Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive347

Resolved

 – for now, page protected as redlink

Gerda9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned only with repeatedly creating Future food. User completely refuses to engage in any discussion either on his/her own talk page or the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation. The user was not greeted in polite way. The repeated deletion of their contributions may naturally be considered as an annoying harassment of a newcomer. I suggest you to review

assume good faith to understand that the person simply does not know wikipedia ways and places to talk. `'Míkka>t

19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no one has left a note requesting that this user engage in discussion - I see only templated deletion messages on the talk page. I left a note asking the user to stop re-creating the page and instead discuss the reasons why it's being deleted. If they keep going with article re-creations after that, then a block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the page be salted, may be easier? Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[ec] Awesome! "protect" on redlinks. I love that. I've given it six months, it's clear the time is not yet ripe but it might be one day. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already resolved, but:

I only used the vandal tag as a way to easily expand the user's contribs, talk page, logs, etc. I wasn't implying the user was a vandal.

The templated deletion messages on the user's talk page do invite discussion, which invitation the user has not accepted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I use those templates myself, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I've just become a bit more sensitive to how forbidding and unintuitive Wikipedia's system has become, so I try (not always successfully) to err on the side of a more personalized and informative message when time permits. Anyhow, it looks like things are resolved, and I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, MastCell. I just wanted to clarify since I was challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) - is this person's User page grounds for indef. blocking? Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Hut 8.5 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some fool kid. I'd like to go to his talk page and taunt him "Go on then" but I wont. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I guess it's related to the User:Jinxmchue discussion above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bizarre self-enforced wikibreak? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a stunned message on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I spy satire. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• don't worry, admins do this all the time. I can list at least four other admins who've done this ;-0--Phoenix-wiki 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Raymond Arritt (talk) raises hand sheepishly... it was an accident, honest —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to do that, per the blocking policy, right? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thar's right.Although it's less damanging than it was in the days before logged in users could edit from blocked IP ranges. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Silly people, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090 for relevant information. Redspork Friend001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another House sock as per the checkuser, did this in an attempt to get Redspork02 (talk · contribs) into trouble. House has used a variety of socks and has generally been a right pain, see things like this, this and this, and so as far as I am concerned he is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. I post here for review and to see if anyone disagrees. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support While he was not a good editor, some of his editing interests coincided with mine. So while I support the notion of a community-ban, I'd appreciate not mass-deleting all his articles, some of which I've provided references for, others of which I may find time to work on eventually. Amerique^dialectics 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Links: AntsOnNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not too sure what to do. User:AntsOnNuts Has only made one edit but it could be interpreted as a threat - given the username - to vandalise in the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but...? Whitstable (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a threat, but I do see it as an account that will only be used for trolling. That diff is just an attempt at getting around BLP. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As EVula says, not an immediate threat, but keep an eye out for things worsening, and block if necessary.

talk

) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just {{

usernameblocked}} the account. It's clear from the comment that the username is intended to be construed in a vulgar manner. -- The Anome (talk

) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for abusing sockpuppet accounts (being a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), despite his strenuous denial that he's been editing legitimately and not being a sockpuppet. I think Special:Contributions/67.135.49.177 will be instructive in determining why he's been disruptive.

I recently asked him a legitimate question about whether he plans to constructively edit any pages once the block expires. In response, he undid my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 180656254 by Elkman (talk) - rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". That pretty much tells me that he doesn't plan to do any constructive editing.

I have blocked his entire range of IP addresses (67.135.48.0/23) for three months and protected the two user talk pages that he's been using. I'm reasonably convinced that he has no plans to edit Wikipedia except to make complaints about Wikipedia administration. Frankly, I'm tired of his continued abuse of his user talk page(s) to go on about his grievances. Since I've placed a rangeblock that may affect users of a small ISP based in

Ouch. That seems to be casting a rather wide net, for three months. Is he that disruptive? — Coren ^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh - definitely using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Blocking an entire ISP seems too extreme. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A /23 block is only 512 IPs. These are all the anonymous edits from that range up to August 4th, 2007. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate reading about these situations. being as careful and narrow as possible almost always lets them back in, then they get ip after ip blocked piece-meal, leading to frustration and irritation; blocking massive ranges which assure the editor can't get back in easily run the risk of blocking other contributors. I'd like to go with 'let them register', but that often falls on deaf ears, and the 'anyone can edit' clause. well, we're not precluding registered users, just IP vandals. I suppose the 'right' thing, by current WP standards is to unblock the range, but I keep thinking about all these declarations here on AN/I to crack down on vandals, and how wimpy they wind up being. Given that almost all were by the vandal in question, I say let them stand. The other IP in that range can register. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, the main account itself isn't blocked. So an anon only block on his IP range is going to let him edit from his account. Of course, this may be a good thing - it will force him to use an account rather than obfuscate behind multiple IP addresses. --B (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Forcing" someone to use a registered account is the wrong answer - it's a violation of the privacy policy, which states that editors may edit logged in or not. Can someone explain the point of blocking an ISP to prevent anon editing by a person whose main account isn't blocked? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has imposed a sanction that editors are limited to one account before, so I don't see why that would be totally out of the realm of possibilities. I was more or less tongue in cheek about that part, though, obviously using an ISP block for an editor who isn't even blocked isn't quite right. --B (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering the rangeblock based on the opinions above, but I'm going to wait until the morning (CST) to make the decision. I still don't think he has anything positive to contribute here, and I don't like the idea of users using talk pages to bash Wikipedia and its editors, but maybe the rangeblock is overkill. Other opinions are welcome. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main account isn't even blocked. So right now, it's in a logically inconsistent state. It doesn't make sense to block the range if the editor can just edit using his account. So something needs to change - block the main account or unblock the range (or both).--B (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - also, it's not up to Elkman or any other single admin to tell an editor where they may or may not edit. The more I look into this, the uglier it looks. Guy should never have blocked an IP for sockpuppetry to begin with (editing anonymously is specifically allowed by policy, and cannot be "sockpuppetry"), and this answer to an unblock request only seems liable to inflame the situation rather than improve it. I still don't understand why this person was blocked, anyway - it looks to me like it was possibly over a content dispute, which should have gone to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Has the IP/Jinxmchue edited outside of his usertalk space since the block? If all he's doing is being obnoxious on his IP usertalk page, and he's not actually disrupting articles or editing other spaces, then a range block definitely seems like overkill. Right now, he's just ranting on his IP usertalk page. I'd suggest semi/full-protecting the talk page with a clear explanation that he's abusing it. If he starts using his dynamic IP to evade the block and edit article-space, then a range-block might be appropriate. Just my 2 cents. Also, Jinxmchue edits to provoke a reaction and constantly seems to be in a state of barely contained rage. I still have a couple of... er... colorful emails he sent me after I blocked him for 3RR long ago. He's best ignored or flyswatted rather than nuked. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Videmus, I think (though am not entirely certain) that JzG blocked the IP because Jinxmchue was using it to evade a block on his main account. That was a correct block. As for range blocking to stop an unblocked editor from editing? That's a different story. --B (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there was no block evasion - the IP was blocked for 31 hours on 30 Nov by Adam Cuerden. On 2 Dec, Guettarda blocked the main account for "block evasion" on the IP even though that block had already expired. On 3 Dec Guy blocked the IP for sockpuppetry. Unless I'm missing something, the only good block is Adam's. And the more I look at that IP's talkpage the more it looks like a volatile person was cyber-bullied and provoked into getting mad on their talkpage, which was then used as an excuse for talkpage protection and "harrassment" and "trolling" accusations. That is a thoroughly despicable tactic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP was being used to evade the block put in place by Adam, so blocking the IP was the right decision. Blocking the IP for a month instead of merely blocking it for the time of the original block was a bad decision. --B (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Adam blocked the IP, not the account. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 15:17, 30 November 2007 Adam blocks the IP for 31 hours. Jinxmchue edits with his account starting at 20:24, 30 November 2007 and continuing until blocked by Guettarda at 00:23, 2 December 2007 for block evasion. The IP does not edit until after that block expires, so yes, you are correct and I was wrong. --B (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam blocked Jinx for a 3RRvio. After he was blocked, he switched to his logged-in account, and was editing outside of his userspace before the block expired, and was repeating the same edits for which he was blocked. So I re-set Adam's block, and posted notice of the block here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? --B (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Guettarda here. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree your block was 100% correct. JzG's block is the one about which I said I was mistaken. --B (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, why are there edits from your IP to Natalie Erin's talkpage that say "natalie erin is a big dyke"[14] or "natalie erin is bitch ass dyke"[15]? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did an IP lookup - it's the IP for Michigan State University, so there's going to be quite a lot of users on that IP. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's right ... it appears to be the computer lab at MSU. Many people could be using that/those computers. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rangeblock and the two protections I just placed. As for the existing block of 67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), that's a block that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) placed, and I'm not going to undo that -- that's wheel warring.

Apparently, I'm the one who screwed up here. Apparently, I can't do things correctly around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a one-month block 29 days into it would not be wheel warring. --B (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I placed an unblock request on the IP talk page, and request a neutral review. This looks to me a bad block by Guy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was placed because of disruptive edits using that IP (which had no evidence of other uses, so no obvious danger of collateral damage) combined with querulous complaints on the admin noticeboard, the while absolutely refusing to admit to any fault, notably with these: [16] [17]. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me, he admitted it was Jinxmchue. Jinxmchue and his IPs do little other than edit war and push their POV. We should waste less time with such foolishness and concern ourselves instead with helping those editors who are capable of presenting minority POVs without the attendant problems that editors like this bring. It's pretty clear that this editor has used and will continue to use IPs and his account in combination to evade scrutiny and blocking, and there seems to me to be adequate support for editors with a problematic history being required to keep to one account. No provacy violation exists, Jinxmchue freely admits these are his IPs on his user page. Jinxmchue needs, in my opinion and I'm guessing that of Felonious and others, to "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, it's logically inconsistent to block his IP when his account is not blocked. --B (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more of an argument to block the main account too than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against anything other than logical consistency. --B (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy - if the reason was blocking was edit-warring or POV-pushing, why does the block log say that it is for sockpuppetry? And why a month? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As to whether 1 month is an appropriate block length for edit-warring/POV-pushing, it may be, given that this user (as both User:Jinxmchue and various IP's) has run up a number of prior 3RR blocks in a short time and has continued to edit-war. As to why the block log gives sockpuppetry as a reason, I don't know, though my suspicion is that there were multiple issues which Guy deemed block-worthy (recidivist edit-warring, POV-pushing, block evasion) and he grabbed one from the drop-down menu. As to whether the IP should be unblocked, or Jinxmchue blocked, or some other combination of actions, I have no opinion beyond the one expressed above - that this is an irascible editor spoiling for a fight, and others have obliged him. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can speak to the quality of Jinxmchue's edits, but the actions on the other side seem to be an unworthy attempt to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by unwarranted use of admin buttons. I'm particularly concerned by FeloniousMonk's actions - he apparently was involved in the dispute, then placed an {{IPsock}} template on the IP userpage against the user's will, then protected the page while involved in the dispute. I don't have any involvement in the Intelligent design/Dominionism area (except for a long-ago dispute regarding non-free images); it seems that users involved in this area are willing to engage in tag-teaming and provocation to enforce their point of view on the articles involved. I'm not saying the blocked user was correct, I'm saying that there seems to be some questionable use of admin buttons by users involved in the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that;s an assumption of bad faith, and extending greater good faith to an edit warrior than to several long-standing contributors. I picked one moth because that's what I usually use in cases of block evasion using what appear to be stable IPs - I use a week or less if the IPs seem to be reallocated frequently. Feel free to help the user fix his behaviour problems, though. I don't think that would be at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this doesn't explain why you blocked for sockpuppetry when there was no sockpuppetry. I can't even see that there was any block evasion. Can you please explain (citing policy as necessary) the reasons for your block? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Violating his block by editing logged out

1. 1st block of Jinxmchue for 31 hours, 1 December 2007
2. Editing from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007
3. 2nd block for evading the first, 3 December 2007

Admiting that he violated the block: "Nope. Block period has passed. (I even logged out to see if I got the block message, which I didn't and knew I wouldn't.) Please go harass someone else or find yourself in danger of losing adminship."

Admiting the IPs are his:[18][19][20][21][22]

Your frantic arm waving and claims about Jinxmchue being the aggreived party here are as baseless as they are disruptive, as is your grudge filing against me at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:IPsock and attempt to ban another who's opposed Jinx's disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim62sch. Your time and effort would be better spent finding constuctive ways to contribute to the project rather than stirring up drama and settling old scores... it's becoming disruptive and appears to be spreading. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "evidence" shows that the user didn't edit outside of user talkspace during his block. Would you also care to explain your protection of the user's IP userpage while you were in an editing dispute with the user? Your time and effort would be better spent engaging in constructive ways to avoid conflict, rather than misusing your admin buttons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you kidding? His userspace is User:Jinxmchue. During the block he edited his IP talk page, WP:AN/I, 6 times total and my talk page, twice. All while he was blocked.

When you are so wrong on the basic facts Videmus, how do you expect us to take your other claims at face value? In addition to getting simple but crucial facts flat wrong I don't think you understand how

Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging apply here well enough to be making the accusations and slinging the mud you have been. FeloniousMonk (talk

) 03:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<This is the sort of attack you can expect if you run afoul of the WP:Intelligent Design folks. Nothing above explains the bullying, intentional provocation, or out-of-process page protection FM has engaged in, but we get plenty of ad hominen. Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. When you are shown to get the most basic and crucial facts wrong you blame me for providing the diffs pointing it out and claim I'm bullying? Right. That's called 'victim bullying', and it won't get you too far. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole. Thatcher 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the other particulars of this situation, those are standard messages and it's widely accepted that non-administrators are allowed to use them. —Random832 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised this Tsourkpk is trying to make these allegations about me, as he has a history of simular attacks. They are all false. I have never claimed to be an administrator. I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject on user warnings all I did was use the appropriate templates on this users talk page after vandalism. I never claimed to be an administrator and take offense to this personal attack. As this is not Tsourkpk first time and has been warned I suggest action be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I did is not vandalism. He accuses EVERYONE who disagrees with his views of vandalism. Take a look at his contribs log, just about every edit summary contains the word "vandal". He is using the templates to try and initimidate me. This is classic bullying and needs to stop. --

talk

) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides that fact that most of my contribs no not contain the word "vandalism", I do allocate time to correct vandalism in the encyclopedia. I am in no way trying to intimidate anyone, I am just going by the WikiProject on user warnings. You shouldn't fear anything if what you have done is right. Recent types of vandalism by this user have been removing sourced text from articles and adding incorrect unsourced un-encyclopedic text to articles. Ireland101 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None of your "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS and are only intended to push a particular POV. This is why all your edits have been undone by myself and other users (whom you have also tried to silence). --

talk

) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source in question is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This is defiantly a reliable source. Please stop with the false accusations. Ireland101 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So that I do not need to start a new thread this is were I am reporting this user.

Tsourkpk (

• removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly[26], [27].
• added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly [28], [29]
• made changes against talk page decision [30]

There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour. Action needs to be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. None of the "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS. Regarding the

You guys need to try

mediation as there isn't very much that ANI can do - in neither case is there blatant vandalism or bad faith edits. --B (talk

) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source about the Greeks appears to be reliable. It is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health, a scientific agency. I don't know about the other two though. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 thank you for posting your finding, Tsourkpk seems focused to making people believe it is not a reliable source. I do not know of the other sources Tsourkpk is talking about, as this is the only one I have added that I can remember. Ireland101 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, I think you really need to rethink your entire editing strategy hear. I see in your contributions history plenty of revert warring and use of somewhat hostile edit summaries. Especially in this most recent edit war, I see very little evidence you actually tried to discuss the issue. What you have to realize is that edit warring without discussing the content dispute at hand is plainly an unacceptable practice. Even after reverting vandalism, you're accountable for that revert, and expected to provide a reason if asked (reason here is more than just listing policy shortcuts, you should be able to explain how they're being violated). As for the issue at hand, except perhaps for blatant attack sites or personally published work, determining whether a source is unreliable is something that is going to require discussion. Not to satisfy yourself, of course (I'm sure you've already made up your mind), but to satisfy everyone else and arrive at consensus; for if you don't, then any admin is just going to see this as an edit war and block you if it continues. And when you can't reach an agreement (which I don't see evidence of your even trying) you ask other editors for their opinions through

Kékrōps you are ether mistaken or deliberately misleading people. The study in question is not the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Ireland101 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing what this user has been doing recently since from his very start on Wikipedia he obviously aimed at pushing some sort of agenda into so many articles - thus getting into many conflicts. What I think is he needs to get some sort of a formal warning so he stop pushing for the same things in so many articles (most of them totally irrelevant to his ideas) and most of all to stop calling people vandals for every single revert of his edits. I'd think he might not know what a vandal is, but since he's got the current infoboxes on his page he ought to be well acquainted with the subject. Just to prove my words he are his reverts on the Rosetta Stone article [31][32][33] It is obvious he is adding some pretty strange and poorly sourced info to the article (as a few editors tried to explain to him on the talkpage, but he persists on pushing it. He has persistently referred to other editors as vandals despite the fact he got explanations as to why he was reverted. Here is the next example on Bryges where in his edit summaries he has strange comments like [34] [35] spiced with threats that a user'd be blocked. He are his reverts on Macedonian dynasty [36][37][38]- I'm not sure if this removal of NPOV as he describes it compiles with any policy. I was going to point to the Vergina Sun article as well, but the revision history is full of Ireland101's edits (and with word Vandal again). It's the same with Hellenization - I'll highlight just a few edit-summaries [39][40][41][42] Then comes

Worth notign that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ireland101_and_Tsourkpk is also about Bryges and Ireland101. He does seem to be pushing this Macedonian Identity thing pretty far and wide, and the rampant threats to get everyone else in trouble are pretty repetitive. ThuranX (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole under the Macedonia arbitration case. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism (and changing content that he likes is not vandalism). Thatcher 02:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See this threat. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And another - [45]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's comment Those are worrying; while the threats are highly unrealistic (if this sort of thing were possible we would've fallen to 4chan ages ago), they do seem to foreshadow that the article will be seeing some more activity... perhaps a semi-protection? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need worry about the threats. I suspect the anon has severly underestimated the regular traffic we get. However I have semiprotected the article for a week to stop the vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tens of millions of Dawat members in small-town UK, eh?

We have no way of knowing whether the person making the threat is a significant member of the organization (who can carry out this threat) and insignificant member. The one who made the threat could even be trying to make the organization look bad (a concept not unlike straw puppetry).Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Barefact (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against me before [46]. He has been warned before for doing this: [[47]] but no action was taken except a warning. Thus realizing no action was taken last time, he did it here again: [[48]]. He calls me a "militant ethnic editor". I should not have to tolerate this, but do not want to escalate my language to his level. I explained the logic of my revert in the talkpage of the article and the issue was an editorial dispute. But his labeling [[49]], which he has been warned for before , makes resolving future editorial disputes harder. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)