporarily banned 6 times (twice by himself). (see: Jeffrey O. Gustafson's "block log" page)
• Jeffrey is consistently uncivil in discussions and edit summaries. (for example: "Because I'm a fucking monster" as an edit summary)
• Jeffrey has already been the subject of a previous administrator review/incident report (namely concerning his incivility and Talk Page purging)
• Jeffrey has also been the subject of a deletion review (again, concerning his talk page purging. A deletion review probably wasn't the most appropriate venue for such concerns, but I thought I'd mention it and provide a link anyways)
• And, on a personal note, since attempting to discuss such matters with Jeffrey, he seems to have intentionally targeted pages which I have had a hand in or images which I have uploaded. Some of these deletions were genuine copyright violations, but they were handled poorly - without notice, discussion, or civility. To add to that, just recently, he deleted images for which I've obtained GFDL permission for and documented my correspondence according to
  WP:ERP
  , even though he has admitted to not having access to the OTRS system. Does he even have such authority? I really don't know, but that just seems inflammatory and uncivil. I don't mind being wrong (and have been proven so in previous matters with Jeffrey), but I do mind being bullied.

Anyways, that's my say. I don't want a witch hunt, but I think something should be done, especially since Jeffrey doesn't seem to care that so many people have found his methods to be questionable, which leads me to believe unless something is done he'll continue to act this way. Drewcifer3000 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, can we cut to the chase here, is JOG actually deleting stuff on invalid grounds? Or are some people just pissed off because at the person who deletes their copyvios? I found the above accusations ("he's blocked himself - he's been listed on ANI before - one of his deletions has been reviewed") rather spurious. >Radiant< 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to attempt to summarize the discussion thus far: I don't think anyone finds fault that Jeffrey exercises his administrative powers, namely in deleting images in violation of fair use/copyright/whatever. I think the main issue at hand is the manner in which he does so (without the usual notice period and other formalities) and the way in which he handles himself after the fact (being uncivil, refusing to discuss things, purging any ensuing discussions, etc). I would argue that with weilding administrative powers, especially as often as he has recently, certain responsibilities arise which he has ignored and shown disdain for.

However, I would say his recent deletions of a few images which I uploaded with GFDL permissions were done on invalid grounds, but that is an issue for another venue. And just to clarify my last edit, I brought up the previous ANI, block logs, and deletion review (a review of his own Talk Page, not of a particular deletion he made of an image/article) not to accumulate evidence, but to show that this is an ongoing trend and that he has come under similar scrutiny before, and not just for deleting somebody's picture. Drewcifer3000 11:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Radiant. I'm fiendishly busy at work, so I haven't looked in detail, but I did notice one thing. I do think he improperly deleted a talk page for an image he deleted, needlessly impairing Drewcifer's attempt to get a DRV. Why he did it, I don't know. He certainly didn't explain it well, so Drewcifer could have easily gotten the notion that JOG deleted and refused to restore the page specifically to prevent fair review. Rather than trying to deal with JOG through his edit-comment replies, I just restored the page to Drewcifer's user space. See User talk:William Pietri#Jeffrey_O._Gustafson for more info, and please drop me a line if I can be of further help. William Pietri 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too was surprised that this kind of behavior was coming from an administrator. I don't believe in the "Administrator for life" philosophy that is pertinent around here. Such incivility is grounds for the removal of admin status.--Jersey Devil 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

as "time-wasting" philosophy

Hi. I'm the admin Jeffrey references above when he says, "Another editor, an admin, wanted to draw me out into a time wasting philosophical debate on the finer points of wiki-policy, a debate I wouldn't waste time with any other day, and requests I thus ignored." That's one way to look at it. My impression is that he's harming the project by treating fellow editors in a way that a lot of people, myself included, take as open contempt. And further, that he knows it and doesn't care. My discussion with him went like this:

• I noticed he was just deleting comments from his talk page, including questions about his admin actions. Often it was just done via reversion.
• I asked him: "Hi! I notice you're not answering user requests and queries about your administrative activities. Could you say more about why you're doing that?"
• He deleted my question with the edit comment, "I don't feel there was anything to answer with the last two requests."
• I thought perhaps he didn't realize how brusque that seemed, so I asked "Do you realize that removing comments and replying in edit summaries seems pretty rude, yes? And that not replying at all seems ruder? I'm asking sincerely here; I'm not sure how you're intending to come across."
• He then deleted my question with the edit comment "apologies, but at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I just don't care".
• It dumbfounded me that somebody, especially an admin, would openly not care about being rude to all and sundry here. But maybe I was missing something, like some recent personal tragedy, so I asked him, "Hi. If I understand rightly, what you're saying is that you don't care if you're being rude to your fellow editors. How do you square that with core policy
  WP:CIVIL
  ?"
• He deleted that without comment.
• I then had more frustrating discussion with him via edit comments before I gave up.

I walked away from that not knowing quite what to make of it. I haven't had time to dig into his history, but I have the impression that he's a good contributor of long standing, so this behavior was mysterious to me. I think he's in open violation of

14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It seems as though JOG semi-quit after the BJAODN mess, am I right on that? Personally I'm not inclined to litigate someone for being not nice on his talk page, that doesn't really have anything to do with article quality... but if he's actually deleting images that shouldn't be deleted, then I think it's time to take this beyond AN/I because just as an observer I do not think he's really going to change his behavior because we whined about it here. --W.marsh 14:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it does have to do with article quality. From what I can tell, people have limited budgets for both time and frustration. By consuming both, he's reducing what editors do elsewhere. The reason I'm discussing it here first is that I'm worried that an official whack on the nose would worsen whatever bad mental state he's gotten himself in. William Pietri 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on any of the mis-interpretations, false comments, or people putting words/beliefs/reasonings in my mouth... I will, however, comment on the supposition that my deletions are untoward. All of my admin actions are stated clearly in the logs, and all of my actions may be reviewed through the proper channels. Anyone is free to bring up issues with any of my actions, and as I have noted, I have reversed several upon review/request if I feel the reasoning is valid - the only difference is that my commentary in dealing with folks has been "curt," and shall remain so. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything is misinterpreted, I'd encourage you to correct it. I'd sure like to know what's going on. But you can't refuse to explain yourself and then be upset that people don't understand you. I tried hard to get your side of things, without success. William Pietri 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri - your constant nagging of Jeffrey has done nothing to help the situation, just drop it, please. Nick 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like my initial contact with him was a polite attempt to sort out what I saw as a serious problem. I posted at length here only because I couldn't just point to a talk page link -- his unique style of talk page management makes discussions very hard to follow. If you feel either of those things (or something else?) is constant nagging, please let's discuss it on my talk page, as I tried hard to keep it polite and respectful. Thanks, William Pietri 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The content of your comments was exemplary, however the repeated efforts to make contact have badly backfired here. I'd have given up trying to contact Jeffrey much eariler, to be honest. Posting 4 times when it's quite clear from the earlier page history seems slightly inappropriate in this situation. I'm not just blaming you, you shouldn't really have had to post more than once. Nick 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff is just being a mild idiot. Oh well. Pilotguy 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Constant nagging? I see legitimate complaints.

17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He's had an inappropriately dismissive attitude toward criticism for as long as I can remember. Having him as a sysop reflects poorly on the project. There's nothing obvious to be done about it, though. Arbcom won't act until there's a "smoking gun", and attempts to implement a community-based desysopping procedure are routinely rejected on the grounds that it's not something that's been done before. Friday (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator won't explain an action and they're inappropriate, someone will be willing to undo them. WilyD 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If people know enough to ask elsewhere. And if they don't give up. William Pietri 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching JOG's talk page since being involved in an edit war with him a few months ago (he replaced an article and initially refused to work with existing editors). While his attititude toward other editors has generally been poor, I find it somewhat understandable since his deletions may be providing a useful service to Wikipedia but tend to provoke very similar complaints repeatedly. While responding in the edit history is rude, what I find most troubling is that I have noticed that large periods of his talk page history and contributions are expunged regularly so that regular editors cannot see how many deletions JOG has made, the number of complaints he has received nor his curt responses. Whether or not there is actually a problem with his manner of interacting with other editors, I think that it is unfair for his track record to be obscured. In other words, editors should be able to see that that they are not a special case. Jfwambaugh 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've suggested an indefinite block over at

22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Following comments made since I started this thread by uninvolved editors here and at

WP:CSN and by Jeffrey (here and on his talk page), I have started a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:3bulletproof16

- account hacked, now back to rightful owner

3bulletproof16 had a period of inactivity, and an IP came to the page claiming to be 3bulletproof16, saying that User:JB196 had hacked his account. After a lot of discussion with the person claiming to be the owner of the account, he eventually managed to guess the password that JB196 had used to lock him out, and has now regained control of his account. I am reasonably satisfied that the account is back in its original owner's hands, but I would appreciate a few other admins keeping an eye out for suspicious behaviour. I will be watching the contributions from that account too, incase the person I've been talking to wasn't as honest as they said they were. --Deskana (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a checkuser could confirm this. -- John Reaves (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it, and nothing looks other than as described. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have this person blocked: IP address 12.214.246.157. In the List of Students at South Park Elementary section, they added in that South Park character Craig's surname is Nommel. Yet no information on his surname has ever been given in the show. This is an act of vandalism, and I don't think this person should be allowed to run around like that anymore. Who knows where in Wikipedia they'll strike next???

Wilhelmina Will July 9th, 2007.

You're overreacting...that's the sole edit from that IP. You need to exhaust your warning options first, then bring it to AIV. Maybe it was just a newbie test...

Carson

04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Carson's right. In this case, it's not even really vandalism, just a test edit. And IPs don't get permablocked or anything, anyway. I've given the user test1. Best you can do is revert, warn and move on until it becomes an issue for AIV.--Ispy1981 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was being rash there. But if I were an administrator myself, even the first time someone vandalized this site, I would have them blocked for a long time. Besides, characters like Craig, Tweek, Clyde, Anne, Heidi, and such are very important to me, and I get very hyper when anyone does anything to them. Wilhelmina Will July 9th, 2007.

That's why we don't hand out Administrator permissions like candy --L^augh! 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear admins, here I request for bannig of User:Mathsci for his:

• persistent harassment;
• persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
• edit warring or revert warring;

He was engaged with me personally where he accused me because I do not have PhD in mathematics I should not edit math articles in Wikipedia. What is more he completely ignores that I have several published articles in professional mathematical journals, and I have collaborations with well-known professors in mathematics (I am listed as author in AMS), while the mentioned

08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are supposed to tell other editors if you report them to ANI. I have done this for you. Concerning your complaint, there appears to be a long-running disagreement between the two of you. I can't see anything obvious outstanding that requires an admin's attention. Can you provide diffs to any specific issues? Otherwise, please follow

Spartaz ^Humbug!

10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and for notifying

Danko Georgiev MD

10:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings again, Spartaz. Thanks again for letting me know about this. I have not deleted any large portion of text by Georgiev. He is unfortunately misrepresenting me if he says this and of course it can easily be checked directly. I have put an OR tag on one article by him on

Bill Unruh is a very distinguished physicist; it was inappropriate to include this kind of contentious detail in a WP biography when there is an ongoing dispute between them. The article on Unruh's interferometer

is written more like a blog than a scientific article. It seem like self-promotion to me and I am afraid this is not an isolated event. Personally, although I am now editing some articles very close to my particular specialty (on the request of R.e.b), I am extremely careful about attributions and am extremely reluctant to get too close to very recent research (particularly my own). However even editing articles on 19th century mathematics can have its problems!

Georgiev himself asked me to read the interferometer article myself on my talk archive. In the same archive, commenting on a short WP mathematical precis by me, Georgiev wrote "Ha-ha. I GUESS this is text produced of professional mathematician??? Hi-hi. This is the most funny thing I have read. ... I hope after you have revealed enough your math incompetence you will stop bother me. I now fully recognize that you ARE NOT PRO MATHEMATICIAN, but self-proclaimed layman." In this reply Georgiev refused to acknowledge his own misuse of the term

minimum

was "just wrong". Georgiev again did not acknowledge his error.

In my case, there is no history of repeated reverts or editing wars. Georgiev seems to get upset when mathematicians point out elementary mathematical errors on WP talk pages. But if he presumes to edit outside his expertise, he should expect criticism from anonymous experts.

Higher up in the same talk archive, Georgiev wrote, "Mathsci, please reveal your identity because I suspect YOU ARE ILL-EDUCATED TEENAGER, who presents himself as mathematician." Doesn't he remember that curiosity killed the cat? Cheers, Mathsci 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear admins, whether or not

Danko Georgiev MD

14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately as I have already said, Georgiev continues to misrepresent me. It is simply untrue that I am engaged with him in "edit warring", "multiple reverts", and "the blanking of large portions of text". This can easily be checked on my user page and talk page. He has not provided any evidence at all.

Interestingly, after I cleaned up and reorganized Florentin Smarandache's biography, he commented, "the article seems polished, well-sourced with references, and all ifo is objective" (see history page), which I took to be a vote of approval.

Georgiev should be very careful about making the kind of unsupportable accusations he has made above. On the other hand his own elementary mathematical errors have already been confirmed by a wikipedia adminstrator but not accepted by him. I simply cannot understand his behaviour: is it jealousy perhaps? Mathsci 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could Georgiev possibly be referring to my recent complete rewrite of the article on affiliated operators, I wonder? Très drôle ... Mathsci 15:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Point of order: This appears to be, at the heart of it, a content dispute. As such, there's nothing we can or should do here to help, but I would strongly urge you two to make use of existing dispute resolution methods such as requests for mediation or even comment. We're all volunteers here, and while it's natural to disagree about things, we should still treat each other with respect and
  assume good faith. Try the other means, and if something that's admin actionable comes out of the whole thing, this page will still be herE. - CHAIRBOY (☎
  ) 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The complaint was posted by Georgiev and I was directed here from my talk page by an adminstrator. As far as I understand, the administrator wrote that Georgiev had not followed normal wikipedia etiquette and had not substantiated any of his wild claims. I have no particluar issue or dispute with him. I do of course feel that, since he seems to be mathematically weak, every mathematical edit he makes or has made needs to be carefully scrutinized. These alas are the unavoidable problems of the wikipedia project. Vigilance is the only solution. Mathsci 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW I don't think it is possible to

troll. --Mathsci

03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy being a tad bit belligerent

This originally stemmed from a content dispute on

. His mass deletions weren't really in line with the consensus on the talk page.

However, instead of responding in any kind of polite way, DreamGuy removed my comments from his talk page, claiming they were nonsense simply taking up space on that page. He moved them to

18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Step one, stop reverting HIS user page. He saw your coment, and he replied on your user page to it. Ignore his baiting summaries. That he saw and moved your comment is proof he's aware of it. His further replies also indicateclearly that he's aware of the issue. Further, he has mde clear in there that he feels that the additions of 'anateur neologisms' don't belong on the page. Perhaps you should address that on the article's talk page.ThuranX 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he replied to that comment, but my reverts refer to new comments, which he refuses to even read. Also, the article content has been addressed on the talk page. This situation concerns what I feel as a problem with his method of cleaning up the article, which is essentially wholesale deletion. At any rate, he has told me not to post on his talk page, so how am I supposed to talk to him? That's the main issue here, not the article content (as I said, this isn't a content dispute). I'm trying to come to a compromise, but how can I do that if he won't even read my comments? --clpo13 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not wholesale deletion, as explained by more than one editor on the talk page of the article in question, and as the topic already has a full article of its own, simply linking to that article (as it already does) is more than adequate and is in no way blanking by any stretch of the imagination. The guy had all sorts of ways to try to talk, including the way his own talk page said he normally tries to talk, but instead he insisted on throwing false accusations on my talk page. DreamGuy 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been pretty well established that users can remove harassing comments from talk pages. Accusations that I violated 3RR are false. His other accusations are false. If he wanted to talk about the issue he could do so in appropriate places. It's also interesting that his own talk page says he replies to comments posted there instead of other people's talk pages, yet he insists on posting to mine instead and putting it back over and over. Clearly he needs to understand that I have the right to ignore him and that he does not have the right to harass me just because he's all pissed off. DreamGuy 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I said I was sorry for being uncivil in my original comment. If you had read subsequent comments I had made, such as this one, you'd see that I had apologized for my behavior. Also, the reason I continued to post on your talk page was to get your attention. Indeed, I could have responded on my talk page, but what are the odds you would have ever looked there again? My original comment was on your talk page, which, ideally, is where it should have remained. Of course, your response wasn't any more civil than my comment, but as I said, I apologized for that. You just deleted my apology without reading it. --clpo13 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't possibly know that he didn't read your comment. And even if he didn't .. so? Is there a rule requiring him to read your posts?

When I am requested not to post on another editor's page, I don't post there. If I need to warn them for 3RR, I do it on the article talk page. If someone deletes your post from their talkpage, it's deleted. If you put it back, its harassment.

DreamGuy may not be the most lovable teddy bear we have here, but after I read your initial accusing and judgmental statement on his page, I was not at all surprised by his response. If you start off with a chip on your shoulder on my talkpage, I'd very likely want to knock it off too.

Move along, nothing here to see. Peace.Lsi john 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pff, why did I ever expect help from the admins? I know he didn't read my comments because he explicitly said so. Read the edit summary and tell me I don't know he didn't read that comment. And furthermore (why must I keep repeating myself?), I said I apologized for my original comment. I know I was out of line, and I can understand the response. But how does that justify completely ignoring subsequent responses, including apologies? He even deleted my note that I had filed a claim. Yeah, that's harassmant alright </sarcasm>. But hey, this is Wikipedia; I should have known better than to expect real help. We are done here. --clpo13 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Web 2.0, you really should close your tags out properly, ala "<sarcasm/>" (since it was only used once). Also, consider separating presentation and content, perhaps via CSS (Cascading Surly Sheet). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to report a suspected sock but i cant figure it out. The User:68.255.202.10 made the EXACT same edit on WWE One Night Stand as User:208.53.96.27 can someone help me? ThanksBlueShrek 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Non-admin commentSorry, I can't see how. The 208.xx.xx is from Michigan, the other is from Connecticut. Scratch that. This is the first time my handy tools were wrong. Both are from Michigan.--Ispy1981 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

After I advised the user Mahal11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop obstinately revert warring, he just threatens he could take me to court. He appears to have been warned for making a legal threat before. Sciurinæ 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahal11 also violated 3RR on

   O   

    20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He has reiterated the threat on his own user talk page now, and continues to revert war (now 6th revert in 24h). Sciurinæ 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinetly blocked him for legal threads in accordance to the blocking policy. _→AzaToth 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is a sporadic but disruptive editor. They have been warned for NPOV violations already and yesterday they continued a povpush by removing references on

).

Loneranger4justice also soapboxed on

).

Loneranger4justice has been adding unsourced and dubious material to Wikipedia since August 2006. Their claims are that feminists are nazis, that profeminist men are like Ku Klux Klan auxilaries and that women only become feminists because they "are seriously psychologically troubled". Loneranger4justice has not made many edits to Wikipedia their count as of July 8th 2007 is 147 however their contribution has neither been helpful nor encyclopedic. A report of their disruption is on this page.

The fact that they only use WP every so often has made it difficult to track their vandalism, but as proven by their edits yesterday they a

21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User TPIRFanSteve

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I have tried to work this out between him and I and another sysop to no avail. TPIRFanSteve is posting blatenly libelous and slanderous remarks on his talk page ABOUT ME. He has been warned twice by IanManka(in the past week) to stop, yet he continues. I don't want to do another edit as it would be in the 3RR. I hope you can put a stop to his idiocy asap. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TPIRFanSteve. Ian already told him, statements about the newsgroup Alt.tv.game-shows(TRUE OR NOT) have no place on here. Read the history and you will see the trouble he is causing. THanks Hdayejr 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This stems from a completely separate incident last summer in which someone was repeatedly harrassing me and I suspected, given my and Mr. Hdayehr's long, long history of animosity that spans several websites, that he might be the one doing it. I suggested this possibility to a site admin, and it was later determined that it was not him. I have acknowledged such since this exchange began last week, but apparently, that isn't enough for Mr. Hdayejr. I'm really not sure what is enough for him short of my complete and total banishment from the internet, and frankly, I just want this to be over with. He and I do not get along, and I am certainly not going to seek out contact with him after this incident passes. -TPIRFanSteve 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FifeOpp08 - apparently all this user does is to insert this external link into (a heck of a lot of) articles:

The Brookings Institution's Opportunity 08

My personal opinion here is that its political spam - and i've removed it on quite a lot of pages - but i do request someone else to have a look. --Kim D. Petersen 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was wondering about those too, but got distracted. I think yeah, polispam. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Link spam and definitely a COI with that user name. I deleted all of the links. -- Gogo Dodo 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The edits that User:68.110.8.21 is making are inflammatory. A pattern is emerging that I believe requires some attention since these edits are making the discussion pages a hostile environment.

• [79]
• God hates sweden
• misfits of the world
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

Muntuwandi 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was just responding to inflammatory posts by somebody from another country who is judging Americans with a lot of ignorant and condescending statements. Of course, I'm just an "ignorant American" with no knowledge of my country or the right to speak for myself. Pat him on the back for all I care. 68.110.8.21 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've prefer not to post in AIV for this case as the users doesn't seem to be a vandal only account, doing some constructive edits, but there is one issue surrounding the user that it is worth noting here. User:67.166.58.4 & User:Cgkimpson, which looks like the same person recently added dubious information about tornadoes in Colorado. The person created the article Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990 qualifying it as the strongest and biggest outbreak in Colorado ever without providing sources while mentioning there was an F5 that hit Limon, Colorado again without providing any sources By cliking here, which is a relable source, it does not show any tornado hitting Colorado on June 11, 1990. User:CraigMonroe also posted this link on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990 showing no F5's have hit Colorado. Google hits with the same article title gives a great total of 0 results

Cgkimpson mentionned in the Afd that he have experienced the tornado and requested it not to delete the article, but looking at his user page, he was supposedly born in 1994, does should have not have experienced it the event.

It addition, he frequently did test edits on various tornado articles judging by his contribtuions [80] & [81]. Also the IP kept on removing the Prod, Speedy delete tags on more then one occasion.

I did though notified both of the accounts (IP and registred) about there unsourced and doubtful material and reverted most of the incorrect edits made on

. JForget 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found a map for tornadoes that hit Colorado but on June 6, 1990 and there only 9 tornadoes there and the strongest was an F3 west of Limon although Limon was hit by ... an F0. Still it fails notability by a lot even with the fixed date [82] JForget 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this went through AN already; I'm on vacation and haven't kept up with wikipedia too much ;-). Anyways, should User talk:Daniel really be protected and redirected to user:Daniel? We don't usually protect talk pages of users who are still here.~ Wikihermit 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong there. He's not actively editing at the moment, and is asking editors to comment via e-mail as necessary. There's probably nothing worse than an editor asking an absent administrator for help and nothing ever happening. Nick 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only actively editing to deal with my MedCom duties and to comment on this thread after someone let me know it was here. If you want to contact me or have an issue, I left instructions on my userpage. Daniel 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! An anonymous editor first put bogus words in my mouth on the Sandbox and has been only vandalising since. Please see the following diffs:

1. Here he adds BS in front of my signature test: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=143619236

2. Here he continues to vandalise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trampton&diff=prev&oldid=143619822

3. And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Carrey&diff=prev&oldid=143616232

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=143618884

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki&diff=prev&oldid=143619005

Could an administrator please help and warn or block

00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism should be reported to

WP:AIV, it is dealt with faster there. Someguy1221

02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the editor was indeed blocked, so I guess this one is resolved, but I don't know how to put the resolved thing under the heading. --

Tally-ho!

02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I allege that the User:Konalgia911 is knowingly and intentionally adding false information very subtily into Wikipedia articles.

A prime example being this, alleging that the Porton Down incident was a "death penalty".

In this diff, I point out the note about the alleged "flag". The description is that of the Nazi party and the "Fylfot Cross" is a swastika. More "Fylfot Cross" vandalism here.

I really think this user should be blocked with prejudice.

--Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the

16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see user:Stemonitis has now deleted ThePromenader's edit (which consisted in changing the word "redirect" from capital to lower case) in order to allow a move back to the original title: [84]. This is why if you click on ThePromenader's edit that I linked to above it now says "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, etc.". Thanks Stemonitis, now what about ThePromenader's action? This guy has so far avoided any real sanctions, except a few blocks for violating the 3RR ([85]). Hardouin 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, call the waaaaambulance. The above "contributor" has always profited from a lack of knowledgable contributors in our subject (Paris) to publish ficticious and fanciful information (with the goal of highlighting his own 'knowledge' over others ?!) and, even when his contributions were proven unfounded and erronous, he has always bullied and revert-warred to protect the same. The accusations above are just mirrors of those already made of him - he move-reverted twice even after being shown he was wrong through the highest official sources - so go figure. Fanciful and misleaeding 'translations' (instead of easily-found official ones) are embarrassing for a publication that deems itself 'encyclopaedic', and move-warring is evil. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've simply renamed an "envious" foreign statistical appelation translation for a real and official one. Please see

21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we please take this to arbitration? There are years of animosity and revert warring over a pretty subtle issue behind the present complaint. The only resolution is almost certainly for one of the two (Hardouin or ThePromenader) to effectively leave the project and stop editing these articles. But it would take a fair amount of research and listening to both sides to decide which one that should be, and I don't think anyone except an Arbitor will go to that amount of effort. It would be great if the Paris-related articles could be freed from this state of war. And I really don't think that ThePromenader's bone of contention (to do with this statistical definition of the metropolitan area of Paris) justifies his attitude and continued imperious attitude. Both parties are guilty of incivility and revert-warring, so if we have to decide between them, it will have to be on other grounds. Stevage 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Stevage, but you're a bit late to the gun - and I'd be curious to know what led you here, but no matter. Like I've always said, just look to the facts - Wiki is about that, not attitude - and all will become clear for you. One can't arbitrate anything if doesn't do that, as he'll have no idea - as you still don't - who is right or wrong. Just a couple things to remember: I began contributing to the Paris articles after reading in them things that - after already seventeen years of living here - I knew never existed. Second, before I got there the article had no references section - and even that was resisted - so go figure. I think the attitude you find "Imperious" would better be called "exasperated" - practically two years of having sourced contributions reverted to speculative and unverifiable (expletive) - always by the same person - does tend to take its toll on one's nerves. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...and consider for a moment the gall of somone coming here to complain because... he wasn't able to revert to his 'own' unverifiable version. I mean, really - this speaks for itself. THEPROMENADER 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who presumes to tell me as often as you do what Wikipedia is all "about". Many people quote policy, others use Wikipedia keywords - but you seem to just use your own terms. Wikipedia is about "facts"? No, it's based on "verifiability". Maybe that's what you meant, but it's much harder to follow if you don't use the same language as everyone else. Sort of the problem with arguing with you in general: I (and probably other people) simply can't follow your argument in order to work out whether you're right, wrong, or just talking about something different. By the same token, claiming that I (or anyone) should just "look to the facts" is impossible. I've tried, I've even looked up the sources you've given, and nothing has ever been clear. Hardouin is at least capable of explaining his argument and responding to direct questions. To make sense of your claims would take many hours of dedicated study - and who will take the time to do it? Certainly no administrator can take a quick glance at both of your edit histories and determine a wrongdoer, and impose some punishment. Perhaps we could find a neutral expert on Parisian demography - and I mean, a real expert - who could read a statement by each of you, and give his opinion on who is correct, and which approach should be used in articles on Paris? Stevage 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know of any real expert, as please feel free to get in touch with him about this - I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about "facts"? No, it's based on "verifiability."

... for me both are the same, and that's it in a nutshell. I've never contested anything that was verifiable fact, and have always provided mainstream and close-to-the-source references for my contributions - never obscure studies from other countries and international organisations.

My "method of argument"? No, I think it's rather "answering through the details" of the smokescreen that Hardouin often throws at those "less knowledgable". Be careful though: although his argument is carefully constructed to sound like fact, anyone knowing the real situation would realise that many are founded on nothing - or desire at best. His reverting just to take the piss doesn't help things much either.

I'm all for bringing in a real expert - and always have been - I've had schoolteachers and friends tapping their temples at what they see in those articles, but unfortunately experts willing to contribute seem to be lacking in all things "Paris" here. I even left a note about it on the Wikiproject:France talk page - does that really sound like someone who is trying to "hide" anything, or publish untrue statements? Have i ever reverted anything non already a revert to something erronous that was there before? Do I continually complain to people I know are not knowledgable in the subject? No, I leave notes on the foremost contributors in our subject [86][87]. You see a pattern here? THEPROMENADER 09:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: You want to hear fun?

aire urbaine [88]. Have I ever resorted to tactics like this? Really, I don't have time for this today. THEPROMENADER

09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS: He's not even trying to hide anymore - doing the same revert as he did - one year before - as Hardouin. Who's the bully here? This is getting insane. Arbitration, please. THEPROMENADER 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More accusations I see. Is there an admin that can check check Ckoicedelire's IP and then mine? I am sick and tired of being continuously accused of sock-puppetry by this crazy and paranoid ThePromenader. Sick and tired! Whenever someone writes about the metropolitan area of Paris in the Paris articles, then he's necessarily my sock-puppet. Isn't that insane? Please someone check the IPs then I would appreciate if ThePromenader could be severaly warned for making continuous accusations against me. Note that ThePromenader even went as far as tagging the talk page of User:Ckoicedelire with a self-created "Hardouin sock-puppet" category: [89]. Is this allowed to happen on Wikipedia? Hardouin 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the accusations, but the coincidences, oh, the coincidences. Some newly-registered user arriving on the same page the same day that a one-on-one revert is going on - on three seperate occasions - to continue the revert war on the same passages and the same phrases (to the point of breaking the

WP:3RR rule in your usual manner) - and the same's participating in the discussion as though he's been there for years, to boot. There are many ways to access different IP's; let the admins decide. THEPROMENADER

16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words you're saying that you have no proofs and you're making accusations nonetheless, even tagging these guys' talk pages. Your behavior is revolting. Hardouin 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good lord, your condescending tone. All the above speaks for itself. Good evening. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't template the n00bs either

[90] It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands: Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.

How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick. - David Gerard 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that using standard templates helps keep things

CIVIL and with the right tone. If you create your own message, then no one else had approved of it for the situation. On the other hand, the standard templates have different types and levels - and had been approved by the community for the erlevant situations. Od Mishehu

07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point-encouraging people to roll their own will likely just result in more insulting of the vandals. And I'm not going to shed too many tears for the poor, unfortunate linkspammer. (What linkspammer hasn't claimed that their content is essential, ESSENTIAL I tell you, to Wikipedia?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, when you are reverting and barely keeping up, you either do that, or you don't leave a message at all. The second is even more confusing ("Why did my edit vanish?"), and if you can't afford to stop and write a message to everyone, then I don't know. It's a bad situation, either way.

cool stuff

) 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Using templates is a good idea, but the person placing the template must be prepared to explain it.

Anynobody

07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; personally I always make sure I watchlist a talk page after templating, to ensure that I can personal answer any followup questions they may have. Ƙ

ɱρᶓ

ȶ 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So we now need approval to leave warning messages if they are not the one of the proper templates? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is that you know a templated message is appropriate for the situation, whereas a personalized message might be too harsh, or not clear, or whatever else. --Haemo 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've found just the opposite. Templated messages tend to be ambiguous and vague, to the point of uselessness. And since templated warnings are all identical, it give the person recieving the warnings the feeling that they're dealing with a machine, rather than with a person. --Carnildo 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Some templated messages are understandable but not all. Plus with using the templates you can end up with "Well they didn't get the full 4 warnings." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you disagree with the wording, please either let

WP:UW know or edit it yourself :). We are all here to enhance the project, making the warning templates better also counts. For my opinion, templates are very useful for 2 things: first, it allows us to go fast in simples cases (I once started by typing my warnings by hand), and it allows us not to forget to link to the relevant policies/pages. Templates of course are not suitable 100% of the time, but 95% is probably a good estimate. -- lucasbfr ^talk

11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) Templates can be misused, but someone who misuses templates probably wouldn't have written a clear personalized message anyway. When used appropriately, and in moderation, templates are helpful for keeping things calm and providing links to relevent info (something users sometimes forget in personalized messages). It's up to the discretion of the user applying the template... if the message you wish to get across isn't summed up by any template, or the issue requires discussion/diffs, don't just use a template. Leebo ^T/C 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I suggest those concerned about this matter may want to open up a conversation with the Wikipedia editors and admins involved with this case. Wade through this reading some of the Nsusa's posts on SEO sites and you'll see Nsusa is hardly the innocent he has proclaimed himself to be in his complaint. He just didn't like getting caught. Also check out his posts on http://www.syndk8.net (not published in Google's results); Nsusa is a very sophisticated black hat spammer.

Also see:

• User talk:Nsusa

Properly selected, templates reduce the likelihood of conflict and usually increase the civility of interaction. From my own experience, 90% of "noobs" getting spam templates have really been spamming and already know they're misbehaving before they even get their first template. Most of the other 10% didn't know they were breaking rules but they didn't know it; {{

false positive

" spam warnings given out but I certainly don't see many.

Hu12 is probably the most active and effective spam-fighter Wikipedia has. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More micromanagement... feel free to do RC/New pages/whatever patrol yourself and leave verbose custom messages for every user. But using templates is a necessary part for keeping up with the neverending flow of new articles for the tiny percentage of Wikipedians willing to deal with them.--W.marsh 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still complaining about being labeled a spammer, and now he's also explaining how easy is it to spam wikipedia. --OnoremDil 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember as a result of the no-follow attribute, its no longer about SEO, its about harvesting visitors from Wikipedia in order to get "clicks" for money (adsense and yahoo). In which case this user Net Services USA LLC (Pay Per Click Marketing and SEO) was attempting to exploit, in doing so was caught. Any one who has dealt with proffesional spamming of Wikipedia knows the multitude of

civily and with the right tone. --Hu12

15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to stop leaving templates, if the admins at

19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I will not block a user who hasn't been warned, but I do not require templates and frequently do not use templates when warning myself. If there are admins who only look for templates then they should be warned (not using a template obviously) that they are being robotic.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This I agree with. I reported a repeating IP vandal and harasser there a while back, with rationale for passing over the four-warning system, and got a template (ironic!) in return, explaining the warning system and a personal message saying the IP hadn't been active or warned enough. (The IP subsequently did go quiet for some time, but still.) In this case, I think Hu12 was right on the money; the templates as they are now certainly aren't inflammatory or problematic, and when doing a lot of edits (like monitoring spammers or warning vandals), they're invaluable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the length of a personal warning it can be quicker and easier than trying to figure out which of the 500+ warning templates you should be using. I use the spam and the BV templates but that's about it. And no I'm not sticking a BV on IP's who make one penis edit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And then,

there was light, if you want a nice list of warning templates ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk

10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I rarely use the BV template, because

WP:AIV wonks don't recognize it as one of the official four-level hierarchy. Corvus cornix

16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoting Racial Slur at wikipedia

As

}} on my second revert. He responded with the following legal threat on my talk page:

To Whom It May Concern: If further editing or changes occur on the Hans Godo Fräbel Wikipedia page, Fräbel Gallery & Studio will be forced to take legal action against you for Vandalism and Sabatoge of the Company's name and information. Please take note of this warning.

Thank You,
Fräbel Gallery & Studio

I always report legal threats here, little or small, and while this user appears to be acting in good faith, they need to be hit with an education stick, especially in the areas of No Legal Threats,

) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed uw-legal on his talk page. FunPika 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed {{

WP:COIN for monitoring. The userid matches the name of the page. This is clear cut COI. Jehochman ^Talk

19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This needs admin attention because User:Frabel removed the {{COI}} tag, and of course, there is already a legal threat pending by this same user. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea

WP:COIN existed. You learn something every day... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs

) 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the user has decided to edit under Crackerjack22 (talk · contribs) today. 5 edits total...2 removing the {COI} tag. --OnoremDil 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On User talk:Rex Germanus, User:Cheiron1312 made a little comment stating something that was obvious. Rex took offense and rudely reverted this comment. So I revert Rex's revert and made my own comment on how he was being dangerously nationalistic. Now Rex has made a personal attack on me calling me a nazi because of what he did. If you look at his talk page, you'll see how he shows his racist view on the German people. If you look at this, you'll see that Rex was placed on 1 year probation. If you look at this, you'll see that Rex has been blocked 6 times since this arbitration case was close and once during the arbitration case. Something honestly needs to be done about this guy. Kingjeff 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? A little comment sgtating something that was obvious? Saying I should know better because the Dutch have experience with warcrimes? That's not a little comment, thats a personal attack.Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no personal attack by anyone but yourself. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that User:Cheiron1312 has been here since yesterday. Kingjeff 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on other people's talk pages. If Rex Germanus reverted a comment he didn't like, that is usually taken as evidence that he read it. It is rude not to respond, but it is also rude to revert other people's talk pages.

Thatcher131

20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

   O   

    21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. It's his talk page, and I know of no admin that will block an editor to force that editor to leave discussions or warnings on his talk page. If you want your comments to stick, use a detailed edit summary. In any case, neither you nor Kingjeff is involved in the content dispute at

Thatcher131

21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting here because of many actions of Rex Germanus I've experienced since 2006. The latest direct confrontion was Rex calling me a vandal [93] for restoring the tags at

   O   

    21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have little to no right to speak. You are the real shame to wikipedia. Its easy to call someone anti German when you yourself are against anything that isn't German (especially poles and Dutchmen) . You might see logic in easily and accepted German titles on the English wikipedia, I do not. You also revert without edit summaries and recently claimed Poland started WW2! How reliable are you?Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Who gives you the right to say who can speak? Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one edit warring here. Rex is. I'm not the one getting block during a probation. I wasn't rude at all. Kingjeff 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unable of edit warring, because I'm on a revert parole. What I do with my talkpage is none of your business. Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Cheiron1312 (talk · contribs) has been here since yesterday. Kingjeff 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive5#User:194.9.5.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs

)

In this particular instance Cheiron1312's first edit [94] was extremely confrontational, and since Kingjeff has neved edited

Thatcher131

21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I'm getting puzzled. First you accuse Kingjeff of editwarring, and now you call Cheiron1312's "first edit" confrontational while others might "assume good faith". As you noticed, Cheirons revealed the IP adress he is posting from by signing two talk page entries with his name. It seems to me that a new user has read the Wikipedia article about

   O   

    21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If you're reading a threat in what was said, I think you might be trying to see things that aren't there, Matthead. I hate to throw this in here, being completely uninvolved, but I just thought I'd point that out. It doesn't really seem like a threat, more of a caution.

Dan

21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over

Thatcher131

21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How is 1 revert an edit war? I really don't see how 1 revert is edit warring. You can either deal with him now or editors that he disrupts will just keep on reporting him here and I will make sure of that. Kingjeff 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Appointing yourself as Rex Germanus' hall monitor would be a bad idea.

Thatcher131

02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone sometime will have to deal with this guy. You can either make Wikipedia look bad by allowing him to edit war (I still never warred with him) with other users or you can deal with his constant annoyance. He's exausting patience with other users which means there might be a community ban for him one day. I don't think it can be so simple. Kingjeff 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has to deal with me. You need to deal with yourself and people like Cheiron1213 and Matthead, who I can assure are much worse than I am. Also, I've never seen you before and are completely unaware of my history. I for one, do not go out looking for trouble and I'd rather leave wikipedia than have a bias rouge admin as you as a monitor. Rex 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to be dealt with. Kingjeff 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great comeback! Right, is this admin still to be regarded as objective btw? I can hardly see how a biased individual, as he already showed many times, here can perform neutral in this case.Rex 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff is not an admin.

Thatcher131

16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not? Then why is he here? I barely know him.Rex 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about getting your facts straight before posting anything. It looks like you have a hard time doing that. Kingjeff 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No I'm actually quite good at that. That's why the article on the Nemi ships still says the nazis burned them.Rex 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)