Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive285

Resolved

 – Page courtesy blanked.

Hi, I wish to draw attention to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brent Henry Waddington, and an ip which has twice blanked the page, most recently with the edit summary "As a Brent Waddington unconnected with this guy, it would be really great if everytime my employers googled me they didn't see that page. Would it be OK if we deleted it?". Since the previous blanking (without edit summary) was reverted, I kind of feel the guy deserves some sort of a response. I think it's odd that he isn't asking for the AfD page to be deleted. Note that the AfD was connected to a bunch of hoaxing apparently connected to a poetry book masquarading as a textbook in game theory, by a bunch of university students tracked down by User:Bwithh, and eventually ended with a university official requesting access to the deleted article [1]. I wouldn't like to have my name associated with such stuff, it's pretty much of historical interest only, but should a closed AfD be deleted for such a reason? My 2c says it ought to be blanked, but I think some admin input is appropriate here. Pete.Hurd 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason we can't blank the page out of courtesy; I'm not familiar with general practice, here, as to whether blanking or deletion is preferred. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a 2-year-old AFD ... I don't see any real reason not to delete it. --B 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now just take a wild guess wheather this conversation will come up on Google... Renata 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this user has been

• Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Muntuwandi 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the afrocentrist agenda, original research and unreliable sources Muntuwandi is forcing into articles, as well as suspected sockpuppetry and comments verging on breaching several wiki guidelines, I felt it my duty as an editor to ensure other articles were not affected by this. Sure enough though, Muntuwandi is inserting all of the aforementioned problems and pov into other articles, so I reverted. Luckily, I got there before other editors had much of a chance to edit, so negative effects to other editors' edits were minimal.

Muntuwandi needs some sort of a block ASAP. --

देसीफ्राल

11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If only every new user was so well versed in Wikipedia jargon and policy. They aren't, so this behavior is rather suspicious.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

this is wikistalking. What has the

Gender differences or Estonian scientist Toomas Kivisild have to do with an Afrocentric agenda. Muntuwandi

11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other users have also expressed concern at this username, since it is not in the latin alphabet. But according to the user it is not in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Muntuwandi 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little gem of afrocentrism [2] being inserted into an article, which doesn't even fit with the flow of the text --

देसीफ्राल

11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And a couple of current warnings on Muntuwandi's page, issued by other editors, concerned about his pushing of OR [3] --

देसीफ्राल

11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

X-centrist or whatever! You should stop following users to articles they edit immediately. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.E0.A4.A6.E0.A5.87.E0.A4.B8.E0.A5.80.E0.A4.AB.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2. The fact that it is "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.E0.A4.A6.E0.A5.87.E0.A4.B8.E0.A5.80.E0.A4.AB.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B2" identifies the problem. THF 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is that garbage? --

देसीफ्राल

11:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That "garbage" is exactly why your username is not appropriate! Please change it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with his username. The link to his username is in fact [4]. All that UTF-8 or whathaveyou nonsense is not correct. Wikipedia fully supports unicode for good reason. As far as wikistalking, stalking only occurs when there is an effort to annoy or harass someone. Merely watching their behavior or trying to address a persistent problem is not stalking, although it may not be very friendly. I would certainly like to keep things as friendly as possible because there are always ways to cause other editors trouble and for those of us who are honestly trying to improve the factual content of wikipedia it can be disconcerting. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't even see what देसीफ्राल is. All that appears to me is 8 square blocks. Usernames that have characters that are confusing should be changed. Simple as that. — Moe ε 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Still there is a noticeable pattern of reverting basically every single one of Muntuwandi's edits. That definitely looks like wiki-stalking.--Ramdrake 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is a little bit too familiar with Wikipedia for a new user. The articles edited and the focus upon Muntuwandi suggest that he may be a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650 or something. We have the standard race-related edits (white people, negro). He actually used "negro" when adding OJ Simpson's picture to the Negro article [5]. Hayden and his sockpuppets also were fond of using "negro" in the articles and their talk pages.

As for the user name itself, a Google search suggests that it is equivalent to "Desiphral" [6] . We happen to have a User:Desiphral on Wikipedia already, and Hayden had conflicts with him (over Romani people). So that may be where the user name is from. This all deserves a closer look, in any case.

In any case, it is clear that this is not truly a new user, and he is wikistalking Muntuwandi. The Behnam 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : I recently reported User:Muntuwandi for political soapboxing [7] and he was warned by an admin [8]. However, I now believe that the problem is more than that. Note his edit history, it's all about race related articles: [9] And:

1)He seems to be adding material which isnt even mentioned in the source. Ex:

• "Light skin is not unique to human populations, in fact it is the default state of most mammals." [10] (Adding the info), [11] (Adding the source). There's nothing remotely similar in the source: [12]

• "The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active." [13] [14]. Again, there isnt even mentioning of "Asian" in the source [15]. I suspect he's trying to advance his POV that albinos and east asians are also white [16]

2) Or he seems to blatantly misrepresent sources:

• "Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin. Bare skin may have become sexually attractive as a sign of health, hence sexual selection favored darker skin colors." [17] (Also note the afro-centricism)

• • Source: ""In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians" [18]

3) Afro-centric edits: [19], deletes all cited info about East Asians and North Europeans to replace with info about Africans in Human height [20]

4)Deleting HUGE AMOUNTS of cited information. [21]

I'm sure I can find more examples but I'll stop here for now...KarenAER 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Karen, this has already been raised and addressed at

Talk:White People. Please be aware that what you're doing here can be construed as forum-shopping and is frowned upon by the community.--Ramdrake

22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please call me KarenAER. Note that the version here is LONGER and posted MINUTES after the talk page in white people to draw attention to Muntuwandi's edits. So I'm sure blatant lying (as if I didnt like the answers in white people talk page and hence moved the discussion here...) is frowned upon too. Inability to understand why I posted these here ( देसीफ्राल claimed Muntuwandi's edits were compromising Wikipedia so he was correcting them ) may be laughed upon by the community too...KarenAER 07:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, KarenAER, I didn't lie (as I can't know your motives), I just pointed out that posting the same issue in two different places to attract more attention (even if one version is expanded from the other) is the wrong thing to do on Wikipedia, and I told you why. I didn't imply anything about your motives, just pointed out the inappropriateness of your actions. On another front, you might gain something by tuning down the hostility and refraining from personal attacks (such as accusing others of lying when they aren't), but that's just my observation.--Ramdrake 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Asking for a consensus in a completely different "venue" or section of Wikipedia, in the hope of finding more support for a failed proposal, is known disapprovingly as forum-shopping" When you accused me of forum shopping you implied that I didnt like the answers in white people talk page and moved the discussion here. The community frowns on people who dont read the policies they are quoting. And I really dont think your in any position to dictate "inappropriateness" or what is wrong. KarenAER 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I make no judgement on whether देसीफ्राल is a sock. But Muntuwandi's accusation of wikistalking is without merit. Muntuwandi is a problematic user, bent on inserting afrocentrist bias wherever he goes. There is nothing wrong with following the contributions of a user, especially if their behaviour is problematic, that's why we have "Special:Contributions". देसीफ्राल should consider changing his username as a gesture of good faith, but that has nothing to do with the complaint of wikistalking.. It appears obvious that देसीफ्राल is

I have protected the page for 48 hours which will coincide closely with the expiration of his block. I have also blanked the page which contained the personal attacks, trolling and vitriol. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• JodyB just prot'd the talk page for the duration of the block, so that's that - Alison ☺ 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  Oops - edit conflict :) - Alison ☺ 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that Scipio is blocked from editing he's sending me emails. Fortunately filters can drop him in the appropriate folder unread. Edward321 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Edward321 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Move along, nothing to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.167.224.228

   Search results for: 12.167.224.228

   AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1)
                                    12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
   FOX NEWS CHANNEL FOX-NEWS73-224-224M (NET-12-167-224-224-1)
                                    12.167.224.224 - 12.167.224.255

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/15/fox-news-caught-re-writing-wikipedia-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.158.65 (talk • contribs)

Nothing out of the ordinary. We have people from CBS, ABC, and NBC editing articles here, too. In addition to government agencies.

Miranda

20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please rest assured we are well aware of who is editing what. There's no need for any panic, we have administrators and checkusers ensuring there is no conflict of interest. Most of these edits are generally of excellent quality, having been made by people who know the subjects they are editing inside out. Thanks for your report, however. Nick 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think between the Radio factor and the TV show

Bill wouldn't have the time to contribute. I hope his edits are "pithy" ;) Rockpocket

20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wired magazine online and National Public Radio in the US have had stories about a new tool that allows quick tracing of changes to Wikipedia articles to their owners. Well, none of that is news. Even our vandals know how to check WHOIS and click on the History tab. For eons, we've had, known, and politely battled against points being scored. It is the wonderful world of free information. (Dow Chem. wiping criticisms of environmentalism was the radio show's example, as well as FoxNews inserting adjectives. Meh. The real dangers are with the very fringe topics that they might munge.)

Still, thank you for the alert. If you're interested in helping out, watchlist likely articles, and you'll see the kinds of changes that occur on a nearly hourly basis to "political" articles. Geogre 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This ip 151.44.156.225 is editing Armenian articles with bad faith, I reverted his edits he seems to know all the rules possibly banned user previously can someone block him? --Vonones 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He's hitting from a lot of IPs, all of which I believe are dynamic IPs of net24.it. I don't know how to stop this, without semiprotecting every single article remotely related to Armenia. --Golbez 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we have to either semi protect them, revert all his edits which will cause major edit warring, or reply to his commands by adding references or anything else. --Vonones 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could you give examples of which edits you believe were made in bad faith? This just looks like a content dispute. Which user do you believe he is a sockpuppet of? I notice that no warnings were placed on his talk page, but that

in a content dispute with the user (see [22]). Yes, the anon user violated 3RR in the same dispute, but no warning was given. I would prefer to warn the user, unblock him and keep an eye on him. - Papa November

22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You could technically see it as a content dispute. However, when he started going into vandalism and racist attacks (see his edit comments), that went out the window. There's no need to defer to process to remove a simple anti-Armenian troll. He wasn't blocked for 3RR (Actually he never specifically broke that), he was blocked for incivility and trolling. --Golbez 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit summary which states "These are the standard tags which appear on articles regarding unrecognized countries, such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"? It implies POV, but I'm not sure it constitutes racism or vandalism. Thanks Papa November 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the ones by his sockpuppets. [23] [24] If you want to challenge my block, please go to RFC. I stand by it completely. --Golbez 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He also violated his block like three times. --Vonones 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has quite a history here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma. I became pretty frustrated with him a few months back, but as you can see, there seems to be some consensus for tolerating him based on his often constructive edits. It can be pretty annoying, but I have found that he responds reasonably most of the time if you very politely discuss things with him. This even includes not reacting to his less than civil style of edit summaries, and talk page comments. Hiberniantears 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gladboy has been adding huge numbers of images recently that a) don't have copyright plates, and b) would need fair-use, but don't have a rationale. He appears to be obtaining them from Youtube - I've found a case where he's encouraged another user to do ther same, see here (bottom). I have placed warnings on his page about his use of images, both STLBot and OrphanBot have been having a whale of a time - perhaps time for some admin intervention? Thanks, _TheIslander 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated - he's still avidly trying to revert any edit I make to remove his copyright violations... _TheIslander 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie editor is a little bit out of control. I've had a word and will keep a lookout on the situation - Alison ☺ 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see threats like this one. This user has made several threats. Can an admin do a check-user and trace who this is? I've been warned by other editors that this individual tracks down people offline. Can we please escalate this to the highest level of review possible. I greatly appreciate your help. Propol 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think

Tally-ho!

06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, someone (not Propol) takes Wikipedia *way* too seriously. :| Orderinchaos 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, more of a procedural post really. I would appreciate it if another admin was to review those of the blocking admin and my actions in the case of Beneaththelandslide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The block, based on NPA over comments made by the user about alleged stacking at an FAC, seems to me like a disproportionate overreaction, considering that it occurred after only one warning and that the user concerned has an extensive editing history spanning at least two years which includes the creation of 5 FAs. I lowered it from 48h to 24h per WP:BOLD and my understanding of WP:BLOCK, but believe it's the community's decision and not mine to decide whether to unblock. Thanks. Orderinchaos 07:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a complete lifting of this block. He was making a valid point in criticising the FAC, and I don't see a personal attack in pointing out that many of the supporters of the FAC came from just the ethnic group the article is celebrating. Yes, ethnic "bandwagon" effects happen in such !votes, they must be countered, and editors must be free to talk about them and must not be censured for doing so. His tone may have been a bit acerbic, but nothing approaching block level. Block was invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of any kind of warning whatsoever, a length of 48 hours when no 24 hour block had been made (other than one which was rescinded almost immediately way back in February), yep, bad block. Particularly when the block was for his comments here (

ム

08:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and reprimand admin Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for inflaming matters. He had no business placing the patronizing baiting message at the user's talk that only stirred passions and provoked the unfortunate response.

Further reprimand for non-emergency unilateral block without conferring and soliciting opinions. Unblock summary should include some sort of statement about the original block being found improper and subject to the community overturn. No wonder, content creating star editors often leave this project seeing after being baited and humiliated like this, especially when the eager-blocking admin usually goes on unpunished.

The longer the delay with the unblock, the more harm accumulates. Unblocking sooner rather than later will make this heal more quickly. --Irpen 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the block is excessive and needs to be overturned. Pointing out if most of the !votes are belongs to the same group of editors is usually impolite but sometimes necessary. I do not see the need to formally reprimand the blocking admin, we all do mistakes from time to time Alex Bakharev 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll do the unblock then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the block was entirely invalid, but 48 hours was definitely excessive. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My block rationale has been completely misconstrued above. The user used incivil language at

WP:NPA and the user has been blocked for the same issue in the past.--Jersey Devil

09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are far worse insults flying around Wikipedia. Incivility is all relative. All I can say is to stop being so precious Jersey. Timeshift 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I hadn't seen that edit summary, which is clearly an attack made in anger, but then, still, I don't see it as the type of situation where a block is suitable, and I'm not convinced the warning was valid in the first place. I see nothing wrong with his previous performance on the FAC discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! When an experienced FA-writing editor gets such kind of unwarranted threatening messages placed on his talk page the user reacts angrily. This is widely known and was even applied in the past to specifically provoke a response to be used as an excuse to block. I am not saying that JD had such a foul plan, but his actions were not well thought of, to put it mildly. Hopefully, the offended user would take this incident kindly, despite it leaves a permanent trace in his block log and we will all just move on. Lesson learned. But since receiving such blocks is a real humiliation, it would take a user some effort, which he hopefully can make. --Irpen 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that after the block the user continued with similar comments: Seems regardless of their ethnicity and political orientation, all Americans are indeed fools. Michael talk 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [25] It would also be nice if in the future you could at least leave a message on my talk page saying that you are going to unblock user's that I've blocked particularly after his unblock was declined by another administrator.--Jersey Devil 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a lament, not "incivility." Characterizing the speech of others in an unflattering way is simply a normal part of discourse that turned acrimonious, and that discussion had turned acrimonious. In fact, it had turned into a mobbing. I am sorry that I missed this gammon when it was fresh, as I find the block to be the disruptive bit, myself, and the assumption of bad faith, etc. Geogre 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Englandfan7 was banned indefinitely for uploading images which were copyrighted and claiming he produced them himself. Now, said user has created a sockpuppet account User:Iwualum05 and has not only personally attacked me [26] but has repeatedly inserted unsourced material onto pages [27] and [28]. Note that said user appears to be trying to engage in an edit war, which I am not going to get involved in. He has been shot down numerous times about inserting said material into the article yet refuses to acknowledge that he is in the wrong...not to mention he's a sockpuppet. Batman2005 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Said user has also began personally attacking other users [29] Batman2005 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Said user has also been highly uncivil in his edits and even more personal attacks [30] and [31]

Said user, who is a sock of a user banned for uploading copyrighted images and claiming he was allowed to use them or that he was the owner has also uploaded this image [32] to wikipedia, claiming that a friend of his took it and gave him permission to use it. With his history of image uploading and justification, this is a VERY suspect claim. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a copyrighted image, not usable by the project. Batman2005 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks, incivility and attempts to justify his unsourced claims [33]. Batman2005 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The IWU sort of gives it away, doesn't it? Someone should block this sock: if Englandfan7 wants an unblock, he/she should ask on his /her own user talk, where it was being discussed.

Rank incivility continues: [34]Proabivouac 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I have tried, and succeeded in remaining civil as you can tell (which might surprise some) the aforementioned user has persisted in his incivility...this time threatening me by (falsely) claiming that he has been in contact with an administrator to investigate me for a legitimate edit to a page. [35]. How much disruption is needed? Batman2005 08:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, claiming a legitimate edit is vandalism and threatening me with being investigated. [36]. Hasn't this gone on long enough? Batman2005 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC) More personal attacks, now trying to turn an entire page of editors against me for legitimate editing [37]. Batman2005 08:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a likely abusive sock. El_C 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Batman2005. El_C 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Leavepower (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) removed tags from all his suspected socks [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0 for the relevant WP:RFCU report, which is still outstanding. I mean, I can understand it if Leavepower removed his own tag, but I believe it is unacceptable for him to remove the other users' tags.--Endroit 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

no evidence.Leavepower 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endroit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nightshadow28 for the relevant WP:RFCU report, which is still outstanding. I mean, I can understand it if Leavepower removed his own tag, but I believe it is unacceptable for him to remove the other users' tags.Leavepower 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Endroit and Watermint are socket puppet. he double play. he enjoyed personal harassment, also, use so many 3rr warning.Leavepower 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leavepower, did I "use so many 3rr warning" against you? How many? Perhaps you're referring to this 3RR report where Bason1 got indef blocked for impersonating Bason0.--Endroit 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endroit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he continually personal harassment.[43] [44] [45] [46] [47] i am sick and tired, bcz this guy. also, he is a suspected socket puppet of Watermint.[48] he double play. and personal harassment to me. Leavepower 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm NOT a sockpuppet. Please check my contribution records and Endroit's records. Moreover, I am convinced that User:Leavepower' behavior is obvious Personal attack against Endroit and me.--Watermint 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leavepower has left this final warning on my talk page. He's obviously disgruntled and seeking revenge against us, for his other users being blocked. If none of the admins object, I will go ahead and put back the {{sockpuppet}} tags on these users like I did before.--Endroit 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. As an interim measure (one of?) the article Leavepower and others have been edit-warring over all day, Sea of Japan naming dispute, has been full-protected. I'm sure Checkuser will sort the rest of this out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello administrators. I thank you for all your works everyday. Although User:Replystay reports WP:RFCU for me and other veteran users, but I am NOT a sock of other users. Please see contribution log. --Nightshadow28 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also suspect strongly that User:Leavepower is a sock of User:Bason0. The reason which I consider so is as follows:

• User:Leavepower does characteristic wording. He uses a word of "socketpuppet" as sockpuppet.[49][50]
• User:Replystay also uses "socket puppet".[51] (Please see his editing summary) [52]
• User:Bason1 is blocked as sockpuppet of User:Bason0[53][54], and also uses "socket puppet". [55]

That is, the new users who appeared at the same time, performed the same opinion, and has repeated the same miswritten word. It is difficult to suspect this not to be sockpuppet. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana, I'm afraid it's not that simple. There are dozens of articles where Leavepower went in and made controversial edits, not just that one.

WP:POINT violation. And just a couple days ago, Replystay (talk · contribs) did much of the same thing. And so did Bason1 (talk · contribs), just a few days before him. (Bason1 got indef blocked for suspected sockpuppetry).--Endroit

13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'd blocked User:Leavepower for 3rr (1 day) prior to finding this report. As Riana says above she protected the article and check user should sort the rest out. ^Khukri 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could administrators review the discussion on the Talk Page for the Burgh of

David, people who read the discussion will see what is going on for themselves. And, yes, everyone, I urge anyone who can to come and give it their thoughts. I've already tried to bring this topic to the attention of the Scottish wikipedians noticeboard and WikiProject Medieval Scotland, and it has helped only a little (though it brought Lurker and Ben MacDui in). I'm not sure if Administrators in particular, certainly not Incidents, is the best place to advertise this, but what the hey, it's already here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Haevy attack page posted by

Fixed your link. Either way, the article is being sent up for speedy deletion - and that other image he/she uploaded might want to go with it, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied that users user page and an image for being advertisements for a blog. Also the userpage expressed hatred towards a specific country. I think a close eye should be kept on this user. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What should be done with this image? It was part of this article which I have speedy deleted as an attack page. However I can't see the image so I don't know what should be done with it. Is there any better way for me to deal with this sort of situation than taking it here? Graham87 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it now. I guess if you don't feel confident making such a delete yourself you could just slap a db-tag on it and let somebody else review it, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah that's a good idea and I'll do that in future.

WP:DENY and all that. Graham87

10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

User has read policy pages regarding image use.

This user is consistently reverting and spamming content on various Tomb Raider related articles. He insists on displaying his personally uploaded images on every page (which completely lack fair use rationale) or rearranges pictures without justification. It has been discussed on various talkpages that listing level descriptions is not encyclopedical yet he continues to edit this in. His talkpage, as you can see, is flooded with bot warnings about inappropriate uploading, which he apparently ignores. He systematically refuses to solve disputes on the talkpage. He simply reverts. Seeing as he fails to react to talkpage messages, I fail to see why block warnings would be useful. I therefore request an immediate block. --Steerpike 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Handled, see User talk:Joxernolan#Account blocked. Hopefully, he'll finally notice the "You have new messages", read the image policies, and request the unblock. It's a shame to have to go that far, as he seems genuinely enthused to help the project. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked as sock puppet of banned user (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this query at User talk:Jpgordon, BushpigsGoneWild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs), who has been permanently blocked for disrupting the project. Would someone please block? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DoneY. Good catch! (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm here once again. Some may know that in the past couple days or so I've had a dispute with

Now, Jmfangio I know has some sort of problem with me; whenever I post a comment, I always go check my watchlist afterwards... I don't know why I do, but I do. Whenever I post a comment of Jmfangio's talk page, he deletes it before I can even get to my watchlist, so I know that he doesn't read any of my comments. One that I sent him last night during this was a very important one, which I'll get to in a bit. It's only my comments that he sweeps up like a vacuum cleaner; he deletes it way too quickly for him to be able to read it, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

Anyway, on Tuesday night, Jmfangio was blocked for a 3RR violation. There was an ensuing discussion on his talk page created by him about the whole situation that took place. During the heated conversation, Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) was quite frustrated because he, too, has been a victim of Jmfangio's behavior. He left a comment on Jmfangio's talk page ([59]), which seconds later he retracted ([60]). Jmfangio felt that the comment Chrisjnelson left was important to the conversation and decided to restore the comment ([61]) with the edit summary "...[T]his needs to be seen." So, because of this action he took last night, Jmfangio was saying that it's alright to restore other people's comments to a talk page after the commenter chose to remove them.

This is what leads to the "hypocritical edits" I was referring to in the subject heading. Chrisjnelson posted a comment, which he later decided to remove, but Jmfangio thought that it was important and should stay in the discussion. Last night, Jmfangio posted a comment, which he later decided to remove, but I thought that it was important and should stay in the discussion. However, despite the fact that Jmfangio did the same thing on Tuesday, when it was perfectly allowed by his standards, he wouldn't let me do it because it was his comment that was being restored. I explained this to him in the comment ([62]) I sent him last night, but he removed it within seconds of me posting it ([63]) so I know he didn't read my reasons.

Also, since on Tuesday it was perfectly allowed by his standards, yet I couldn't do it to him, this brought me to the conclusion that the only reason Jmfangio was doing this to me last night was to harass me. Also, per the GNU Free Documentation License, once somebody clicks on "Save page", they release their contributions to the world, where they are no longer "his" comments, and it's my interpretation that because he already submitted it, I'm free to use it however I want. All I did was restore the comment, which I don't see the harm that create. Once he submitted the comment, I am free to do what I want with it, as long as I don't distort it to change its meaning, which I didn't. It seems to me that Jmfangio is only trying to harass me, and nothing more. I don't see how there could be any other reason for not allowing a user to do something that you did the very previous night. Ksy92003(talk) 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on this dispute other then to say that it's usually common courtesy to let someone to retract a statement. ---

WRE

) 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... ok, I looked into this further... and It seems that you, in my opinion, were out of line. This isn't really a matter of legality (Yeah yeah, GFDL applies). It's a matter of etiquette. He retracted his statement in less then a minute and your replay didn't have much substance in it anyway. If you still wish to make the comment I would recommend re-phrasing it so it stands on it's own without his comment for context. In either case... shame on everyone for edit waring over something so trivial. ---

WRE

) 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I ended up just removing my comment, altogether, because I was so frustrated with the situation. I know that perhaps I was a little bit out of line, but to me this is just a matter of principle. I mean if he did something the night before, wouldn't it make sense that I would have every right to do it the next night? And this isn't so much a manner of context for me as it is harassment. It's not a big deal to begin with, but the fact that he took it so offensively when he reacted in an extremely similar manner the previous night really makes me think that there was no other reason for his actions than to simply harass me.

His harassment frustrated me to a point that last night I was seriously contemplate Wikipedia for good; because of Jmfangio's behavior towards me in the past week (not just this situation), by entire pattern has been thrown off... I had been creating several pages per day for baseball players, and now I can't continue that. I also no longer get enjoyment from contributing to this encyclopedia, which I haven't even really been able to do because I've been constantly having to defend myself against Jmfangio's false accusations of

WP:CIVIL. That combined with all the harassment and I've seriously given some serious thought to quitting Wikipedia forever... and I'm still contemplating that. If someone could just get Jmfangio to stop... that's all I ask is for someone to stop all this harassment and incivility towards me. Ksy92003(talk)

17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Need I provide examples of harassment towards me by this user? I can try to find them, if you wish. Ksy92003(talk) 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the most recent and long-lasting evidence of harassment was what led him to be blocked for 3RR on Tuesday. A discussion between TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), myself, and Jmfangio began at TonyTheTiger's talk page, and then was transferred to Jmfangio's by Jmfangio. I don't know why, but that's immaterial. Jmfangio was questioning TonyTheTiger for a comment he made to me, and I felt that it was my responsibility to clarify it (I won't go into specifics unless absolutely necessary). I was defending myself, as well as trying to help him understand the situation, and his response was "Please stop posting here. You are not following my points at all and I really don't care about who said what to whom and on what date. All i care about is content discussion and that people don't chime in with chirpy comments that escalate an otherwise civil process. Nuff said," which I took negatively, as one could understand. In my next comment ([64]), I had the response of something to the effect of "I'm only doing what you said to do... why are you snapping at me for that?" In this version of his talk page ([65]), which was shortly after he was blocked for 3RR on my talk page, there are a couple threats, which I actually didn't realize they were threats until just now: "I'll serve my 24hour ban - because i deserve it. But I will be removing my comments from Ksy's subpage" (threatening to continue the vandalism that got him blocked) and "Ksy - when i comeback, i'm removing the portion of my comments you have moved to your talk page," once again threatening to continue vandalize my page again... he eventually didn't, but he did threaten; also he posted another comment, "i'll be back tomorrow and we'll deal with it then" which I really take quite threateningly.

Later, I had an RfC that wasn't successful, and Daniel Case (talk · contribs) came to ask Jmfangio, since it didn't get the two signatures, if he wanted it deleted or archived. After Jmfangio's response, I came to tell Daniel Case that I didn't have any need for the RfC anymore. I feel that my opinion was perfectly valid, although it wouldn't have changed the situation anyway. Jmfangio removes it with the edit summary "not your decision anyway." I know that he can do whatever he wants on his talk page, but it just seems like Jmfangio did this only to bother me. Also, every single comment I posted on his talk page he just instantly deleted, so to me it really seems like he just wants to bother me again and again and again without even considering my opinion on the matter. He's harassed me and bothered me more than anybody else... there have been anons who have vandalised my pages that have been more friendly to me than he has. I think it wouldn't be fair if Jmfangio doesn't even get told by somebody else not to harass me, because clearly that's his only intention of having any sort of contact with me is him removing any of my comments or harassing me in all the ways he has. And I'm sure that Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) can vouch for me. Ksy92003(talk) 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Matt57's participation in Elonka's recent RfA he seems to have become obsessed. First, he added articles about her ancestors to his user page calling it "Articles to clean up for Elonka" [66]. Today he's been going through some of those articles stubbifying them with claims of OR and the inability to verify references that do not host an online copy (newspapers from the 1940's so this is hardly surprising). Despite several other editors trying to reason with him and even cleaning up the articles and providing inline citations for clarity [67] he continued to revert. He's now created the sock User:MiiMiiM to continue reverting, especially since he'd reached 3 reverts on Antoni Dunin. It very telling that this new account responds "I can and I will" to me asking Matt not to remove references just because they don't have an online source (old Detroit News, New York Times etc.) [68].

I've been involved reverting his actions and cleaning up the articles, so I don't want to block him myself. Can someone take a look and help out please? He's feeling that everyone who's tried to talk to him so far is biased, so perhaps an uninvolved party can try reasoning with him before this gets further out of hand? Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped editing at 03:33 today, then MiiMiiM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was born at 03:37 and immediately began editing the same articles. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked two socks and the main account for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a few ofthe articles to before Matt57/MiiMiiM's edits, per multiple editors (across all pages) assertions that citation, not inline citation, nor online citation, is what is needed. since all articles seem mostly sourced, the use of a few cite needed tags is probably what is in order for contested areas, not rampant blankings... ThuranX 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edits of User:MiiMiis suggest that Matt57 may have been set up by one of our resident banned jokesters: this is hardly a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now semi-protected affected articles and unblocked Matt57 until the checkuser comes back. There's a credible claim that Matt didn't create the other accounts.--Chaser - T 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I stand by my reverts though, as they address the underlying problem, that Matt57 seems to be 'after' Elonka, regardless of the actual policies about citation, which will continue to be problematic, regardless of sock activity and frame-ups. that issue should still be resolved. ThuranX 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a growing issue here aside from this sockpuppetry. I would appreciate an uninvolved admin reviewing Matt57's recent behaviour regarding Elonka and articles connected to her. He seems to be alone in the approach he is taking to those articles, and willing to edit war with the numerous editors who have reverted him. In my opinion, at best he's being obstinate and heavy handed, at worse the narrow minded focus on an editor he has been in conflict with is amounting to harassment. WjBscribe 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those "sockpuppets" seem like sure set-ups, but in any case Matt's conduct falls quite soundly into his pattern of wikistalking editors that he has had content disputes with (he stalked me, SlimVirgin, and others). Essentially he has been wikistalking Elonka because she disagreed with including unnecessary (but offensive to some Muslims) pictures of Mohammad in some article. Aggressive opposition at her RfA can be expected, but going on to tear apart articles about her relations and herself is just going way too far. It is hard to assume good faith considering the previous incidents. This is definitely the most severe case of wikistalking I have seen from this editor, and it is quite disappointing that he has done this even after being warned after his past violation [69]. Editors are supposed to cut down on such behavior after receiving a community warning instead of stepping it up a notch. The Behnam 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So... week long block for him to cool off and evaluate if he really wants to continue to work on Wikipedia? If it's so upseetting to him to work with some editors, he needs to figure out his feelings on the project. ThuranX 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate response to an editor who continues such misconduct even after a stern warning. He needs to learn that he must show respect for other editors, even if he disagrees with them, if he wants to volunteer here. I've tried to think of some sort of creative alternative, such as a topical ban on anything Dunin-related, but I fear that would be more of a treatment than a cure. A traditional block seems the best next step towards a cure in this situation. The warning (the first step) was ignored. Anyway, I'll stop here and leave it to the admins to decide what is the best approach. Thanks in advance for any attempts to deal with this problem. Regards, The Behnam 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A week is way to harsh. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is a smart fellow who, I believe, has no intention operating outside of the law, so to speak. As far as I can discern, he believes he is doing the right thing by challenging what he sees as vanity material. Though for my part I assume that Elonka should have made a fine adminstrator (and perhaps will be one not too long from today,) there may be some merit to what Matt57 is doing, even if and though it is socially ill-advised - everyone is feeling bad for Elonka, Matt57 was pretty rough on her during the RfA, and now he's after "her articles"…but then the acceptance of that last connection sort of admits that there might be the very same problem here that Matt57 is perceiving. I suggest instead an RfC or similar mode of discussion on this issue, either of Matt57's behavior, or the Dunin articles, or both.

COI concerns played a significant role in the RfA, and nearly led me to oppose. The problem isn't going away on its own, and, though I see the social problem, I'm tempted to credit him for taking the initiative to bringing it to the fore. Sympathy over a narrowly-failed (and socked to significant effect) RfA isn't a good reason to maintain material in mainspace, actuall, and, given the tone of this thread, I don't think that it can reasonably be denied that this plays a role here. If Matt57 is said to be harassing Elonka, we should be able to show this without reference to the "Elonka articles" [sic.] (though naturally were he adding negative material, this would be a different story, per

WP:BLP.)Proabivouac

07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admire the impartiality of this analysis, it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor. The answer, I think, was that Matt had been rejecting feedback from a variety of people who were attempting to counsel him. There are better ways to resolve an issue than the methods he tried, and both the timing and specificity suggest he was personalizing a dispute rather than acting upon principle. (Caveats: I conominated Elonka's RFA and disagree with Matt's policy interpretation on Muhammad images). It's also important to bear in mind that one editor's attribution of a set of biographies as the "Elonka articles" doesn't mean she's violating any guideline or policy; she hasn't edited those pages in over a year. I don't think Matt's acting in genuine bad faith, yet one thing that makes this difficult is that an editor who did act in bad faith would choose precisely this strategy to undermine her. She's damned if she does edit, damned if she doesn't, and the community's attention gets focused around the proposal that she's doing something wrong. She can't help that she's descended from European nobility any more than I can change being descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. The latter heritage appears to be an advantage at this site. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"...it doesn't explain why several experienced Wikipedians gave credence to the idea that these sockpuppets were run by an experienced editor." No, and I don't find your analysis completely convincing. There seems to be an ironic asymmetry in the assumption of good faith we extend to new and to established users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Proabivouac's take on the situation, but I'd like to point out that Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online. Had he researched the references and removed any unsourced material (even if that material was only sourced to elonka.com), I would be more inclined to support his actions, however, this behavior steps a bit past the bounds of dealing with supposed COI issues. Choosing to edit war with multiple editors on multiple articles even while discussions and cleanup of the articles was ongoing wasn't the best course of action, but if he's agreed to stop the disruption and engage in discussion again, there shouldn't be any reason to punitively block him. Shell ^babelfish 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

"Matt was also removing third-party sources like the New York Times because he couldn't read it online."

I'm not certain which diffs you refer to here, but if he did so, that's pushing it too far: we cite books all the time.Proabivouac 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, if you're talking about this diff, that NYT article 1) is from Elonka.com 2) says nothing whatsoever about Stanley Dunin. Matt57 is right: that's spam.Proabivouac 04:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across Matt57 quite recently on an unrelated matter. My final conclusion was that he needed to learn how to relate to other people. He gave me orders as to what to AfD, then orders as to what to do with the time I spend online, and folllowed this up by accusing me of lying, quite out of the blue (at which I finally flipped). I was not surprised to see this thread, the message of which seems to be that Matt57 needs to learn the meaning of the word tact. Wikipedia is a project where we simply have to be able to work with each other, at least from time to time. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Probivouac: I had no idea about the RfA stuff till I read through this. I watch AN/I as a nosy non-admin. My biggest concerns with this report were the sock use, which has been resolved, at least as relates to Matt57's actions, though who's trying to 'get' Matt57 needs resolution), and the BLP/citation issue. Matt57's refusal to listen regarding both inline and on-line citation requirements for articles, and that you don't need either, so long as you have good citation is a problem to me. Then, in reading through all this stuff, and seeing that he's established a category of articles to 'get', all of which connect directly to an editor with whom he's got an aze to grind, all looks bad. I have NO clue, nor do I really feel like looking back through archives and histories to figure it all out. All I see is:

There is an editor who maintains a list of articles related to another editor, with whome the first has big problems. He regularly blanks vast portions of the articles on that list claiming they lack citation. His interpretation of lack of citation is a lack of inline citations, and/or an inability to instantly verify citations via internet links.

As such, I see a personal conflict affecting Wikipedia articles. I see blanking vandalism. (Not in the first edit, but in the reversions to blanked versions after he's been counseled.) And I see deliberate ostrich behavior regarding policy (citation). All three are problems which can result in blocks. All three together from an established editor is significantly block-worthy. If a week is too harsh, 72 hours. But to let this pass is farcical. And citing that time has passed while this was debated isn't fair either. I agree that discussion eliminated a major concern, sock puppetry. but the rest is clearly Matt57's own actions, for which he should recieve consequences, and quickly. ThuranX 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, please lay off your stalking allegations off me. If I talk to an editor about something, that doesnt mean I'm stalking them. Elonka's unreferenced articles have been a pain for her as well as for everyone else who sees them as "vanispam". I'm dealing with this now. Whats the big deal? You dont need to jump in at every excuse to try to get me blocked. I havent even talked to you in a long time so I dont know where that came from. Maybe you have me on your watchlist or something. Stop harrassing me now and try to forget about me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you might want to address the other issues raised in this thread.Proabivouac 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok about the Elonka articles? 500 friends of Elonka keep blind reverting me on her family articles, where I put in OR tags, or deleted OR. I contacted Elonka and for a week, she did not respond to my question to her of what she thought about her family articles affair. So I went and started an RfC yesterday. Sounds reasonable, right? She finally responded to something I asked her on her so I'm going to deal with all that. I dont know what big deal is here. People need to stop rushing in to "defend" their friend's family articles. If it was any other article no one would have cared. What Elonka did was a gross violiation of COI and its all still there and probably will remain there and will remain a problem for her. All I'm doing is making sure everything unreferenced goes away. If Antoni Dunin passes the test and remains the same after my investigations, I'll forget about all the other articles. Everything sounds reasonable here. As for my taking out NY Times references, I have never taken out any referenced statements. I've been fair and asked people for 3rd party opinions including the RfC, so I dont know why people are making a big deal out of this. I'm doing my best to be impartial and apply policies fairly, while people on the other hand are being defensive and jumping in to bring back unreferenced text and COI problems - who's wrong me or them? Again, there's no big deal now, inspite of 500 people jumping on me. If Antoni Dunin passes the test, I'll leave the other articles alone. If it doesnt, even then I'll leave the other articles alone, becuase I'll have proven my point that this was stuff that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia and as many people have said, it was all vanispam. If everything comes out referenced and strong in the end, ofcourse I'll accept that it belongs here. And I dont want to go on 20 pages about what I'm doing at Elonka's articles. If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles. Any other issues to respond to? And if all I wanted to do is edit war at Elonka's articles, I would still be doing it. Why am I not, people? Does the fact that I've asked for 3rd party opinions tell you anything? Please, calm down on this Elonka affair now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you want to discuss something, use the talk pages of the articles."

Good advice. Looking at the relevant talk pages, I see nothing but Matt57 waiting to talk to the rest of the editors in this thread.Proabivouac 04:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just taken a closer look at Stanley Dunin, I've made a few changes myself. Here are the diffs.[70][71][72]

Also, I've posted on talk, in case anyone would like to respond.[73]

Several cites which mention Stanley Dunin not at all, another praiseful article which is about Elonka Dunin, mentioning Stanley only in passing…Proabivouac 04:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro's edits better demonstrate how Matt57 could have handled this situation; removing truly dubious sources, noting it on talk, and then waiting, instead of rampant blanking. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RfCU

Note: Cheszmastre (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who created Matt57's sockpuppet page, is likely a sockpuppet of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre is clearly His excellency. I have indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom harrison. Meanwhile, the checkuser is back: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matt57Proabivouac 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad that part's settled. Now about Matt 57's own questionable actions and edits? ThuranX 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, that banned trolls are successfully tricking us into blocking established editors is hardly a trivial matter; indeed, if the first post herein is any guide, that is why this thread was opened to begin with.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from Chezmastre confirmed to be from banned User:Kirbytime. As the other socks are CU-confirmed as His excellency, and Chezmastre's edit pattern is obviously reminiscent of His excellency, I'm not certain if this means that CM was Kirbytime the whole time impersonating His excellency, or if His excellency handed him the account mid-stream (why not, it's blocked?) Either way, we are looking at a coordinated attack on Matt57 from two banned trolls.Proabivouac 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I wasn't being dismissive of the frameing up of Matt57 by two banned users; I meant hat since this AN/I report dealt with two allegations: the overreaction to the Dunin articles, and their connection to Elonka, and the possible use of Socks to support such edits, and since one hd been proven to NOT be Matt57, we should now focus here on that part which applied to Matt57, as other processes were now dealing with the other part. having proved it's not Matt57's own actions, we'd divorced the socks from the tendetious, and I wanted to focus on the tendentious. I had little doubt that the RFCU would be followed up by appropriate blocks and that a note of the attacks on Matt57 would be noted. AN/I's thorough in that way most of the time. that's all I meant by that, not that I thought that problem was neglible, but that I thought it was being handled, and we should turn our focus to the other part which DID relate to Matt57. that's all. ThuranX 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole report is bogus because its crux lies on actions of sockpuppets which people thought were mine. Forget this incident and move on. I expect you to use talk at Antoni Dunin if you have any problems on that article about anything I did there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) NO it's not. There were two issues here.

1. Your edits against Elonka's relatives' articles, as evidenced by that list on your user page and your edit history.
2. The edits of what was believed to be your sockpuppet.

The second has been resolved, the first has not. ThuranX 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here. It is possible that this discussion will lead to an RfC. Currently, there does appear to be any situation which requires the attention of administrator.Proabivouac 04:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I've responded to the Elonka articles issue. If you have further problems, use my talk section. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I will NOT whitewash this off the AN/I. There are charges against you, and you haven't responded to them. You said 'I didn't do anything wrong, no one responded to my talk page', that's no response. You didn't start that until you knew you were in trouble. Your blatant vendetta blanking against her has managed to go unpunished, so it's clear you've gotten away with it. I have ZERO doubt that you'll start blanking her again, and point to this toothless unresolved AN/I as 'proof' that no one found wrongdoing. I did, but I'm not an Admin, or you'd have been blocked for quite some time for this. As to your ONLY comment on the matter above, I don't KNOW elonka, I'm NOT one of her 'friends', I'm just objecting to the wholesale blanking of articles to get even with her. At least one comment in this section will demonstrate that the core issue, your blanking, was unresolved. I find your canvassing to get this moved OFF AN/I to be of questionable ethics. You don't get to choose where actions against you are resolved. ThuranX 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and most of all, AGF. "blanking vendetta"? That was removal of unreferenced OR. If you have any concerns with any specific blanking I did, then use the talk pages of the articles. You're saying that I'm "canvassing" by telling people to use my talk page? Thats funny. Anyway, I'll be dealing with Antoni Dunin as my first article so if you're interested to know what I'm doing there, please keep watching that page, and I welcome your comments if you think I did anything wrong. Do see the talk page of that article and if you know of any reliable sources for Antoni Dunin than the other two we have there, please add them to the article and bring it up on talk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In reality, Matt hasn't done anything wrong here, besides trying to pressure Elonka on her own talk page regarding these articles. His choice to edit those articles, so long as he does so within policy, is his right as a Wikipedian. As long as he leaves Elonka alone about it, there should be no issue. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And removing large chunks of OR from these articles is something even Jimbo Wales has had to do. [74]. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I tried to keep his actions on task, there's no BLP on long dead people, and his attitude is one of a vendetta, but hey, since there was another issue more easily solved, I guess we all put iour heads in the sand about the other. I spoke up, I was dismissed. I'm moving on. ThuranX 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

After I made some good faith restoration of deleted info on the page, I removed a section that violated copyright from http://www.bestofsicily.com/food.htm [75] and http://www.bestofsicily.com/wine.htm [76]. After which, Scipio3000 reverted, in spite of this promise he made during a previous incident [77]. He also left this response on my talk page [78]. Edward321 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and the response on his ttalk page was asking him to discuss our problems like others have told me to do, because this is the 3rd time I have had a problem with him..thats all I did I asked him to work on this together and come to a resolution he refuses to do so and instead goes out of his way to undo all my work or find the tiniest fault with what I am doing and reports me, he is constantly harrassing me! Please help me!(Scipio3000 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

NOT true, me and 2 others of Sicilian descent approved these changes we have been working on this all night and I did not get to that citation yet! I added over 10 pics and 5 new sections on the

By all means, add a section on Sicilian cuisine, but use your own words. The adspeek you copied from that website isn't encyclopedic anyway. Lupo 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have attempted to explain the copyright issue to Scipio and I have explained that he must be more civil and not attack those who disagree with him. The edits can be changed to avoid copyvios but it could still be reverted if consensus agrees. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Scipio3000 for 72 hours for this diff] where he referred to an editor as a "White boy." I believe you will see in the context that this is an unacceptable racial swipe. I would encourage others to take a careful look at Scipio's user contributions and see all of the issues he has created. I have attempted to encourage better conduct but have obviously failed. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats on his talk page

He has now implied he's seeking legal action ([79], [80]), as ridiculous as that may sound. Someone please block indef until he retracts.--Atlan (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not wish to retract, by the way ([81]).--Atlan (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He only adds more and more legal nonsense on his talk page. Add to the that soapboxing about how he's blocked because of anti-Italian sentiments on Wikipedia warrants a talk page protect if you ask me, lest all these editors keep wasting their time there. It's getting out of hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 has also been editing my talk page as User:72.23.157.21. Mathsci 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction he put his remarks on my USER PAGE. No comment. Mathsci 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to protect the page until I saw this joyful comment. I've now fully protected the page for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully this is enough time for Scipio3000 to calm down. - auburnpilot talk

After speaking with Scipio3000 via email, I have removed the protection from his talk page. He has assured me he intends to retract any legal threats, but I am going to be away from the computer. If a retraction is made, feel free to reduce the current indef block to the original block by JodyB (talk · contribs) without contacting me. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So then this edit was a lie? Corvus cornix 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of users who threaten legal action do not actually intend to do so. I'd also wager the majority of those who make such statements sincerely never follow through. Lie? Maybe. An insincere burst of frustration? More than likely. - auburnpilot talk 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He said that he was already in contact with legal counsel. Corvus cornix 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit and the note AuburnPilot just left here, I have taken the liberty to reduce the block back to JodyB's 72 hour one.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped after he was warned. If it continues post here again and I'll look into it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this user's first edit was to

Making his own RFA, and then proceeding to attempt to reopen it after it was snowball closed, as well as voting for himself (you can see records of this on his talk page), vote against editors that clearly quality for adminship because they 'don't have enough experience', even after running himeslf[82][83] and remove notes about his suspicious newness.[84] He as also broken 3RR on Margaret Thatcher [85], and this is barely beginning to talk about him. He's obviously only here to disrupt Wikipedia in any way he can find, whether he is a sockpuppet or not. --Lucid

13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hard to discern any positive value in this editors actions or intentions. Seen editors quite legitimately indef blocked for less. Deiz talk 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• He's cruisin' for a bruisin'. When I see the indef-block notice come up on my watchlist, I won't be surprised in the least... EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend he is at least blocked until the end of the RfA. --Dweller 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, given that his disruption at the RfA was continuing ([86]), I've gone ahead and blocked. 1 week. --Dweller 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That works too. I didn't do a full review of his contributions when I initially replied, but yeah... there isn't much positive work there.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering I had to fully protect

his own RfA because he kept editing it after it was closed, I don't think it much matters when the RfA ends. :) EVula // talk // ☯

// 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have indefinitely blocked; I don't see one edit that adds any value to Wikipedia. Clearly a sock, with no intention other than disruption and smearing Haemo.

ム

15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support extending the block to indef. I don't know if this user is a sockpuppet of some banned, reckless troll or a newbie that will forever be tainted by his actions and will definitely need to start anew here (if the lesson is learnt well, that is).--Húsönd 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with another admin extending the block. On the other hand, I'm intrigued to see how he'll behave when he returns. --Dweller 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The idiotic part of me that is hopelessly optimistic in the face of Reality and Facts would like to make this his final chance. If he behaves after the block wears off, great. If not, he's gone. I think the former situation is orders of magnitude less likely than the later, but I'm fine giving him the opportunity to prove me wrong (despite the fact that

I never am). EVula // talk // ☯

// 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser showed a reincarnation sock, User:Chatchien, which I have blocked indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:12.167.224.228 for three months per this rather convincing list of POV-pushing by them as a corporation editing articles related to them and their rivals. Since it's been blocked for that reason before, there didn't seem much point in just warning. Does this seem correct to you? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit overzealous, IMHO. We don't often block high profile IPs, especially if they haven't done the said POV-pushing for quite a while. This IP didn't have many edits, and some of them seemed to be removing some of the problem. The thing is: either we should be blocking this for a much longer time period, or not at all. Three months is going to do little. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though if the IP is blocked or not, you should report the incident to the Communications Cmte..

Miranda

00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Between 7 August and 9 August, the demographics section of

Looking at the talk pages of these IP addresses, I see warnings of unconstructive edits and vandalism. I think this user thought he was contributing - he/she probably thought that these terms were shorter ways of saying the same thing. Od Mishehu 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, I can't really imagine that anyone past the age of 12 in Raleigh, NC thinks that "red" = indigenous American or that Oriental folks are "yellow." Believe it or not, Raleigh has decent education, and there isn't so much racism. Now, this is coming from a corp's IP block, so, if dad doesn't have Junior banging away at the machines, we're either looking at compromised security, a bogus company, or just good, old fashioned, moronia. There is no room or excuse to be made for reductive racialism or racism. Geogre 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'd say just keep reverting. Stupid people exist. Mahalo nui loa for all your help, Nyttend. --Ali'i 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's obviously the same person doing it, but because it's with different IP addresses, what — if anything — should I do at WP:AIV? As far as Od Mishehu: I gave warnings progressively: the first IP got a uw-vand1, the second got a uw-vand2, etc., but I didn't warn the fifth one because I brought it here. Nyttend 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The anti-vandal activity necessary is probably that which we would use with the AOL dilemma: short blocks, every time. The vandal is rolling around, but he or she will, we hope, get tired and bored if each IP gets a 12 hr block each time. If those pile up, then we will need to consider range blocks for an appropriate length, with contact to the abuse address at the company, if necessary. Geogre 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check

Not nonsense, but probably not worthy of inclusion either. I'd say CSD A7. ^

[omg plz]

 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of how the article is written, but it does have a few ghits.[87]. Perhaps the article just needs to be rewritten? ~Kylu (u|t) 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Schools don't fall under A7, for some reason.(this part of the policy appears to be in transition?) Looks like advertising to me though. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the page be speedy-deleted then as blatant advertising? Davnel03 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks like an ad as much as a poorly made page. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - how is it advertising? It just needs some cleanup.

ム

17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

After clean up, it's still AfD fodder. Let's see how it fares there. Geogre 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock needs block

Resolved

 – Blocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin block

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Oprahwasontv created a RFCU on August 13, where he identified myself as the puppet master for Jersyko (talk · contribs), Turtlescrubber (talk · contribs), HailFire (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), and Bhwin (talk · contribs).[88] This is a standard tactic of Dereks1x. If you check the delete log for the RFCU you'll see that a previous sockpuppet of Dereks1x, Nostasi (talk · contribs), previously filed an RFCU against myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz. Additionally, if you check the history for the RFCU for Dereks1x, you'll see that Lawman8 (talk · contribs), another Dereks1x sock, has used that RFCU to file RFCU's against myself, Jersyko, and Tvoz.[89] And if that is not enough, if you check Jersyko's edit history you'll see that Jersyko has had no contact with Oprahwasontv, so the only way Oprahwasontv could have known about Jersyko was if he was Dereks1x. Side note, Bhwin (talk · contribs) is also probably a sock of Dereks1x's. His only non-userspace edit was a comment on Talk:Barack Obama[90] that is virtually identical to a comment I made to Oprahwasontv on that talk page.[91] Since this edit was made a couple of hours before Oprahwasontv submitted the RFCU, chances are the comment was made so they could mimic my wording and claim Bhwin was my sockpuppet. --Bobblehead ^(rants)

20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. I forgot. Here's an RFCU Dereks1x filed against Jersyko, myself, and Tvoz.[92] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and endorse all of the above, and would block the user(s) myself if not for my involvement. · jersyko talk 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

[93] after this comment the user went and proposed deletion on about 15 articles. He's made few other edits to this point.--

Crossmr

22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you handled that just fine and we should wait and see if the behavior continues after your talk page message.--Atlan (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by user 24.168.46.238

Resolved

User 24.168.46.238 has made legal threats against CyberGhostface [94] [95] [96] [97][98] and say he will 'be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' [99] .Edward321 23:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This IP was blocked earlier today. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've semiprotected his user talk page for the duration of his block (48h) to stop the trolling and threats. He said he will not be returning after the block expires. Let's hope that's true. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw he was blocked for 48 hours, but he has continued to make legal threats after his block. Edward321 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Block has been extended to six months for ongoing harrassment and legal threats. Georgewilliamherbert 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection extended to match block. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User Making Contentious edits while content dispute is in place

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

Resolved

 – No admin action required or requested; editors are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution and take this discussion elsewhere. --ElKevbo 02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to leave the situation but having a difficult time actually doing this. allowing me to do this.

WP:DATE need to be reverted per the section where it says ". Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (1997

), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."

This has been discussed in numerous places and is in fact part of a much larger dispute going on between myself, this user, and one other. Please step in and stop this so that it does not create extra work for others. The choice of display has not been discussed and due to the fact that all editors are very passionate about this, we need a "status quo" instituted.

 ►Chat 

00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a dispute about the edits that I was making. Here is a quote that is currently on

WP:BASEBALL

:

If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination.

This isn't set in stone, so there is nothing that says I can't do what I was doing; in fact, it points in favor of me removing the links. The end says "Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006 [to 2006 in sports], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination." To avoid this confusion, removing the links altogether is the best way to avoid any conflicting opinions. Ksy92003(talk) 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are improperly citing MOS pages (wp:date) as your defense. You have mistated the information available there. This is a discussion that needs to take place. You are well aware of all the disputes and considering all the rift raft between the two of us over the recent weeks, I cannot view these edits as anything other than problematic. As I have said, status quo is the proper approach. If the content is already in there in a particular format, and as the discussions that have been had on this in the past have not achieved a consensus, AND as you and i are in the middle of a heated battle - this needs to stop.
   ►Chat 
  01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There also was a discussion that

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive5#Links in infoboxes. Ksy92003(talk)

01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have read that a) no consensus was arrived at and b) it is an incomplete discussion at best as no reference was made to
   ►Chat 
  01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• [100] for the history of the
   ►Chat 
  01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not even the place to discuss this. Now, you are seriously on the verge of Wikipedia:Harassment. Just because you, one person doesn't believe me isn't a reason to bring me to ANI. Discuss this at the project page, not here; this isn't for these types of disputes. I'll repeat again from the quote above: "although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination." This is strong support and reasonable-enough evidence to support removal of the pipes. Just because you disagree with the edits means you have to report me? You are so close from Wikipedia:Harassment. You're the one who has said that you're trying to disengage. This isn't really proving that. Stop harassing me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested early on that we go the
   ►Chat 
  01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violated 3RR, you have. I've made only 3 reverts, you've made four already. I've given you reasons why I've made my edits, you haven't. Just stop bothering me and let me edit, alright? Ksy92003(talk) 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Stoping hate editing

Users

Prebilovci Massacre in which even he accept that between 1945 and 1990 nobody has known or spoken about this "massacre". If in article there is no clear sources for event ...... His last editing is in article Čapljina which is very similar to others because he is writing of Croats crimes but without source of statement and even he accept that this has not happen in Čapljina city. Because all this arguments users Roremaster and Roramaster are hate editors on wiki and in my personal thinking they need to be blocked. ---Rjecina

02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexithymia

Resolved

There is a tricky little problem here, User:Soulgany101 is putting in all sorts of statements cited to single surnames, with no reference to the work concerned, usually, easy enough to rectify, but, in this case, believe it or not, the name "Taylor" resolves to several potential sources, not all accessible online.

It seems to0 me only reasonable enough to ask User:Soulgany101 to put in the full reference, but he won't. My telepathic skills are dodgey at best, so I cannot work it out. I like to AGF but as I accidentally happen to know User:Soulgany101 is the author of a self-published book on Alexithymia, and has a tendency to POV push I find it hard here. HELP!!! --Zeraeph 02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your less-than-stellar telepathy skills might not have led you to Alexithymia#References, but I think you should take a second look. I've protected the article as a precautionary measure to halt this weird edit war. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, I concede, my telepathy sucks, and, of course, you have probably protected the wrong version, in accord with protocol (so I am told) but thanks :o) --Zeraeph 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm just glad that this was resolved before both of you were blocked for violating

WP:3RR. Please take the time to ask around before seeking administrative intervention, us admins are a blunt and random force. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩

03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a little "blunt and random" force to persuade him to clean up his own citations, in a single, understandable, style, is out of the question? Yes? No? :o) --Zeraeph 03:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Work it out at talk:Alexithymia. Note that there are many valid styles of citation, consistency is the key to maintaining clarity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! But I talk, he ignores...--Zeraeph 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the other way around, the way I see it. You have accused Soulgany101 of breaching civility when his responses are calm and polite. Given the subject matter involved, I suggest a bit more patience and assuming good faith. This particular AN/I thread should be put to rest.ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not so, I tried here [101] and here [102]. I also do not think it is even slightly

WP:CIVIL to present the removal of material he cannot be bothered to cite clearly as a "blanking frenzy". All he had to do was correct the citations, or say he didn't know how...what he did was tell me to "Improve the cite, don't remove it" on [103] which, with all the good faith in the world I found I could not possibly do as there is more than one paper produced by a "Taylor" on Alexithymia in 1997. --Zeraeph

03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO is back from 3RR block and continues where he left off

This is predictable and will be just another 4RR or so. Misou 01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocking does not work with him. Voila: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 (sneaky1), Diff 5 (sneaky2)

Misou 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bingo, just happened. Please freeze this page, put it under probation or whatever, this is senseless editing and no progress. Misou 03:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats from a pair of SPA SSP accounts

A legal complaint has been posted on many pages and tag-team reverted by these apparent sockpuppet or meatpuppets. I'm not positive this constitutes a technical legal threat, but it includes a lot of legal terms and has been repeated so much I believe administrative review would be advisable.

Users posting the threats:

• C00483033 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rondus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Both are single-purpose accounts that began posting the legal threats as soon as they started editing around a week ago.

Active

WP:SSP

reports currently listing these accounts:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975

Examples of diffs where the threats were posted, one for each of the above accounts:

• posted by C00483033
• posted by Rondus

Also, the full text of the same legal complaining was added by User:Rondus in his rebuttal to the first SSP report listed above.

Each of the two SSP reports also include five more diffs for each of the two accounts, for a total of ten diffs, showing the same legal complaint posted again and again on various pages and with tag-team reversions when the content was removed by others. There are additional examples that have not been posted as diffs.

Within the long text, this is the part that reads like a threat, that made me think I should post this notice here:

When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).”

For context, IPSOS (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor who edits many topics. He has clearly and specifically answered the above complaint stating that it is inaccurate. His reply follows the copy of the legal threat posted by User:Rondus at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd). Because User:IPSOS name was mentioned in the legal threats, I checked with him before posting this and he concurred that it would be good to report the situation here.

I request that an administrator experienced with legal threat issues please review this and the related SSP reports. If this is the wrong place to post this information, please direct me to the proper noticeboard for legal threats. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Block request per CU recommendation

Based upon Deskana's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi, it seems that Godongwana (talk · contribs) should be blocked for "being disruptive in its own right." It wasn't clear to me whether or not Deskana was saying that Godongwana is an obvious abusive sockpuppet of Muntuwandi, specifically (I've requested clarification at User talk:Deskana#Request), but what is clear is that Godongwana should be blocked. Thanks in advance for any help with this matter. The Behnam 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: 75.183.170.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Resolved

tang

05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I sprotected the page for a week - this is a content dispute, which admins generally are loathe to get involved in - please take it to talk and try to work it out in that time. If you can, please let the U.S. State Department know how you did it, because I think they struggle with the same thing. :-) I'm not going to block or warn any users over this particular content dispute... - Philippe | Talk 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

tang

05:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian

To whom it may concern, I was recently trying to patch up some article disputes with the administrator Eyrian. Anyway, I see that his user page, talk page, archives, essays, etc. have all been deleted and protected. Anyway, I was just curious what gives? Was his account compromised? Has he left Wikipedia? Etc. In any case, although I disagreed with this editor, I am just curious what happened and still hope that he is nevertheless okay. Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea. his page is cascade-protected with no reason supplied, last edit today. He may be using his m:Right to Vanish, but should probably step down as an admin to do so. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I too hope everything is ok, however, the user talk needs to be unprotected. Navou ^banter 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried sending him an email to ask, but it seems he either does not have an email or made it so he cannot receive messages. --

Tally-ho!

02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks who leave altogether routinely come back, including a few admins. It's OK if he remains a sysop since the developers weeded out weak sysop passwords after a few administrator accounts were hijacked. I'm not very keen on the user talk page

salting either, but if he's really gone, there's no reason he needs to receive messages. ~shrug~.--Chaser - T

02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable that admins who protect their pages, particularly if the protection is expected to be long term or the admin is leaving the project (short or long term), leave a brief notice to that effect be posted. I don't think anyone is saying that User Talk pages shouldn't be protected when necessary but it should be a courtesy, particularly for admins, to let others know that they're gone and can't help or answer questions. Just protecting a User Talk page, particularly an admin's, can be confusing and frustrating for other editors, particularly newer editors. --ElKevbo 05:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I left such a note and protected the talk page directly.--Chaser - T 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are several admins (myself included) who did a "right to vanish" followed several months later by a "right to return". Thus deopping people for being inactive is probably not the best approach. Also,
  WP:PEREN. >Radiant<
  09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I left. I became incredibly discouraged. I am now back. I don't think it's right to be lackadaisical about these things, even when things become frustrating. --Eyrian 14:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many things I find incredibly frustrating and discouraging on Wikipedia, obviously deletionism being the biggest concern, but I kind of find the site addictive. It is hard to just give up once and for all, largely because I know so many people use it and after talking with some students after class last night who expressed their irritation at articles they found interesting or useful disappearing encourages me that "fighting the good fight" is worthwhile. Oddly enough, while I know you disagree, a couple of them even said that the "popular culture" stuff is "one of the best aspects of this site" and "really sets it apart from paper encyclopedias." Anyway, good to know it was not some health issue or harassment by editors. Best, --

Tally-ho!

14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks by User:Lsi_john

Resolved

Lsi_john has been engaged in a long-running, low-level feud with User:Durova. I consider his last couple of remarks to be way out of line.[104][105] Other admins may want to keep an eye on the situation. Raymond Arritt 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't approach her first. She sent ME an email. It was unnecessary and unwanted. And the fact that she sent it at all speaks volumes about the situation.

I leave her alone. And if she's going to email me, given the situation, then lets not get all pointy fingered when I respond on her talkpage.

Peace.Lsi john 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, mr Raymond Arrit, sir... isn't it a bit INCIVIL of you to open this thread without notifying me? a bit of

WP:KETTLE here perhaps? Peace.Lsi john

15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have notified you. But I don't think that excuses your own behavior. Raymond Arritt 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone sends you objectionable email, it's best not to reply/retaliate on-wiki, for a number of reasons. Obviously, personal correspondence is not bound by

WP:NPA, etc, whereas talk page comments are. Certainly off-wiki harassment can have repercussions on-wiki, but this seems like more of a personal dispute. Honestly, I don't think any sanctions are in order for anyone right now, but Lsi john, if you're receiving email that's pissing you off, it's best to just delete it, spam-filter the sender, or if you must reply, do it via email instead of on-wiki. If you feel you're being harassed via email or off-wiki, then that's a different story, but this looks like a personal dispute that's best handled by disengagement. MastCell ^Talk

15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd note that there are a couple of good reasons to reply on-wiki rather than off-. For one, it creates a 'paper trail' on-wiki should there be further steps of dispute resolution in the future. For another, replying to an email gives the recipient one's email address. I avoid sending email to editors I don't trust, because I don't want them to be able to send me abuse or sign me up for mailing lists and spam. (Remember, if an editor is blocked it's now possible to bar them from using the Wikipedia email-this-user function.)

I would disagree that private emails (sent to an editor using the 'email this user' button) are entirely beyond the reach of WP:NPA. If an editor is using Wikipedia's servers and tools to insult another editor, that's something about which we should be concerned. Note that I have no specific comment about this particular situation; my remarks are intended to be general in scope and tone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I agree that off-wiki harassment or personal attacks can and should have on-wiki repercussions. I often just delete abusive emails rather than reply, for the reasons TenOfAllTrades mentioned, and the email-blocking feature has been useful in that regard. On the other hand, publishing the text of emails or private correspondence, even when abusive, has generally been frowned upon. If a paper trail is important, it might be best to just hang onto the offending email instead of bringing it on-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I question whether this thread will accomplish anything. a) Durova is an admin and can take care of herself; b) Lsi John says he's left Wikipedia. c) Yes, his comments were uncivil, but not egregiously so.

Lsi John is IMO a well-intentioned editor who has had challenges in his sincere, if sometimes confrontational, attempts to fit in with Wikipedia's norms. I believe that censure (warnings or blocks) won't accomplish anything useful. IMO Lsi John has gotten seriously mired in his own quest to find two things that are very elusive on WP: understanding, and rules that are so perfectly written and enforced that they are completely fair. I think the best thing would be to wish him well, leave him alone, and hope that if/when he returns he has gained some distance and can edit articles that don't bring out his less glowing character traits. Anchoress 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized to John for the mistake.[106] Last night I was up very late starting a new article and the last thing I did before going to bed was send a friendly heads up to the editor who had inspired me to start it - or so I thought. That editor has a very similar e-mail address to John's and I was half asleep; I didn't realize the error until I woke up and logged on. John, allow me to be more explicit: I am truly sorry to have antagonized you. It was unintentional. To the other editors here, John and I are both named parties at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. On several occasions I have asked him to submit his complaints against me there as evidence. John, other sysops are unlikely to intervene on conduct complaints that relate to an outstanding arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail? E-mail? What part of that is "Wikipedia?" The contents of an e-mail are private. If some people can claim that they're allowed to call long established editors horrible names on their blog, which is open and begging for readers, and be untouchable, then surely the contents of an e-mail are not appropriate subjects for our concern, much less administrator intervention. If there are threats and stuff, then we have something legitimate, but I can't fathom the number of Evil Kineavel jumps that are necessary for someone to go from "civility" to "personal attack" to "e-mails must be nice" to "let me go to AN/I to complain about someone's tone in e-mail." I think this is a subject for laughing out of court, unless there is some indication of threat. So far as I've heard, it's just, "They're not being nice in private communication." Well, tough: it's private, it's not Wikipedia, and it's not appropriate for discussion. Geogre 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, he went to my talk page. Other people stepped in and one of them started the thread here. John didn't take this to ANI. No blood, no harm, no foul as Chick Hearn used to say. I could have deleted a couple of posts from my talk space if it had been a problem. We're both named parties at an arbitration case and we've rubbed each other the wrong way, so yeah my mistake was pretty tactless. He and I have buried the hatched over this. I hope that's something positive we can build upon. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and that's fine. I just get alarmed when I hear about non-Wikipedia stuff being cited as evidence of nearly anything. (No, this doesn't mean I have a strong position on the ED stuff (besides, whenever I see those two letters, I think the next words will be "Cialis").) This is in addition to my worries over folks getting so worried about politeness that they mistake it for community function. I am pleased to be off base and weird looking in this instance. (Weird looking on Wikipedia, I mean. Nothing I can do about real life.) Geogre 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA,

Android Mouse

Recently, Majorly indefinitely blocked Neil Larson (talk · contribs) for "disruption to the RfA process, with little to no work anywhere else", based on the fact that Neil Larson was giving the same exact same oppose on quite a few RfAs. At that time, I performed a checkuser on Neil Larson, as it was suspected that he was a disruptive sockpuppet of some other account. I found information linking Neil Larson to User:Android Mouse Bot 2, including the fact that the bot stopped editing one minute before Neil Larson's block. Android Mouse later admitted that the Neil Larson account is his, and states that he has not abused our policy on abusing multiple accounts. However, if he has not, he has come very close.

• 21:10, 10 August 2007 - AM supports Crockspot RfA
• 02:30, 15 August 2007 - AM withdraws support for Crockspot RfA due to "reviewing the contributor's edits more thoroughly and reading some of the recent opposes"
• 08:20, 16 August 2007 - NL opposes Crockspot RfA

I request the opinions of others on this matter. Do we believe this is a violation of our policy on multiple accounts, an attempt at gaming the system, not a policy vio but a really stupid idea, or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this? --Deskana (banana) 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the fact he has done this on a secondary account shows he was trying to avoid getting his main account a "black mark" so to speak - a violation of the sockpuppet policy. Majorly (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the policy violation question to others, but there's no question this was a really stupid idea. What was the point? The sock should remain blocked indef and Android Mouse sternly reminded not to make quite such a fool of himself in public - at least. Moreschi ^Talk 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit hazy in my view. Given the kind of hounding that opposers sometimes get, it's understandable that someone may want to use an alternate account for this. It's not at all clear to me why opposing an RFA would be considered a "black mark". Friday (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the opposes? They're all identical. This could easily get a "black mark", as other people that have done something similar the past have done. --Deskana (banana) 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who have regularly oppose RfAs (off the top of my head Kmweber, Boothy443 and Masssiveego) aren't ever made welcome on the RfA page. They've had RfCs against them, blocks for exhausting community's patience... in my view this was preventing yet another RfA troller. Majorly (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally its all very dubious - a 'crat reviewing a close run RFA could easily count a withdrawn support as part of evidence of consensus moving away from a candidate plus Android Mouse gets an oppose as well. Effectively a double whammy against the candidate. I have no idea where the policy on this is but this was an extremely foolish action and I'm rather disappointed that Android Mouse doesn't understand why the sock account got blocked.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

(ec) Alright, it makes him look foolish. I tend to see that as its own punishment, though. If stop viewing opposing an RFA as some kind of sin, perhaps people will feel comfortable using their regular accounts for this purpose. Friday (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are comfortable to oppose every RfA, or most RfAs, they should be comfortable to use their regular account. Majorly (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) This case appears to fall under the following forbidden uses of sock puppets per

WP:SOCK

:

• "Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail."
• "All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption." (my emphasis)

So, yes, I think that there has been a violation of our policy on multiple accounts. Sandstein 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like stupidity to me - attempting to avoid the stigma of changing from support to oppose. As I do not believe it to be loading the voting, since NL and AM are not voting for the same thing, I would have suggested the discovery and commenting was sufficient punishment for AM, except for the various identical opposes that NL made to other RfA's to (presumably) cover AM's tracks. This is/was unfair to other candidates. I feel that AM should acknowledge the potential unfortunate consequences to these individuals, and would like AM to issue an apology to them and the community. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't think a block of the main account (the sock is already blocked indef) is warranted. LessHeard vanU's suggestion should be more than adequate. Moreschi ^Talk 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A most unwelcome development. I would much rather candidates receive some feedback from an editor they might recognise rather than from a sockpuppet they won't. Behaviour an editor is unwilling to carry out on their main account should never be carried out on a secondary account, especially with a process as personal as Request for Adminship. Nick 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is clearly contrary to
  WP:SOCK: "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". There was no other reason for it. A very ill-conceived action on this editor's part. Hiberniantears
  20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition I would also like to say that everyone does stupid things [107] from time to time. I also think that blocking the sock is sufficient, and that keeping an otherwise solid editor on board with the project is the way to go. Hiberniantears 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for

Android Mouse (talk · contribs) about this thread... — Scientizzle

21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what AM said, I feel that the block of his other account was justified. A block is not warranted here, but an apology to the community and the candidates is enough. Singularity 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the candidates he opposed, I'm not even sure that an apology is necessary. His opposition left nothing actionable, so I doubt a beurocrat would have taken it seriously. His opposition was based around a policy he evidently disagrees with, and obviously had nothing to do with any of the editors he opposed. I find it hard to take that personally, as his issue is not about my fitness to be an admin. I also find it comical that he opposed candidates who were nominated by someone else yesterday, while another editor was opposing candidates who were self-nominated today. I guess we just can't win. ;o) Resolute 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider that the oppose vote/reason was made in bad faith, in that it appears that AM/NL was trying to legitimise an earlier oppose in another RfA (which they had previously supported and then changed to neutral) by voting similarly on others. I admire your stance toward your own candidature, but yours was not the only RfA that was abused. LessHeard vanU 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looking it over, it seems pretty clear to me that this is a pretty
  WP:POINTy disruption in response to the voting pattern of Kmweber (the use of a latin legal phrase, arbitrary criteria), and not an attempt to influence any specific RfA. Which is still bad, but certainly a much lower level of abuse, in my opinion. No opinion as to whether a block of the main account is appropriate. -Chunky Rice
  22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the actions performed by the sock account were deliberate and considered and that a further deliberate choice was made to perform them on a sock account in an attempt to deceive. That is, AM used the sock account in less than good faith. I endorse a block on the sock account. I do not, however, endorse a full block on the main account. I think a public reprimand and having your dirty laundry publicly aired is quite enough in this case. - Philippe | Talk 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I concur with those saying that the secondary account be blocked and that the primary account not be blocked. This user, despite having made a poor decision here has been a strong contributor and bot operator IMO and should not be punished long-term for what we believe to be a single infraction. I *would* feel better if the user would acknowledge that what they did was wrong, as so far he seems to be indicating otherwise. Obviously any future foolishness should be treated more severely. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Sometimes people do stupid things, I can see how this started as just a misguided attempt to have some fun. We should remember that blocks aren't supposed to be doled out just to punish people... do we really think AM will continue to do this? He was apparently a valuable contributer, so I say we give him a second chance. --W.marsh 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this "bye" means, but I do know that the blocking of AM is not necessary. Apparently he has already suffered the consequences of his actions, which were clear violations of

WP:SOCK. --Boricuaeddie

00:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sock blocked = good. Nothing more need be done. — Scientizzle 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, as an aside, are checkusers really supposed to act like police detectives as seen at [108]? Asking a question to try to trap someone... that seems a bit over the top. It's also surprising that checkusers will just go fishing for alternate accounts now and just reveal that information freely... I remember in the past it was impossible to get this done even with accounts that were genuinely disruptive and obviously a sock of someone. --W.marsh 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That probably wasn't the wisest course of action on my part, but the checkuser evidence on it's own wasn't enough at the time. I could have handled that better, I suppose. --Deskana (banana) 10:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was an intent to "deceive" the way I usually think of the word, or cover any tracks. It was either a joke, or more likely trying to make some point (not sure what point, exactly) about Kurt Weber without having to suffer any consequences. Borderline pointy, but not "disruputive", and not worth a block on NL. However, the fact that AM participated in Crockspot's RfA twice, even though technically not double voting, is a legit reason to indef block the sock, although i don't know how this affects AMBotII. Whether or not AM apologizes, I jump on the bandwagon of people who see no need for further action. --

barneca (talk

) 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have some slight concerns over both the blocking of the Neil Larson account, and the use of an identity check. I would have thought there needed to be some clear evidence of disruption before either of these things were done. I see no such evidence. While the use of the Neil Larson account did indicate it was a secondary account, that in itself - while frowned upon - is not in itself disruptive. The Neil Larson account did some general tidying editing, modest but useful, and then made individualistic oppose comments in 6 RfAs (one later withdrawn). The oppose comments attracted some casual side discussion; nothing that would reflect badly on the candidates, and nothing that turned unpleasant. There was no disruption. Now, I can understand that people felt (rightly) that Neil Larson was a secondary account. And I can understand that people might disagree with what that account was doing. But to take that disagreement to the level of a CheckUser and a Block seem inappropriately strong measures. Was there something else that could have been done first? I see no evidence of anyone talking to the account; questioning the behaviour; requesting explanation; asking if the account was a secondary account. The guidance on using
  CheckUser says: "On Wikimedia wikis, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam), revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation.". This [109]
  says: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." The guidance on using a Block says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."

While I agree that Android Mouse has been unwise in creating this second account for the use it has been put it, a better approach might have been more in the nature of a message to the second (Neil Larson) account rather than the rather seemingly excessive and heavy handed approaches that were taken, and which not only appear to violate Wiki policy, but also violate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and maybe even a privacy law or two. Serious stuff, not to played around with or used lightly.

This is a done deal now, but I wanted to put my view forward, and to suggest more caution in the use of Blocks and Checks, and more discussion with users whose behaviour may be odd. SilkTork 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not violated the Privacy Policy. I was careful about that. The privacy policy states that I'm not allowed to reveal information that's personally identifiable, such as location or IP addresses, which I have not. --Deskana (banana) 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very narrow interpretation of the Checkuser policy. So Checkuser is for fishing after all. "Do we believe this is a violation of our policy? or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this?" Use the Checkuser mailing list to ask your questions next time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.135.122 (talk • contribs)

User:Antho05 - image problems

Take a look at this user's talk page - despite being an editor here since 2006, he/she is still uploading 'bad' images on a regular basis. I don't think I've seen a user with this many image tagging/deletion notices before... --Kurt Shaped Box 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Need an opinion on deletion of data

An active but very argumentative user has deleted accurate and referenced information from the Indonesia article; specifically information about the Indonesian flag, on the grounds that it is not 'relevant'. I feel it should have been discussed in Talk, not unilaterally deleted. I have reposted it with a request that he discuss. What do I do if he deletes again? Is it appropriate I report as vandalism? I'm a new user acting in good faith and am a bit shocked that established users delete accurate information without discussion. Is there any recourse, or is it a free-for-all where the most persistent reverter wins? That does not seem right. 212.71.37.98 11:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, three different editors have each once removed your addition, and have justified the reasons for removing it on

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. (Caniago

11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

What I see is you trying to add a piece of content to the article, others disagreeing with its appropriateness in the article, and you calling their removal vandalism. You are both trying to improve the article, neither is vandalism, so perhaps things would go more smoothly without such accusations. Leebo ^T/C 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lexie Kaye entry

Chuck Sirloin keeps deleting my information on the Lexie Kaye page asking for speedy deletion and putting up warnings on my page. And what information he lists as web sites are no longer valid or correct!

Please protect my page from being edited by this person and keep my information as it was originally until this is resolved. I don't know who he is or what his problem is but it needs to stop."66.6.146.58 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)"

Legal threats - please banhammer

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

Resolved

editor blocked for legal threat

Jacksbernstein (

WP:NLT. See [110]. MER-C

13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, that diff was definitely a legal threat. Please feel free to unblock or pursue a different course, I don't want to interfere with any official action. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I support keeping this one blocked, all his other edits were disruptive anyway. I have redacted the personal attacks and threats.

^{Denny Crane.}

15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandal anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --BOT2008BOT 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has nothing to do with this... please don't crosspost your report into other threads.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef ban evasion?

TheInnocenceProject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strongly appears to be a sock of User:Jacksbernstein, who was indef-banned for legal threats on Richard Rossi, and who made identical edits. THF 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing pattern matches enough for a block. Indef'd. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further indef ban evasion?

• Wikifixeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just added a CSD and prod notice to Richard Rossi as his first edit. THF 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Too obvious. Blocked - Alison ☺ 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

I think, there is a problem with cleaning of sourced info and political propaganda from a user "Revisionist"! Jingby 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help and administrative mediation in resolving the problem with vandalism by user

three-revert rule violation on the article National Liberation Front (Macedonia) by users Jingby and 124.168.106.129. Needed administrative mediation. Revizionist

21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you both (mutually) start a case at one of the mediation groups, either

Mediation Committee. If you're all willing to compromise and work towards making the article neutral, there's a good chance that nobody will have to be blocked for anything and you all end up with an article that is both neutral and informative. That'd be a nice outcome, different from so many cases where someone gets banned from the site forever, don't you think? ~Kylu (u|t

) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds/MONGO

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

---

Case to the ArbCom please! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For a loong time now, these two have been yelling at each other. MONGO claims that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of a banned user (His Excellency, I think), while he denies this and calls MONGO a troll for claiming that he is. Can we solve this please? -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't keep pretending that I really think MONGO might be an innocent victim here. Yes, SevenOfDiamonds has done some bad things sockpuppet or not, but MONGO continues to implicitly declare that anyone who doesn't do as he likes is in league with trolls. But we couldn't actually do something about this, nope. -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for some sort of sanction against MONGO? Have you tried dispute resolution? I don't see what the link you provided has to do with User:SevenOfDiamonds --Tbeatty 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just ranting. I'm asking for help sorting out his sockpuppetry allegations. The link was about comments EVula removed in a flame war between the two. Even if I were, any form of dispute resolution results in "Support MONGO more against the trolls", that's happened many times before... -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow it and it looked like an IP troll was removing MONGO's comments replying User:Bmedley Sutler.[111]. If they IP troll was SevenOfDiamonds, they should both be blocked. --Tbeatty 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't either of them...Amarkov...might I ask exactly what your problem is? Didn't you file an Rfc on me recently and then ask to have it deleted...then you marched here and attacked me...now you're doing it again. You're not a mediator or an administrator and as far as I am concerned...you are harassing me, pal. Back off now...this has nothing to do with you.--MONGO 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining that you are consistently incivil to people who disagree with you, to the point of ordering them to do as you say or resigning adminship. If that is "attacking" you, then yes, I am. -Amarkov moo! 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also complaining that you repeatedly refer to SevenOfDiamonds as a sockpuppet of a banned user, without ever bothering to actually prove such an assertion. -Amarkov moo! 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice...I have an admin who deletes a comment I made in self defense and then marches over to my talkpage (after not removing another comment made to me that I am a troll) and tells me to calm down and this same admin does zero to warn the other offenders...and you wonder why I am indignant? The issue of SevenOfDiamonds being a ban evader is coming...it is in the works. I am absolutely appalled at the level of one sideness that this website is becoming.--MONGO 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The one-sidedness, I believe, is that people amass issues with established editors. When banned users are reincarnated and stir up problems with established editors, it's easy for others to project innocence upon them per AGF! and jump in against the established editor. On WR, someone suggested that people who support sockpuppets be blocked along with them. It sounds draconian and unfair, but illustrates an important point. The exploitation of disruptive socks as stalking horses is unacceptable. Even if done naively and with perfectly good intent, there should be some accountability for bad calls which negatively affect other editors and have the effect of prolonging and exacerbating their harassment.Proabivouac 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing: sitting here reading this, I thought "I wonder how long it will take MONGO to accuse somebody of harassment." Didn't take long... - auburnpilot talk 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment like that only inflames the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be true, but it's about time somebody stops MONGO's bs. Every time somebody disagrees with MONGO, he screams harassment in an attempt to discredit them. It gets tiring. - auburnpilot talk 06:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance to try and settle an old score with me, you alway do so.--MONGO 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a score to settle with you. I simply find you to be one of the most uncivil editors I've come in contact with, and I'm continually amazed by the excuses that are created to defend your behavior. Nothing more, nothing less; just amazed. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough...that is how I find you...to be incivil. I am continuously amazed at the level of incivility you subject me to.--MONGO 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO Mongos behavior is the most un-civil and aggressive of any long-time editor on Wikipedia, (who I have seen) and he does get a 'free-pass' (IMO) because he used to be an administrator and was attacked from some other site nobody reads. Bmedley Sutler 06:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what exactly do we want done here? I'm not really seeing anything actionable, though I may have missed something. This is really looking to me more like a case for

dispute resolution, not ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What I want to be accomplished here is to determine if allegations that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet are valid. If he is, block him, if we decide he is not, then hopefully that will stop the accusations. -Amarkov moo! 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heinstein, In the big schema of things Mongos words and posture over the last few days is much more hurtful to 'the project' than Giovanni33s slight mistake of 3 RR, but this just shows how silly the rules can be here, and how some get a 'free-pass' (IMO). Bmedley Sutler 06:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, "Removing comments?" Like you did here [112][113] to stop discussion and squish the truth on your friends administartor election? Bmedley Sutler 06:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about with respect to this subject, but your smear attempts are very transparent. --Tbeatty 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given MONGO a formal warning for his disgusting behaviour/notice that he will be blocked if he continues it. I am yet to look into SoD's edits, but thus far haven't seen anything anywhere near as offensive was what is being discussed on MONGO's talk page. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Such warnings often make matters worse, as they give an impression that you're in authority over someone, and just make the person more angry. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should say that.

Talk

So because it is an established editor we allow incivility? The rules I work by apply equally to both established and new editors I attempt to be as neutral as I possibly can. Viridae^Talk 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If a completely new editor shows up at someone's talk page with a vulgar insult, I block as an account created for the purpose of harassment. Genuine new editors probably don't even know how to find someone's talk page. If an editor with thousands of constructive edits, including featured articles, shows up at someone's talk page with a vulgar insult, I keep an eye on the situation; I try and think if there's some way of calming the editor down. I try to find some way of tactfully encouraging the editor to relax and calm down. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes...Seven is allowed to call me a troll and that is okay...I am not allowed to defend myself from the baiting and attacks. You claimed on my userpage that I had called Evula a jerk, and I did not...I asked you to provide a diff and you didn't. If you are going to threaten me for doing something I didn't do, and fail to retract the threat, then we have nothing more to discuss and your threat is going to be removed.--MONGO 06:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You call me a sockpuppet in every thread on every shared page. I call you a troll for constantly doing it. You are a troll to sit and follow me around and on a page that has nothing to do with either of us, continue to attack me. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the evidence I have, which is exhaustive, demonstrates that you have been stalking me, not vice versa. This will all be over soon.--MONGO 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. Much like that great evidence of me being Rootology. Not sure what you do not get about WP:CIVIL. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be.Proabivouac 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied to the query for a diff and pointed out that I made a mistake, but because of the 2* jerk calling the warning still stands. I really don't care what you do with the thread, I hopefully won't have to act on it. But seeing as you have seen it it may as well be deleted - I really don't mind. Viridae^Talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now go and warn others for calling me a troll and for the other insults...threaten them with a block and tell them their edits and comments are disgusting. Please don't ever come to my taklkpage again and threaten to block me for doing something I did not do. I'll be patiently awaiting your impartial actions...I suspect my wait might last forever, so prove me wrong.--MONGO 07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I saw sunk to your level. I warned for what I saw. Viridae^Talk 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Try taking a look at this. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting I warn an unrelated editor (not SOD or MONGO) for something they said on here over a month ago? Viridae^Talk 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I suggest that when you're considering how to phrase your message to MONGO, you take into account that people have behaved a lot worse towards him, and with impunity. And then you reflect on whether there's some more tactful or sensitive or helpful way of dealing with it. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of impartiality is noted. Don't ever threaten me like you did again. This is your final warning.--MONGO 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, it would be a terrible mistake to do anything to MONGO on behalf of SevenOfDiamonds.Proabivouac 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not doing anything on the belhalf of anyone. I am simply warning MONGO that if he keeps up the ridiculous incivility, his status as a long term editor wont mean shit to me when I block him. The same applies to anyone that displays that kind of incivility, be they new or old. Viridae^Talk 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, some ArbCom rulings have indicated that it's unhelpful to hand out incivility blocks to long-term editors. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am going to remind everyone to remain calm here. This is a discussion, not a heated debate. There is no need, really, for anyone to get overly messed up over this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But, Viridae, if 7OD turns out to be the sock of a banned user who is dedicated to trolling MONGO, that would make you his unwitting accomplice, would it not? And that would not look good.Proabivouac 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we back to the theory that I created 10+ articles and revamped others all to harass MONGO? I have not been accused of being 6 editors in 3 RFCU's. At what point does someone get the picture? I particularly avoid the contentious articles other then the "allegations" one to avoid dealing with MONGO up to this point. It works well, He stopped appearing on my page with warnings of "or else" and "you will be blocked" and other chest beating means of attempting to bully the opposition. If you care to read, the RfA page in question, I made no remark toward MONGO before he started calling me a sockpuppet, who is trolling who? --SevenOfDiamonds 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes me noones accomplice. MONGO is incredibly incivil and gets away with it. Some that passed my arbitrary limit of what I deem offensive and so he was warned for it. There is no collusion, no favouritism and no accomplices. I frankly don't care who's sockpuppet he is if he is one - i rarely deal with that sort of stuff as I have no experience in the area. Viridae^Talk 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps you should care. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. If it turns out he is a sock of a banned user - good well and block this account too. However I am unlikely to be the one to find this out, and until I do find it out by whatever means, I will treat him as any other user. Too often I have seen users being branded on wikipedia as socks or immediately disruptive blah blah blah on the flimsiest of evidence. I try to assume good faith and look for a reasonable non-editing abuse explanation. At least once I have challenged the cries of sockpuppet and found to be correct (tennis editor). I don't care who he is untill he is shown to be here for bad intentions. I will treat him like any good faith editor. I will treat him like I treat MONGO and I will treat him like I treat you. Viridae^Talk 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Refusing to sanction people for incivility because a sockpuppet also wishes them sanctioned is stupid. Agreeing with a sockpuppet does not mean I'm his accomplice. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it would be stupid to not sanction an editor for incivility. It would be just as stupid for not sticking up for them when they are trolled by such people. It's even worse to allow it to continue while threatening the victim for being uncivil. Adminsitrators should be using their tools to protect the victims of trolling, not lording the ban hammer over the established editor trying only to be left alone. MONGO has a history. His heretofore unknown sockpuppet trolls don't have a history because their previous accounts have been banned. His history is a testament to his commitment, not a scarlet letter. --Tbeatty 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

His history is a testament to constant incivility to nearly anyone who seriously disputes his actions, actually. Even were it not, the "ZOMG MONGO" blindness everyone seems to have is ignoring the fact that these "trolling sockpuppet of banned editor" allegations are STILL unproven. I've been hearing it for two months, with no convincing evidence. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your history is a testament that you seem hell bent on trying to get me blocked.--MONGO 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The first ever interaction I had with you, you declared that I was harassing you. Every subsequent interaction I've had with you, you've declared that the person who dared challenge your incivility is either harassing you or not supporting you enough against the trolls. I do indeed want you blocked for that. -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well good luck. Your flippant attitude when you filed that Rfc against me was boorish. Those kinds of things are never taken lightly and that you would do so as if it was, as you put it "I really don't care"....is most definitely harassment. That you fail to see it as such is pretty outrageous.--MONGO 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think it is very serious that you continually imply that anyone who disagrees with you is in league with trolls, and that people actually condone this. And like I told you before, I removed the RfC because you convinced me it was premature. That you continually use this against me is yet another reason I think you should be blocked and are frustrated that you aren't. -Amarkov moo! 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to bed now. I'm sure that while I'm gone, there will be more unsanctioned incivility, and more people saying that I should let him be incivil until nobody trolls him. It's very disturbing that I've seen so much of this I'm actually apathetic to being told I'm harassing someone for telling them they are incivil. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a clarification: I wasn't called a jerk (though in reading the archived talk page, it's easy to make that confusion). What was said about me was that I was actively aiding and abetting trolls by removing an instance of MONGO feeding the trolls.[114] Yes, I did only catch MONGO's comment because that was the only one that caught my attention (seeing "rvv" caused me to investigate it further and saw that MONGO was reinserting a personal attack that an anon had removed). Failure on my part to investigate further, but that doesn't make it less of an attack (or less food for the trolls). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request here. I believe SoD is Lovelight, a banned user, and I believe the IP trail proves it. I think the evidence is strong enough to stand without checkuser but we'll see where it goes. --Tbeatty 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Have fun. This will now be the 5th or so accusation from this small band of editors. And the 5th violation of my privacy. Does each of MONGO's good budies get a RFCU each before it becomes harassment? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, has anyone thought of using a

checkuser to find out of the accusations of sockpuppetry are true? That would be a good start rather than playing he said she said he harassed me. DarthGriz98

02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...read a few posts above. A checkuser has been requested. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that. DarthGriz98 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem that any MONGO topic faces is that when they see it, every single person who has had a problem crawls out to trot in and get in their punches. This makes it very easy to dismiss their input as 'getting in with old grudges', and it also makes it look like the same people go after MONGO again and again. Unfortunately, the flip side to that is that those old editors still don't see a resolution that satisfies, and then go off again with a BIGGER chip on their shoulders. And when they return, MONGO declares it harrassment based on an old grudge, and a failure to see resolution. Then you get a big group of 'anti-MONGO harrassers', who see themselves as either victims of MONGO, or frustrated editors watching the same act of a play over and over and over, who want to see the interlude, intermission, or next scene. Unfortunately, this gulf is going to widen. Given the pending RfCU, I doubt this will be the case that changes things, but when that case comes, it's going to be a titanic brawl. MONGO has infuriated a lot of people with his seemingly teflon edit-hat, and there are a lot of people eager to see his percieved unyielding incivility ended, by hook or by crook. This situation's only going to get worse, for two reasons. One, MONGO seems unwilling to ever defuse a situation. I don't think I've ever seen a MONGO thread in which MONGO apologizes. Two, admins seem increasingly reluctant to admonish MONGO for his actions. MONGO's not 100% to blame for any of these cases, but he WAS an admin, he knows full well the rules, and sometimes, it seems he uses rules lawyering to demonstrate why he doens't have to yield at all, instead of yielding to compromise to make peace. Other times, it comes off as just stubborn beyond belief. Further, there are enough cases where someone really was out to get MONGO that his allegations are rightly taken seriously. the problem is, though, that instead of looking at the aggregate number of 'MONGO's being a jerk' cases, MONGO's adept at steering every single case into being seen as thoroughly isolated from all other 'MONGO is a jerk' incidences. Then the individual situation either gets resolved or peters out, and we find ourselves back here again. A solution needs to be found, and 'Leave MONGO alone' isn't going to do it. MONGO seems attracted to the most hot button-y issues, and doesn't shy from fights, or frankly, the opportunity for one. Then it's back to AN/I, where we go through it again. MONGO could be changing his behavior based on numerous cases here and elswhere against him, but he doesn't. He says, well, I don't have to, but if other editors whose names repeat here over and over can be blocked or banned (one JUST happened, bu I can't find it right now), then MONGO could suffer the same. MONGO should reconsider his approaches to these things and see if he can't learn to avoid conflict a bit more. ThuranX 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so I can't call anyone a jerk, but you can call me one, as you just did...you can call me a "giant fucking WIKIDICK" (you capitalized it) and an "asshole" here (egregious comments the likes of which I have never lodged against anyone) and you claim I am the incivil one.--MONGO 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I deliberately wrote a long, thought out explanation of how complicated these things get. Since that LAST incident report where you didn't get in any trouble, I've been thinking about why it is that these cases never get solved, just fade away. I write a long thing about it, and instead of listen, you run true to type. I was summarizing the perspective of a large group of editors. You want to see anything remotely opositional to you as a personal attack, and then lump anyone who doesn't support you explicitly and holistically as a harrasser. You really should re-read what I said above. You're taking it all as a lump sum attack piece, and it's not. However, I do think I've figured out part of what's happening in a lot of these cases. You get defensive, excessively so, go after anything said against you in hyperbolic ways, distracting from the issues, and putting anyone who adds to the conversation off. Once you've put off or driven off enough editors, the case goes stale, and slides into the archives. Then it comes up again. and again. I'd like to know why you think none of these cases is ever your fault, even in part. ThuranX 06:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, may I remind you that you were not blocked for this disgusting post. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic is about MONGO and myself, please refrain from ad hominems. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's ad hominem to point out that when someone is lucky enough not to be blocked for an egregious personal attack, it's rather unbecoming for that person to show up arguing in favour of blocking someone for lesser examples of incivility. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So X is a personal attack and Y is a personal attack, but since X is worse, Y is forgiven? You are creating red herrings. Believe it or not even an arrested criminal can file charges. People are not permitted to engage in personal attacks, even against those they believe are attacking them, further I have done no such thing to MONGO. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor you alluded to as being recently banned was User:Doctor11. IIRC, he trolled MONGO, MONGO responded and was roundly criticized and the troll was banned as a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Tbeatty 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just dug through the archives for a moment. I was referring to Klaksonn, case here [115]. I was referring not to an editor in conflict with MONGO, but one who had appeared here numerous times for incivility and other issues, and who finally hit the community's patience mark. thanks for looking, though, appreciate it. ThuranX 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And Tbeatty, could you show me which part of policy states civility is only extended to those who are not suspected sockpuppets? Or maybe somewhere we have a guideline that states anyone can be rude if somebody else is rude first. Incivility is not excused when the person you were an asshole towards is proven to be a sockpuppet. - auburnpilot talk 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "excused". See

Extenuating circumstances. ElinorD (talk)

13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The principle is that administrators are not supposed to let harassed editors continue to be harassed. When they don't use their tools to stop it, the harassed editors may become annoyed enough to be incivil. Considering how many administrators still have not stopped the trolling of MONGO and then complain when he defends himself when he feels isolated is somewhat disconcerting. He is exasperated because instead of helping him stop the trolling by warning and blocking the trolls, some admins are using it as an excuse to point out MONGO incivility. MONGO doesn't feel like the admins are helping him when he is attacked and when he is warned and the troll isn't, it just adds fuel to the fire. I can't help but think that a talk page warning by an admin to an editor with as much experience as MONGO is nothing more than harassment. Send him an email. Ask how you can help or what made him so upset. But just continuing the handwringing and public complaining without actually fixing anything doesn't do anything but add fuel to the fire. These AN/I discussions are noting more than "feeding the trolls" and a lot of it is admins that are doing it. --Tbeatty 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. The fact that MONGO has been editing longer than other users does not entitle him to some preferential treatment. If MONGO's incivility is a problem, he'll be informed of that problem just like any other editor. To suggest that warning should be taken off-site via email because he has more contributions than somebody else is part of the very perception that is causing this problem. Nobody is entitled to respond "in kind" when they are attacked, or receive an inappropriate comment. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I please see this administrator intervention MONGO seeked before attacking me repeatedly. I cannot find any. Your whole premise above depends on MONGO seeking help before lashing out, this has not been the case. Further your reality of the situation requires everyone who has a complaint to be trolls. At what point does the community start asking, is everyone just uncivil to MONGO without provocation and or just reasoning? Further MONGO started appearing on my talk page, and engaging me, then attacking me. Your above statement is just another apologist statement ignoring the reality of the situation. You are engaging in exactly what ThuranX just described, attempting to lump one situation into the other to justify his behavior. Ignoring entirely the content of the individual situation at hand. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating the use of "counter-harassment." There are policies and dispute resolution, forums to seek help etc, to give users options other then being uncivil themselves. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm advocating making an effort to sort out a problem without making a trolled editor feel more frustrated. ElinorD (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which would be going to AN/I not MONGO attacking others. Which he has not done. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to speak on this, given my current situation, and my personal loyalty to MONGO. But I have to. MONGO does have real trolls attacking him regularly. They even organize off-wiki. That tends to make one a little paranoid and distrustful. My own experience in the past few days has made me quite skittish, to the point where I lashed out at another editor yesterday without firm evidence of their wrongdoing, and I'm a pretty patient person. I've only had a taste of what it it like to walk in the shoes that MONGO has to wear every day. I don't offer this as an excuse, just an empathetic view. I have received a great deal of moral support the last few days, and without it, I'm not sure I would have been able to maintain focus and composure. Could MONGO be more civil? Yes. Could other editors be a little more supportive initially when these situations come up, so that he is not driven to the frustration that results in incivility? I think so. - Crockspot 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sad part is that this topic was about allegations made against me, allegations MONGO has been making ever since I opposed a AfD he participated on, and continued on the talk page of all places, of a RfA. I was accused by MONGO of being a sock of 2 other users, the RFCU came back false. TBeatty, who we see is always in defense of MONGO, which a good friend is normally, then accuses me of being yet another editor. I am getting tired of the harassment of MONGO and his "friends," its in quotes because TBeatty takes friends in a hyperbolic manner to mean "cabal." The truth is the same people come to defend MONGO and like noted above the situation goes away. Every AN/I post plays out the same way since I have been here. MONGO is accused, TBeatty pops up, maybe Tom harrison (who I have much respect for), and one or two of the other people you often find on MONGO's talk page. The situation is treated like everyone is attacking MONGO and everyone is asked to stop persecuting him. Just on the RfA alone, MONGO accused goethean of attacking him, goethean asked how, and MONGO repeated the accusation. Instead of MONGO being asked to stop accusing goethean, goethean was asked to stop picking on MONGO. This is repeated over and over. I understand MONGO was trolled by an off-wiki site, we feel bad when editors are attacked in such a manner since they are here to forward this project, but that attack does not give anyone the status to then be beyond reproach. Was MONGO even asked to stop harassing me? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further how many times does MONGO have to be told to be civil, before something is done? People are incivil to MONGO, even if that was believed, it is not an excuse to be incivil back, we have channels to handle those issues that do not require counter-harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO doesn't have to be civil. All who oppose MONGO are trolls. there is no other explanation. Anyone who opposes MONGO doesn't understand that wikipedia is comprised of two people. Those who love MONGO, and those who refuse to. Anyone refusing to obey MONGO is a troll, anyone who does is a 'real wikipedian'. That's how MONGO sees it, that's how each of these AN/I threads plays out. MONGO refuses to see anything wrong in what he does, and as mentioned above, MONGO percieves any and all criticism of his actions as the work of more trolls. the fact that MONGO's been actually trolled means we get a guy who cries Wolf when it's just sheep, and sees a wolf in every sheep's clothing. I really don't think MONGO can help himself at this point. Any attack on him MUST be a troll, in his mind. Like Crockspot said, MONGO is paranoid. He really NEEDS to wikibreak. I'm sure he won't, but he ought to take a week and just walk away. It's just wikipedia, we will ge by without him, and the articles he likes will still be there. Everyone agrees he 'could' be more civil, but no one agrees he SHOULD be. TBeatty above says instead, MONGO should get extra considerations, that leaving him talk pages notes automatically constitutes harrassment. Well, if that's the case, then something's rotten in the state of Denmark. MONGO does NOT deserve our automatic support. TBeatty premises that if MONGO says somethign's wwrong, he must be right and we should help. that's unrealistic. MONGO should follow the rules, and the rules should applyto him. ThuranX 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"People should defend him more"

People do defend him. When there is truly a MONGO troll, the troll is blocked relatively quickly. The problem is that, as was the original point here, he makes accusations of being a troll without any proof, and then complains when no admin will block those people on his say-so. I support defending MONGO againt actual trolls. But such a charge needs evidence. We do not, and should not, block people just because "Oh, MONGO says they're a troll!" Merkey acted as if he had that power, and was laughed down once people realized it. Why is anyone actually supporting MONGO when he wants the same? -Amarkov moo! 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This really has got to stop. The way that SevenofDiamonds has been harassed is appalling. I'd like to hope that it'll let up now that it's been confirmed that Seven is not Lovelight, but I have to say that MONGO needs to stop his combativeness with other editors. I don't think I've ever seen a more argumentative editor on Wikipedia, and that kind of behavior makes consensus impossible.
  .V. _[Talk|Email
  ] 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• By the way, for those who claim that MONGO's incivility is caused by trolling, take a gander at his first twenty edits. -Amarkov moo! 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  More than 35,000 edits ago. This is really getting tiring...if you feel the need to "have something done" about me, then do what you have to do. I have the diffs to prove that you have been on a long term effort to seek some kind of retribution on me and I am sick of it.--MONGO 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  The point is not that you should be sanctioned for that behavior now. You shouldn't be. The point is that you have not changed since then. -Amarkov moo! 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "do what you have to do"? -Amarkov moo! 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Oh don't be so ridiculous, Amarkov. MONGO was a reactionary jerk in 2005. Well, IMHO he was. I opposed his RFA for the clueless way he intervened in a conflict between 172 and Silverback -- in which MONGO was guided, for my money, by nothing better than his own political convictions. That was then. Now is now. Contrary to some statements above about seeing things in black and white, I have found MONGO, since that nadir of autumn 2005, quite remarkably ready to reconsider his positions, to listen and take stuff in. I ended up removing my sincere and angry Oppose in the RFA, because of the way he took it. Of course I thought: "It's an RFA, what is that? Acting?" But I took a chance, and no, it wasn't. He regroups, it's what he does best. I suspect he remains a reactionary... but politics isn't the light he edits by now. Bringing up edits and edit summaries from 2005 doesn't make him look bad, it only makes you look desperate, Amarkov. Btw, while I can see that this edit, linked to above, is too old to block for NOW, I would really like to know what the hell happened there. Why wasn't ThuranX blocked, and how in the name of ... whatever, can anybody consider blocking anybody for personal attacks on the day ThuranX wasn't blocked for that? Let alone consider blocking the target of that attack. As ElinorD suggests, for ThuranX himself to clamor for a MONGO block after that has to be one of the most unbecoming spectacles ever to disgrace this board. (Sorry, Elinor, that's my way of talking rather than yours, but the sentiment is the same.) Come off it. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

  I fancy the concern is not that MONGO remains biased, or reactionary; the concern is that he continues to be extremely rude. My only interaction with him was on this noticeboard[116], where I noticed that not one long-term contributor not previously involved had stepped in to point out to MONGO that extending his personal POV to stigmatizing other contributors was not OK. So, simply, the above statement is incorrect: politics is the "light by which he edits", at least by whatever I have observed, and, in fact, he states as much in that exchange (Note again, I have no axe to grind, as I have never run into him in an article, nor do I expect to.)Hornplease 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, don't dismiss MONGO's past actions in one breath, then attack mine in the next. I was speakign bluntly about an editor who I feel gets away with bloody murder on Wikipedia. Nothing else was working. At least then, people listened. And check my edits and MONGOs. We don't cross paths. All my anger and frustration is borne of seeing him get away with the same things over and over and over. I'm no MONGO troll, I'm an editor tired of his behavior. ThuranX 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Example

MONGO makes a flippant general comment [117]. Immediately a response which can only serve to troll the situation as only citing WP:DICK can do. [118] I removed the comment because it really can only explode into more heat than light [119]. An admin decides that citing WP:DICK is actually a reasonable comment in light of all this [120][121]. This is a fundamental problem. --Tbeatty 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here you once again detracting from the topic. As ThuranX noted, you are again injecting an alternate situation into this one to justify MONGO's actions. While that should not have happened, it has nothing to do with MONGO's treatment of me, his allegations which have all been proven wrong, yours as well, and the continued violations of my privacy and harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't justified MONGO's actions in the least bit. I pointed out that he is being trolled. Again. And that an admin seems to have condoned it. I don't think that has anything to do with MONGO's actions. I think it has a lot to do with how people have responded here. --Tbeatty 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling MONGO a dick is a problem. I have absolutely no argument with removing such a post. But at this point, it's quite understandable (although bad) for people to be frustrated at him and put it back in anyway, because MONGO is never sanctioned for any incivility. Ever. -Amarkov moo! 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But tat's the point. MONGO gets that same understanding because that's the kind of trolling he's subjected to. It's bad but understandable. All he wants is for the trolling to be addressed instead of being endorsed by administrators.

What "understanding" am I supposed to give him? I think that calling someone, even MONGO, a dick is grounds for a very stern warning. And I think that those who are continually insulting, even if those insults are against MONGO, should be blocked. I give MONGO no less understanding than I give other editors, it's just that MONGO is incivil to a point not matched by many others. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment on understanding was related to the community. MONGO is "given a pass" because a lot of people understand his frustration just as you understand the frustration of the editors who replaced that quote. There is a difference between condoning and understanding. Because of the understanding there is no need for a warning. --Tbeatty 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the frustration of the editors who replaced that quote. But like I said, I think that replacing a quote calling someone a dick merits a stern warning, and people who make a habit of replacing such quotes should be blocked. In the same way, I understand MONGO's frustration when he's incivil. But I think that much of his incivility merits a stern warning, and since he makes a habit of such incivility, he should be blocked. -Amarkov moo! 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be accusing myself and another editor of being trolls - please back that remark or redraw it. --Fredrick day 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your action of restoring that comment to the talk page was trolling. It could only lead to more incivlility and it continued a personal attack. It's baiting and uncivil to do that and abhorrent that you decided to continue it. It's bad enough that an administrator didn't remove it and warn the poster and it's worse that an administrator restored it. Especially one (not you) with history with MONGO. I doubt you do this on a regular basis so I don't understand why you did it there. If you continue that behavior, you would indeed be a troll. --Tbeatty 02:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, Tbeatty, but you are quite right. I apologise for this edit, which was mean-spirited of me. The comment was definitely uncivil towards MONGO and restoring it was the wrong thing to do. I was frustrated with MONGO's and your aggressive badgering and deletions, respectively, during Crockspot's RfA, which in my opinion contributed to the disaster it became. Nevertheless this was the wrong way to express my frustration. I actually agree with you that any reference to WP:DICK should be aggressively removed as it never leads anywhere good. I apologise. You were right to remove it. --John 05:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

John...what exactly did I ever delete from that Rfa? Crockspot knew I was commenting in jest...--MONGO 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that was what I meant by "respectively" above. It was Tbeatty's double removal of difficult (but reasonable) questions to the candidate which prompted another user to dig deeper and find the quotes that really swung the RfA the wrong way. You, on the other hand, were (I'm sure with good intentions) flagging up users who had (in your opinion) not contributed much recently. It was noticeable that you only did this with opposers and that the users seemed like users in good standing rather than SPAs or socks. This caused widespread irritation which cannot have helped your nominee. As for your jokey comment about Crockspot beating his wife, I am sure it wasn't offensive to Crockspot, but in the context of the recently-ended RfA it did look poor to me and at least two others, given your role in the way it turned out. Thank you for striking through it. Nevertheless the WP:DICK comment was over the top, as I conceded above. It was right to remove it and I was wrong to reinstate it. I hope we can all learn from the affair. The breakdown of AGF and CIVIL aids nobody, as I think we have seen. --John 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The supporters did not raise my eyebrow as I had seen all of them up to that point before. I did comment that I was pleased and stated so to see Mr.Gibbletts banned and he supported...so are you accusing me of partisanship now? Given my role in how the Rfa turned out? What role was that? I really appreciate your ongoing misrepresentations..thanks. I do most humbly accept your non-apology apology.--MONGO 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My apology was a sincere one. Your role in the RfA was unhelpful, in my opinion, but does not entitle anyone to call you a dick. Please see also

WP:SARCASM. --John

17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we please go on building the encyclopedia? My suggestion, at least for everything which involves these two sides, is that anyone who calls another a "dick", a "troll", a "martian", a "fool" would be blocked on the spot. It seems that everyone is focusing on the other side. Please make good use of you mirrors and stop this my mama/your mama game. Again, enforcements would be be executed on the spot and nothing about what "you did last summer". I'd be waiting for other suggestions to sort this mess out at least temporarily. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But SevenOfDiamonds has already been banned as NuclearUmph, and has returned at least in part to harass MONGO. See User:MONGO/Ban evasion, also User talk:NuclearUmpf#Peace_Out and the discussion which preceded it.Proabivouac 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Done w/ it. Please MONGO, Tbeatty, Thuran and others. The problem is not limited to NuclearUmpf. Try [WP:PATIENT|PAT] and

WP:CIVIL. I won't wait for any suggestions i believe. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

22:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah.Proabivouac 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I must protest, in the strongest possible terms, the block of SevenOfDiamonds, given that the discussion on Arbitration Enforcement was closed with "No Action". The block was totally out-of-process. *Dan T.* 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The block has already been reversed and MONGO is free to take this to arbcom if he wishes. - auburnpilot talk 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny DanT, at no time in that discussion did you state the only opinion that might have been relevant: that, having reviewed the evidence, you did not actually believe that SOD is ZF/NU evading his indef block.Proabivouac 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Case to the ArbCom. I am archiving this thread. This case should only be handled by the "Supreme Court". See user's talk page. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by 63.162.143.21

(copied from

WP:AIV

because that apparently was the wrong place for this report)

Anonymous user User:63.162.143.21 has a long history of vandalism. See User_Talk:63.162.143.21. Most recently he has vandalized Spencer Abraham by inserting:

On November 5, 2003 The Onion World News reported that Abraham admitted to having performed in over 50 pornographic videos from 1984-1987. Abraham's "mostly softcore" body of work includes such features as Maid In The Shade, Jism Quest, Butt Fuck Sluts Go Nuts Vol. 3, and Lady Chatterly's Sisters.

He has inserted this same text three times in the last two days, which is not technically a violation of 3RR, but is clearly a violation of BLP.

In Amy_Fisher he inserted the subject's street address, which another editor reverted as a violation of BLP.

In

Human Sexuality

he made a nonsensical edit which another editor reverted.

In

Heather Sinclair

he added gossip which another editor reverted.

On the basis of his history I am very suspicious of his other edits, e.g.:

• in The Dream Team he changed "Aquaman" to "Ramones". Is this an accurate correction or vandalism?
• in
  Edward Cash
  he changed the birthplace from Malden to Boston. Accurate or vandalism?

Complicating this case is that User:63.162.143.21 is a shared account. Some edits are vandalism, some might be vandalism, others may be legitimate.

The obvious vandalism is bad enough but will probably be caught and reverted before too long. But all of the other edits might be vandalism. Is there a mechanism to mark every article touched by this user to warn other editors to check for possible vandalsim by this user?

Is there some way to notify the owner/administrator of this IP address (apparently inside the Department of Homeland Security!) that somebody is committing vandalism and try to stop it there? Sbowers3 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn him appropriately and systematically, using

WP:VANDAL. If does not desist, then report to AIV after a final warning. A temporary block may be then placed, and hopefully this might help resolve the issue. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal information from Amy Fisher removed from page history. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I've looked over the edits and it appears there are at least three users coming from this IP. One, in fact, has done a number of useful edits. It may be worthwhile to contact DHS and ask them if this is a proxy and encourage them to have their users register accounts, especially given the new tools available in the last few days. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, I also thought there were multiple users. Some clearly was vandalism; some seemed useful - but could have been subtle vandalism. I didn't know the subjects well enough to tell if the edits were useful or vandalism so I wondered if there were a way to warn other editors to double-check the edits.

Is there some way to identify an administrative contact at that IP site and find an email address? I'd be happy to send a message but I don't know how to find an email address. I will send snail mail if there is no better way.

BTW, what are the "new tools"? Sbowers3 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• User has continued query on my talkpage. Will respond there. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV: Sixstring1965

Resolved

• Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user that just came off a 48 hour block for both vandalism and sock puppetry has again ignored repeated warnings and is misquoting people by vandalizing his own Talk page, has vandalized my Talk page, added sourceless information and original research, and added sources that are unfit for an encyclopedia article after having been warned against it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Layla12275 (talk • contribs).

Moving this from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonably simple block for disruption, or is there some history behind this I don't know about? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was moved, but this user has vandalized repeatedly after many warnings, such as here, and here (this was word-changing that violated POV after several requests followed by warnings not to do so--this was the repeated change that resulted in the user's first block, and he has not stopped), here, and here (addition of sources that are not Wiki worthy after being asked not to do so).

As for this new accusation of using my "friends"--I don't know anyone on Wikipedia; these people just jumped to my defense. Layla12275 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Layla12275 is a troll and a vandal. She likes to make me look bad and uses her friends to get me blocked. If I get blocked again, Please block her as she is a serial reverter. Sixstring1965 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If she reverted edits you made via your anonymous sockpuppet, she's allowed. Any edits made by a blocked user through a suspected sockpuppet are to be reverted no matter how useful they were. Daniel Case 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is some history. Some of the users involved believe that SixString may be May Pang, owing to a similar history with MsMP a year ago on the same article.

I made the blocks for the vandalism to Talk:May Pang and the sockpuppetry; I might be doing so again soon. Daniel Case 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No Daniel, The reverts are not sockpuppet reverts, they are legit not only my edits but other users. If I get blocked, she should be too. And as I said before, I'm not Pang. Sixstring1965 04:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point of what I was saying. If she

honestly believed the edits made by the anonymous user (are you tacitly admitting this here?), she can (and should) revert them all she wants because blocked users may not edit period. Daniel Case

02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the comment regarding "friends" refers to. If that's me, I don't even remember how I got involved with this article. Possibly recent changes patrolling. Regardless, I have no previous involvement with the article or Layla or anyone else involved with it, for that matter. I'm the one that's dropped most of the warnings and requested the first block. It's also worth noting there have been issues with personal attacks as seen here where he refers to Layla as a "twat".

♥Love

04:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Case, you can take a look at my edit history and see that the only reverts I made were because of either vandalism to Talk pages (primarily his) or because information was either sourceless or poorly sourced. LaraLove was actually the person to deem his original source unworthy of Wikipedia, it wasn't me. I mistakenly called her an admin in my edit summary, and for that I apologize. I also apologize if I violated the three-revert rule, but dealing with a vandal such as this is exasperating at best. Thank you for your time. Layla12275 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can also vouch that Lara has had no previous involvement with me; she's merely been helping me immensely in defending myself against such attacks. Layla12275 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, They both sound worried. I demand that if I get repremanded again that they recieve the same treatment as I. They BOTH have been tormenting the board and sending friendly mails to each other and with that making me look bad. I didn't attach the word "twat" to Layla so you can bat that one around all you want. Layla says she "merely" helped her "emensely" (whatever that means) by helping to destroy my reputation by firing me up with the reverts and edits. The only vandal here is Layla and Laralove is helping her in the Wikipedia legal sense. Don't let them get away with this. Just look at the history.Sixstring1965 04:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, but yes, please look at the history. That should give you enough of a clue as to what's going on. His vandalism to his own Talk page is enough, actually. And he did call me a "twat", which is obvious from the link Lara provided. Sorry about this mess, and thank you for your time. Layla12275 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You did call her a twat ... the diff she provided doesn't lie. Daniel Case 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

She accused me of being other people (3 different people I think) and this was damaging to my screen name. That is why this thing spun out of control. I say it again, If I get reprimanded, so should Layla and Laralove. Sixstring1965 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I speculated that you were May Pang, and Mr. Case knows why, because he already stated the exact reason above. Also, it was your actions that damaged your good name, sir. The person you're addressing is the person who blocked you as a result of your actions in the first place. Layla12275 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then you should be blocked for your serial reverting... right? Sixstring1965 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "serial", but that's not up to me. It's obvious that there was an infraction every time I reverted you, but I may have gone over the limit, in which case I will accept that verdict. However, my reasoning isn't exactly covert--you were flagrantly vandalizing. A monkey could see that. Layla12275 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Please, by all means, review the history of all the pages. Reviewing all of my 5,500+ edits would reveal no previous interaction with anyone involved. I've not had even one warning on my talk page, ever. Sixstring's behavior with the article, his/her own talk page, Layla's talk page, here... it's all ridiculous. The fact that s/he's refered to Layla as a

♥Love

05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a vandal because you say I am. Look at what I supposedly vandalized... MY OWN PAGE. How rediculous is that? All of my other work was constructive (look it up) and sice i've been dealing with these two buddies, I've been reprimanded. I say it again... If I get blocked again, I insist that they also get blocked for the same amount of time. Sixstring1965 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of buddies. I did a little looking myself.

♥Love

05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring, edits to your own page or talk page can be considered vandalism. Especially when you not only do but then revert a reversion of something like this. Changing the meaning of comments left by others, even to make them humorous, is something vandals do.

You've only been here a month or so, and it seems you might be making some constructive edits. But you have a lot to learn about policy yet. Daniel Case 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, "demanding" and "insisting" tends not to work well around here. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Arritt.  :) (You're coming to my defense...we must be long-lost lovers! Kidding...I'm kidding).

And for the tenth time, Lara and I don't know each other. Layla12275 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah come to her defense. I can't wait until someone sees through you. This is all in the name of twat "The War Against Terror" of Wikipedia. Sixstring1965 05:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't come to my defense; I was kidding. And that was hardly the only thing you did. Layla12275 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Sixstring getting blocked or what?

♥Love

03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that you should be reprimanded big time for the garbage you have on your personal page. I can only hope an admin does something about it. Here's a little bit of what she has posted - 'It's really pretty simple:- don't be a dick - - ignore all rules - You've gotten away with enough. Sixstring1965 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Sorry to take my time but this is a complicated case. I have decided to block Sixstring again for a number of disruptive incidents that have occurred since the 48-hour block expired.

• Not just the "twat" comment, but this sexist insult, which went conveniently unsigned, as if to avoid detection. Then "twat" was repeated here.

• Two spurious attempts to nominate Golden Corral and Jon Wiener (misspelled in the nomination attempt) for deletion. It does not matter that both attempts were botched. Given Sixstring's denigration of Wiener as a source, I doubt the deletion nom was meant in good faith. The failure to learn how to do these noms properly strongly suggests an editor
  shooting from the hip in anger
  ... not behavior we want to encourage.

• Repeatedly reinserting a
  non-reliable source
  . The link in question seems to be a webforum. It may be a true and accurate record of what Cynthia said, but we have no way of verifying the posters' identities.

• The editing of comments on his user talk page to change their meaning, as discussed above.

• The general incivility and failure to assume good faith displayed above.

This time it will be three days in the penalty box. While I have been advised that May Pang has a history of trying to cleanse the Internet coverage of her, I feel that Sixstring, while he may know Pang personally as he has claimed, is not Pang. He's been here for a month doing legitimate work on a lot of Beatles' articles and seems to want to stay. I still think he might be able to become a regular editor, but his misbehavior here, while can be strongly argued that it is the misbehavior of a newcomer, is still misbehavior. For one thing he needs to learn to control his temper.

I would also admonish Layla and Lara to not be such tattletales. By that I mean, you don't have to keep making a big deal out of saying "I'M TELLING" ... just report it. Don't make such a big deal of pointing out every policy violation you see and calling attention to his misconduct. You're adults here (I hope). Act like it. You would both do well to reread

WP:COOL again. As it is, this section feels like an elementary-school classroom. Daniel Case

04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request from Cerajota

Resolved

Alithien

disregarded two requests not to make further posts in my talk page, this after making some postings regarding an ArbCom we are both participating in. No need for diffs, they are the latest post in my talk page.

Could someone kindly let him know not to do this? I feel he is trolling and I do not want problems. His talk page says he is in wiki leave, so I wont be giving him notice of this AN/I could someone also do this. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not post any more on Cerejota's talk page.

It is true that he asked me not to post any more and that I posted a last time anyway.

What he forgets to explain here is that, he wrote something such as :

• You are of bad faith (...), do not post any more on my talk page.
• You are a troll (...), do not post any more on my talk page.

And I only posted : "I am not of bad faith. Thank you" and "I am not trolling".

See here precise words used : [122]

Regards,

Alithien

13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, I was just about to write the same thing.) Sigh. Look, Cerejota, your talk page is specifically there for people to communicate with you. That's its main purpose. That is not a reason for it to be used to harass or unnecessarily annoy you, Wikipedia:Civility certainly applies, but the post you're objecting to merely says "I am not of bad faith ! Thank you." That's hardly a personal attack, especially given that it's in response to your writing "Alithien, your inflammatory, bad faith comment on me not understanding is very unproductive." No offense intended, Cerejota, but you just can't write stuff like that and then object to someone responding to it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It think you miss the point, that is not the post I object. What I object is that he posts *twice* diffs refering to an ongoing arbcom, and when I ask him not to post about arbcom outside of the arbcom (to which I have every right), he says he is not talking about arbcom. This after he misquotes me, confuses me, and then all I ask is that my wishes be respected. He questioned my good faith over me not understanding. That for me is enough evidence of non-productive trolling. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, how many people did you accuse of not respecting your "good faith" these last 2 days ? I think you should take a break.

Alithien

12:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a big deal. Alithien, please don't forget that if someone asks you not to post at their talkpage, you should be smart and avoid doing that because after all any one can delete whatever they want from their talkpage. Cerejota, you know very well that you could have diffused the situation very easily w/ Alithien w/o referring the AN/I. I am sure they are not a troll and are here collaborating in good faith. I'd consider this as resolved. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets, request for block

It has been confirmed by checkuser [123] that the user Artaxerex has resorted to sockpuppetry to evade a block. The sockpuppet accounts are Arteban, Artaban, Arteban1, and Vazgen. It is noteworthy that the user Artaxerex has already been blocked twice for sockpuppetry some while ago. I would therefore like to ask for this user and his sockpuppet accounts to be blocked from editing.Shervink 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While they are all socks, per CU... they're not doing anything that sockpuppets are prohibited from doing. There's no Wikipedia policy against having multiple accounts. You're only prohibited to use multiple accounts to get around 3RR, vote multiple times, fake a wider consensus by having multiple accounts support each other in a discussion, etc.

These appear to not have edited anything close enough together that they're abusive, at least not in the last month or two. If you can point to specifics which breach any of our policies in the logs, please feel free to. But I don't see grounds to block them, socks as they may be. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not versed in the specifics of this case, but using sockpuppets to evade a block is prohibited, and the general response is to reset the block, as well as block the socks. Natalie 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The parent account isn't blocked right now, and hasn't been for some months. Georgewilliamherbert 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is an ArbComm case proposal, for which I will note this.

GRBerry

04:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the very fact that an editor who has repeatedly used sockpuppets and has been banned twice is still creating more accounts, shows that he has learned nothing from his past mistakes. He has shown in the past that he is not doing this in good faith, and in fact he still denies even having had any sockpuppets in the past. Moreover, creating multiple accounts all editing on the same page obviously serves the purpose of faking a wider consensus. The other sockpuppet accounts seem to have been created (or at least started to be used) after Arteban1 was blocked, so this can be also considered block evasion. Finally, avoiding scrutiny from other editors [124] is prohibited per policy, and I think that also applies to this case. The important thing is that he denies having multiple accounts, while legitimate users of multiple accounts are encouraged to publicly announce and link them. Shervink 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that shervink and his group are trying to banish me for the content dispute. They have strong racist views that I am against(Natalie is aware of this-- please see my talk page). Shervink and his group do vandalism by bringing a dispute about their srtong pro-Aryan views to unrelated pages (see; talk page in Guity Novin).They should not.
• Their views can be acertained from here [125]where he writes to Behnam an editor/(admin?) to explain why he believes "Iranians are Aryans". He writes:

"When I say that Iranians are not semitic, I mean that both their languages and their culture are quite distinct from those of the semitic people."

In other words he means Iranians of different race (Jews, Arabs, Assyrians etc.) are not Iranians (or are Aryans!). This is not my spin as you can see from Behnam's response to him here:[126],I have written to him here [127] which reads; "You wrote: ...it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new." Your statement is False. There are many Semitic Iranians. Jewish Iranians are Semitic, Arab Iranians are Semitic. In fact, anybody who argues that Jews who have lived in Iran for more than 2500 years are not Iranian not only would be wrong, but also anti-Semitic. I am really disgusted by the above statement, and I hope you really wrote it inadvertently.

• He and his friends (SG, Mehrshad 123, Rayis, ...) use the fact that about 15 of us share the same IP to accuse us of sockpuppertry. This group and the other group should realize that their tactics will not work in open societies.

• Why shervink does not act civil and discuss the content dispute in a civil manner.(he has called me A****** as well as other names. He consider my apologies half hearted and his own persumably full! etc.)Cheers Artaxerex 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

note 1; As another example of shervink's chauvonism please see his confrontation with the minority Kurdish people, where he and his so-called Iranian-watch-dogs forced them to merge their page on celebration of their new year as part of the Iranian celebration. In fact, shervink wrote here [128] which reads; "I have no problem at all with the fact that Kurds have their own culture, language, music, dance, etc. In fact, that's truly beautiful. What I have a problem with is that some of these editors deny their ancient ties with the people around them, most importantly the other Iranians, going as far as speculating whether they are more related to jews and arabs rather than Iranians!" )

Please stop calling me racist. For the last time, I am neither anti-semitic nor an Aryan suprematist nor have I ever supported such nonsense. This is really getting out of proporsions. What do you want from me? Why do you keep harassing me??!! How is it possible that this guy is calling me racist several times a day on a regular basis and does not receive any significant warnings or reactions? It seems you have got so bold in your uncivil behavior that I don't even have to complain to admins regarding this, you post your personal attacks here on ANI yourself!!! Shervink 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you resorting to edit-wars by deleting any comments related for instance to the "Light of Aryans"? Why are you deleting all references that talk about the pro-Nazi policies of Reza shah? why do you and your group call them allied/western propaganda. Why do you call Professors Cottam's seminal book, as well as, those of Bob Feldman, Arthur Goldschmidt,Asghar Fathi,Ernst Bernard Hass, Younes Parsa Benab, Trita Parsi, and ambassdors Anthony Parson, Julius Holmes, and William Sullivan and at least 10 other scholars unreliable !!? Why do you, and your group, try to ban me? I am bold because I have used all these scholars as my sources. You may yet succeed in banning me, but as I stated before, if you fail in your mission, you should expect from me more academic references, and more edits to balance those disputed contents. What do I want from you? I want you to get back to the discussions and let other views also see the light of the day and if you don't like those views try to balance them. Is this too much to ask? Artaxerex 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• FYI; I have written the following reminder to Natalie that cotains relevant info about this case:

Dear Natalie, back in the March-April period when I asked your help about the disputed content in Reza Shah Page you wrote me:

I understand your frustration - content disputes can be very frustrating. Going through dispute resolution will probably be the easiest way to solve your problems, and will hopefully yield a better article in the long run! Natalie 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

and about a month later when I asked again for your help to mediate you wrote:

Hello again. I have taken a look at the article and at the talk page, and I don't feel like I can render any judgment in this dispute. Dispute resolution isn't really my field, and this is a more complex dispute than some. Please take a look at the options in

dispute resolution for more help. Natalie

00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

* Later,I did try various dspute resolution options. I even thought it may help if I go to step 2 and leave the page for few months. However. Behnam an admin discouraged me from doing so. He wrote here [129]:

You can leave if you want to, but I'm not sure how much it will help. I interpret Step 2 as recommending disengagement so that those involved can cool down a bit, but I don't know if that is applicable with SG. I wish SG would just sit back and give you a chance but he continues to attack you on the talk page. Honestly, leaving will only delay the content dispute - everything will be the same when you come back. So its up to you if you want to take a break - the situation will probably be just about the way you left it, but a break from Wikipedia might be nice. In sum, disengagement probably won't affect the content dispute, but it may be a nice break :-). The Behnam 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

* I hope you realize that I was trying in Good Faith to edit the article. I fill blocking me will only help a group of fanatics to push their POVs. Respectfully yours. Artaxerex 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frontline (magazine) entry...

This is with regard to the entry for Frontline (magazine).. An earlier version about the magazine, which lists out the niche, achievements and the genre of the magazine is repeatedly being vandalized by a person User:Lib Democrat who places POV content on the entry. The issue has already been discussed in the "Discussion page" and the vandal has been repeatedly asked to present her/his views in the discussion page. Yet, the user, "Lib Democrat" refuses to discuss the piece.

I request administrators to kindly revert the piece to the earlier version (under the name, User:Vrsrini and protect it till "Lib Democrat" is willing to present her/his views in the Discussion page. If the vandal persists with the repeated edit-war without recourse to discussion, I request he/she be blocked. I leave it to the discretion of the administrators to take a call. Thanks. User: Vrsrini

The page is already protected. There is no relevant discussion on the talk page. Please discuss there and try to come to a consensus. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see m:The Wrong Version. Kusma (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected several times, without any discussion on the talkpage. One of the editors has repeatedly asked for a discussion, the other has not. Under such circs, I hardly think protecting a fourth time and suggesting the talkpage is the best way out. Hornplease 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Protocol on closing AfDs: a query

Resolved

Hi, can someone tell me: is it admins only who are entitled to close AfDs? I ask, because of this. Coldmachine^Talk 10:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of that question this, rather new user, is involved in the debate, which precludes closure. I note this uncivil edit summary, ^[130] as well as the fact that the AfD was closed "due to inaction from administrators since requesting closure on WP:AN on 14 August." And in the edit immediately preceding this (the closure):"striking my keep vote" (!) Anyway, protected till we sort it out, but clearly invalid. El_C 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in the midst of reviewing the debate and will be issuing a decision in a few minutes. El_C 11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins are allowed to close such debates, although obviously they'll have some trouble deleting the page on their own, and they're liable to get complaints if they make any controversial closes (though the same goes for admins). In this case, the user participated in the discussion, which would preclude their closing it, regardless of their account status. Although I can sympathize with the frustration, waiting that long for closure. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but i suggest that only admins can close AfDs. I know that this issue should be discussed somewhere else but i am just saying it here to show that it is always problematic for non-admins to close AfDs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of this board/issue, you're probably right -- without getting into the various policy disputes, suffice to say that it's a bit controversial. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember when pretty much anyone closed 'keep' AfDs all the time. Perhaps that's inadvisable now we've grown so large, but I am not certain that the change would make it through discussion at, say, the Pump, though it might at WP:DPR. Certainly, it would take away something easy to say at RfAs. ("I've closed AfD's that met

WP:SNOW!") Hornplease

20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. See you at

deletion review? ;) El_C

11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apperently, yes!. Incidentally, I love the DRV notice template's "an editor" prelude. It's almost as great as userboxes' "this user." Almost. El_C 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things for me, I appreciate it. I may pop over to deletion review, but I think the right decision was made what with the

WP:COI going on in there...! Coldmachine^Talk

13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Creepy edit pattern?

• 74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Am I wrong to find this consistent pattern of editing -- [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] --a fairly creepy

Jewish right without explanation for reversions or talk-page discussion. Rest of edit history similar when it comes to adding material. I haven't seen another editor endorse these edits. THF

16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm confused. The anon's user page says that IP address has been indef blocked for sockpuppetery. How is the user still editing?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• User blocked back in June for a month. Not currently blocked. - Crockspot 17:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, creepy, and all too common, I'm afraid. I brought this up in the NYScholar arbcom. There are editors who feel that "fighting neocons" justifies the practice of yellow-badging/pink-badging. It doesn't seem to matter if the editor is progressive or a white supremacist. The end justifies the means. - Crockspot 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The IP should have been indef blocked, but had only been blocked for a month. As soon as it ewxpired, it went back to this strange editing pattern. Softblocked for a year.
    ム
    17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good call. Stuff like this has no place in civilized discourse. Raymond Arritt 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd asked
  GRBerry
  19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  The editing pattern suggests a fairly static IP, but as it's a long block, I only softblocked (anon only).

  ム

  21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowit is back and editing as Jewbaccas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- another block is needed. THF 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)