Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive262

ColScott

ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We tried assuming good faith, his next action was to start trolling other people's talk pages, and to remove a strong suggestion that he not do that as trolling by me. He can go back in the sin bin. We unblocked him because part of the problem was his bad reaction to being trolled. Same with Jeff Merkey. Difference: Merkey is acting like an adult, ColScott is acting like an idiot. Maybe he is one, maybe not, I can't be bothered to mop up after him while we find out. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I endorse the block. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good action, SqueakBox 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I understand what Cary was trying to do here with the unblock, but my very brief interaction with this individual would seem to suggest to me that he isn't here to better the project. If he wants to stir the pot, let him do it on his own dime.--Isotope23 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. ColScott's comments range in tone from inappropriately hostile to outright threatening, and do nothing but damage to the project.Proabivouac 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You should see the email he sent me a while back; he's the soul of politeness here compared to the off-wiki communication I received from him prior to his first block.--Isotope23 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block as well. With the threat of incivil behaviour at every interaction, this user was apparently using nastiness to replace the review of consensus over his edits. --Fire Star 火星 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... I see Cary has acted accordingly - Alison ☺ 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to delete and protect his Talk page, which currently outs several Wikipedians? Corvus cornix 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - I admin-deleted it, oversights should probably take a look at ColScott's last edits to fully wipe them out. MaxSem 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have exchanged emails with ColScott, I am trying to get to the bottom of the problem here. He is clearly angry, and has some reason to be. The attacks and privacy violations are a very bad move, phoning me at home was also possibly not the smartest thing he ever did, though if we'd got to talk perhaps it might have been (it worked with Jeff Merkey). Anyway, it seems to me we have two factors at work here: an upset man with a pretty short fuse, which we can handle, and a completely uncontrolled fanbase, which is a much bigger problem. There are issues in the history of Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which we need to ensure are permanently resolved (deletion is almost certainly not an option, although the subject wants that). If we can be assured of an end to the attacks I guess we may be able to consider unblocking him, but that's going to get some resistance judging by the comments above. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, redux

I am asking the community to discuss an appropriate sanction for Vintagekits (talk · contribs · logs).

I was already running out of patience with this passionately nationalistic Irish editor. Although he has contributed some good work, civility and adherence to our policies in general continue to elude him. It then turned out he has been using sock- and/or meatpuppets to votestack in AfDs.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits was recently closed by Will Beback, with the conclusion "Due to the pattern of editing, as well as off-Wiki forum postings, it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him." I too find the evidence compelling that Vintagekits has behaved inappropriately over a long period.

As Will says, "VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts. The disposition of that account is best handled on AN/I". So here we are.

Previous recent discussions may be found from AN/I here and here. My own feeling is that either a long block, or, if it can be made to stick, some kind of parole might be in order. What do others think? --John 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Parole sounds better to me than a long block (ie longer than a week which would be justified in itself). I do also wonder if the arbcom should examine the case and especially in terms of imposing other parole like sanctions, SqueakBox 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that both sides in the debate have reason to avoid ArbCom. SirFozzie 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor has been trying to bait me into incivility for some time, you have also encouraged other to be uncivil towards be. I feel that I need some time off wiki and I am going to take a week off wiki just so I can get some perspective on why the hell I put myself through this.

As for the sock and muppetpuppets - they are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down.

If anyone thinks my form has been poor on wiki recent then 1. they are probably right, but it is very infuriating when you are trying to be constructive on wiki but there are "cleeks" of editors who make this a difficult and unwelcome place to be. 2. I am sorry in I have offended anyone, it was not meant personally but would have been said in the heat of the moment.--Vintagekits 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not had the opportunity to edit material that Vintagekits has. After reading some of the history and previous filings I have to say that I think a long block to allow this editor to cool down, followed by Parole and close monitoring by an administrator would be best here now. DPeterson^talk 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits makes a speciality of annoying editors of Peerage articles; on the other hand, their courtesy has often been open to question. Will Beback blocked the meat puppets; I'm not sure more needs to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was just peerage articles, and among the small group of conflicting editors therein, then you might have a point. But the votestacking that led to this report had nothing to do with peerages, and neither has the subsequent attacks and incivility. VK's belligerent editing can be be found across range of articles he edits. Rockpocket 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a strong warning not to violate WP:Sock, and I'll formally offer to mentor him when he gets back from his WikiBreak? SirFozzie 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for a history of meat and sockpuppeteering is compelling. The refusal of VK to co-operate other than offer uncredible denials and accusations of bias against the Irish, simply exacerbates the issue. I firmly believe VK will not learn anything from this episode other than to be more subtle with his votestacking efforts in future, since it is completely clear to me that he sees the project as a battlefield from conflict between those, like him, who share strong Irish republican sentiments, and those who disagree with him in any way (labelled anti-Irish, Monarchist or bigoted). That is not to say that there are those who do edit from those biases, some of whom have clearly edited in an equally disruptive manner, but there are plenty of good faith editors simply trying to uphold our policies that are on the receiving end of VK's ire, time and time again.

A brief example, just yesterday, when I cleaned up Brother Walfrid for WP:MoS in a serious of entirely non controversial edits. Because I didn't display "respect for his holy orders" by using Walfrid's full name in each reference to him in the text, VK reverted the entire cleanup twice, then told me to "go and play with your central germanic mates", a clear reference to the pejorative term "Hun" and the suggestion the edits are religiously motivated. I could provide many tens of these sorts of comments aimed at good faith editors.

If this was a one off, or even occasional, then it would be tolerable, but this sort of poisonous attitude is utterly persuasive in VK's contributions. Therefore, taking this alongside the votestacking issues, I conclude that the net efffect of his contribution to the project is not constructive and would support a long block to allow him to geet perspective on the purpose of this project. If he was willing to significantly change his MO, then I would support a well monitored parole for both civility and !vote tampering. As for leaving it with the blocking the meatpuppets, I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. I would have thought the meatpuppeteer, not the meatpuppets themselves, would be the person most liable for the disruption and most likely to disrupt process again in the future. Rockpocket 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I started this sockpuppet report in the first place. I also don't think that an excessively long block would be particularly productive. Whilst VK does have definite civility problems and causes friction through his excessive POV pushing, the sock/meatpuppetry needs to be placed in the context of equally dubious editing practices by other parties on numerous XfDs. Some sort of civility parole sounds like a good way to go to me. VK needs to realise that the community doesn't have infinite patience, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits' statement above that "...the sock and muppetpuppets ... are nothing to do with me. I offered Will Bebeck proof that we were not the same and this opportunity was turned down" seems rather worrying here, although I am glad to see some contrition from him on the civility issue. No offence VK, but if User:Voice of All thinks it is "likely" that they are something to do with you, I trust his opinion on the subject more than I do yours.

To me it seems there are three main issues here.

The sockpuppetry; this is the second time VK has been caught doing this, but it seems to have been on a much larger scale this time. Vintagekits seems to have got off without any sanction the first time, on 7 December 2006, when he created User:DownDaRoad. Indeed, he wasn't above arguing ex post facto that it was a justified sock, even though User:Dmcdevit had confirmed it in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.

I propose a one week block (officially endorsing a break that VK has already said he would find helpful), with a guaranteed indefinite block if the offence is repeated a third time.

The incivility; as I see this has been a long-standing problem, I propose Vintagekits undertake a civility parole. Any breach of parole would lead to escalating blocks. Of course, as one (along with Rockpocket) who took the brunt of his accusations this time round (on article talk pages, an AfD, and on other users' talk pages), I am maybe not the best placed to monitor or enforce this.

Edit warring; I propose Vintagekits also be placed on WP:1RR. If we can find a taker for my proposed sanction above, they could also enforce this.

If it wasn't for the fact that Vintagekits is intelligent and knows a lot about certain subjects, which has enabled him to make some very worthwhile contributions to the project (here for example), I'd have argued for an indefinite block long ago. As it is, I think he has to consider himself on a last warning here. --John 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I definately do have a problem with you John (or as you were formerly called Gunniog). You have had a withhunt against me for a long time because I stand up to you. You expect me to bow down to you everytime just because you are an admin and you know that other admins will back you. I have never had an illegal sock - I breached no rules with the puppet I had called User:DownDaRoad that account was used within wiki rules and policy and I openly admitted that it was me, you can ask User:Cyde if you wish.

• Have I been uncivil - sure I have and I have apologised for that and I have you say that you created a lot of that with your bullying tactics and your goading by encouraging SqueakBox to goad me. That sent out all the wrong signals and made me think that things were not on a level playing field.

• I would agree to go on WP:1RR but that would be impossible when you are dealing with the likes of Astrotrain (who only logs on to revert), Gibnews and Sqeaukbox. There is a wider issue here that needs to be address and you are just sweeping it under the carpet and making me out to be the scapegoat.--Vintagekits 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We are aware of the wider issue. This is to address your particular conduct. Tyrenius 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good proposal to me, and one I would endorse. Perhaps, if Sir Fozzie agrees with this, he would be willing to oversee a civility parole? I would offer to do it myself, but it will have a greater chance of success if an editor without a history of interaction with VK would volunteer. Rockpocket 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. In Vk's favour, he has made over 10,000 edits and many useful contributions. Tyrenius 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why both myself and John have spent so much effort trying to work with VK, rather than write him off. He has struck a much more reasonable tone today, on my talkpage, expressing regret for his incivilities and suggesting he is taking a self imposed week long break. I propose if he keeps to this then there is no real need for a block, though I guess blocking would do no harm either, I'm not sure the usual protocol for these types of situation. He has also suggested he would welcome mentorship from SirFozzie on his return. He still denies sock/meatpuppetry, which perplexes me as that is entirely in conflict with the evidence. I'm currently in private discussion with him to see if I can determine what is going on. However, since other admins have heard his private evidence and were unmoved by it, I don't envisage hearing anything that would vindicate him. If there is no further objections, I will explain this solution to VK and perhaps him and SirFozzie can come to some sort of understanding of how they can improve the civility of his communications. Rockpocket 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're in a good position to handle things and support your stance. Tyrenius 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll leave him a message on his talk page so he can either talk to me here when he gets back, or to shoot me an email. SirFozzie 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can live with that. My only concern would be that Vintagekits needs to know that the behaviour outlined was unacceptable and must not be repeated. His continuing denial of the sockpuppetry in the face of all the evidence does not lead me to an optimistic outlook on Vintagekits' future conduct here. --John 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talkpage explaining the programme and warning that further violations may result in escalating blocks. If his future conduct doesn't improve, I think the consequences are clear. Its up to him now. Rockpocket 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, that seems to work. I think we have consensus here for a week's block, and thanks to all who contributed. I particularly appreciate SirFozzie's offer to help Vintagekits in the future. As I have said all along, I consider this editor a potential asset to the project. He just needs to work on some of his people skills, in particular how to resolve conflicts more productively. I am sure you will be able to help him there, SirFozzie. --John 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IP address 12.20.127.109

Whoever is using this IP address (and it appears to be one person) is continuously editing posts to include his own POVs. The writing style is consistent, as is the relatedness of the articles he changes (mainly New York sports radio shows, esp WEPN). He generally erases anything he finds uninteresting or subjectively un-encyclopedic (with liberal use of edit boxes) and replaces them with unsubstantiated and uncited points-of-view and editorials. When this was pointed out to him on his talk page and he was invited to register, he proceeded to erase all contents three times, after each time the talk page was restored with warnings. I propose that this IP address be blocked or banned. TashTish 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. I took a careful look at Special:Contributions/12.20.127.109 for June 2007. I found one inappropriate edit, [1], which was reverted and the user was warned at the time. For some reason another user added a second warning, and the IP blanked the article and then blanked his own talk page. A revert war ensued over blanking of messages on this fellow's talk page.

I have listed Christina Stoffo for deletion because traffic reporters on the radio are not notable. (I actually listen to that radio station in New York City.) That should make past disputes over her article moot. Since the IP hasn't done anything else that's truly horrible, my advice is to let it sit and hope the issue dies. I don't think 3RR should apply to a user's own talk page, within reason. YechielMan 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and more than I could have asked for in regard to seeking appropriate action. I love ya guys! 68.194.79.110 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I need some help... copyright violations

Zosimus Comes (talk · contribs)

So far, I've removed copyright violations (plot summaries) from

• Blonde Crazy
• Fanny Foley Herself, and
• Going Wild,

all as a result of contributions from User:Zosimus Comes. Since March, this user has created over 60 articles that I suspect have all been created with plot summaries that are copyright violations. I just checked the user's first and last contributions, and both included copyright violations (from imdb plot summaries). It would be good to have a few of us go through this user's contributions. I remember a couple of months ago there was a similar situation and somebody was able to make a page with links to all of the articles created by a particular editor... then we were able to coordinate our efforts and strike out articles as they were checked for violations. I'll be off for a couple of hours, but will certainly help out with the cleanup. Sancho 04:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all the user's contributions going back only as far as April 1. Those led me to nine more copyright violations taken usually from nytimes reviews and imdb plot summaries. There's a lot more to clean up. Start at March 31 and go back in time, then leave a note here to say how far you've got. Sancho 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to March 29 now. Sancho 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All done. Sancho 09:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive (and rude) user

Hello, the user Cheeser1 has engaged in rather rude and somewhat disruptive behavior, which started with a loaded revert summary of Calculus and continued in the same vein, see [2]. I have left a message on his talk page to explain the reasons for my preceding edit (I had been the original author of the phrase that he wanted changed, so I was trying to explain the meaning to him). However, rather than respond to the substance of the comment, he accused me of a personal attack and made a number of vague threats. I would have considered this to be a rather tangential issue, since a highly respected editor, User:Silly rabbit has independently restored the article, but apparently, Cheeser1 believes he knows best and behaves as if he were above WP:Civil. Note that he keeps ignoring the substance of my comments, communicating mostly in edit summaries, and even went so far as to remove, [3], the discussion in his talk page with this wonderful summary:

archive BS and delete whine-fest

Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated! Arcfrk 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the summaries in question, you need to take it easy. Not only is he correct, but his edit summaries are not particularly incivil. --Haemo 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying not only is he correct seems to reveal a bias, does it not? Surely, the proper procedure for resolving contentious points is to discuss them at the article talk page first, not to start with highly charged edit summaries, continue with a revert war, and at the same time, take it into the personal sphere? Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[4] strikes me as a far more bizzare edit summary. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since when is WP:CIVIL used as justification for reverting someone in the mainspace?--Flamgirlant 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The disruptive part has been dealt with, as he finally condescended to explain his point of view on the article talk page. The civility, on the other hand... I keep reading about how the standards of civility have been steadily eroding, especially, among the younger people, and here we are. It is amazing what passes for civility these days. Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Chias

After reverting the removal of a bot's placement of the inactive WP account PROD notice on User:Chias (following it's removal by User:75.40.60.181) I was the subject of abuse from such user, this can be found on both my talk page and the user's talk page. To be honest, it is not the abuse I am concerned about - It's whether what I did was correct. From what I saw the user has been inactive since January 2006[5], and therefore had full right to be considered for deletion under the bot's ruling. People on the user's talk page, notably User:75.40.60.181 have defended Chias under the conviction that he is deceased and the page is a memorial to what edits he would make were s/he alive. However User:75.40.60.181 in saying "vandalizing my own user page"[6] gives the impression that this is all a ruse.

Should the user, if indeed s/he has forgotten his/her password, contact an Administrator instead of continuing to perform userpage edits which could be seen as vandalism from an unknown IP - and do I have the right to replace the PROD notice on the userpage under such circumstances.

Once more, not once has the page [User:Chias] been edited by the owner, but by supposedly sockpuppet accounts and this IP.

Any feedback greatly appreciated, MattieTK 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here you go, then:
  • Removing a PROD notice is the way that one contests the deletion. Do not reinstate PROD notices (except in highly exceptional circumstances, such as a readily identifiable pattern of outright vandalism across many articles). See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts.
  • Administrators cannot deal with lost passwords. We have no ability to reset account passwords. Only Developers have such abilities.
  • 'Bots do not make rulings. Thinking that they do will lead to Wikipedia becoming a mechanized nightmare. Human beings make decisions here.
  • MER-C (talk · contribs) is not a 'bot.
• Uncle G 09:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So in this case I was wrong on all counts despite the PROD notice being jusifiable - Chias' three edits are all based on Chantelle Preston's article's proposed deletion and since then he has not made a contribution besdies anon edits on his userpage for almost one and a half years. Correct? Sorry for calling MER-C a bot... I was confused =/ MattieTK 09:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TREAMIS World School

Resolved

 – A nice person here has stepped in and is arranging for the article to be checked and/or deleted etc. Thank you. 86.147.226.186 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please can we have some help on TREAMIS World School? The page is clearly NPOV and a commercial for the school and has been tagged as such. But the author keeps removing the tags; they're added back again by various editors and an attempt was made to talk with him on the talk page which he has ignored. From the author's contributions it seems an admin, Rebvers, was dealing with this but he seems to have stopped helping. Thanks. 86.147.226.186 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Severloh

I just semi-protected Heinrich Severloh as some IP with a heavy problem with the article keeps vandalizing. The article does need further attention especially of balancing autobiographical claims with outside references but graffity on the article is not helping anybody. A few more eyes or a second opinion would be appreciated. Agathoclea 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked the 71.217.222.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a WP:POINT violation and vandalism on the related article Omaha Beach -- Agathoclea 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalbots

Not wanting to violate this bit of common sense and all, but shouldn't a bot have caught this edit? It stood for 40 minutes before I reverted it. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot will revert within 15 seconds, so if it reverted something, it's not going to catch this edit. That's why we need human patrollers a lot. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User: White720 and article Tierra on Ashley

User:White720 should be blocked from editing the Wikipedia article Tierra on Ashley. This user has set out on a vendetta to continually shorten this article because he has a personal belief that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. I, User:Lredman, originally wrote this article because my company is constructing this building as an effort to complete a historical green building that is cost-neutral. Now, many people many not understand what that means, but many do and as a member of the green building industry and de facto subject-matter expert I can confidently say that this is a very important project and deserves to be on Wikipedia.

The purpose of the article as I wrote it is part of our educational outreach campaign. Green building is significantly entrenched in the construction world and in society in general (in all societies, not just the U.S.) that people deserve to know about our project. I can understand and appreciate that many people are sensitive about advertising campaigns and blatant attempts to market products via Wikipedia. However, I can assure you that this building has nearly no space for sale or rent, so there would be no financial benefit to my authoring this page. Moreover, even if there was a financial benefit would that necessarily preclude an article from being warranted? Simply because there is some commercial space available in this building- which, of course there would be, the building is not to be completed until 2009- it does not mean that there is no basis for an article.

It is the mission of my company as stated in our mission statement that we aim to educate the public on the merits and financial viability of building green. This is not for financial benefit of ours; rather it is simply an act of contribution to our communities. Allow us to contribute to our communities by posting neutral information about a building about which we are intimately knowledgeable on Wikipedia. Signed, User: Lredman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.69.176.31 (talk • contribs)

From what you are saying here, it sounds like you might have a slight conflict of interest on the page, since your company is the one constructing the building. Wildthing61476 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• So: you have a conflict of interest and are trying to own the article, and want us to come along and help prevent you promoting your company's commercial project, yes? Or was that not what you wanted? Wikipedia articles are not part of anybody's "outreach program", this is an encyclopaedia, not a part of your company's advertising efforts. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Personally, i think white720 should list it at AfD if he feels the article doesn't belong. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, the article was properly deleted. but should Lredman and 209.69.176.31 (the one who started this thread, check the page history and the IPs contribs), be blocked for spamming? not only did they make an article for there own companies buildings, but they listed that article on other articles in the "see also" section. I really think this is spam Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• They haven't received any warnings I can see, and haven't been particularly persistant. So no. WilyD 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The users in question were also uncivil to the admin who deleted the article. see 1 and 2. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!)

For such low grade incivility as that from an inexperienced user, I'd need to see a couple of warnings before a block could be issued. WilyD 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering your botched handling of the corticopia thing, I respectfully ask for a second opinion. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything on AN/I gets seen by plenty of eyes. That I took time out of my busy schedule to explain why a block is inappropriate is just a courtesy - if you're disinterested in the answer to a question, don't ask it. WilyD 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• No need to sanction the users / ips. They have done a wrong thing (in my view) but not an evil thing; as soon as someone uninvolved creates an article on the project (please feel free to do this, you can have the deleted text as a helper) they can comment on the talk page. I do not think they should edit the article, and I do not think their stated purpose in creating the article is consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice. There are, I am sure, some genuinely independent sources out there, if only enough for a paragraph in an article on green building. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Newshinjitsu

This user apparently has one single mission here on Wikipedia: to push romanization reform of Japanese words into English. He has a particular bee in his bonnet regarding the spelling of the Japanese word 抹茶 (article), which is a kind of green tea. The accepted spelling, and correct romanization, is matcha; this user mistakenly and misguidedly believes -- and very passionately -- that the word should be spelled maccha (see Talk:Matcha and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)# new romanisation system should be employed).

Newshinjutsu's entire edit history, dating from when he joined on March 6, has been devoted to a campaign to change the spelling of this one word. He has persistently added misinformation to the Matcha article, including an unnecessary section he calls "spelling debate." When we managed to convince him to stop adding that section, he began creating a discreet article, which was speedied several times.

Other editors on the page have conceded to allow the opening paragraph to read "occasionally spelled maccha," but Newshinjutsu insists on the phrase "also spelled maccha," which is not only against consensus, but incorrect, "also" implying that both are equally used and equally correct, which isn't the case. He has been warned several times, but has also used sockpuppet account user:207.81.142.43 (entire edit history also concerned solely with the spelling of this one word) to push for his preferred changes.

The user hasn't violated 3RR (although he came close yesterday, using 2 accounts), and he hasn't even been here for a while -- before yesterday, he'd been away for about 2 weeks -- but immediately on his return he has resumed his campaign. We have had very lengthy discussions accross several pages with this user. His attempts have been opposed by every user who's come accross them, on the grounds that his spelling does not conform to any romanization system, besides being counterintuitive and confusing.

Warnings have had little effect. Suggestions? Exploding Boy 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This username means "new truth".--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ironic, isn't it. Exploding Boy 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let him fight it out... he's fighting a losing battle anyways with no sources to back him up and pretty much everyone else vehemently opposed. Just revert on sight any of this edits that don't conform to the current Japanese romanisation policy. Sasquatch t|c 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bustalker1 repeatedly adding irrelevant information to ESG (band)

For the past month, User_talk:Bustalker1 has been re-adding irrelevant information to the article ESG (band). Editors have reverted the vandalism, but the user has continued to re-instate the changes. Please block.--Larrybob 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism-only account, and a fairly persistent if not very active one. Indefinitely blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistant problems with User:212.219.142.161 IP address registered to Alton College

There has recently been a large amount of obvious vandalism coming from the above IP address, which the user page states is shared by multiple users. Much of this has been reverted by other editors without leaving any warning message on the user page although a quick look through the edits will show there has been very little of any worth. I'm not entirely sure where the best place to leave this message is, but my own view is that the owner of the IP address should now be informed and further editing from this address closely monitored and/or blocked. Mighty Antar 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

School blocked for a bit. Sasquatch t|c 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Orangemarlin is reverting some of my edits because of vandalism when there is none, I warned him/her to stop but that edit was also reverted, his/her reason was “Deleting anonymous vandalism and trollish behavior.” 76.183.213.20 07:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't tell what you're talking about. Could you link to some examples of the vandalism you've been accused of? --Haemo 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is all on his/her talk page history and his/her talk page archives; everything I say on his/her talk page is treated as vandalism, just because I am an anonymous user. 76.183.213.20 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to dig deep to understand the problem. It seems to have started with the following exchange on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution:

• Oppose First of all I do not believe in evolution, second of all it will offend many. 76.183.213.20 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, irrelevant, second of all, irrelevant. Orangemarlin 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest. However, this process aims to assess if an article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, objections that are not actionable or based on these criteria are lkely to be ignored. TimVickers 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And please note, both of his comments were irrelevant. Orangemarlin 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that 76 and Orangemarlin been hashing out their disagreement on Orangemarlin's talk page ever since then. Naturally, Orangemarlin has grown tired of this shpiel, so he calls it vandalism. It isn't, but 76 could use a more respectful tone also. There isn't any need for formal intervention (read: blocks). Everyone needs to settle down. YechielMan 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Very good then! --Haemo 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

… but that dispute has ended and was archived. 76.183.213.20 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No hashing here. I'm basically ignoring the anonymous editor. I haven't responded to him in weeks, except to throw warnings on his page. Shpiel? I haven't heard that word in years!!!! And yes I've grown tired of him, and it's probably not vandalism. I've been amused by the shpiel. Orangemarlin 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologized to Orangemarlin just now, my apology was well overdue. 76.183.213.20 04:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He/She archived my apology under "Amusing Vandalism", that is like punching me in the face after apologizing to him/her in person. 76.183.213.20 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to stay off his/her talk page, that should solve this. I suggest this discussion be closed. 76.183.213.20 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott/Don Murphy

I've protected User_talk:ColScott to prevent its use as a soapbox by a blocked user to make personal attacks against other editors, including those with personally identifiable info. Also, the users legal threats and incitement to fabricate evidence for use in a legal suit on his BBS bring the user block directly into WP:NLT territory. Do not unblock or unprotect without corresponding w/ the blocking admin and/or posting here first, please, no matter how overcome with fan adoration you might be. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you remove the one remaining personal attack? Corvus cornix 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gracias, didn't notice that the first time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The links to his forum pages show that he is out to create off-Wikipedia, real-life harrassment against another editor both at his home and at his place of work. He should never be unblocked until all of that is removed. Corvus cornix 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its become a BADSITE and so should be removed from wikipedia, eg [7], SqueakBox 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to let Bastique know what's going on here. Corvus cornix 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think so, he distanced himself from the situation by removing himself from the talk page. No need to bring this up with him again. Saturday ^Contribs 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* "Could somebody who is not blocked create an account and email me it and the password at my hotmail?" -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors of this nature reveal themselves quickly no matter the disguise. If he creates a new account to avoid a block/ban, we'll all know soon enough. WilyD 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that ColScott has removed the troubling threads from his forum. That's a good first step. Corvus cornix 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Update: JzG has reduced it to semi-protection so that ColScott can post to the page, which, as I ]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&curid=8210276&diff=139688294&oldid=139680591 noted] completely misses the point. His rationale for this is here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I posted the above, JzG explained that he was unprotecting the page because ColScott had threatened to create a sockpuppet account. I'm asserting that this is a poor precedent and shows a remarkable lack of respect for the community. I request external input on the matter, if I'm a crazy person who's tilting at windmills, then I'll find out. If not, then a clear consensus that giving this guy a free pass to attack people is a bad idea will be formed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I think that we need to continue to try and come to terms with problem users. The first, second, and third... attempts may not work. But as long as the user is making some attempt to work with us, I think it is best to keep trying. FloNight 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • It was Guy whom ColScott was threatening to out on his forum pages, so if Guy is happy with this outcome, then so be it. Corvus cornix 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruption via multiple accounts

• Mynglestine (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Wyington Duarm (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Biowiki (AfD discussion)
• Katrina PeopleFinder Project (AfD discussion)
• Galbijim Wiki (AfD discussion)
• Yellowikis (AfD discussion)

Wyington Duarm made several AFD nominations recently, but didn't complete the nominations properly. Nonetheless, Mynglestine managed to be the one editor to find all of that editor's nominations and comment on each discussion. Xe also began Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biowiki (q.v.). It seems that these two accounts are one single person. After reviewing this edit and this edit, and noting the fact that all bar one of the articles nominated are about wikis, it is clear that this is simple disruption, and is also clear whence it originates. I have therefore blocked both accounts and speedily closed the AFD discussions where only those two accounts have expressed opinions that articles should be deleted. I would not be surprised were CheckUser to reveal that Rllemsheep (talk · contribs), OldDirtyBtard (talk · contribs), Alfedhun (talk · contribs) and others were all this same single person too. Uncle G 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also suspecting Riboflavinl0l (talk · contribs) is a sock as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I requested a checkuser, turns out you were right Uncle. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • THE SESSION EXPERIENCE (talk · contribs) was one of the others that I referred to. That that account is another sock-puppet was apparent from this edit and this edit. Uncle G 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hamheim (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia Watch (AfD discussion)

I have blocked another account and speedily closed another AFD discussion. Uncle G 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shebben44 (talk · contribs) is a likely sock, despite having four contribs, look at his first one. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy edit wars further

DreamGuy continues to edit war, by reverting the same edit without proper discussion.[8] (previous reverts: [9][10]) in the article on Mythology. I had complained about this in a 12 May WP:ANI, and he was reprimanded by User:Zero1328,[11][12], and again more recently,[13]

Subsequently, DreamGuy has also accused me of "deception and bad faith", and that anything I add will be removed on sight."[14]. Conversely, I have made the effort to discuss the matter,[15], and more recently,[16], but my suggestions go unanswered.

Technically his edits do not fail WP:3RR, but I feel they fail the spirit of the policy, and his incivility identified by Zero1328,[17], and behaviour identified in the previous WP:ANI, does not help. --84.9.191.165 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the edit war on mythology as cited by the complainant, I found another WP:LAME violation of 3RR here at High IQ society. The pattern of 3RR and incivility by DreamGuy warrants a 24-hour block - just to enforce policy, but he's too productive an editor to deal with more harshly than that. The counterpart in the IQ society should also be 24h blocked - 3RR cuts both ways. YechielMan 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What edit war on mythology? It's just standard editing, no war, buyt the anon user didn;t get his way so he came to complain. And, also, that's not a real violation of 3RR, as it was not more than three reverts in 24 hours. Certainly you could decide to just pull the "I don't like it so I'm going to block for it anyway" card, but it seems to me that's always causes more problems than it solves, especially when this whole complaint was created merely for someone pushing a POV to try to do a run around on consensus on the article by tricking other people into blocking an opposing editor for making badly-needed edits that conform to police and were supported by multiple editors. DreamGuy 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy on productive editors, that they should be given special treatment? Surely one productive editor does not outweigh all the editors they affect, and the other editors who would contribute to Wikipedia if things were more civil, and there was less warring? --84.9.191.165 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is exempt from behavior policies. However, where we might indefinitely block a WP:SPA or a newcomer that does nothing but vandalize, we are careful to recognize that established, productive editors like DreamGuy don't deserve such harsh treatment, but rather, reminders that policy applies to them. Hence, YechielMan's recommendation for a 24 hour block... though I disagree: I just think DreamGuy could use a little more 3rd party support. Mangojuice^talk 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is warranted either, but it would be very nice if DreamGuy would rein in his irritation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm assuming DreamGuy gets the point about being more civil to other editors. Although he was rude I don't see anything that would warrant a block. Rude and misguided doesn't warrant anything to me unless it continues past this point. Give him a couple of days to cool down and we'll go from there. Sasquatch t|c 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. An anon IP account shows up to complain about a so-called edit war when he was caught pushing a severe POV onto the article and multiple editors removed his edits, so he tries to pretend everyone agreed with him and that *I* was just edit warring. It's sheer nonsense. The topic was discussed, policies were pointed out, and what needed to be done got done, but he just didn;t like it because he didn't get to push his POV. Check out his edit history, it's very clear what he's up to. If anything this anon should be chastised for a very blatant attempt to ignore WP:NPOV policy, and running off to ANI to post deceptive comments to try to get his way.

And, as far as civility goes, once again this has been another case where a number of editors out causing mischief have been highly uncivil as of late, and there's even evidence of a group of them banding together to work together to make revenge edits on articles they aren't even normally on just to lash out at me, as seen on some of their talk pages. So I, like anyone would be in such situations, get testy. And, as others have pointed out above, I make a large number of productive edits, and it's largely to get rid of spam and POV-pushing, which of course is going to upset the spammers and POV-pushers. People are human, and, frankly, for all the personal attacks and harassment I get on a regular basis, I think I am doing quite well. DreamGuy 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, this is not a 3RR issue. It's about you making reverts (a) without a consensus being reached (b) without having the courtesy of replying to my most recent comments.

One editor does not decide consensus. I asked further questions in talk, and you ignored them. You made the change as if you had an assumed right to do so. I am not a "group of editors making mischief", I am one editor trying edit in a civil and constructive manner. --84.9.191.165 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is WP:3O or WP:RFC. You're having a dispute. Trying to get DreamGuy blocked is lame, and will not solve anything. DreamGuy reverting continuously will also not solve anything. What you guys need is sufficient outside opinion. Open an RFC. And no, someone not responding on a talk page does not mean they have changed their minds, so pointing to "non-response" is a very weak justification for edits you know someone disagrees with. Mangojuice^talk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want DreamGuy blocked, I want him to participate in a continuous dialog so that we can reach consensus. His revert was unilateral and excluded my participation. If he doesn't respond to a question, I don't know his position, I don't even know if he's still reading the talk page.

Otherwise, if I disagree with an edit, all I have to do is state that "I disagree", and play no more part in the discussion. --84.9.191.165 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pursue the steps in WP:DR, then; this board is not for content disputes. An article WP:RFC seems like a good option. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders sock-puppet

Not sure the best place to post this notice, or if there is anything else that can be done about this, but there is an active, persistent, very annoying sock-puppet vandalizing almost daily. For some reason, my talk page seems to be a favorite and usually first target [18]. The vandal leaves this "notice" on my talk page, then goes on a rampage until blocked. Just wanted admins to be aware. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... at least it's encouraging to know that he won't be convincing many people with an essay so riddled with logical fallacies. I guess we can just keep an eye out. Perhaps if he does in fact post that on your page first, before vandalizing anything, he could be reported straight to WP:AIV as a known sockpuppet. Leebo ^T/C 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's behind the times if he thinks AOL accounts are still blocked. Corvus cornix 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

User:William M. Connolley removed some comments of mine (and another editor), en masse from someone's talk page.[19] I politely commented on Connolley's talk page, that I thought this was not allowed.[20][Diff]. He stated that the reason was "obvious"[21], but since it was not obvious to me, I politely asked again for an explanation,[22], but was refused.[23]

Another editor has also contributed that he thought that "Editing or removing another editor's comments is a NO-NO"[24]. Withholding his reasons, and removing my comments meant for another editor, are not helpful. --Iantresman 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your removed comments ([25], [26]) appear to consist of baiting an editor who has left the project. Your previous disputes with this editor may tempt you to deliver one last kick on his way out the door; avoid that temptation and move on. ScienceApologist is free to remove comments from his own talk page, and he's not objected to WMC's actions. Removing such comments is acceptable under the circumstances, and appears to be an attempt to prevent yet another forest fire. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering blocking Iantresman for his baiting and attempt here to cause more trouble WMC... Raul654 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Iantresman, I do not appreciate having my comment used out of context. In the first place, I was referring to an article discussion page, not a user talkpage. In the second place, my initial post was generic and without any background information. William M. Connolley went on to explain his actions to me as I'm sure you are aware. In the future it would be appropriate to notify someone if you are going to use a diff of their conversation instead of a link to the entire conversation here. Lsi john 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lest anyone think Iantresman is being blindsided here, I suggested earlier that withdrawing his remarks toward User:ScienceApologist would be to his own benefit.[27] Raymond Arritt 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would support a lengthy block. He seems to have given up completely on trying to build articles. Instead, he disrupts talk pages by quasi-trollish behaviour, trying to provoke people into reacting. When they do, he'll file endless complaints about the mildest of criticisms (a sample: WP:AE:ScienceApologist, WP:AE:SA (2), WP:AE:SA (3), WP:AE:SA (4), WP:AE:SA (5), WP:AE:SA (7), WP:AE:SA (8).) If you reject one of his obviously spurious appeals, and warn him against vexatious litigation, he'll engage in the most pathetic attempt at logic-chopping imaginable (e.g.: here). I'm not sure about the wider community, but my patience is worn pretty thin. Bucketsofg 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This should not even have been brought here. It is a dispute between two people. The fact that one is an admin is irrelevant, as he did not envoke any admin tools. Unless someone wants to pursue the issue of blocking Iantresman for being disruptive, I suggest closing it as not relevant to AN/I. Lsi john 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Is this related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? If so, arbitration enforcement might be a better place for this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct, this is not the place to bring this specific issue, as was recently explained to me by User:Lsi john on his talk page.[28] I apologise.
• There is no suggestion of baiting. I was responding to ScienceApologists apparent justification for breaking policy, and continued use of personal attacks, and guilt-by-association. I find no humour in being the subject of such personal attacks, and I am entitled to give my opinion that such views are no compatible with Wikipedia policy.
• Bucketsofg's comments are a disgrace. ScienceApologists's Arbcom ruling said he was "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter".[29] Specifically he was found to have used repeated ad hominem attacks me,[30], which he subsequently continued afterwards, again and again and again. Reporting further personal attacks, which go against both policy and an Arbcom ruling, is not "quasi-trollish behaviour", it's reporting an editor whose behaviour is incompatible with that expected by the consensus of Wikipedians.
• It's no wonder there is little time to build articles, when there is "leeway" given towards favoured editors [31] , whose actions are continually "justified" --Iantresman 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(CC'd from Iantresman's talk page) Persuant to the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and FM's warning above, and Raymond Arritt's, and the arbcom decision, I have blocked you for a week. Furthermore, on your return, I will continue to monitor your behavior and if it should continue to be problematic, more blocks will be forthcoming. Raul654 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse this block and it's length. Bucketsofg 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed at Mountain Meadows massacre

An anonymous user has been inserting large amounts of copyrighted content into Mountain Meadows massacre. I've posted a message on his/her talk page but it doesn't seem to have been noticed or heeded. If someone could semi-protect it for a little while I'd appreciate it. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a few hours, to get the guy's attention. He's on a spree. Probably best to report this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection next time, though - Alison ☺ 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I had a feeling I had the wrong venue for the request. I'll go there next time -- but thanks again for the prompt help. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Sock to block

Mince&Onion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Graham Heavy (talk · contribs). Strangely only vandalised one page (Torrisholme). Still, could someone please block? Thanks, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Riana! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV next time, since we know his MO... saves time :) Riana (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User targeting College marching bands for deletion

Bassgoonist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently been on a marking spree for college marching band related articles, which clearly meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm not sure what's to be done here, but I'm think he's a bit over-zealous in his actions, and perhaps needs to be spoken to about it? Wildthing61476 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone should speak to him, and indeed someone has. You could have done so yourself, rather than coming here. Admins aren't authority figures: you're as entitled to question his behaviour as we are. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, however he's continued to do as such, and I did not know if this was considered disruptive behavior or not. Wildthing61476 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on reviewing Bassgoonist's recent edits, I see him nominating for deletion exactly two articles for deletion. Please explain how two articles consitutes a "spree". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to have stopped at this point. Consider this a done deal then. Wildthing61476 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat deleting image license tags and then nominating them for deletion!

Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) has been deleting GFDL license tags added by original uploader (User:Rama's Arrow) from images Image:Dholavira.JPG, Image:Dholavira1.JPG and Image:Goddess (Small).png and then nominating them for speedy deletion with the tag "This image does not have information on its copyright status."
Several editors have explained to him why this is unacceptable, through edit summaries and in detail on his talk page, but he has simply reverted their changes calling them vandalism [32], [33] and [34]. He insistes that Image:Dholavira1.JPG has been copied from a (lower resolution) image at answers.com even after it was twice pointed out to him that the latter is a mirror site of wikipedia. Can some admin intervene to prevent edit warring or deletion of legitimate images from wikipedia ? Abecedare 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Will block if he persists. Thatcher131 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that this issue was already being discussed above. Abecedare 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evading sock

Vox AntiVandal 1.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - probable block-evading sock of blocked vandal-only account AntiVandal001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Andy Mabbett 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please report to WP:AIV. The Evil Spartan 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Hannibal Lecter

CyberGhostface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and =CJK= (I don't remember how to post it so it links properly) are warring up a storm. Perhaps if an admin were to step in...? HalfShadow 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Magnus animum just prot'd the article. Can you warn both of them for 3rr4? - Alison ☺ 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Already had. Cyber backed right off, but =CJK= is adamant to having things his way. I'm uncertain if what was being deleted is allowed or not and since it's full-protected, I can't do anything about it anyway. HalfShadow 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block this Danny Daniel sock

Resolved

Article deleted, Sock slammedSirFozzie 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GrossBarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more obvious User:Danny Daniel sockpuppets. The user recreated Coca-Town, an article originally created by another Danny Daniel sockpuppet. See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. SirFozzie 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest editing of Warren Grimm and Centralia Massacre (Washington)

As the original poster of this incident report, i have determined that it is more appropriate for dispute resolution than for this page. I am therefore removing the text that i had placed here.

The two significant article links related to this dispute are:

Warren Grimm

and

Centralia Massacre (Washington)

Interested parties are still invited to check out the situation, but it will take a short while for me to summarize it on the TALK pages at those links. Richard Myers 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Shot info

[35]

Where? Please give us some commentary. And a signature. —Kurykh 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vd by 198.189.162.220

Posted an inappropriate website on my userpage (see diff), request permanent block as it is a school IP. Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• (non-admin reply) Um, pardon, but the last edit from that IP was over two months ago, and IP's aren't permanently blocked. What do you want the admins to do?--Ispy1981 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass fair use image reversions

Someone is systematically reverting articles that had large numbers of fair use images removed with a large number of IPs belonging to Belgacom Special:Contributions/87.65.171.9, Special:Contributions/87.64.23.54, Special:Contributions/80.201.75.225, Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Kotepho/reports/fair_use_per_article/done. Would a short range block be in order? Kotepho 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages stuck in bureaucratic, wheel-warring purgatory

On May 24, Shanel deleted several categories, like [36], [37], and [38] as "Does not further the project" or "nobody int his cat". Days later, Jc37 (talk · contribs) undeleted them, without WP:DRV, to make "Neutral" listings at WP:UCFD instead.[39] I closed them the same day, and redeleleted them as 1) Mass procedural nominations are a useless way to spend our time; don't nominate something you don't want deleted, 2) Making a "nomination" with no content or reason for deletion predisposes the discussion for keeping, even though an admin had already deleted them as unencyclopedic, and 3) procedurally speaking, contested deletions go to WP:DRV. In response, Jc37, very inappropriately, in my opinion, reverted my closure of his own nominations and moved my closing note to a comment in the discussion: [40]. The listing was then rightfully removed again (though not archived) as forum shopping, since they belonged at deletion review.[41]

A week later, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) undeleted them all, this time with dozens of other categories as well, without any discussion [42] as a "Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion; note that WP:DRV is not applicable, since it is for "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions", but there was no discussion of these categorie." Again, there is no such thing as a "procedural restoration," which amounts to wheel warring over a deletion she disagrees with, and the claim about DRV not being applicable has no relation to common practice. These, the third "procedural", "neutral" nominations stood and were unanimous for deletion when Krimpet closed them.[43] Then again Jc37, the original nominator, who undeleted them all and reverted the first closure, despite the unanimity, reverted several more of these closures of his own nomination asecond time [44], and edited the closure comments of the closing administrator. After the first time he reverted the closure of his own nomination, I was very clear to Jc37 that it was inappropriate[45] and now he's gone and done it again. Now WP:UCFD#Category:Dadaist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians, WP:UCFD#Category:BBW Wikipedians are having their fourth procedural nomination after two worthless summary undeletions. Someone please end the madness. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's always the question. When you have people with powers such as we admins have, it's difficult to stop people from using that power when it's not appropriate to use the power. I do think that this needs to stop. Jimbo has made it quite clear that he is not in favor of userboxes that categorize people based on looks and that sort of thing. Maybe he needs to be asked about this. I dunno. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's a pity that Dmcdevit didn't have the courtesy to notify me of this ANI complaint, particularly since he has posted two messages to my talk page this morning: I spotted this only by checking his contribs list.

Most of the rest of Dmcdevit's complaint is inaccurate. I did not (I hope) restore any of the categories reviewed at WP:DRV, although since that DRV did not actually list the categories, I may have been mistaken on some of them: I tried to take only the categories which were deleted after the DRV. Sorry if I restored any others.

It is also no misleading to say that the nominations have been closed: most are still open.

Finally, dmcdevit knows that it is simply untrue to say that I restored the categories "without any discussion". After these deletions were drawn to my attention by another editor, I asked dmcd what speedy deletion criteria applied[46], and dmcdevit's reply[47] made it clear that there were no applicable speedy deletion criteria. That's when I restored the categories and listed them at WP:UCFD.

The situation here is quite simple. Categories which meet the speedy deletion criteria may be speedy deleted, and those which do not meet the criteria may not be. A proposal to extend the speedy deletion criteria to include the type of categories deleted here has not so far gained consensus support, but dmcdevit is proceeding as if it was already in place, and is enthusiastically deleting categories which clearly do not meet the existing criteria.

The solution to all of this is very simple: only speedy delete categories if they meet the criteria, otherwise list them at WP:UCFD. Instead of following agreed process, dmcdevit appears to be trying to game the system by speedy deleting out of process, and then objecting at huge length if any admin reverses his actions, insisting on a DRV. It is an abuse of the system to try to bypass CFD in this way, and I am astonished both by the aggressiveness of dmcdevit's voluminous posts on my talk page and by dmcd's total refusal to consider the Crieria for speedy deletion, and instead blame anyone who challenges these breaches of process.

I have no axe to grind on the merits of these categories: on balance, I think that most (if not all) of the categories involved should be deleted, though I don't share dmcdevit's insistence that these categories are soe of immediate threat to the viability of the project. I am also concerned at the extent to which non-admins are understandably aggrieved by out-of-process deletions. Admins are entrusted with tools to use to help the encyclopedia, on a basis of trust; it is not a good use of that trust to set out to simply ignore the processes agreed by the community, and snarl at at anyone who objects.

Dmcdevit evidently believes sincerely that these categories are a terrible thing; I don't entirely agree, but I accept that as legitimate and reasonable belief. However, if they are so transparently awful, then there should be little difficulty in agreeing criteria for their speedy deletion. Unless and until that happens, please can dmcdebit agree not to jump the gun by behaving as if it had been already agreed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that dmcdevit did not have the courtsesy to notify Jc37 (talk · contribs), who is the other subject of this complaint. I have now notified jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) Shanel deletes a category, Jc37 process wonks the deletion and restores it, Dmcdevit process wonks the process wonkery and redeletes them, and BrownHairedGirl process wonks the process wonking of the process wonking, and now we are on to dmcdevit process wonking the process wonking something like 3 times removed? What the fuck? Kotepho 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reading the text above, I see what seems to me to be more than a bit of blurring of what-happened-when (or even what-actually-happened). However, unless this turns into something which I strongly hope that it doesn't, in the interests of minimising more finger pointing back-n-forth, I'm only going to add a link to the first discussion I attempted to have with User:Dmcdevit, and also ask two questions to the community:

• Should administrators be able to subjectively choose to speedily delete something, which is very clearly noted as not a Criteria for speedy deletion?

  (Noting that Dmcdevit has stated several times that his choice to delete was not due to WP:IAR.)

• Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)

Responses/thoughts are welcome. - jc37 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest we have a centralized discussion about these categories either at WP:UCFD (started by someone who wishes them deleted) or at WP:DRV (started by someone who does not). The existence of a few user categories does not seem like an emergency requiring urgent action. >Radiant< 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest what Radiant suggested. In most cases people accept discussions, however they end up. The original deletions were not covered by CSD, so when they were un-deleted they should never have been re-deleted without discussion (as jc37 put it above: "Is there an urgency seen that required speedy deletion rather than waiting the 5 days of a discussion? (Besides the personal/subjective choice of "I want them gone now"...)". I really believe some admins have forgotten that they are servants to the community and insist on making editorial choices and imposing their will on the community with the use of admin tools. Community discussions are for the community (what wikipedia is supposedly made up of) and are not just a waste of time/object in achieving your paticular goal. Furthermore, a procedural nomination when a deletion has been overturned, is not all the evil you make it out to be - SOMEONE quite obviously wants it deleted and are therefore welcome to make their case. Viridae^Talk 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Curiously, Dmcdevit (the admin who wanted these categs deleted) has voted in only one the three CfDs at WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process. It's odd that someone so vociferous about the urgency of deletion didn't take the chance to discuss why they think that these categories are so bad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, except for the three I relisted (which also will likely result in deletion), and the Furry Wikipedians (which had its own DRV), these have all been closed (at one point or other) as delete. Several speedy due to WP:SNOW - though I'm not certain that 2 or even 5 comments = SNOW.

What have we learned?

Well, I would hope that we've learned what I presume CFD and UCFD regulars have noted for awhile: potentially contentious categories should not be speedily closed as it typically causes disruption. One of the reasons that the process exists is in order to reduce disruption. Attempting to circumvent the process in such cases typically results in actually creating disruption.

The 5 days didn't kill us, Wikipedia didn't crash and burn, and in the end, most of the categories will be deleted. If anything, attempting to speedy delete - acting contrary to the criteria set out in WP:CSD - merely created a a disruptive situation, with many users complaining, and upset, for no good reason that 5 days wouldn't have solved. - jc37 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note: After reading through all the closures, we may see the monarchist nom, and the ideology nom at WP:DRV. The rest seem to be nearly unanimous. - jc37 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we will see at least one of them there: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June_21#Category:Wikipedians_by_political_ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

and also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Monarchist_Wikipedians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, am late to the discussion. I've already given BrownHairedGirl an earful at her talk page, prior to this thread, but I'll repeat some of that, here, in a more general sense which hopefully applies to everyone involved: undoing admin actions en masse without prior discussion is usually not a good idea. If we do that too often -- much less back and forth, on any regular basis in my opinion we can seriously damage the stability and credibility of the site. As admins, we should be perfectly capable of talking things over, as seems to have happened here. While I can sympathize with everyone's reasoning for getting involved, using their buttons, and all that, weren't there other ways we might have handled this without anything even resembling a wheel war? A lot of effort (and a pinch of drama) have been expended, for a net change of almost zero, pending the one or two DRVs mentioned above. If we're going to mass-revert each other, can it at least be over something more important than this? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a fair bit of aggressive mass-deletion by admins lately, of pages not subject to speedy deletion. I think the moral should be: don't do anything en masse without discussion. If there is some contentious issue at stake that needs community discussion, the material in question should clearly not be deleted, since then there is no way for non-admins to opine on the matter at all. The delete button should never be used to exclude non-admins from a discussion about community norms or content standards -- something which admins have no special right to determine. So rather than saying "don't undelete speedy mass-deletions without discussion" we should focus on preventing the mass deletion itself, which removes material from community evaluation. If you don't think you can convince the community to delete a group of pages, it probably shouldn't be removed in the first place. sj 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You did indeed give me an earful :( But I agree that the credibility of admins is at stake here. Unfortunately, the underlying issue here -- jc37's questions about whether is acceptable for admins to speedy delete categories which clearly do not meet WP:CSD -- was something which the original deleting admin did not want to discuss. We could of course have avoided all of this if, after being originally challenged by jc37 dmcdevit had agreed not to perform this sort of deletion, rather reverting jc37's restorations and setting about another round of deletions. I am both surprised and troubled by some of the comments in the various discussions, which seem to me to suggest that it is fine for an admin to acts outside process and in the face of clear objections from other admins. Why are a few contributors to this discussion so apparently keen to overlook that point?
As to the discussions possibly leading us to the same point, if that's the outcome, that's fine: at least other editors have had their say. As Viridae noted above "in most cases people accept discussions, however they end up". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I worry about the same things. Not just credibility of admins, but their role as catalysts and administrators of the entire community's interests, rather than as decision makers. An admin recently deleted an image left for me on my talk page, with the comment that he couldn't find a speedy criterion that matched what he had in mind, so he picked the closest one to justify his action. This is something we should avoid! sj

The official reasons given by everybody for each step in this matter:

• Shanel deletes (out of process): Does not further the project
• Jc37 restores (out of process): Improper deletion
• Dmcdevit deletes (out of process): Disputed deletions go to DRV.
• BrownHairedGirl restores (out of process): Procedural restoration after out-of-process speedy deletion
• Dmcdevit complains at ANI (without notifying brownhairedgirl): It was out of process, and such actions should have consequences".

The real reasons:

• Shanel: WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• Jc37: WP:ILIKEIT
• Dmcdevit: WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• BrownHairedGirl: WP:ILIKEIT
• Dmcdevit: "Brownhairedgirl reversed me, and I'm mad."

Sorry, guys, no sympathy for anyone here. I only see a lot of pot calling the kettle black here - no one has any right to complain if their out of process action is done. The only thing that's immensely clear right now is that no one wanted to use the proper channels, because they knew they might get their way, and taking an action on their own bettered their chances in the discussion. Doubtless I'll be accused of failure to WP:AGF, but don't you just find it a funny coincidence that the two deleters happen to be deletionists and the two restorers inclusionists? The Evil Spartan 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds a lot like what I had in mind, only better put and more eloquent. Well said. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Evil Spartan, if you were to read the long discussions on my talk page (and I wouldn't recommend it unless you need a cure for insomnia), you'll see that at the outset I was actually in favour of deleting the categories, just opposed to doing so by the back door and without consensus. However, the discussions were quite productive, and after reading the arguments there, I concluded (late in the day) that there was no particular persuasive argument that these categories are divisive, and that they may in fact have a productive use. Isn't that the whole point of XfD discussions, to discuss the issues and be prepared to change ones mind? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) - Not So much concerned about personal sympathy, but thank you for at least considering it : )

AFAIK, I followed the process. When someone speedily deleted a large group of categories for stated reasons which were clearly not valid criteria, as expressly laid out on WP:CSD. I did what I believe we should do. I dropped a note on the editor's talk page that I was restoring the categories for normal process discussion (To date, that user has never responded to that note). This is little different than if someone opposes a WP:PROD, or a Speedy listing on WP:CFD. Later I did re-open an attempt by another user to speedy close the neutral nominations. (It was clear by his comments, that the user didn't understand the process, including that CfD now stands for "Categories for discussion", rather than just "Categories for deletion". So neutral and procedural nominations happen all the time.) And during the initial discussion, when the user re-deleted the categories, after having deleted a large group of other categories (political issue cats, which, by the way, I never nominated for anything. And incidentally, I created the sub-category as an aid to someone else who wanted to nominate them, per a now archived talk page discussion at WT:UCFD), I didn't continue the cycle. Nor did I revert another user who, while the former user and I were still discussing the successive deletions, subjectively removed the entire set of nominations. (m:The wrong version seemed to apply, in my opinion.) I was hoping that we could resolve the situation, and minimise such edit/wheel warring.

The discussion never was "resolved". Instead, the user repeatedly suggested that I "drop it". I finally took that as an opportunity to "Disengage", per Dispute resolution. Immediately following that, the user decided to continue on the deletion spree. Please inform me how, now having been informed of process, such action doesn't seem to fit the last paragraph of WP:AGF? But still, I left it alone. (Though I did and have asked several other editors' opinions about the ensuing situation.) I entreat all those interested to please take the time to read through User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19#Reasons.

In the meantime, many editors started to complain about the deletions. (Furry Wikipedians ended up on WP:DRV and was restored/overturned.) And in one discussion on User:BrownHairedGirl's talk page, someone (I don't recall who) requested some links. I provided several for clarification. Note that in the ensuing discussion that I tried to suggest that we WP:AGF of the user.

BHG then restored most (I'm not certain of her criteria for which ones she restored, except that I think she attempted to not restore the "political issue" cats which had been endorsed by WP:DRV. - Incidentally, several commenters at the DRV also said that these should have gone through process, even while suggesting deletion!) I helped her format/reformat the page, splitting the large nomination into smaller parts, including restoring my previous attempt at a nom (for ease of editing, since they were already split). Ensuing debate, and again the nom was deleted, though this time it was restored (though still not by me). And an editor closed several as "Delete", not waiting the full 5 days, while only mentioning in his edit summary that all of them were to be considered speedy deletions per WP:SNOW. Again, I left a note on the user's talk page, and clarified his closures, relisting 3 that had 3 or less editors commenting (hard to justify WP:SNOW, with only 3 commenters). And now we are here.

I welcome anyone to go through any of the successive discussions and find where I was "secretive", and didn't leave "friendly notices"; where I was intentionally uncivil; where I didn't attempt to presume WP:AGF; where I didn't attempt repeatedly to discuss the problem of the out-of-process deletions.

Perhaps I should have escalated the dispute resolution to mediation, or arbcom (I was thinking about it). Perhaps I should have gone WP:ROUGE and blocked Dmcdevit for disruption (not likely). There are a lot of perhaps and possibles, and other sorts of guessing in the dark at what I could have done better, or perhaps no worse (or perhaps worse, who knows?). But honestly, I sincerely don't believe I have done anything wrong here. And I welcome evidence to the contrary. (For one thing, if I did, so that I can apologise to whomever appropriate.) Anyway, sincere thanks to all who have spared the time to comment. - jc37 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jc owes no one any apologies. What Dmcdevit did was an abuse of power. sj's comment above ("I think the moral should be: don't do anything en masse without discussion.") is the common courtesy we owe all of our compatriots, at least as it pertains to deletions. BHG's decision to revert was also absolutely the right thing to do; I particularly like that she was willing to do it despite the fact that she on balance agreed with Dmcdevit's position, but not those methods. We have consensus as a mandate, not a guideline, and Dmcdevit forgot that. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User insists on linking his MySpace blog on César Franck, resorting to SockPuppet

Resolved

 – Blacklisted on Shadowbot

Hello,

User:EccentricRichard appears to be a SockPuppet of User:Vox Humana 8' apparently to evade 3RR; he persists in putting his MySpace blog on this article even after the guidelines of WP:EL were pointed out to him on the Article talk page.

Your intervention is kindly requested, please. JGHowes ^talk - 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this situation on either User's Talk page. Corvus cornix 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Using socks (as in this case) to avoid 3RR is prohibited, period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Has either User ever been informed of WP:3RR? Corvus cornix 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why else would they go out of their way to switch accounts to revert one article, then switch back? This is not a new user, or even a new issue: [48]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP:AGF but I don't know how you can view account switching to make a 3rd revert any other way.--Isotope23 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I softblocked EccentricRichard (talk · contribs) per WP:SOCK. It won't effect his ability to edit from Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs) but given the edits to César Franck and the past history of this editor, I see no valid reason for 2 accounts here and the potential for further abuse.--Isotope23 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested that the link be added to Shadowbot's blacklist. That should put an end to it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rule to Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Users A Jalil and Wikima and WP:POINT

Moroccan POV I've had several interactions with these users in the past over contentious issues related to Western Sahara and Morocco, and lately, they have been too unreasonable to talk and have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have lumped them together because they have been essentially tag-teaming to subvert 3RR and support one another on basically every edit the other makes (such as when he deleted a redundant tag on a redundant image that Wikima uploaded.) Some highlights of Jalil's recent edits:

• Reverted MENA with a substantial edit that deletes Malta from the list, in spite of citation
• Deleted many references in this article and others about the intifadas against Moroccan rule
• Reintroduced spelling and capitalization errors and took out important and relevant information (e.g. the UN Visiting Mission section
• Took out a cited source and changed the text of the article to read something different than its actual title
• Insists on inserting a link to a disambig page instead of the relevant article
• Re-added the category of Cities in Morocco to cities in Western Sahara, here and in other articles
• Deleted sourced, scholarly reference on Battle of Tirafiti. There was a lengthy discussion on talk about the napalm reference and he keeps on deleting it.
• Insists on inserting phrases such as "Algeria-back Polisario Front" and "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"
• Took out sourced citation, leaving an unsourced allegation; he did this twice.
• Insists on taking out relevant articles in this template and hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting
• Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages.
• Keeps on deleting portions of the Western Sahara Portal, claiming they are POV. I've tried to tell him that we can discuss each section individually, but not to delete them outright and then put the POV tag on the portal itself - he's deleted the sections he thinks are POV and then inserts the tag.
• The most frustrating for me: he keeps on deleting information in the WikiProject Western Sahara under a pretense of NPOV and then does things like put references to Morocco in bold. He's changing the scope and definition of the Project unilaterally and it smacks of entryism. Note that on this edit, he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well.

Wikima has done the following lately:

• Redirecting pages to a page that the user does not intend
• And that same page is a contentious move as well, which had no consensus and was moved three times in all; the issue is still not resolved
• Takes out scholarly citations of sources, in spite of several weeks of mediation and a consensus to include it
• He insists that Western Sahara is not occupied, when it clearly is and has been called as such by the United Nations
• Apparently copy-pasted text from an article to its redirect, knowing this was contentious and with no consensus or talk
• just as he and Jalil did at Template:Sahara conflict, he took out relevant links that might support he Sahrawi position. Note that at the other template, these were re-added by an admin, and they deleted them again.
• Uploaded several redundant images inexplicably, including three maps of Western Sahara and this flag.

Typically, his comments and edit summaries include sarcasm quotes and personal references or refer someone to another talk page. As you can see on Jalil's contribs, he also blind reverted a whole host of edits that I made; I suspect solely because I made them. In point of fact, while I was writing this very post, he did the same thing again, reinserting Wikima's redundant images, undo the edits of admins in the WikiProject, etc. Considering the speed with which he undid, it seems possible that he merely saw that I had edited them. Needless to say, these edits essentially help the Moroccan POV and serve to undermine the Sahrawi one. Every reference to Moroccan occupation and the intifadas are deleted, every reference to Polisario is made "Algeria-backed" (this example is one of many.) This is Moroccan POV-pushing. I have requested mediation, but the two editors have either gone on a break or where never free enough to mediate in the first place. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

User Koavf has a long history of edit-warring and aggressive POV pushing on Wikipedia on a whole range of articles and especially on Western Sahara. His block log speaks for itself. He was blocked indefinitely for his disruptive behaviour for more than half a year. For a couple of weeks ago, he was given another chance while being on 1RR parole for one year. He immediately started by reverting dozens of Western Sahara related articles to the miserable version he left them on. there are many editors who were involved in balancing the pro-Polisario POV he added. But, as he made it clear on his user page, he is on Wikipedia mainly for the defence of the position of the Polisario Front. Almost all his edits are reverts as can be seen from the diffs. To say that Western Sahara is disputed not occupied is considered by Koavf as a pro-Moroccan POV. One of his big troubles with a number of editors is his effort to make Western Sahara and the SADR (government-in-exile of the Polisario) be used interchangeably. This is the case of an activist highly engaged for the side of one of the parties to the WS conflict, who sees Wikipedia as a perfect mirror for propagandist ideas.

• Malta is in Europe not Africa or the Middle East. He insists on including it though on the WB page Malta is not found in the drop-down list of countries. It has been explained to koavf by myself (A Jalil), admin FayssalF and Collounsbury, without results.
• He misuses the word "Intifada" to describe some riots that involve a few teenagers rioting in a suburb of Elaiun. While the mention that riots occur by some independence-minded can be added, the use of intifada is over-dosed.
• in Koavf's version there is much more than correcting "spelling and capitalization errors". He claims the text of the Madrid Accords is secret and never made public, while the same integral text can be found on many pro-Polisario sites like this one. The visiting mission has its own article and is not related to the ICJ advisory opinion. He removed the fact that it was Morocco which got Spanish Sahara to be listed on the decolonization list. The role of the Moroccan Army of Liberation is downplayed in his edit. So that has nothing to do with correcting any spelling or capitalization errors.
• The flag of Western Sahara article was the subject of a RfC. Koavf went on to change the article in disregard to all the editors involved in the RfC. He even added some text taken stright from propagada material claiming the black color in the flag means the "Moroccan occupation", while the flag was supposedly created many years before a single Moroccan soldier set foot in Spanish/Western Sahara.
• The cities and towns in Western Sahara under Moroccan control are de facto part of the "Morocco and Western Sahara cities". What is wrong with that?. This is similar to the mention that Bir Lehlu is the temporary capital of the SADR.
• The so-called Battle of Tifariti. Where are the proofs of Napalm bombing killing hundreds of civilians of people without air cover against airplanes. This must have happened in 1975-1976, so how come that it has been left undocumented with images and videos?. Pro-Polisario sites are full of images of people alledgedly beaten by police during the riots (ther are whole pages for just the wounds of one person). How is it that the images of a much more dangerous "Napalm massacre" are inexistent??. That is the proof you should provide, not a reference to a book by a stunch pro-Polisario writer.
• The "Algeria-back Polisario Front" is not in all articles where Polisario is mentionned, maybe mentionned in 1% of the occurences of the Polisario. It is well established and no shame in saying it. I don't see why you try to hide something that Algeria itself is proud of. "self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is also correct and again occurs only in a few places. What is wrong with it?. Self-declared means that the "Republic" was not born out of a settlement plan nor out of a referendum. It is simply a declaration by the Polisario that they declare themself a republic. What is wrong with the "self-declared" then?
• A look At this diff speaks for itself. It shows how to hijack an article and make the reference to the WS conflict takes more than half the article itself. My version mentions the exclusion of WS from the agremeent in one sentence. Needless to mention the use of the word "occupation" by koavf as a standard definition of the situation in Western Sahara.
• "hasn't posted on talk in days, keeps on reverting" No, no one is posting on talk everyday. once the arguments are explained to you, what is the meaning of posting everyday the same things as has been the case in many talk pages with you. The Wikiproject Western Sahara is for the community, and though you were the initiator, it does not make it a personal property for you to write whatever POV you want on it. It is about Western Sahara not about Koavf.
• "Made two thoroughly bizarre edits to member templates that broke their use on userpages." No, There are three member templates. the first one should be the neutral one not the Polisario one. It is quite simple to understand. Koavf is trying to make the Polisario flag as the primary member template. In addition, he adds "(SADR)" after the mention of "Western Sahara", to wrongly give the reader the impression that they are synonymous.
• The Western Sahara Portal in its version that I restore was the result of many editors' contributions. Your revert discards a lot of them.
• The WikiProject Western Sahara. Good that you call it Western Sahara and not your own personal project. It was edited by koavf to make it again give the impression that WS is the SADR and the SADR is WS. The first thing the reader meets when reading koavf's version is the flag of the SADR being presented as that of WS.
• "he was reverted by an admin, citing the fact that this namespace does not need to be NPOV, and he simply undid that as well." Good you mention it is not NPOV. Of course in Wikipedia everyone should strive to make everything NPOV. What is the rationale behind creating a Wikiproject named after a disputed region, and then stuff it with POV content and claim it is your personal territory where you can write whatever you want. No it does not work like that. The admin you refer to is your good friend Francis Tyers. He acted upon your request for him for "mediation", and started reverting without even paying attention to stupid edits like the explanation of the black color on the flag of the SADR.

In the end, apart from a couple of articles where some debate has taken place more or less peacefully, WS articles were quite calm in koavf's absence, and here we are now just after a couple of weeks after his indefinite block reduced to 1RR parole. Needless to mention that he went on his wave of reverts without going first to the talk page to explain himself in the vast majority of reverted articles. Those that hoped the long block would change his manners of editing must be disappointed--A Jalil 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The real sarcasm is that user koavf is complaining about reverts.
• He is a champion in breaking wikipedia rules as he has been blocked on indefinit after sevral temp blocks he broke and broke again.
• The funny thing, just a few days after his come back he got blocked again because of the same behaviour.
• In this contexte not really credible.

Thanks wikima

Thanks, indeed Wikima's post basically proves my point. Jalil's edits stand for themselves, and he's in the middle of revert warring not only with me but Reisio as well, and generally has not posted on any of those talk pages either. He keeps on inserting the malformed name of Wikima's redundant upload, which is not in the interests of anyone as best as I can tell. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

koavf is posting on the AN/I against anyone standing in front of his pro-Polisario militantism. He did it again against Collounsbury below, but when it turned out he was lying about being polite, he is trying to cut things off. Again in this, he has been un-masked, and as he said it, all my answers to him above stand. Reisio does nothing in wikipedia but reverting, and his talk page gives a good idea about his behaviour with other editors as well.--A Jalil 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin regularly uploaded copyvio images

This ex-admin has uploaded a copyvio image here and here with fake licence tags. I stumbled upon this article that clearly states that Archaeological Survey of India prohibits photography on all their excavation sites. This is just one instance. There could be many with such false claims.

What action, if any, would be taken on him for exposing Wikipedia to legal vulnerabilities over the past two years? Anwar 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject, I'm not certain this is a copyright issue if it's a prohibition against photography. The license asserts that he took the picture himself, so if he did so in violation of a local ordnance, it would be the actual act of photography that was illegal and would be wholly unrelated to copyright. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

None whatever. ASoI don't own copyright over ancient ruins, so photographs of them are not copyvios. They may have some claim with Rama's Arrow, but none whatever with us, or any downstream user of the image. "There could be many with such false claims" - please don't come to us with "there could be" complaints - come with solid evidence, or don't come at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, Rama's left, you can start letting go. Riana (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User appears to be removing copyright notices from many images and then tagging them for deletion. I recommend watching and warning as appropriate. -N 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He ignored the message as well that it was obvious Rama's arrow has left. Majorly (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This matter is obviously connected to the ongoing arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that User:Rama's Arrow had recently filed an ANI report that had led to Anwar being blocked. That makes it even harder to assume good faith about Anwar's attempts to delete images uploaded by RA. Abecedare 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that this is his original work – Image:Goddess (Small).png. It appears to be taken off a page of a book, and not actual photography. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm now suspecting sockpuppetry for Lupin III

68.43.82.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 146.9.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two IP's have been adding in unsourced material to the Lupin III article for a long time and i've been fighting against them. The problem stemmed from a rewrite of a Trivia section to making it abot how Lupin III is referenced in popular culture (for lack of a better title untill the rest of the article can be cleaned up more) and ever since, the section has suffered from unsourced fancruft for the longest time. After numerous arguements with 68.43.82.69, reverts, 2 months for verification, and a third opinion, i'm now 100% convinced that these two are related in some way. I had my doubts during the third opinion, but wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now I find out that their latest edits and WHOIS traces hit at possible sockpuppetry. In addition, 146.9.13.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WHOIS traces back to the same host (Wayne State University Medical Center), which 146.9.13.112 also originates from. Nearly same edits, or exclusive modification of 68.43.82.69 edits.--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semi'd the article for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the lock, but my main concern is 68.43.82.69 possible use of two other IPs as sockpuppets. The 146 ones specificlly edits what either one puts in, or edits what the 68 one puts in. Aside from the edit evidence, the WHOIS lists all three as originating in Michigan; the 146 ones originate from Wayne State University Medical Center; the 68 one originates two counties away. Plus I've tried to tell him/her about Wikipedia: Citing Sources, but he/she refuses to follow the rules. Frankly, it's an editor refusing to learn, and trying to violate Wikipedia: Trivia.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of 3RR?

I've often hear mentioned that 3RR is often in spirit so much as it is actual reverts. For example, if you reverted an article 3 times every 24 hours, eventually you'd be blocked anyway for edit warring. There is a situation here where an editor previously blocked for edit warring on this article is reverting with contradictory edit summaries but not really communicating about the issue. At the heart of it is an inherently unverifiable statement:

According to a widely circulated but unsubstantiated rumor, test audiences, unaware that only archival footage of McCarthy was used in his depiction, felt that the "performer" who "played" McCarthy was overacting. There are no authoritative reports of any such test audience reaction.

Initially I tagged it with {{fact}} which he reverted [49]. Claiming he wanted an authoritative source. Which indicates he seems to acknowledge its lacking a source. I found a source, he removed it claiming the statement was factual [50]. Well he just asked for a source, and nothing about that statement sounds remotely factual. I restored the link and he again removed it stating that the rumour was unsubstantiated which indicates he's aware that it doesn't have a source and needs one, yet opposes the addition of a fact tag. [51]. I attempted communication on his talk page and article page from his first revert yet he refuses to response to it even after I reminded him about 3RR, even though he's been blocked twice for it. McCarthy seems to be a personal interest of his (he mentions on his user page that he edits both that article and the mcarthyism article), but regardless you can't just go about reverting with the only real communication you're giving to be contradictory statements through edit summaries. Anyway, I'm not going to engage in edit warring, I'd like someone else to take a look here, which includes an admin because of his past behaviour related to this article.--Crossmr 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you have also resorted to edit-warring. Although, I do empathise with your point. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where have I edit warred? I placed a fact tag, I then added a citation, then I reverted a total of once. Along the way I made several attempts at communication. As soon as he reverted for the third time, I sought outside opinion through multiple venues. Exactly how and where was the edit warring on my part?--Crossmr 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One – [52], [53]. Two – [54], [55]. However, I completely agree with your edits. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the first two are consequent edits and not reversions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Alternate Account infringement

Resolved

 – this account is not being used for sock-puppetry - Alison ☺ 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

---

Hello,
This message is regarding the user Flamgirlant. As of this writing and by inspecting Flamgirlant's contributions, Flamgirlant's account only has two days worth of contributions. Yet, from reading this user's edits it is clear that this user is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies; this is very inconsistent with a user that only has two days worth of contributions.Upon leaving the following message on her discussion page:

Hello Flamgirlant,
From looking at your edits it is clear that you are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policy; such knowledge takes time to acquire. Yet, as I was looking over your contributions I realized that you only have two days of edits on your account. Why the discrepancy?

the user responded with this message:

I'd rather not say.

Due to personal and safety reasons. I'm sorry.

which seems rather odd to me.
Please note that Flamgirlant and I are currently engaged in a conversation about whether or not some of my user boxes are appropriate. The conversation can be found here. Is it possible that this is an unmarked alternate account of some user? selfworm^Talk) 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:SOCK is that multiple accounts are allowed, so long as they aren't abused. Any number of scenarios are possible, but I think we should assume good faith: that if Flamgirlant is a sock, the account's user has a good reason for it. Feel free to investigate if you feel something is off. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser might help you in this case. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, better article. Here you go: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. –Gunslinger47 04:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be someone who disappeared under the Right to Vanish clause. So long as they're only using one account or in a way that meets WP:SOCK#LEGIT (hey, I have another account here) then there's no problem - Alison ☺ 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia a long time but my previous account was compromised when I received threats towards my person and my family. If someone really wants to know, I'll be more than happy to discuss off-wiki, due to safety concerns.--Flamgirlant 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My only suspicion was that you might have been sock-puppeting. But if you're not sock-puppeting and if your safety is an issue then your alternate account is legitimate. I do not believe that any further explanation is required and I apologize for this inconvenience. selfworm^Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to pmail me, I'd be delighted to verify and vouch for you. I will not reveal your old account name, however - Alison ☺ 07:59, 22 June 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.

Pam55

I would like to ask the admins to review the situation with the account of User:Pam55. Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of User:Behmod. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55. Subsequently, both Pam55 and Behmod were banned indefinitely by User:Alison. However, Alex Bakharev unblocked both accounts, stating that they belong to the students in the same university. [56] The account of User:Pam55 was mostly used to make reverts to controversial articles like Azerbaijani people, History of the name Azerbaijan or 300 (film). It is highly improbable that a new user would accidentally become aware of the disputes on those articles and appeared right in time to rv in favor of a certain POV. I think that Pam55 is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned. Behmod in the very least should be warned not to use socks or meats anymore. I don't think that it was a correct decision to lift a ban from a proven sock, and I would like to ask other admins to review the situation with the account of Pam55. Thanks. Grandmaster 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that Pam55 and Behmod are two students om the same department. I could E-mail these reasons to an independent admin if necessary. Pam55 is a newbie, she only made 21 edits during the five months she was onwiki. Out of these 21 edits there are four reverts. I am not sure if she did the reverts on her own or on advise from Behmod or another Iranian editor (in the last cases it might be a mild meatpuppeting). Neither of her reverts is to Behmod, neither of these edits broke 3RR even if lumped to Behmod. She !voted once on an AfD but Behmod did not participated in the discussion. I have warned both Behmod and Pam55 to avoid editing the same articles or !vote in the same discussions. Assuming they would follow my advise I see no disruption from her editing. Alex Bakharev 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked for checkuser of Pam55 long ago, since it was a highly suspicious account: [57] At that time it was not made, but now checkuser says that Behmod is the same as Pam55, which means that accounts used the same computer to edit. In a situation when a large group of editors of Azerbaijan related topics is placed on parole by the arbcom and is limited to 1 rv per week every rv counts, and the use of this account to rv articles in favor of a certain POV is disruptive and seems to be aimed at provoking the paroled users and getting them to violate their paroles. Grandmaster 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why you guys do not stop accusing others? From timing of edits, style of edits and pages that she edits are obvious that we are different people. Two different people are free to edit freely. Have I ever accused Grandmaster, Atabek and Dacy about having the share interests in editing? Do you guys have any willing toward avoiding new tensions?--behmod talk 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, acting in a way that seems to be aimed at provoking the paroled users and getting them to violate their paroles, as Grandmaster has put it, is severe enough to be blocked for - but only after being warned about such behavior. The word seems is an important word in that statement - this is the impression of a third party, which may or may not be correct. Blocking a user for such behavior sould only be done once the user has been warned. Od Mishehu 06:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that the user (Behmod) should be warned, but how about the suspicious account of Pam55? Is it OK to let it continue its activity, once everyone forgets about it? 21 edits in 5 months do not create an impression of a serious contributor, considering that some of those edits were rvs in disputed articles, and that it uses the same computer as the established user Behmod. Grandmaster 10:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Pam is a newbe, we have many inactive users in Wikipedia. Nobody is blocked because has not a good contribution. There are many of your idiological friends in Wiki who do not have great contributions and jsut edits once in a while. Should admins block them?--behmod talk 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin in this case and I blocked both accounts as a matter of course when the checkuser ended and I was asked to. Subsequent to that, I began receiving emails from Behmod requesting unblock. I directed him to request it through unblock-en-l, something he decided not to do. From his emails, he appeared to be an unwitting meatpuppet in the whole affair and appeared singularly contrite. I heard nothing further until Alex Bakharev contacted me today to say that he'd unblocked both. I can forward the emails to a third-party admin, if required, but will not publish them here for reasons of privacy and etiquette. User:Pam55 never did try to contact me after having been blocked - Alison ☺ 08:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser filing [58] in this case was based on recommendation [59] made at suspected sockpuppets by another admin. My concern was primarily about the fact that unexperienced User:Pam55, who had 14 edits prior to initial report, was likely meatpuppeting and participating in an edit warring together with a disruptive editor User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani and had a previous experience doing the same with User:Behmod and even blocked for suspected sockpuppetry before [60].

I would also like to note, that unlike User:Alex Bakharev's report above about neither of User:Pam55's reverts being to User:Behmod, there was at least one full revert [61] and one partial [62] to User:Behmod, which were also reported in Checkuser filing.

I have further had a very positive exchange with User:Behmod - [63], [64], right before the checkuser results. So at least we made an attempt to mutually assume good faith, and I will further try doing the same. But provided the history of the incident, I guess we will also have to now entrust User:Alex Bakharev with an assumed responsibility for editors' avoidance to engage in edit warring and meatpuppeting. Thanks. Atabek 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiruba Shankar 2

I have objection of the closing of above AFD. The reason is the subject is highly specific and an expert in related field only can judge the importance. The Administrator who closed is according to his UserPage information is only 23 years old and with interests in Chemistry. One Achitnis noted

The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)

To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".

Please Administration close the AFD properly.Madrass Express 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:DRV. Second corridor, on your left. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Billion Tree Campaign - UNEP blocked

Normally I would agree that "role" accounts should be blocked. But this one had OTRS confirmation of ownership, its contribution history was not abusive at all, and it's the friggin United Nations. We don't need the kind of bad press blocking this account could lead to. I strongly encourage unblocking this account. -N 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to not unblock, but to educate them on the fact that they are free to register a personal account, but that an account that might give the impression it is an official PR account for an organization is not permited, and explain them our conflict of interest policy. These are just quick thoughts, I just looked at their talk page and their contribs. Did they request an unblock? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone in the OTRS group should contact them. I think the block is justified, per m:Role account, but m:Role account could be changed if the office approves this account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, the Foundation should definitely be contacted. How does one do that? -N 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of role accounts, the Meta talk page has a notification from April about the account Freedompress (talk · contribs), which seems to be someone's publishing company. This isn't really acceptable, is it? --Calton | Talk 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Whiteonrice04 and Wikipedia:No legal threats

Resolved

• Whiteonrice04 (talk · contribs)

User has threatened to take legal action should we fail to credit him on every article his images are used. He went ahead and removed images on articles he isn't credited or added a credit to himself. I think this is self promotion not in the spirit of this project. He also altered the license. As well known, GFDL is non-revocable. -- Cat ^chi? 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked with a note about WP:NLT and our blocking policy. -- Merope 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Left him a note about the image decription page. Merope if you have any problem with me unblocking if he indicates he understands gimme a yell. Viridae^Talk 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I love how you guys just mark this as "resolved". Even though I wasn't warned before I was just blocked. I am not sure why any one ever contributes to Wikipedia.

Personal attacks and censorship by User:Desiphral

Desiphral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly accused me of being a racist and spreading racist propaganda on Wikipedia. I have left several polite warnings asking him not to continue with these attacks and to assume good faith [65][66], but he has persisted in this behaviour:

• "Probably the intent of [Psychonaut's article] is Romani bashing."
• "after creating a POV racist article about the 'Gypsy' image, now you imagine yourself also as civilizer of the 'Gypsies'"
• "Again on civilizing mission?… Now this user is stalking me, who knows, probably already imagining me as a wiki criminal. The fact is that your 'attention' on my talk page resembles the usual negative 'attention' of the racist non-Roma", etc.
• "You are playing the intimidation card… I don't see other purpose for these warnings, they are not motivated technically. Plus, by creating that article, you already have a history of stereotyping the Romani people…"
• "this is anti-Romani propaganda, active enforcement of stereotypes"

Others have also chastised Desiphral for making accusations of racism and for violating WP:AGF in this matter (e.g., [67][68]).

The allegations stem from my creation (several years ago) of the article on Margita Bangová, a criminal and alleged con artist who happens to be a gypsy. Desiphral recently nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that it reinforces negative stereotypes against gypsies. However, Desiphral is not content to let the AfD run its course but is actively removing references to the article from Wikipedia, again on the basis that the article is racist and that he doesn't wish Bangová to be associated with her ethnicity (see, for example, Talk:List of Roma, Sinti and Mixed People#Margita Bangova's article addition).

I ask that Desiphra be asked to stop making personal attacks and directed to confine his objection to the Bangová article to one place (namely, the ongoing AfD) rather than pre-emptively removing it from Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I contend that this user seem to have a problem with the Romani peole (just note the naming, "gypsies" and also my last comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Novoselsky Valery). Also I do not understand why I am considered for 3RR at User_talk:Desiphral#Personal_attacks_and_civility, while this user surpassed it already. Double standards? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut should also receive a warning for WP:3RR. That will be done shortly. -- Merope 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought the matter here to WP:ANI before either one of us had violated WP:3RR. —Psychonaut 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again so soon, but Desiphral has continued engaging in personal attacks not two minutes after receiving your warning, Merope. I've just been accused of antiziganism, and further attention has been drawn to the allegedly racist Bangova article. [69] —Psychonaut 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I don't feel that enough time elapsed between the warning and the comments -- likely that was being posted at the same time as my warning. I'm sorting through all these articles and deletion discussions now. Psychonaut, Desiphral, please feel free to contact me on my talk page for quicker attention. -- Merope 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Can someone please have a look at the behaviour of this editor- they seem obsessed with Bob Dylan and his current religious status. This user has already been blocked many times for incivility and reverting and now the consensus has clearly gone against them they have resorted to accusing edtors of being anti-semites [70] and part of a "hate group" [71]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm already in the process of filing an WP:ArbCom report against the individual, so this might be a little superfluous. Drumpler 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, looking over this editor's history, I'm kind of flummoxed. It appears his primary mission on Wikipedia is to save Bob Dylan from the slings and arrows of outrageous editors who cite sources indicating that, at one point, Bob Dylan was a Christian. Reasoning with him hasn't worked; explaining the concepts of consensus and civility haven't worked; three blocks (two for 3RR, one for disruption) haven't worked. At this point, I'm not sure that another warning will do anything; let the ArbCom case run its course. -- Merope 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this ArbCom case? —Psychonaut 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bus_stop -- Merope 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a little unclear if I specifically and solely was being accused of being part of a hate group or if this group is supposed to include the editors who have been involved in that discussion (I largely have not been; my involvement includes a couple of page protections and a disruption block against Bus stop (talk · contribs) a while back. Personally, I don't see this as a big deal. Let the ARBCOM go forward.--Isotope23 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pascack

I would like to block User:Pascack for the vandalism on the infoboxes of baseball players, changing all the colors--Yankees10 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

(Non admin comment) Seems he's already been previously blocked for this, in the future you can take this to AIV. All the best. The Sunshine Man 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Estein9

Yes, hello, I'd like to request a block on Estein9, a user who constantly makes and remakes pages about a doctor named Edward Stein (aka himself) who is completely not-notable. Please block him or warn him in order to prevent more time from being wasted by admins deleting the pages and Newpage patrollers finding them. Thank you. Doo-dle-doo 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If he continues, make sure to mark his user talk page with the appropriate warning. If after a last warning he STILL insists on creating the page, after it is deleted repeatedly, you may want to report him to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note with some suggestions and re-deleted the page. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul

I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems this is an escalation of the conflict between this user and User:Anonimu over some Romanian pages relating to the communist presence there. However, this seems more or less like a death threat (if not some sort of strange alegory involving the murder? strongly directed towards the above user in any case). I'm tempted to give a block for about a week. Just wanted thoughts and/or clarification on what the hell this is all about. Sasquatch t|c 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll issue an explanation here. If you read the context in which the above was written, you'll clearly see it was part of a story that bore no relation to reality, was pure fantasy (a nuclear-armed rowboat?), and expressed no actual desire to murder anyone. Of course, such writing has no relation to the business of Wikipedia and I promise, no questions asked, to cease writing further installments of this adventure. I apologise for any breach of policy that has been committed. But please let's not allow Anonimu to obscure the difference between a fictional attack in an outrageously bad story and the many actual attacks he has made on me. Biruitorul 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's all just a joke until somebody gets hurt. And if it was meant only as fiction, why is my username explicitly mentioned as the name of the one getting stabbed? "Anonimu" is not an English name and it's not even a Romanian one (and i doubt it's used as a name in any language) so it couldn't have come from nowhereAnonimu 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the outcry of Anonimu is somewhat discredited by his behaviour on other editors' talk pages, like here --KIDB 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the story, the names of all the characters are those of Wikipedians, but nobody is going to get hurt here. The story is an outrageous fiction, it was never meant to be taken seriously (nuclear rowboats?) (and its target audience, K. Lastochka, I'm sure did not). However, I have agreed to cease writing and I apologise for any violations I have committed. But yes, to those who have eyes to see, it is fiction, but your many attacks against me are not. Biruitorul 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if you feel attacked (albeit you have few proofs of it) you can go and "fictionally" kill (or threaten, that the same thing for me) users you don't like? Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been attacked repeatedly and viciously by you; do not attempt to deny it now. In the spirit of the new tone I've just pledged to you, I will not attempt to answer your question, which is an attempt to bait me. I have already offered you an apology, explained that no actual harm of any sort was or is meant, and am ready to move on to more productive work. Biruitorul 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of this and your promise to not do this again, I'll just issue a harsh warning. However, do not take this lightly. Fiction or not, you referred to a specific editor and it most definitely was a serious personal attack. Both sides on these romanian issues need to cease the ad hominen attacks and resolve your conflicts otherwise. I would start off by both of you apologizing for any offense you may have cause the other sides as I can see much to apologize for. Sasquatch t|c 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said so to Sasquatch personally, but let me reiterate: the story was a terrible mistake and I will cease writing fiction here. I've committed a serious error in judgment and deeply appreciate the second chance I've been offered. I'm certainly not taking this lightly and will remain civil in such disputes as they arise. Biruitorul 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no coercive measure have been taken, i request that Biruitorul's right to check an anonymous ip against mine through checkuser be taken.(i don't know if that's possible) I have a family, and i wouldn't want problems.Anonimu 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator with checkuser rights, so this request is unfounded. Besides, as I have made clear: I never intended and do not intend to commit any physical harm, or harm of any other sort, to any Wikipedian. True, I gave that impression, and I'm sorry I did. But the fact remains: I am not a danger to others. Biruitorul 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Any punishment or harsh warning issued to Biruitorul must be issued in equal strength to me. I was 50% of the writing of that unbelievably retarded Horatio-Hornblower-meets-Dr.-Strangelove melodrama. It was my idea to crash both ships on a desert island. It was my idea to have the Anonimu character become the leader of a band of bloodthirsty island savages. It was my fault the story was ever written in the first place, since I was the one who took Biru's silly vignette and expanded it into a dumb epic. For the record, I am deeply ashamed and humiliated over the completely unprofessional and indefensible behavior I have been engaged in over the last few weeks, even after I made a promise to myself that I would henceforth be a model of good citizenship and trustworthiness. Clearly, I am none of those things. I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia for good, but before I go I must apologize for my unbelievably and indefensibly, atrociously poor judgement and bad taste. People like me should not be contributing to Wikipedia--if a ban is called for, I will sadly accept it. K. Lásztocska 04:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the lighthearted inkslinging duel between Biru and K Lasztocska and must say its aim is not vindictive - having "known" both editors for some time I can attest that both are not only very well behaved, but also are active peacemakers in one of the rougher wikibarrios (eastern European issues) [72] [73]. It's true that intemperate words are easily misunderstood, and we should avoid certain allegories (or at least that fictitious villains should carry fictitious names). But I'm also sure that Biru's intemperance here is not vindictiveness but likely whimsical exuberance. I'm also 100% sure Biru is now as painfully aware of that as anyone else on the Wiki. He's not a bad guy and has earned a bit of slack. István 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Both parties are good contributors. There is no doubt about that. The thing is, as i explained at one of the disputed articles' talk page, that there is a lack of assuming good faith toward eachother. I urge both of them to AGF. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait...who are we talking about now? Me and Biru? Biru and Anonimu? I am confused....K. Lásztocska 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo-China Wars --> Military history of Goguryeo

Admins, some Chinese ultranationalists accused Korean Wikipedians here as being ultranationalists for naming the article Goguryeo-China Wars so because it sounds "anti-Chinese" or something. Others said that had to be it because Goguryeo won most of the battles & KPOV wanted to put emphasis on winning over China. I personally think that some Chinese editors here are just paranoiac.

And then come here anti-Korean Japanese editors (the same ones who sweat in Liancourt Rocks, Sensaku Islands, etc. & also Korea-China disputes such as Mount Baekdu & Heavenly Lake). They're mostly in WikiProject Japan, but you know what they love to mess around with Korean business. One of them even claims to be a Korean, but all of us know that's a lie. Now, I'm not breaking good faith b/c good faith means assumption. These guys are beyond assumption & "we" know them by heart. They haven't participated in the discussion, but they're like "it's neutral." "it avoids further conflicts". The problem is that they've done this in almost all Korea-China disputed articles. And I guess when I accuse them of being simply anti-Korean, they shrug off, "doing the right thing gets criticism sometimes."

The following is what I wrote, and none of them in the discussion have been effectively able to counter them.

• "Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no reason to rename this article to "Military history of Goguryeo" just because of this trash logic that Goguryeo is a constituent of China and therefore cannot war China - simply b/c the two do not link, and there are so many better options."
• "Everyone should know better that a country's military history is not defined by its single war with another country."

• Let me elaborate. If you wanted to write a military history article on Goguryeo, then you should include weapons, traditions, strategies, and chronology, etc. But the CPOV editors just can't tolerate an article in which Goguryeo is successful against many modern-day China constituents & when the article title specifically states China (it's really out of convenience & practicality) as the opposing country, so they change it to military history. Then it's not neutral because the military history is seen from Chinese viewpoint, and China is not the universal meter for military histories of other countries. (Wikimachine 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• "Second, the consensus is that Goguryeo is a Korean country. See Britannica, etc. above."
• "Third, you cannot use WP:RM to test ethnic neutrality (that is, the CPOV editors are trying to use this naming dispute to overturn the consensus that Goguryeo is a Korean country)."
• "Fourth, even a constituent state can fight its containing entity. For example, war between Hawaii and U.S. Even then, Goguryeo (even if you were to consider the Chinese tributary system, everyone knows that this didn't mean Chinese control but just diplomatic relations) was a separate country anyways. And it doesn't matter which tribes and people constitute which countries - as long as they're separate countries."
• "Fifth, there are so many better options: 1) Get rid of this article & categorize other related articles 2) Remain at this article's title 3) Choose another title similar to this"

Thanks. (Wikimachine 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

• Another reason: Always there are bound to be a loser & a winner in a war. (Wikimachine 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I do not feel that you should get emotional over this. Chances are, administrators will not pay attention if you do. This problem can be fixed, but only if we stay cool.

Anyways, I would like to comment that the only thing I am not pleased with is how we are not getting any outside help and how some editors are not punished for their actions. We have repeatedly requested third opinions and an RfC yet few editors and administrators have commented. However, I do agree that this subject is not something most administrators know about and may be uncomfortable. One third opinionist told me that he got "smacked in the chops" for commenting.

I find that several editors are not helping us reach a compromise and that their attitudes and goals in Wikipedia are preventing us from getting a consensus. I am hoping that at least Wikimachine's post on the noticeboard will wave a flag for administrators to come and help bring some stability and compromise in Goguryeo-related articles. Good friend100 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Wikipedia administrators aren't here to solve content disputes. The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page describes the detailed and comprehensive dispute resolution system, which is peopled by decent caring human beings. Wikipedia administrators aren't decent caring human beings; you really don't want the kind of dispute resolution we bring. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a military history wikiproject banner on the page and am about to add a link to the projects talk page so other milhist editors can help this article. Hypnosadist 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lummee, "Ultranationalists... It's a mad, MAD world! LessHeard vanU 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree making false accusations of sockpuppetry and other problems

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

• Holy crap how many places is this open? See above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:FatherTree_Violating_WP:Canvas_policy. Shell ^babelfish 03:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [[74]] Heis knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([[75]]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:

1. [[76]]
2. [[77]]

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations. Administrative action is required. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate that. DPeterson^talk 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[78]] DPeterson^talk 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How many different threads are you and yours going to start about this topic? By my count, this is at least the third one that is currently active (one being a few sections up on this very page and the other at AN). At what point do your own actions become akin to canvassing or forum shopping? And how does FatherTree's one message to one editor constitute "canvassing?" That seems to be a pretty weak case, IMHO. Are there other recent examples you can show of his or her alleged canvassing activities? --ElKevbo 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I reentered this AN/I because the first one was no longer on this list and no action had yet occurred, although administrator YechielMan had discussed taking administrative action. DPeterson^talk 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, here, DPeterson is involved in mediation for very polarized articles. Perhaps he feels that if he brings enough litigation, eventually something will stick? You reported the WP:CANVAS already above, why are you repeating it here if not for cumulative effect?

DPeterson, from what I can read from the mediation, you have been stalling it and it will end up at Arbcom. This is a mediation issue, not an administrator issue. I know there is a term for your wiki-lawyering and litigation, but at the moment it escapes me. Perhaps someone else can provide it. Lsi john 03:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation (duplicate from above, since this report seems to be an extension of the one above).

Now here is an interesting response to my post (above), by DPeterson.

I have always been told that it is appropriate to notify all the parties involved, when you are reporting them to 3RR or AN/I.

1. It seems that DPeterson considers it interference for someone to notify the involved parties that they are being discussed on AN/I.
2. It also seems that DPeterson is trying to bring in extra help by contacting admins.

This is an example which illustrates the reason I posted here to begin with.

If DPeterson's case is as legitimate as he wants us to believe, he should not feel threatened by an outside party contributing to the discussion. Lsi john 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson has called those who disagree with him meatpuppets [79]and a 'gang'. [80] He constantly makes personal attacks on other editors, accusing them of having a financial interest and the like.[81] [82]The other editors who support DPeterson often make the same accusation. The talkpages are cluttered with it and sensible discussion of content becomes difficult. He also canvbassed other editors from totally unrelated paedophile pages to come and help him out [83], [84], [85][86], (just a sample) with the result that several appeared on the RfC and accused those who oppose DPeterson of being in collusion with pro-paedophiles! [87][88]ANI's about this frequent abuse of policies have not been filed, presumably because we are about to enter mediation. This is all just wikilawyering. I have raised with him before his habit of not notifying others of ANI's or 3RR reports but obviously to no effect. Fainites 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fainites and his supporters appear to be diverting from the issue regarding one of their group because they have no response to the direct charge: FatherTree has knowingly made false accusations of my being a sockpuppet and has been canvasing(originally filed by another editor). I filed the AN/I to get a response, one editor did suggest action against FatherTree. I filed that one again when it was deleted. DPeterson^talk 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as I understand it the sockpuppet report filed some time ago on this allegation was declined, so it was not investigated and resolved so I don't see how Father Trees question as to whether you are in fact Becker-Weidman is 'knowingly false'. The previous checkuser showed no link, but that's not the same thing. I agree that sockpuppet accusations should not be part of mediation. That's why your accusation that people who opposed you were meatpuppets was removed from the mediation referral page, remember? Time for a bit of pot and kettle scrubbing I think. Fainites 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

" I filed the AN/I to get a response, one editor did suggest action against FatherTree. I filed that one again when it was deleted."-DPeterson

Typically if a discussion gets deleted with only one editor voicing any support, it indicates that the post did not get sufficient support to warrant action. By reposting virtually the same complaint again in two active discussions on this same board, it's starting to look to me like you are improperly using the litigation process to remove editors with opposing views. Lsi john 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that FatherTree knowingly made a false accusation of sockpuppetry. He'd been warned about this and directed to the appropriate page to show that the accusation was unfounded. Yet he continued to make the accusations and so there is a valid basis for this filing. Then there is the second issue of FatherTree violating WP:CANVAS. All other diversions by editors here are just that; diversions from the two salient points: FatherTree violated wikipedia policy and that issue must be addressed by an Administrator. RalphLender^talk 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually FatherTree is asking DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman. There would be nothing wrong as such in Becker-Weidman editing under a different name. Fainites 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry is a personal attack and violates Wikipedia policy and practice. It is disruptive. That is the issue.The issue is that FatherTree knowingly made a false accusation of sockpuppetry. He'd been warned about this and directed to the appropriate page to show that the accusation was unfounded. Yet he continued to make the accusations and so there is a valid basis for this filing. Then there is the second issue of FatherTree violating WP:CANVAS. All other diversions by editors here are just that; diversions from the two salient points: FatherTree violated wikipedia policy and that issue must be addressed by an Administrator.RalphLender^talk 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And if DPeterson is Becker-Weidman, wouldn't that be a fairly significant issue related to undisclosed COI? It seems to me that continuing to open AN/I threads about the same user and the same issue, is doing exactly what you claim that other editors are doing? That is: trying to distract and derail the mediation process either by making issues where none exist, or by making them seem bigger than they are.

Based on some comments made on a current thread at the community sanctions board, it would not be a stretch to suggest that anyone who works (or volunteers) in a particular field should be community banned from editing articles in their respective field, due to Conflict of Interest. (For the record, I think that is a bit of a stretch, but it is in line with some of the comments there). However, I do feel that inquiring as to whether or not you (or DPeterson) are a practicing professional in the field is a very reasonable question. I believe there have been some questions raised about an IP that edited one of the articles (without logging in) that was similar to a professional's company website? Lsi john 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that Lsi john's accusing DPeterson and Becker-Weidman being sockpuppets of each other (your question really is a not so subtle accusation) is uncalled for and in the same league as FatherTree's: it is a false accusation and since you know that there have been previous investigations of that accusation that resulted in their being unfounded, you are knowingly making a false accusation.

I agree with RalphLender that diversions, such as the one by Lsi john are just that, diversions from the focal issue: FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Easy there big feller, put your horses back in the barn. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not even asking the question. I said that I felt it was was a reasonable question to ask. DPeterson seems to have a decidedly similar (identical?) POV regarding the issue to Becker-Weidman. As I understand it, Becker-Weidman is a doctor? who would have a real conflict of interest in editing articles here on the subject. Has it been established that the wiki-user Becker-Weidman and the real person the same? I've only been casually following the situation. It certainly seems as if there is a close knit group of professionals? who share the same opinion, and who seem to be fighting pretty hard to maintain the articles in a preferred version, against another group who seems to be claiming they have sources to back up their edits but aren't being allowed to make them. If the wiki-user Becker-Weidman is the person, I would assume that he has not been editing the articles. If that's the case, has DPeterson ever made a single edit which disagreed with Becker-Weidman's position? I'm not aware of any two people who universally agree on any single subject. Lsi john 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The promotion of Becker-Weidman and his therapy across a range of articles is an issue within the mediation that has been accepted by the mediators. Both of the diffs from FatherTree that you provided involve asking DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman. A not unreasonable question to ask. Fainites 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the other editors who say to keep the discussion focused on the issues of FatherTree's alleged canvasing and personal attacks. The '"innocent"' question is clearly meant to provoke and is clearly an accusation. As said by others, anything else is just distracting from the real issues. JohnsonRon 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: JohnsonRon seems to have a considerable number of edits in the involved articles. Lsi john 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering three distinct threads were started by the same individual about the same dispute, considering the flimsy grounds of the complaint, and also considering the complainant himself is guilty of the very same issues he accuses another editor, I suggest that User:DPeterson be the one blocked for harrassment, incivility, canvassing and all around general bad faith.--Ramdrake 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPeterson^talk 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I had seen the two threads here on AN/I but had not noticed the third copy on AN. With THREE (virtually identical) threads open, and, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, DPeterson is updating them all at once with the same posts: here, here and here It sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Wait, wouldn't keeping multiple threads open across multiple boards be .. sort of like CANVASING? Lsi john 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open. I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPeterson^talk 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson AKA CANVASSING

That pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. Thank you. Lsi john 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is responded to by this administrator:

*All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell ^babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson^talk 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooook - you copied this here, did you intend to respond to my query? Shell ^babelfish 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, can I be more clear? Repeatedly posting the same comments in multiple Admin threads on this board and AN is CANVASING and SHOPPING. Knock it off. Lsi john 02:39, 23 June 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/Useless Edits by Anon

Someone from 72.14.252.136 has been vandalizing pages since November of last year. He/she has been blocked three times, yet continues to engage in disruptive behavior.

While it is frustrating, we can't indefblock IPs. And a last warning seems to be already given. —Kurykh 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you implement a year-long block or something? There's been more vandalism from this IP since I last posted.C1k3 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours, maybe. But not a year. The IP is dynamic. —Kurykh 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Collounsbury and personal attacks

Pools and pools of blood User:Collounsbury is generally a fine editor and adds a lot to the community, so I have no interest in him being blocked, banned, or in any way prohibited from his valuable additions to the mainspace, but if an admin could gently remind him of the policy about personal attacks, I would appreciate it. On talk pages, he writes some pretty bilious slurs, and I've asked him politely to 1.) not curse at and slander me, and 2.) to reserve talk pages to content related to the articles at hand and post on my talk if he has some dispute with me personally. He has refused to do either, and this is not the first time. Examples:

• ...Good [L]ord, what the bloody hell is your bloody problem...
• ...Now I hope you will bloody well stop your personal djihad [sic] to insert Western Sahara on every damn page possibly tangentially touching on the issue, or deface it due to your ill-informed, obsessive, narrow-minded partisan editing...
• ... Stop your bloody whinging on mate. You bloody well deface article after article - on subjects you bloody well admit you're bloody fucking ignorant about - due to one bloody obsession. For the sake of a bloody fuck, take a breather... your edits show a gullible young fool... It is making a goddamned [sic] point and ... you are bloody well vested in defacing every other article with the slightest tangential connexion with your obsession with poorly thought out, poorly informed obsessive edits - as in here, repeatedly, against better advice, in ignorance. I don't go to your bloody talk page because I don't give a flying fuck about you...

As you can see, his rhetoric is escalating. Again, let me emphasize that, by and large, I think he is a useful contributor and I have no personal ax to grind with him outside of his constant slander and rudeness on talk. For that matter, I don't even think he has a personal vendetta against me per se but gets a little worked-up on talk. I simply don't want to be treated with such a disrespectful and pedantic attitude, especially when I don't give it in return. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You felt it necessary to mock him in response to the first diff you posted?[89] Try to take the higher road and meet incivility with civility. If you're upset by the way he speaks to you, politely relay your feelings on his user talk page. I can't seem to find any discussion about this on his talk page at all, actually. Were the discussions removed? –Gunslinger47 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no He and I have had this discussion several times before, including more heated exchanges. I've been gone for several months and we only started interacting again; I'd simply prefer this to not escalate and not continue. No doubt, I have made serious errors in judgement and probably will in the future; I want to cut this off at the pass. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Koavf was responding:

Bloody Well, you bloody well bring up a bloody point about the bloody dropdown menu and how the bloody World Bank apparently (bloody) contradicts itself. You could consider it MENA, I suppose, because it is Semitic. That seems bloody reasonable to me. I'm personally not invested in including Malta; I only did so because I saw a source that included it. Since said source contradicts itself, feel free to remove it for all I care, but not all of the other reasonable additions (e.g. Western Sahara, greater Middle East, reference to Chinese culture instead of PRC, etc.) Bloody. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think again Koavf is being cut in public lying about being polite. That is the reason he wants this to be cut off at this pass.--A Jalil 11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Justin, when you accuse someone of attacking you in person, you must at least avoid to do just the same. Now, this is i think the third time you post a thread here. Isn't that too much? The situation had been pretty calm when you were blocked indef and now it is becoming to be heated again. Do you think it has something to do w/ your coming back? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lies, etc. The first post is now in mediation, as well it should be. The second post has yet to get anyone's attention, other than Francis, with whom I originally spoke. It should be investigated. The third post has essentially resolved itself, as Collounsbury and I have since posted with one another (relatively) cordially. The articles were quiet to the extent that Wikima and Jalil got their way while no one else was looking; I don't exactly think that's ideal. As for Jalil's behavior, he basically watches my contributions and posts almost everywhere I do to slander me; including Wikipedia namespace and other users' talk. Now, he's making accusations about lying when I never did lie. I've never been as disrespectful or pedantic to Collounsbury as he has to me. That's a fact. In point of fact, I was acknowledging in that post that he was correct and I agreed that he brought up a good point. All this is immaterial, of course, as Jalil is taking yet another opportunity to say something unflattering about me in regards to something that doesn't directly involve him. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of where you "asked him politely to 1.) not curse at" you. –Gunslinger47 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mission (band)

Resolved

I'm seriously getting annoyed with the fact that I am being repeatedly treated like a common troll and vandal because I remove violations of Fair Use on this article. [90] [91] [92] [93] Please, an admin, review the Fair Use policy and tell me if the discography section of this article is violating Fair Use or not. If it does, then remove them and re-tag Image:MissionAura.jpg, Image:MissionAura.jpg, Image:MissionNeverland.jpg, Image:MissionBlue.jpg and Image:MissionNoSnowNoShow.jpg for being orphaned. — Moe ε 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious giant violation of WP:NONFREE. The images have been removed again. The page will be protected if this nonsense is kept up. Riana (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And the page has been protected... Riana (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And the attacks continue [94] — Moe ε 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've warned him. Shadow1 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "new message prank" from the warned user's talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is that policy now? Because I friggin' hate those prank bars so very hard. -- Merope 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's policy if you want it to be :) Riana (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to "invent your own policy" Riana. That is not how Wikipedia works, abusing administrative powers however is a violation; Wikipedia is not an experiment in fascism. I like the bar, if a certain person doesn't have a sense of humour, then he doesn't have to go on my talk; its not violating any policies, so I'll keep it thanks. - The Daddy 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul, if you are spoofing the interface and making things difficult for other contributors, I will absolutely remove the bar. I'm sure we both want the same thing, which is a navigable, enjoyable experience for our editors. Riana (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the rule of thumb was that it was frowned upon in the userpage guideline, but even that was removed for having "weasel words". I'm sorta kicking myself for starting that whole fake "you have new messages" trend to begin with. Now it's just annoying. — Moe ε 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't like it being removed, and he doesn't like "spam" (i.e. warnings of copyright policy violations) from bots either. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, didn't realize I was a bot :) — Moe ε 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like any spam, it has no place on Wikipedia period; hense why I warn against it. Perhaps you should read what the note actually says and take it for what it is, instead of creating your own little "opinions" for me, eh? The Daddy 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that Daddy Kindsoul, formerly known as Deathrocker (block log), is on ArbCom revert parole and has been blocked for personal attacks and fair use violations in the past. Prolog 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today. -- Merope 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second..

Besides the fact that Deathrocker (Daddy Kindsoul) he committed 3RR by rvt warring with me and Riana today [95] [96] [97] [98] He is under ArbCom restriction. He isn't allowed to revert more than 3 times in a 30-day period under any account name according to this. The Enforcement is to block, and after 5 times, it becomes year-long. He's already been blocked six times since then, with the last being a one-week block. I'm not trying to inflame anything, but shouldn't he technically be blocked for a year because of this? — Moe ε 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that I was removing simple vandalism (blanking) and stated that I was removing vandalism clearly in the edit summary [99] [100] [101] [102] (removing clear defacement does not count as a "revert" as per WP:3RR)... I haven't been on parole since May, as it was for a year. - The Daddy 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not simple vandalism, no matter how many times you state it is in the edit summary. — Moe ε 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You blanked images which have correct licencing and complete fair use rationale's from an article in which they were giving information that could not otherwise be given. That is vandalism of work, hense why I removed it. - The Daddy 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if you have rationales and correct licensing, the Images were not being used correctly per WP:NONFREE, specifically #3a and #8. That is not vandalism, it's enforcement of policy, as many have explained to you today. Indeed you are not under ArbCom sanction anymore, but you're reverting still violated 3RR, I believe. — Moe ε 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole is sometimes limited to one year but I do not see that in this case. It appears the revert parole is still in effect, unless you can show me the specific limitation that I have missed. Thatcher131 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and blocked him for a month for violating that -- it doesn't say that he's on parole for any length of time. Of course, I might be (and often am) wrong. -- Merope 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if it's for a year, doesn't he still have, um, five days left since the ruling? -- Merope 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, a lengthy block was perfectly justifiable in any case. If the fair use fanboys are being evil, major thwacks need to be handed out. This is not a matter for compromise. Moreschi ^Talk 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I was just played for a fool for assuming good faith and assuming he was telling the truth about his ArbCom ruling ending. That's what you get for thinking positive :( — Moe ε 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm marking this as resolved. The editor in question has been blocked for a month for violating the terms of his revert parole. Another administrator has confirmed this was the correct action. He can tilt at windmills all he likes in the interim; I'm not going to bother protecting the page. I hope to see everyone in a month, when he seeks to have me desysopped! -- Merope 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Never fear, I'll be here in a month's time, there will be no desysopping :) — Moe ε 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone decline the unblock request, this is a perfectly good block. Moreschi ^Talk 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the unblock request, re-read the arbcom finding, and examined the edits in question. I declined request and determined that the block was proper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Edtropolis and AfDs

Edtropolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user editing since 11 June 2007. Since then, he has made 380 edits, none of which are in the mainspace (except to post {{afd}} templates). Nearly all the rest have been to create or participate in AfD discussions. Many of his !votes have nonsensical or inappropriate rationales; in some cases it appears he doesn't know or understand Wikipedia policy, and in other cases it seems he didn't bother to read (or even skim) the article nominated for deletion. Examples:

• "Delete. Non-notable drug." for a travelogue
• "Weak delete. He seems to be Mexican." for a Hungarian scholar
• "Delete. Most likely a hate group." for a Belgian music scene
• "Redirect to Graves Disease [a thyroid disease]." for an unrelated neurological disease
• "Redirect to Flashdance." for an unrelated stage musical
• "Delete… possibly a hoax." for a well-sourced Britney Spears album
• "Weak Keep. Appears to be a conspiracy theory web site." for a Trotskyist journal

At this point I'm still assuming good faith and have contacted him a few times to politely point out that !votes should be supported by Wikipedia policies, and should be relevant to the article, but this behaviour has continued. I think it would be helpful if some other editors were to help keep an eye on him. —Psychonaut 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his/her talk page. I don't want to be cynical, so I'll assume they're just new and have chosen to spend all their time at AfD but don't understand its workings yet. Bears further close observation. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar just blocked Edtropolis, who has already posted an unblock request. I'm beginning to think Edtropolis isn't really a new user. —Psychonaut 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had one encounter with Edtropolis on an AfD, where I questioned his meaningless reasoning on an AfD, and he went back and changed it to something meaningful. I don't know what that means, but I just thought I'd throw that out. Corvus cornix 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that his talk page is full of editors questioning his AfD reasoning. FTR, since being blocked he's made personal attacks on his talk page. —Psychonaut 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

News flash - I just noticed this. Which had escaped my notice earlier. Explanation? PeaceNT? Please? MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very worrisome, and needs an immediate explanation. Corvus cornix 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is even more worrisome. Corvus cornix 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that her RfA concluded successfully a few days before the account creation spree. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, there are some potential explanations here, and I don't want to be too hasty. I'll wait to hear from User:PeaceNT. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked her to comment here. Corvus cornix 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with PeaceNT. They were merely fulfilling an account request now archived at Wikipedia:Request an account/June 2007. And that's why all the other accounts have been created too. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, thanks Steve. I created the account in question (and the other accounts for that matter) per the requests posted at WP:ACC. Peacent 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know what to say. I feel really bad about jumping to wrong conclusion here. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Request an account - the thought occurred to me that User:PeaceNT had created them on behalf of IP-blocked users, but I didn't see anything in WP:REGISTER to that effect and wasn't aware of the request-an-account page. I guess with recent events (established users and admins sockpuppeteering, etc) and the fact that Edtropolis didn't seem new, I was paranoid and jumped to the totally wrong conclusion out of my own ignorance. A big, king-size apology to User:PeaceNT, thanks to User:Stephen for educating me here, and I'll get to working on getting my foot out of my mouth. Damn, that's embarassing. I'm really sorry about that, PeaceNT. MastCell ^Talk 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to apologize, too, I never heard of that account request page before, either. Corvus cornix 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right on top of the user creation log: In the instance of someone creating several new accounts, bear in mind they may be acting in good faith on behalf of Wikipedia:Request an account. :p Also people who help out with the unblock mailing list create accounts all the time (I help occasionally). Riana (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy request

It's too much effort to put speedy tags on 20 articles so i would like to nominate on the year in Ireland articles in Category:All articles lacking sources for speedy deletion under A3. Of the ones I've checked (and have speedied) they consist on markup and perhaps the odd date and that's it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while we're at it, I'd like to nominate every year on this list up to 1737. Dunno who's creating them, but they really aren't readable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These aren't A3 deletions... the ones I looked at all contained at least one entry. --W.marsh 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh, maybe the ones I saw were flukes. Ah well, a-prodding I will go... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well they have content... I'd object to a PROD too (on ones with entries) as there's apparently useful content spread out across these pages. Merge it somewhere, or let it sit around and see if people expand it. --W.marsh 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

looking at 1789 in Ireland, picked at random, there are two entries, and the information about the people is obviously going to be on the linked page. I am not think sure is a valid interpretation of "not sourced;" And, w.marsh, how can you merge the content on a Year in Someplace page? DGG 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe to a timeline article of some sort. I think I've seen ones like that at some point, that cover multiple years. --W.marsh 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; you are clever than I--such does seem a reasonable way to go. Now that I've started thinking again I have seen them too at various places, especially for the earlier years of something. DGG 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked on the WP:COUNCIL page, because there are obscene numbers of these blah in year/year in blah articles, but one doesn;t seem to exist and they keep proliferating. Where would it be possible to start a discussion on what to do with these? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Major fault in fair use rationales

I dont know whether anyone has noticed or not but look at Category:Screenshots of television for example, many of the images there are missing fair use rationales but are not tagged, this is one out hundreds of categories, these should really be tagged but is it worth it as it'll probably get you a bad name? The Sunshine Man 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I figure Betacommandbot will eventually get them all. -N 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've written Betacommand telling him that he may want to read this thread. Will ^(talk) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I Know there are still images that BCbot needs to tag, But per the FURG discussion and the suspension of I6, I am give users until july 1st to fix what they can before I restart BCbot. per a prelim check Ive identified 169,000 images that have problems with their rationale. check the recent archives of AN for my plan of action and time line of advancement. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this year I began combing through fair-use album covers one at a time. I looked at each image in depth. That is, I looked to see if the image was actually being used per WP:FUC. Out of the first few thousand images I reviewed, I found a few hundred that were not being used properly (maybe 10-20%). My review took me alphabetically up through files beginning with "4".... To me, this indicates a very significant problem that will take a lot of manual hours to sort out. Common problems included using album covers as navigational aids and as portraits for the artist's biography page. Rklawton 01:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

can this admin be thoroughly reviewed to see if he's out of control?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive85#strange behavior from an admin?

• <quotation removed; the link above is stufficientChick Bowen 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)>

I have had my own unpleasant experience with kukini and I think he is power hungry and out of control. I looked back at his archives and I have seen repeated complaints about him. His usual defense for his own bad behavior is "you're attacking me", which is a very aggressive thing to accuse someone of; it's actually an attack of it's own. 71.155.212.206 18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No general complaints please. If you have a diff you want us to look at, fine. If not, go to dispute resolution or let it go. Chick Bowen 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we fulfill requests for enforced Wikibreak blocks?

Do we block people when they ask nicely to help us enforce a Wikibreak? I seem to remember this being discussed here with arguments on each side, but don't recall what the latest thinking is. Specifically, I have a request for an 11 day ban from User:Freedomlinux - any opinions from other admins? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we typically do not due to potential collateral damage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is available: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_EnforcerSancho 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Arnon Chaffin was blocked once for a Wikibreak on his request but unblocked afer when he couldn't resist editing, technically it does go against the blocking policy though. The Sunshine Man 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the advances in software isn't collateral damage a thing of the past? --W.marsh 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Provided you enable account creation and disable the autoblock, why not block on request? Moreschi ^Talk 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if someone is so addicted that they need a block to force a break will edit anonimously or with a new account. Really we are not nannies, if they need forcing they should get a family member to take away thier computer. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like they've admitted they have a problem, and that they need the help of a power greater than themselves to handle it... that's two steps in the right direction... MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, we are not higher powers. We just have some buttons that aren't handed out to everyone for security and technical reasons. (And no, we should not start blocking on request--the blocking policy is the one least subject to IAR.) Chick Bowen 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Boris 1991

Check out some of his userboxen. Is slyly calling for the death of a head of state appropriate for Wikipedia?

• *Giggles* (I just said slyly)--Flamgirlant 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page was actually just on Misc for deletion and (apparently) was kept, so I don't think there's a problem here. He's also not calling for the death of a head of state; he's saying that if he had to choose between Israel and the Iranian President being wiped off the map, he'd choose the Iranian President. --Haemo 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm saying this because [103] was recently deleted and it had very similar content.--Flamgirlant 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

True, and it looks like the MfD never resolved that issue. --Haemo 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Boris_1991.--Flamgirlant 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well then, I guess he can get back to constructive edits like this one. I'm hoping there will be more to his participation in Wikipedia than nostalgia for British colonialism and the occasional jingoistic outburst. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)